University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Huddle-up: a phenomenological approach to understanding the impact of intercollegiate athletic participation on the academic socialization of male revenue-generating student-athletes

(USC Thesis Other)

Huddle-up: a phenomenological approach to understanding the impact of intercollegiate athletic participation on the academic socialization of male revenue-generating student-athletes

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

HUDDLE-UP: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING
THE IMPACT OF INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION ON THE
ACADEMIC SOCIALIZATION OF MALE REVENUE-GENERATING
STUDENT-ATHLETES

by

Dennis A. Kramer II

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF EDUCATION

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Dennis A. Kramer II
ii
Dedication
Dedicated to my parents, Dennis and Conni, who have sacrificed so much to ensure
my success.
iii
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my family, who
have provided continued support to me. To my parents, who have dedicated their
lives to ensuring my success; I cannot thank them enough. To my sister, who
continues to inspire me every day with her perseverance and drive to succeed both
inside and outside of the classroom. To my loving girlfriend Nicole, who spent
countless hours helping me through this process and offered continuous words of
encouragement. Without her love and support, I would not have been able to
accomplish this.
Undoubtedly I extend my gratitude to the members of my committee, who
provided guidance to this process and to my overall development as an academician.
A special thanks to Dr. Brandon Martin, my thesis advisor and chair, who was not
only instrumental in the completion of my thesis, but also my academic and
professional development. Dr. Martin’s guidance through my graduate program has
prepared for me the rigors of a doctoral program and life in the academy.
To Jason Pappas and John Mosbach of Student-Athlete Academic Services,
who were both instrumental in recruiting participants for this study. I am extremely
fortunate to have the support of athletic administrators; their assistance was crucial in
completing this study.
To Alison Muniz and Dr. Margaret Sallee who both spent hours assisting me
through the editing process. Especially to Dr. Sallee, who ensured the continue
development of my writing and had the patience to do so.
iv
To Provost Nancy Marlin, Dr. Patricia Scollay, and Dean Geoffrey Chase
of San Diego State University, who prepared me for success in graduate school. I am
very appreciative of your constant words of encouragement and support through both
as an undergraduate and graduate student.
To the members of the athletic administration concentration of the
Postsecondary Administration and Student Affairs program. A special thanks to
Daniel Threadgill, who not only challenged me in class but remained a faithful friend
and provided positive reinforcement throughout this entire process.
Finally, my thanks are extended to the 24 extraordinary student-athletes who
participated in this study. These student-athletes truly represent the best and most
dedicated men in the college sports today. I appreciate their willingness to honestly
discuss their academic and athletic experiences. It is an honor to represent their
voices in this study.

v
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
Abstract vii

Chapter One: Background, Purpose and Overview of the Study 1
Introduction and Statement of Problem 1
Purpose Statement 4
Importance of the Study 6
Definition and Related Concepts 6
Organization of the Study 8

Chapter Two: Review of Literature 10
The Student-Athlete 11
African American Males in Higher Education 13
African American Male Student-Athletes 14
African American Male Student-Athlete Academic Success 17
Student-Athlete Identity Development 19
Socialization Research 23
Student-Athlete Socialization 23
African American Student-Athlete Socialization 27
Agents of Socialization 28
Theoretical Framework 33
Social Learning Theory 34
Stereotype-Threat Theory 36
Summary and Synthesis of Reviewed Literature 38

Chapter Three: Research Methodology and Participants 40
Research Methodology 40
Overview of Participants 41
Data Collection Site 43
Data Collection Procedures 44
Data Analysis 47
Trustworthiness 47
Limitations 49

Chapter Four: Findings 51
Academic Value Added Through Intercollegiate Athletics 51
Pre-College Socialization 52
Reasons for Attending College 55
Transitional Factors of Academic Value 57
Role of Self and Support of Others 59
Internal Motivation for Success 59
The Role of Parents 61
vi

Support from Teammates and Athletic Department Personnel 63
Student-Athlete Identity Conflict 64
Separation of Academic and Athletic Roles 65
Desire to be a “Regular” Student 66
Awareness of “Dumb Jock” Stereotype 67
Business of College Athletes 70
Pre-College Recruiting Process 70
Restriction of Redshirting 73
Athletic Fatigue 75
Summary of Finding 78

Chapter Five: Discussion, Conclusion, and Implications 80
Discussion of Research Question 80
Question One: Impact of Athletic Subculture 83
Question Two: Impact of Academic and Campus Culture 90
Question Three: Impact of Non-Athletic and Community Culture 94
Summary of Discussion 98
Conclusions 99
Recommendations for Practice 100
K-12 Educators and Athletic Administrators 100
Postsecondary Administrators 101
Faculty Members 102
Intercollegiate Coaches 103
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) 104
Closing 105

References 107

Appendices 116
Appendix A: Consent to Participate in Research 116
Appendix B: Approval Notice for Exempt Review Applications 119
Appendix C: Participant Profile Form 120
Appendix D: Sample Interview Protocol 122
vii
Abstract

The effect of intercollegiate athletic participation has received considerable
attention. A void exists in the examination of the academic socialization student-
athletes face due to their participation in sports. This study specifically focuses on
male student-athletes in revenue-generating sports, men’s football and basketball, as
the media attention, popularity, and pressure to win creates a unique environment.
The impact of the: (1) athletic subculture; (2) academic and campus culture; and (3)
non-athletic and community culture on revenue-generating student-athletes at a
Division I institution will be highlighted.
Qualitative research methods used explores the socialization experience of 24
revenue-generating student-athletes at a prestigious Division I institution. Using
frameworks of social learning theory and stereotype threat, face-to-face semi-
structure interviews were conducted. The data collected from these interviews
produced four distinctive themes: (1) academic value added through intercollegiate
athletics; (2) the role of self and support of others; (3) student-athlete identity
conflict; and (4) the big business of college athletes.
The findings provide insight into the impact subcultures of higher education
have on the academic socialization of the participants. Additionally, results aid the
development of national and institutional policy aimed at creating a positive
academic experience for student-athletes. Most importantly, this study underscores
the impact of intercollegiate athletics has on access to higher education, academic
success, and the socialization to the collegiate environment.
Chapter One:

Background, Purpose, and Overview of the Study

The culture and agents of higher education continue to foster stereotypes
centered on the participation of intercollegiate athletics. These stereotypes range
from the perpetual negative stereotypes and socialization surrounds student-athletes’
academic success (Richards & Aries, 1999). In addition to the academic stigma
placed on student-athletes, the media publicizes the academic difficulties some
student-athletes face while glorifying their desires to become professional athletes. In
a survey of pre-college African American men, Lindaue and Mannix (1991)
demonstrated that African Americans are more likely to aspire to become
professional athletes than any other career choice. Higher education continues to
view the student-athlete population as members of the traditional student body;
however, Hollis (2002) found that being a member of the student-athlete population
has been empirically linked to negative academic socialization and an inability to
integrate into the campus culture. The inability to integrate is a product of student-
athletes’ dedication of their collegiate careers to advancing institutional prestige and
prominence. This advancement of prestige comes at the cost of academic gains –
missing classes, exams, and adjusting academic schedules and majors to fit their
athletic demands (Hollis, 2002). The requirements for participating in college sports
affects the ability of student-athletes to assimilate to the campus, excel academically,
and leave college prepared for a professional career outside of sports.
The literature on the socialization process and the influence of the athletic
subculture has pointed to a numerous barriers for academic success. The
2
socialization of student-athletes begins long before their enrollment into higher
education. The constant negative media attention (Sperber, 2001), the restrictive
culture of athletics (Sack, 1987), and family pressures (McPherson et al., 1980) all
negatively impacted perceptions of perspective student-athletes have on academic
success and enrollment in higher education. This study aims to identify the most
prominent influences student-athletes in revenue-generating sports--men’s basketball
and football--face in terms of their academic focus. The focus on revenue-generating
sports is purposeful, as members of these athletic teams face the strongest
socialization away from their academic desires and commitments (Clow, 2001).
Additionally examine is the degree to which environmental and cultural factors
affect student-athlete socialization. Existing literature highlights the interactions
between intercollegiate athletics and traditional mission of higher education to
develop students both socially and academically; however, a void in assessing the
socialization process of revenue-generating sports exists.
College athletics, especially revenue-generating sports, serves as the most
visible avenue for universities to promote their programs and prestige (Toma, 2003).
Athletic departments aid universities in shaping public perceptions regarding
institutional quality, educational effectiveness, and the overall mission and values
(Gerdy, 1997). Public interest in college men’s football and basketball garners
national attention, which becomes a useful tool in promoting academic programs and
university prestige to a wider audience. However, the continual negative media
portrayal of the exploitation of student-athletes serves as a negative reinforcement
for the public’s image of American higher education (Boggan, 1999).
3
Identify factors that influence the socialization process student-athletes face
when they enter higher education. Thompson and Hickey (1999) define socialization
as the “process in which we learn to internalize the attitudes, values, beliefs, and
norms of our culture while developing a sense of self” (p. 98). In understanding the
socialization of student-athletes, higher education administrators will be able to
create programs that foster both social and academic success while continuing to
provide elite athletic programs. Student-athletes navigate the stigma that their
entrance into higher education is based not on their academic merits, but on their
athletic abilities. University administrators have still lack acknowledgement of the
unique challenges student-athletes face in creating an environment conducive to
academic success.
The literature on student-athletes has traditionally view this group as
homogeneous. However, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA, 2006)
reported that African American males participate in revenue-generating sports at the
highest rate – 58.9 percent for men’s basketball and 46.9 percent for football.
Additionally, the literature further suggests that African American males utilize
college athletics as their primary access point to higher education and have the
largest prevalence of intercollegiate athletic participation than any other campus
group (Harper, 2006). This study not only demonstrates the collegiate experiences of
African American males, compared to Caucasian male student-athletes, but also
provides evidence of the existence of an intercollegiate athletic subculture within
higher education. Using social learning (Bandura, 1977) and stereotype threat (Steele
& Aronson, 1995) theories to view socialization through, this study explores the
4
interplay between intercollegiate athletic participation, identity development, and the
effect of community and institutional climates.
Purpose Statement

Literature on male student-athletes focuses on the analysis of the
inadequacies of academic preparedness and the development of identities solely
rooted in athletic participation (Harper, 2005; Kerpelman, Pittman, & Lamke, 1997).
However, there exists a lack of investigation into how socialization occurs in male
student-athletes to either a decreased prioritization of academics or the development
of an identity free from athletic commitments. This study evaluates the socialization
process and the prevalence of an athletic subculture among male student-athletes
participating in revenue-generating sports, especially African American males. The
focus on the African American population in this study is due not only their
overrepresentation within revenue-generating sports, but also the alarming number of
African American student-athletes who view their education secondary to their
athletic participation (Sellers, 2000). The overrepresentation of African Americans in
revenue-generating sports is direct product of socialization processes.
More specifically, this study examines the different agents of socialization
and their impact on the development of an academic self-concept. Interviews
allowed student-athletes to reflect on the impact participating in intercollegiate
athletics had on their college experience. Furthermore, participates expressed how
their involvement in the athletic subculture shaped their outlook on academic and
professional career prospects. The aim of this research is to provide a foundation of
5
knowledge toward designing effective programs to better academically serve male
student-athletes in revenue-generating sports.
Research Questions

The student-athlete population, especially in revenue-generating sports,
experiences different pressures than the traditional student body (Thelin, 1996).
Student-athletes also have a campus experience and academic regulations vastly
different from that of their peers (Thelin, 1996). It is important to understand how
academic socialization occurs in Division I college athletic programs, and how it
affects student-athlete’s persistence toward graduation. The aim is provide further
explanation to the strength of these pressures and how a positive academic leads to
student-athletes to accept both academic and athletic roles. The following questions
guide this study:
RQ1: What is the overall effect of intercollegiate participation on academic
socialization within male revenue-generating sports?
RQ2: Which components of the athletic subculture influence socialization
the most? Which of the following agents of the athletic subculture will have
the most impact: athletic teammates/peers, coaching staff members, athletic
administrators, and the athletic tradition?
RQ3: Which components of the non-athletic campus culture affect athletic
socialization the most? To what degree will the following agents of the
academic environment impact the academic experience: faculty, student
body, alumni, and university administrators?
6
RQ4: What level of influence do the components of the non-higher
education community have on the academic socialization of student-athletes?
Which member(s): media, fans, and family members, will participate in the
socialization process?
Importance of the Study
The changing nature of college sports has created an environment for student-
athletes that mirrors professional sports. However, the probability of student-athletes
playing professionally is less than one percent, with the average professional sports
career lasts only three years (Coakley, 1998). The detachment from the realities of
playing professionally is especially prevalent in the African American male
community. Leaders of the African American sporting community continue to assert
that the “unrealistic athletic aspirations usually hurt the young African-American
male’s future changes of success” (Anderson, 1990).
This study begins to answer the call for empirical research on how athletic
participation affects academic drive in male student-athletes in revenue-generating
sports. The findings provide university and athletic administrators with assistance in
developing policies and programs that begin to create an environment where both
academic and athletic success coexist. The academic success of student-athletes is
negatively stigmatized and gaining an understanding of the socialization process is
key to creating practical improvements to serve this population.
Definitions and Related Concepts
The following terms and concepts were used throughout the study.

7
Socialization
Thompson and Hickey (1999) argue that socialization is the “process in
which we learn to internalize the attitudes, values, beliefs, and norms of our culture
while developing a sense of self” (p. 98). For the purpose of this study, socialization
is the process in which student-athletes assimilate to the culture of college sports as
presented by the different agents for the socialization process.
African American
U.S.-born citizens of African ancestry. Caribbean-Americans, Native
Africans, and international students of African decent were excluded from the
sample in the present study, as their college experiences tend to differ from their
U.S.-born counterparts (Brown, 1994).
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
The NCAA was established in 1906 as the governing body for intercollegiate
athletics for members, colleges, and universities. The governing body makes and
enforces regulations that are related to athletic eligibility, recruitment, and financial
aid (National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA], 1998).
Student-Athlete
For the purpose of this study, student-athletes are defined as undergraduates
enrolled in a college or university who participate in intercollegiate sports at
Division I member institutions. Student-athletes who participate in intramural or club
sports are not included in this sample.
Division I
8
To qualify as a Division I institution, an NCAA member school must sponsor
a minimum of seven sports teams for both male and females, or at least six teams for
men and eight teams for women. The Division I athletic division is the most
competitive out of all three divisions; the majority of professional athletes
participated in Division I athletics.
Revenue-Generating Sports
Revenue sports such as football, and men’s and women’s basketball generate
large sums of money for Division I schools. For the purpose of this study, revenue-
generating sports include football and men’s basketball.
Redshirting
The NCAA defines the term "redshirt" to describe student-athletes who do
not participate in competition in a sport for an entire academic year. If a student-
athlete does not compete in a sport the entire academic year, they have not used a
season of competition. For example, if a student-athletes attends a four-year college
your freshman year and practices but does not compete against outside competition,
they would still four years of athletic eligibility.
Organization of the Study
This thesis is five chapters in total. In addition to providing an introduction to
the study in Chapter One, Chapter Two will critically analyze literature associated
with student-athlete identity development and socialization processes. Chapter Two
also examines the theoretical frameworks which served as the lenses through which
to view socialization. Chapter Three details the methodological approach and data
analysis technique used and provides an overview of the data on the participants.
9
Chapter Four will discuss the results surrounding the socialization process of
academics and Chapter Five will provide an in-depth analysis of the implications of
the findings and future direction.

10
Chapter Two:
Review of Literature
The student-athlete population is a distinct and unique population within
higher education. As a group, student-athletes face academic pressures, scheduling
demands, and socialization practices not otherwise experienced by other groups
within higher education (Hollis, 2002). Researchers have traditionally conducted
research on two areas within the student-athlete population. The majority of
researchers have conducted examination on issues relating to academic motivation,
career planning, and the impact of intercollegiate athletics on life satisfaction (Adler
& Adler, 1995; Lapchick, 2000; Miller & Kerr, 2002), while other researchers have
focused on the social and psychological challenges student athletes face (Edwards,
1984, 2000; Howard-Hamilton & Watt, 2001; Sedlacek, 2004). This thesis will focus
on integrating the student-athlete engagement research and the impact of social and
psychological barriers.
The following chapter explores the literature regarding student-athletes. The
first section examines the general landscape of the educational and social barriers
student-athletes face in pursuit of higher education. Given that African Americans
are disproportionately represented among the student-athlete population, the next
section will review the experience of African Americans in higher education.
Starting with a general overview of academic and social success in higher education,
the review will present the impact participating in intercollegiate athletics has on the
African American male population. This chapter also investigates literature
examining the effect of participation in intercollegiate athletics has on identity
11
development. Next, literature on the socialization student-athletes face will be
presented. In addition to the process of socialization, the impact of socializing agents
on the development of academic and self concepts will be discussed. Finally, two
theoretical frameworks; social learning and stereotype threat present a foundation of
understanding the socialization experience. Participating in intercollegiate is
associated with numerous stigmas and stereotypes within higher education. The
perpetuation of practices and values, within the athletic culture, are a product of
social modeling and learning. In examining the impact of participating in revenue-
generating sports has, social learning theory and the impact of stigmas, as discussed
in the stereotype threat theory, provides the lenses to view intrinsic and extrinsic
socializing experiences of student-athletes.
The Student-Athlete
The popularity of college sports has lead to scrutiny of student-athletes and
their academic and professional aspirations. Often, student-athletes’ peers, university
faculty, and staff think student-athletes enroll in higher education as a mandated for
their participation in sports (Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1991; Engstrom, Sedlacek, &
McEwen, 1995). Contradicting that notion, Adler and Adler (1987, 1991) found that
student-athletes enter college with the intention of graduating and obtaining a degree.
However, this desire gradually decreases due in part to institutional climate, athletic
restrictions and negative peer interactions, which create an anti-intellectual
environment. The anti-intellectual environment produces an additional barrier for
student-athletes to achieve academic success. The athletic subculture engrains a
philosophy of “win at all costs” which creates developmental challenges, both
12
academically and socially (Barefield, McCallister, Bungum, & Pate, 1997). Some of
these challenges include the inability to freely choose academic majors (Edwards,
2000), fatigue from traveling (Adler & Adler, 1991), and isolation from the general
student-body (Barefield, McCallister, Bungum, & Pate).
Despite the increased pressures to perform in highly publicized and
scrutinized sports, the NCAA (2004) reported that graduation rates for Division I
athletes were at the highest ever at 62 percent, compared to the 53 percent and 58
percent graduation rates for Division II and Division III, respectively. This
graduation rate includes all Division I sports. Revenue-generating sports (men’s
basketball and football) had graduation rates of 44 percent and 55 percent,
respectively, which was above the national average for college graduation in that
year.
In addition to navigating academic demands, student-athletes’ athletic
commitments dominate their schedule. The time demands placed on student-athletes
creates an environment where balancing academic, athletic, and social commitments
is extremely difficult. The NCAA has mandated a 20 hour per week practice
schedule (NCAA, 2004); however, this does not include voluntary work-outs, film
sessions, conditioning, and other sports related activities. Student-athletes
continually face a role strain, or an inability to prioritize and balance dual roles
between their lives as students and their lives as athletes. Adler and Adler (1991)
studied the academic engagement of student-athletes at Division I institutions and
found that factors such as fatigue from training and competition, insufficient time to
study, poor studying environments, isolation from the general student body, and
13
pressures to succeed created a culture that focused student-athletes’ attention on their
athletic successes and not their academic endeavors.
African American Males in Higher Education
Creating access to higher education is a key priority in today’s educational
system. However, in 2002, African American males only represented 4.3 percent of
total enrollment in higher education – the same as seen in 1976 (Harper, 2006). The
Dellums Commission Report (2006) provides evidence that African American males
are enrolling, persisting, and graduating at a significantly lower rate than other group
within higher education. In 1977, African American males earned 43.5 percent of all
degrees confirmed to African Americans students; however, by 2003 that number
was only 32.9 percent (National Center of Educational Statistics [NCEE], 2004).
Even more pressing than the gender disparity within the African American
community, Harper (2006) found that more that two-thirds of African American men
who begin college will not graduate within six years. In contrast, Caucasian men
successfully graduate at a rate of almost 73 percent.
Harper’s work builds on previous research. In a study of African American
students at predominantly White institutions (PWIs), Harvey (2001) found that men
represented only 36.6 percent of total African American enrollment. Using
completion data from participating institutions, Harvey concluded that African
American males only received 35 percent of the almost 99,000 degrees granted to
African American undergraduates. The decreasing enrollment of African American
males and a lack of persistence towards graduation are evidence that the current
culture of higher education inadequately services this population. Despite the
14
decreasing presence of African American males in the traditional student body, they
continue to be overrepresented within college athletics.
African American Male Student-Athletes
African Americans, especially males, see intercollegiate athletics as their best
opportunity to gain access to higher education and career fulfillment (Edwards, 2000
& Sellers, 2000). Due to this overwhelming mentality, African Americans have
traditionally been overrepresented in college sports while grossly underrepresented
in the general student body. In 2004, African American males accounted for 10.4
percent of total male enrollment in higher education. Yet, in the same year at
Division I institutions, African American males accounted for 30.5 percent of the
total student-athlete population (Harper, 2006). In combining the marginal general
enrollment and the overrepresentation of African American males in college sports,
data shows that one out of every five African American males enrolled in college at a
Division I institution was involved in college athletics. Additionally, African
American males were particularly overrepresented in revenue-generating sports –
football and men’s basketball – 54.6 percent and 60.8 percent, respectively (Harper,
2006). The over representation of African American males is compounded by
student-athletes’ view that athletics is the sole means to accessing higher education
(Lindaue & Mannix, 1991). Pututo and O’Hanlon (2006) studied college choice in
African American students and found a decreased desire to maintain enrollment in a
four-year university compared with Caucasian students. African American students
are also less likely to attend a four-year university if they are not involved in
collegiate sports. Researchers also confirm that African American males are more
15
likely to choose a college institution based on their potential to obtain a professional
sporting career and not overall academic success after graduation (Sellers, 2000).
This notion that athletics is the primary means to a college education cripples
the academic engagement and achievement of African American males in higher
education. Not only do African American male student-athletes develop an identity
solely rooted in athletics (Pututo & O’Hanlon, 2006), some have been placed in
academic courses that are less challenging to ensure athletic eligibility (Smith, 2000).
Edwards (1984) accused the higher education system of creating a new “plantation”
culture, where African American student-athletes work like slaves to bring in
revenue and increase the exposure of their university while not receiving
compensation for service. Edwards (2000) also examined the academic majors of
African American student-athletes that had successfully graduated from Division I
institutions. He found that over 50 percent graduated with either a degree in physical
education or other “easy majors” that were specifically designed to maintain student-
athletes’ eligibility during college. Along with a lack of academic challenge, African
American student-athletes also experience an unfriendly campus climate, which
included blatant racism and prejudice (Carey, 2000). This climate forces African
American student-athletes into isolation and many of them reported they were
viewed as outcasts.
Despite the positive graduation percentage rates reported by the NCAA
(2006), athletic programs that have historically been successful in revenue-
generating sports have struggled to graduate student-athletes. For example, Lapchick
(2003) examined men’s basketball programs that have reached the “Sweet Sixteen”
16
round of the NCAA basketball tournament and found that 38 percent of the schools
had graduation rates for African American males that were up to 74 percent lower
than the general population of the institution. These findings support the claims of
Edwards (1984) that African American student-athletes were being used to generate
large amounts of revenue for the university and were not receiving the same support
in return. Without academic support to facilitate graduation, many student-athletes,
especially African American males, refocus their desire to obtain a professional
sporting career. This decision to play professionally not only affects their social and
academic development, but it also hinders the athletic departments’ quest to comply
with the NCAA mandated graduation standards. Athletic departments with
diminishing graduation rates are at risk of losing future scholarships, thus denying
access to future African American male student-athletes.
A study by the NCAA (2003) found that over 25 percent of student-athletes
were African American. Furthermore, Sailes (1998) found that half of African
American student-athletes came from disadvantaged or impoverished backgrounds.
The combination of the overrepresentation of African American in college athletics
and the disadvantaged backgrounds they are traditionally from creates a culture that
is focused on monetary gains and a career in professional sports. Sellers (2000)
presents two different approaches to viewing the impact of intercollegiate athletes on
African Americans. He claims that athletics plays an important role in facilitating
access to education that is not traditionally available to African Americans from
impoverished backgrounds. Sellers also suggests that college sports continue to
exploit the majority of African American student-athletes. From this perspective,
17
Sellers affirmed the claims made by Edwards (1984) where colleges and universities
utilize the athletic talents of African American student-athletes and do not provide
adequate services in return. This lack of academic support has led to the creation of
an athletic culture, which facilitates the development of an athletic identity over an
academic one.
African American Male Student-Athlete Academic Success
Although the graduation rates for student-athletes are at their highest point,
researchers have yet to examine the academic success of the African American male
student-athletes. In particular, there is a void of research on the academic impact of
participating in revenue-generating sports. Pascarella, Bohr, Nora, and Terenzini
(1999) found that revenue-generating sports participation elicited a different set of
educational expectations and practices compared to non-revenue-generating sports.
The findings support the claim that even within the athletic subculture there exist
different socialization processes and pressures. Today’s society assumes student-
athletes are socially inept and incapable of performing well in the classroom. This
assumption furthers the “dumb jock” stigma and increasing the educational gap
between student-athletes and traditional members of the student body (Sellers, 1992).
African American male student-athletes graduate at a rate of 21 percent lower
than their Caucasian peers (Lapchick, 2000; Siegel, 1996). This phenomenon is
demonstrated numerous elite basketball programs who have not graduated a single
African American male in the past six years (NCAA, 2003). Even more alarming
than this disparity are the differences between African American and Caucasian men
in academic preparation and behavior. Lapchick (1996) found that African American
18
males are entering higher education with less academic preparation, leading to a
disadvantage within college academics. This disadvantaged environment leads to
significant differences between African American and Caucasian male athletes in
terms of academic probation, decreased emphasis on academics and education and
higher rates of academics suspension and ineligibility (Beamon & Bell, 2006).
In 1983, in an effort to reclaim the academic integrity of college sports, the
NCAA passed Proposition 48 to protect and ensure academic success for student-
athletes at Division I institutions (Howard-Hamilton & Watts, 2001). Proposition 48
stated that in order for student-athletes to be eligible for athletic scholarships, they
must graduate from high school with at least a 2.0 grade point average (GPA) and
obtain a minimum of a 700 on their Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). The
implementation of Proposition 48 was met with opposition as many saw it as a
measure to suppress the participation of African American males in college sports.
Ferrante and Pinkey (1996) contended that minority students historically score lower
on standardized tests and leave high school underprepared. Such claims may have
some truth; Francisco (2001) found that 51 percent of all African American males
who took the SAT fell under the proposition’s threshold. In 1989, the NCAA
conducted a study of the 424 potential student-athletes who were deemed ineligible
through Proposition 48; 299 were African American, lending support to the claims
made about the decrease in African American enrollment.
Following the debate over the validity of Proposition 48, the NCAA amended
its position on academic standards in 1995 when it passed Proposition 16.
Proposition 16 modified the position of Proposition 48 to include a sliding scale
19
between SAT scores and GPA and created three distinct classifications of student-
athletes: qualifiers, partial qualifiers, and non-qualifiers (Howard-Hamilton & Watts,
2001). These three distinct classifications allowed student-athletes to receive athletic
scholarships; however, if they were deemed a non-qualifier, their participation in
college sports would be severely limited. NCAA (2001) data illustrated that after the
inception of Proposition 16, there was a larger decrease in the number of African
American males eligible to participate in college sports. Even though African
American participation in sports decreased, of those African American males to
qualify under Proposition 16, only 46 percent would have qualified to participate
under Proposition 48 (Francisco, 2001).
Despite positive graduation rates presented by the NCAA, participating in
intercollegiate athletics has been linked to unrealistic career expectations (Edwards,
1984), poor study habits (Adler & Adler, 1991), and a constant pressure to maintain
academic eligibility (Smith, 1980). The literature thus far has presented issues
pertaining to the access and success of student-athletes and the overrepresentation of
African Americans within college athletics. Student-athletes experience socialization
into the belief that college athletics is the sole access point to higher education, and
thus creating tremendous athletic pressure to succeed once they arrive on campus.
This process has been linked to academic, interpersonal, and social challenges.
Student-Athlete Identity Development
Student-athletes are socialized into an identity that overemphasizes athletic
participation. Formation of identity is most salient during the transition years of
college (Waterman, 1982). The first two years of college affects both the intrinsic
20
values and identity of all college students. Brewer, Van Raalte, and Linder (1993)
suggest that an identity, defined as the degree to which a person identifies with the
norms of an athletic role, can be created solely through interaction with a dominant
sport. In a study of 86 college males at a single institution, Marcia (1966) found that
college students experience four distinct identity classifications. These classifications
include identity diffusion, where a student has neither committed to an identity nor
been proactive in experiencing new possible identities, and foreclosure, where a
student has committed to an identity without experiencing a crisis. Without this
crisis, Marcia says that identity development cannot be completed. The classification
of moratorium is where a student has experienced a crisis but has yet committed to a
single identity. Finally, the identity achievement classification is explained by a
student experiencing an identity crisis and then selecting his or her identity based on
these experiences.
Utilizing Marcia’s (1966) four classifications of identity development,
Kennedy and Dimick (1987), and then later Scales (1991), found that minority males
participating in revenue-generating sports had the most incidents of identity
foreclosure. This suggests that athletes accept an athletic identity even before facing
a crisis balancing their roles as both a student and an athlete. The initial acceptance,
along with a decrease in a desire to seek out other identity possibilities, supports the
notion that student-athletes in revenue-generating sports initial attend college to play
sports and complete their education simultaneously.
Participating in intercollegiate athletics has been shown to lead to an over
acceptance of an athletic identity and the inability to experience different campus
21
activities, thus leading to a state of identity foreclosure (Kerpelman et al., 1997).
According to Marcia’s theory of identity development, a person within this role
would be committed to their athletic identity without exploring the possibility of
finding other campus activities to serve as sources around which to form their
identity (Marcia, 1976). The culture of restrictiveness within the athletic system
leaves student-athletes with no free time to interact with different groups of students,
and therefore the inability to explore alternative offerings of mainstream college
activities (Chartand & Lent, 1987). Many student-athletes feel if they venture outside
of athletics, they jeopardize future chances of becoming a professional athlete
(Hollis, 2002). Even when athletic departments do not mandate student-athletes
interact only with each other, they have oftentimes been socialized into a narrow
focus toward their social networks. This restrictive network isolates student-athletes
from other groups on campus. Additionally, many student-athletes face family
pressures to provide monetarily through a professional sports contract (Hollis, 2002).
This desire for a high profile professional sports career forces many student-athletes
to forego exploration of possible alternative opportunities for identity development,
in fear of not being able to support themselves and their families.
The pressures to conform to an athletic identity are more prevalent in student-
athletes on scholarships. Scholarship athletes are more likely to be heavily
influenced by, and have a greater association with, an athletic identity (Loy,
McPherson, & Kenyan, 1978). Non-scholarship athletes are more apt to explore
additional areas of involvement, increasing the likelihood of identifying with
multiple facets of campus life. Scholarship athletes are usually seen as the focal point
22
of an athletic team, therefore gaining a large sense of self-worth through their
participation in athletics. This self-worth has been shown to influence the
socialization into an athletic identity and subculture (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
Multiple agents play a role in socializing students to the athletic identity, including
staff in athletic departments. Faculty and student affairs administrators also play a
significant role in conditioning student-athletes to accept a foreclosed athletic
identity through the continuation of the student-athlete stereotype.
Student-athletes’ identity formation is stunted due to limited opportunities for
exploration associated with a sense of overprotection, depersonalization, and
segregation (Remer, Tongate, & Watson, 1978). The increase media exposure within
revenue-generating sports has continued to create barriers toward positive identity
development. Student-athletes competing at high levels receive elevated levels of
social reinforcement for their physical abilities and have much of their individual
conception of identity and “self” based upon athletic performance (Clow, 2001). This
is especially true for African American athletes who are extremely susceptible to the
exclusivity of the athletic identity due to the intense socialization towards sports by
family, media, peers, and community that begins at an early age. Although there are
some positive aspects associated with being committed to the athletic role, such as
development of a salient self-identity (McPherson, 1980), this self-concept is
effective mostly in an athletic environment (Selden, 1998). Edwards (2000)
maintains that the focus on athletics and the athletic role in the “Black community is
a tragedy in that the personal and cultural underdevelopment…afflicts so many
successful and unsuccessful black sports aspirants” (p. 9). The impact of the African
23
American community is only way group that continues to create an environment of
disadvantage for student-athletes.
Socialization
Participating in intercollegiate athletics is linked to an environment filled
with negative socialization (Edwards, 2000; McPherson, 1980; & Selden, 1998).
Socialization impacts not only the college experiences, but the development of a
positive academic outlook and desire. Building on the foundation of the literature
addressing the socialization of student-athletes, this section will further examine the
unique socialization experience of African American student-athletes and the impact
the various agents of socialization have on the student-athlete population.
Student-Athlete Socialization
Academic success of the student-athletes is often a product of both academic
preparedness and athletic socialization. Student-athletes navigate university and
athletic environments that are constantly socializing them from academic gains.
Accepted norms, especially in terms of academic success, are transmitted through
peer interaction that happens long before a student-athlete even takes an academic
course in college.
Snyder and Spreitzer (1985) argue that socialization is a process of teaching
behaviors that are both consistent and socially acceptable with the current culture’s
members. In other words, athletic departments who continually place athletic gains
ahead of academic success will create student-athletes that have the same ideology.
There are two distinct perspectives for understanding socialization in sports (Synder
& Spreitzer, 1989). The first notion is that socialization can occur into sports. For
24
example, agents of influence, such as coaches, parents, and athletic administrators
affect the choice of sports and the development of the physical and psychological
attributes needed to excel within athletics. Second, socialization can occur through
sports. Since athletic participation embodies a microcosm for society, student-
athletes have the opportunity to learn competition, cooperation, role-playing, and
discipline regarding rules and regulations (Bloom & Smith, 1996). This socialization
aids in the acceptance of norms within an athletic subculture. Family and community
members often times push individuals into sports and create a belief that
participating in sports is an important part of life – socialization into sports.
Socializing individuals into sports lead to the opportunity for sports to impact of the
development of accepted norms, attitudes and life-long desires – socialization
through sports. Both play a role in the development of student-athletes pre-college
and college experience.
The athletic culture is underscored by perspectives and value, which
socializes student-athletes through their involvement in intercollegiate athletics. The
transference of the athletics subculture’s values is a normative process for student-
athletes adjusting to college. The regulatory and formalized nature of Division I
athletic programs have created an environment where the athletic department’s
norms can be easily transferred to student-athletes (Pearson, 1981). Pearson (1981)
found that student-athletes participate in subcultures because of the high degree of
governance and control that exists in college sports today, both on national and
campus levels.
25
Athletic subcultures begin as a product of three environmental factors
(Arnold, 1970). The first is a response to some problem, deprivation, or an
opportunity that is common among an entire athletic team, which in most cases is a
goal of playing professional sports. The second factor that contributes to the
socialization of student-athletes into this subculture is the social distance that is
placed between the student-athlete population and the general student body. This
social distance is a product of the extensive travel, practice time, and family-like
orientation that exists within the athletic culture. These factors create an environment
where student-athletes socialize solely with other student-athletes. Finally, athletic
subcultures are also a product of the environment of team sports, where there is a
high degree of collaboration towards a common goal. In his examination of the
external influences of student-athletes, Young (1983) found that these departmental
values are socialized within student-athletes through direct and indirect contact with
current student-athletes and the images the media portrays. The athletic subculture
begins the socialization process before a student-athlete officially enrolls in a given
institution.
Identifying with the norms of the athletic subculture starts as early as the
recruitment process. Potential athletic recruits are brought to campus to meet with
current student-athletes who talk to them about the balance between their academic
and athletic commitments. These recruits begin to undergo what Rooney (1987)
described as anticipatory socialization. Through their visits to campus, high school
athletes gain a perception of what various athletic departments stand for and how the
goals of those departments match personal desires. Peers play the largest role in
26
anticipatory socialization (Williams & Taylor, 1994). However, the media portrayal
influences the socialization process of high school student-athletes who are deciding
to attend a specific university (Rooney, 1987).
After undergoing socialization to the importance of academic gains, during
the recruiting process, student-athletes then must navigate their first-year of college
and balance the demands of athletic and academic roles on campus. New student-
athletes are socialized into the social and academic norms through modeling
academic and social behaviors. Additionally, the acceptance of lethargic academic
attitudes by coaches and athlete administrators impacts its perpetuation. The role
strain, balancing their role as student and athletes, student-athletes experience is the
product of traditional missions of postsecondary education, degree attainment, and
academic success, combined with the mission of many elite athletic programs: win at
all costs. University administrators encourage student-athletes to assimilate
themselves to the general student body and engage in “traditional” college activities,
such as cultural and residential programming, sorority and fraternity life, and
academic organizations. The time and energy needed to participate in collegiate
sports precludes student-athletes from being able to assimilate into the normal
college experience. Since student-athletes are subjected to anticipatory socialization
and modeling, they choose to overemphasize their athletic commitments and isolate
themselves from the general campus community. Socialization into the athletic
subculture is not only anticipatory, but it also is an ongoing process during
participation in intercollegiate athletics.

27
African American Male Student-Athlete Socialization
There is an overrepresentation of the importance of sports within the African
American community, which leads academically talented African American males to
reject their academic ability and find opportunities to succeed in sports (Edwards,
2000). This lack of representation of African American role models outside of sports
and entertainment makes it difficult for young African American males to see
alternatives to increasing their social standing outside of sports (Harris, 1994). The
overrepresentation of professional athletes as role models has increased the
unrealistic expectations of the American youth, especially African American males,
regarding a career in professional sports. According to a 2006 report published by
the NCAA, less than half of one percent of high school males participating in a
revenue-generating sport will actually play professionally.
In addition to possessing unrealistic dreams of a professional sports career,
African American families are seven times more likely to socialize their children into
participating in sports, compared to the majority culture. (Center for Study and Sport
Northeastern University, 2004). The overemphasis of professional athletes and sports
in American culture socializes African American youth into these unrealistic
expectations (Coakley, 1998; Edwards, 2000; Leonard, 1998; Sailes, 1984). Just as
families encourage their students to participate in sports, so do other agents play
critical roles in the socialization process
Agents of Socialization
The education of athletic, social, and cultural norms is a product of the
influence of various individuals and groups within athletic departments. These agents
28
of socialization are defined as “those groups and institutions that both informally and
formally take on the task of socialization” (Thompson & Hickey, 1999, p. 105).
Examples of socializing agents include families, schools, peers, the media, and the
community, all of which serve their own distinct functions in the socialization
process (Berns, 1997). This study will look at the family, role models, athletic peer
groups, university faculty and administrators and athletic staff (coaches and athletic
administrators) as potential socialization agents within the development of student-
athletes.
Family/role models. McPherson et al. (1980) found the family structure is the
earliest and most influential agent of socializing children to participate in sports.
Edwards (2000) states that children from the African American community are
pressured to see sports as a professional careers and are socialized to focus on sports
above anything else. Empirical evidence to Edwards’ claim comes from a national
study conducted by Gropper (1991), also validated by Lapchick (1982). Both
Lapchick and Gropper found that African American families are four times more
likely to view their children’s involvement early in sports as a foundation for a career
in professional sports. Additionally, the claims of Edwards (2000) are directly
validated by Lapchick and Gropper as they found that African American families are
more likely to push their children to participate in sports at a young age, even if it is
not the wish of the individual. The amalgamation of unlikely possibility of obtaining
a professional sports careers and the pressures of family to obtain this career creates
a disconnect between the reality of career obtainment and the importance of
academics success.
29
Athletic peer groups. Research has also found that student-athletes feel
isolated from the general student body due to their demanding athletic schedules and
the pressures to succeed both academically and athletically (Adler & Adler, 1991).
While student-athletes may not be able to draw on the general student body for
support, support from athletic peers can produce beneficial outcomes. In a study of
243 adolescent athletes, Smith, Ullrich-French, Walker, and Hurley (2006) found
that participants who reported a high number of meaningful sports-related
friendships also possessed higher levels of self-determined motivation and lower
levels of anxiety. However, the researchers also found that male athletes are more
likely to be isolated from other peer groups compared to their female counterparts
(Smith et al.). Patrick, Ryan, Alfeld-Liro, Fredricks, Hruda, and Eccles (1999)
corroborated the findings of Smith et al. as they found that individuals who
participated in sports and have an athletic peer group of friends showed significantly
higher levels of commitment and motivation to develop their talent and had higher
levels of overall enjoyment in both athletic and non-athletic activities compared to
those who have not engage in sports. Despite focusing on the K-12 population, these
studies illustrate that the influence of athletic peer groups causes athletes to have a
higher overall sense of motivation and commitment. Additionally, participants in
both studies showed higher levels of enjoyment in sport, which translated to their
overall life satisfaction. The transference of enjoyment from sport to general life
demonstrates that the experiences of student-athletes are not entirely negative and
athletics provides a means for life satisfaction.
30
Faculty and university administrators. For many student-athletes, especially
African American males, an athletic scholarship is seen as the primary means to gain
access to higher education. However, some universities acknowledge the benefits of
admitting student-athletes in special circumstances. In many cases, “universities are
far more concerned with exploiting the athletic talent [of student-athletes] than with
nurturing academic potential (Sack & Staurowsky, 1998, p. 104). This statement
confirms the belief of many researchers who claim that universities often exploit the
ability of student-athletes to increase their prominence in the academic community
and generate increased revenues from alumni and corporate partners. Gerdy (1994)
found universities do little to endorse an academic lifestyle amongst student-athletes.
This is particularly true for student-athletes who participate in revenue-generating
sports where universities have now become, in a sense, a minor league system for
basketball and football (Clow, 2001). Within this system, student-athletes are
socialized to the importance of sports over academics and the university benefits
through the notoriety student-athletes bring with the media, alumni donors, and
corporate sponsors.
Faculty and campus administrators see student-athletes as a privileged group,
who has gained entrance into higher education through their athletic talents and not
their academic abilities (Hollis, 2002). However, Adler and Adler (1991) found that
student-athletes become academically disengaged, which only strengthens athletic
commitments. The culture of higher education continues to foster an environment of
prejudices toward student-athletes. Studies indicate that both non-athletic students
and faculty members have these prejudices related to student-athletes’ academic
31
competencies and often regard student-athletes as academically poor achievers
(Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1991; Engstrom et al., 1995). Engstrom et al. (1995)
examined the attitudes of 293 first-time students entering at a Division I athletic
university. Participants were given the situational attitude scale, which measured
attitudes related to racial and ethnic acceptance within higher education. They found
that faculty members expected less academically and were prejudicial to the
academic competencies of student-athletes, when compared to the general student-
body. These attitudes are visible on campuses that place a large amount of their
resources and pride in their athletics. Campuses that are known for their academic
rigor, such as Ivy League institutions, produce students and faculty that have the
same negative prejudices toward the academic ability of student-athletes (Richards &
Aries, 1999). Student-athletes face pressures to adhere to the norms of the athletic
culture, including the overvaluing of athletic competitions and the decreased
importance of education. They must also face these pressures as non-athlete peers
and university faculty continue to perpetuate a negative culture towards their
academic success.
Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory (1957) explains how the constant
negative prejudices of others socialize student-athletes away from academic success.
Festinger’s theory rests on the assumption that when presented with two conflicting
elements within one environment, an individual will not only try to correct the
situation, but ultimately avoid the situation that is causing the dissonance. Student-
athletes continually face a similar dissonance related to their academic success.
Balancing their academic and athletic commitment causes students to face
32
dissonance. In many cases, students rectify this dissonance by avoiding their
academic commitments. This avoidance of academics is due to a belief that their
athletic abilities as having a higher earning potential and a socialized important of
their athleticism (Sack, 1987). This dissonance also produces an inconsistent
message to student-athletes regarding their academic performance and reason for
being admitted. Intrinsically, these student-athletes believe they have been admitted
based both on their academic and athletic abilities. The constant questioning of
academic abilities, by faculty members and fellow students, leads to a conflict
between these student-athletes’ cognitions and attitudes towards academics and
athletics, creating a dissonance that leads them to avoid academics.
Coaches and athletic personnel. At the inception of college sports in the late
19
th
century, many coaches and athletic administrators held joint appointments
within both the athletic and academic sectors of the university (Gerdy, 1997). This
bridge between academic and athletics maintained the importance of student-athlete
success, both in the classroom and on the playing field. However, the rapid growth of
college sports led institutions to hire full-time coaches to run each program (Bailey
& Littleton, 1991). The shift to a singular appointment in the athletic department
weakened the connection between academics and athletics.
For many student-athletes, coaches and athletic administrative staff members
are some of the most influential individuals. Martin and Kramer (2007) found that
coaches played the most significant role in the identity development of high school
African American male athletes. Additionally, Humphrey, Yow, and Bowden (2000)
found that coaches’ behaviors and opinions heavily impact student-athletes outlook
33
on their college priorities. College coaches also possess the ability to influence
student-athletes to professional sports as they encourage young athletes and their
families to believe the student-athletes has a high likelihood of obtaining a
professional sports career (Grooper, 1991).
The socialization process in college athletics creates an environment that
perpetuates negative stereotypes and approaches to academics. Socialization affects
the student-athletes before they enroll in higher education; anticipatory socialization
begins at the first interaction between student-athletes and the athletic environment.
This anticipatory socialization continues to sustain the impact the athletic subculture
has in defining the practices of college athletics. This continuation of focus on
athletic practices is product of agents ranging from the members of the academic
community to the impact of parents who socialize particular behaviors and
ideologies. To better understand the socialization process, it is important to use the
social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson,
1995) to view the impact of agents and the environment.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework is guided by an educational adaptation of
psychological approaches. The body of literature on student-athlete socialization
examines the impact of peer modeling on the continuation of athletic norms.
Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory suggests that the perpetuation of negative
athletic norms is a product of learning through modeling. In addition to social
learning, the literature has shown there is an overwhelming existence of negative
stereotypes regarding student-athletes and academic success. Steele and Aronson’s
34
(1995) stereotype threat will be used to explain the impact constant negativity has on
student-athletes academic success, especially African American males.
Both approaches to understanding socialization and the perpetuation of
negativity are used in designing the qualitative protocol and the interpretation of the
data from this study. Capturing the extrinsic nature of social learning and the
intrinsic influence of stereotype threat provides a multi-pronged representation of the
socialization process. As stated previous, student-athletes face a dissonance that is a
product of modeling academic behaviors of the student body and facing constant
stereotypes surrounding their academic capabilities. The integration of the two
theories allows participants to reflect on the total socialization process
Social Learning Theory
Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory proposes that behaviors are a product
observing and modeling behaviors, attitudes, and emotions of others. Bandura
asserts, “Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if
people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them” (p. 22).
Bandura suggests that social learning theory is a product of constructs, a mental
systematic arrangement of ideas, used in the observation and model of behavior and
classifies the construct into six distinct categories: (1) reciprocal determination, (2)
behavioral capability, (3) expectations, (4) self-efficacy, (5) observational learning,
and (6) reinforcement. Social learning theory also uses three principles to explain the
impact social learning has on individuals. First, the highest level of observational
learning is achieved by organizing and rehearsing the modeled behavior
symbolically and then enacting it overtly. For student-athletes this starts during the
35
recruiting process, when there is minimal to no discussion regarding academics. It is
then internalized, reprioritized, and acted on overtly when they enroll in a university.
Second, individuals are more likely to adopt a modeled behavior if it results in
outcomes they value. Finally, individuals are more likely to adopt a modeled
behavior if the model is similar to the observer and has admired status and the
behavior has functional value. For student-athletes this functional value may simply
be the desire to participate in competition, therefore modeling the behavior of the
student-athletes who are allowed to compete.
Using social learning theory, Howard and Hollander (1997) emphasize the
role of others as agents of reinforcement, a focus on modeling and imitation, and the
involvement of the cognitive processes. These reinforcement agents help to shape the
development of an individual’s outlook and life ambitions. McPherson (1976) also
discussed the development of athletic roles for minority student-athletes using social
learning theory. His theory articulates the extreme importance placed on athletic
careers and the impact agents have on creating negative environments for minority
student-athletes. Castine and Roberts (1974) used the foundational studies of
McPherson and stated that:
There are three elements of the socialization process that converge to
socialize minority groups... These elements are as follows: First personal
attributes... Second, socializing agents such as significant others, reference
groups (includes parents, relations, siblings, peers, teachers, non-family
adults), and the mass media; and third, the socializing environment...
McPherson states that minority groups do have a differential socialization
process and that this process does have a differential pattern and outcome
upon the socialization. (p. 61)

36
Understanding the differentiation of social learning between the majority and
minority cultures is instrumental in designating effective strategies to mediating the
effects of socializing agents and the reframing of the organizational mission of
athletic departments. There exists no manual for how student-athletes act and the
perpetuation of negative roles is a product of modeling behavior. Understanding the
impact of modeling behavior will aid in placing student-athletes who understand the
importance of academics in prominent positions where behavioral modeling not only
has athletic but academic value. In addition to behavioral modeling, the college
environment is filled with stigmas and stereotypes surrounding the intellectual
capacity of student-athletes.
Stereotype Threat
The phenomenon described as stereotype threat examines the social and
environmental factors that create awareness of deficiencies within certain groups.
This awareness of an academic deficiency within student-athletes continues to
impact the academic performance of this group. Steele and Aronson (1995) defined
the stereotype threat phenomena as the anxiety people experience when they risk
confirming a negative stereotype of their group. The presence or understanding of
negative stereotype of an accepted identity or group leads to a decrease in
performance on a stereotyped task. For example, Steele and Aronson found that
African Americans performed significantly worse on an academic test when they
were made aware of the negative stereotype associated with being African American
compared to the African American group who were not made aware of stereotypes.
37
In addition to the stereotype threat that exists on an ethnic or race level,
Aronson, Lustina, Good, Keough, Steele, and Brown (1999) found that stereotype
threat performance can also be seen in individuals who have a strong sense of an
identity engrained with a specific group or group of traditions. Those who have a
stronger identity formation within a specified group will be more susceptible to
performance dictated by stereotype threat. As previously mentioned, student-athletes
develop their collegiate identity through participation in sports, with student-athletes
who participate in revenue-generating sports having the largest sports identity
investment (Loy et al., 1978; Kennedy & Dimick, 1987; Scales, 1991). The
aforementioned research leads to an understanding of academic deficiencies visible
especially for student-athletes who participate in revenue-generating sports.
The “I’ll show you” response phenomenon has been liked to overcoming
performance barriers associated with the stereotype threat (Steele and Aronson,
1995). In a study of high-achieving African American student-athletes, Martin and
Harris (2006) discuss the motivation factors that are needed for high-achieving
African American males to be successful in the sporting arena and the classroom.
The researchers further discusses the challenges these academically high-achieving
athletes must face as they fight the socially constructed ideologies of how poorly
African American male student-athletes should perform in the classroom; Martin and
Harris warn that these pressures may lead to academic regression, decrease in
academic effort and success, to protect the individual’s self esteem.
The impact of predisposed and constant negativity toward a single group
creates a deficient culture. Using stereotype threat to examine the socialization
38
process of student-athletes provides an opportunity to view the impact various
campus and community agents have on the perpetuation of social and academic
inequities. Internalized prejudices and stereotypes are key to understanding how the
socialization process affects college experiences. When combined with the overt
modeling of social learning, stereotype threat provides the ideal platform for
discussing the impact the collegiate environment has on student-athletes in revenue-
generating sports.
Summary of Literature
This review of literature articulates not only the obstacles student-athletes
face within the system of higher education, but also the inequities and challenges that
face student-athletes, in particular African American student-athletes, in college. A
majority of the literature discusses the restrictive culture of intercollegiate athletics
and its effect on the development of personal identity, social relationships, and the
ability to succeed academically. Additionally, the literature demonstrates the
socialization processes which African American males experience as student-
athletes. These processes are the product of various agents of socialization who
shape the collegiate experience of student-athletes. Agents such as family, coaches,
university administrators, and athletic peers have been shown to influence not only
the athletic but also the academic experience of student-athletes.
Researchers have developed theories to explain the phenomenon surrounding
the socialization experience of African American student-athletes. Steele and
Aronson (1995) described the progression of stereotype threat that is useful in
understanding the impact others have on the personal success of African American
39
student-athletes. Additionally, Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory is valuable in
describing the impact social and environmental factors have on the learning process
and how the majority of learning is a product of modeling and visualization. The idea
that student-athletes learn through model is useful in understanding the circular
relationships between academic inefficiencies and the student-athlete. Both
perspectives drove the development of the interview protocol within this study, as
participants were asked to reflect both on stereotypes they faced, the importance of
modeling behaviors, and the support systems in place.
40
Chapter Three:
Research Methodology and Participants
This chapter will discuss the methods used to answer the research questions
that guide this study. In particular, a discussion centered on the benefits of the
qualitative inquiry, the phenomenological approach, research questions, the role of
the researcher, and the date collection site and procedures. This chapter concludes by
addressing the data analysis methods, trustworthiness, and the limitations of this
study.
Phenomenological Approach
The phenomenological inquiry approach examined the socialization
experiences of male revenue-generating student-athletes and describe the role of
socializing agents in the development of student-athletes’ academic identities.
Participants detailed their experiences as student-athletes and discussed their identity
development through the lens of cultural and institutional norms. The inquiry
focused on the phenomena surrounding the sociocultural norms of the athletic
department. Additionally, an examination of the ability for the athletic environment
to create identity independent of mitigating influences. Analysis of interview data
identified common themes of socialization and behavior. Qualitative data were
collected in an effort to gain an understanding of the social and cultural interactions
of student-athletes and socializing agents.
To further the understanding of male revenue-generating student-athletes’
outlook towards academics, this study explored the use of the phenomenological
approach of qualitative study. Initially constructed by German philosopher Edward
41
Husserl, the phenomenological approach is “the study of how people describe things
and experiences them through their senses” (Patton, 2002, p.105). The basic
assumption of this approach is that perceptions and awareness are the primary
component to understanding an experience. Additionally, the focus of the
phenomenological approach is on the interpretation of events experienced by the
participants. This approach allows researchers to gain an interpretation through
gathering in-depth data of individual experience and ascertain how these participants
perceive particular experiences and the impact on the collective group (Glesne, 1999;
Morgan, 2000; Moustakas, 1994). In establishing and utilizing a phenomenological
approach, this study aims to provide insight in the socialization processes of African
American male student-athletes.
A phenomenological study investigates the collective experience of a group
of people by interpreting the experiences of individuals. The focus of this research is
to describe the experiences of participants, the meanings they derive from them, and
the impact it has on academic socialization. The selected approach allows a elucidate
view of academic socialization student-athletes face while participating in revenue-
generating sports at a Division I institution.
Overview of Participants
Twenty four student-athletes participated in this study. Participants were
selected based on the sole criteria of their participation in either intercollegiate men’s
football or basketball. The grade point average for all participants ranged from 1.92
to 3.26 with a mean of 2.39. Eighteen participants were African American; five
students stated they were White/Caucasian, and one student identified as “other.”
42
Participants ranged in class year as well: seven were freshmen; eleven were
sophomores, three were juniors, and three were seniors. Ten student-athletes had not
yet decided on a major of study and examples of the majors selected included
aeronautical engineering, communication, business, and public policy, planning and
development. Twenty of the twenty-four participants were members of the men’s
football team and twenty-one were attending Athletic U on athletic scholarships.
Fourteen participants indicated that they had redshirted--enrolled in college for a
year without competing in intercollegiate athletics--during their first year in college.
The sample collected was of convenience. See Table 1 for more detailed information
on each of the participants.
Table 1:
Participant Overview

Name Race / Ethnicity Class Standing Athletic Sport Scholarship Redshirt
Benjamin African American Sophomore Football Yes No
Christopher African American Sophomore Football No Yes
Mike Caucasian Freshman Football Yes No
Matthew African American Senior Football Yes Yes
Andrew African American Sophomore Football Yes Yes
Marc Caucasian Sophomore Football Yes No
Spencer Caucasian Senior Football Yes Yes
Richard Caucasian Freshman Football Yes Yes
Manuel African American Senior Football Yes Yes
Henry African American Freshman Football Yes Yes
Edward African American Junior Football Yes No
Jarred African American Freshman Football Yes No
Leonard African American Sophomore Basketball Yes No
William Caucasian Junior Basketball Yes No
Walter African American Sophomore Football Yes Yes
Horace African American Sophomore Basketball Yes No
Hayden African American Freshman Football Yes Yes
Garrett African American Junior Basketball No No
Roger African American Sophomore Football Yes Yes
Stephen African American Sophomore Football Yes Yes
George African American Freshman Football No Yes
Patrick African American Sophomore Football Yes No
Corey African American Freshman Football Yes No
Lance African American Sophomore Football Yes No

43

Data Collection Site
Athletic U., a research university on the West Coast known not only for it
academic success but also for housing an elite athletic program served as the site for
data collection. Athletic U has an enrollment of 33,000 students, with equal
enrollment of undergraduates and graduate students. Of the undergraduate
population, 5.6 percent are African American, 13.1 percent are Hispanic, 21.7
percent are Asian American or Pacific Islander, and 47 percent White or Caucasian.
Admission to Athletic U is very selective, with an average SAT score of 1350 for
incoming students. Eighty one percent of all students and 70 percent of African
Americans graduate within six years (NCES. 2004).
Athletic U not only has a long standing academic tradition but also of athletic
competition as well, with more than 100 NCAA championship titles. The athletic
program is part of the Pacific-10 Conference and regularly competes in the Bowl
Championship Series. Men’s football remains the flagship sport of the athletic
program and garners a large portion of the athletic department’s total budget.
Revenue-generating sports at Athletic U are the primary tool to facilitate campus and
community involvement in the athletic program. Toma (2003) suggests this culture
not only provides an opportunity for over 90,000 students, staff, faculty, and
community members to unite within one arena, but also provides an opportunity for
the university to profit through donor relations and corporate sponsorship.
Athletic U’s academic support services for student-athletes are also known
for providing assistance. As one the nation’s largest academic services departments,
44
this department employs one director, two associate directors, four learning
specialists, six academic advisors, four graduate interns, and approximately fifty
tutors for learning assistance. Within the confines of the academic center, scholarship
student-athletes must complete mandated study hours, tutoring, and academic
advising. Student-athletes also have access to class scheduling assistance, a computer
lab with printing, and the life skills programs – a program designed to provide
student-athletes with transferable career skills.
Data Collection Methods
In order to gain a holistic of academic socialization process, this study
employed three methods of data collection. The first and primary method of data
collection was face-to-face semi-structure interviews. In addition to interviews with
student-athletes, data came from observing Athletic U’s campus culture, athletic
department, and academic support center. Finally, student-athletes completed a
demographic questionnaire which was used to aggregate data based on a variety of
variable. When combined, the three data collection methods provide a complete
insight into the effects of socialization on the student-athletes in this study.
Interviews
Informants within the athletic department and the academic service center
were instrumental in providing access to this student population, assisting in
selection and recruiting, and ensuring the completion of the interview process. Once
participants were identified, contact was made via email or telephone to discuss the
goals and procedures of the study. Participants were asked to complete a one hour,
face-to-face interview on campus during the spring 2008 semester. Interviews were
45
recorded and subsequently transcribed. Utilizing a semi-structured interview
approach, which provides flexibility in dialogue and appropriateness of data
(Holstein & Gubrium, 1995), the researcher provided an interview that was both
conversational in nature and served the purpose of data gathering. Consistent with
the phenomenological approach, participants were asked to reflect on their academic
and social experiences in college before and upon enrolling at Athletic U, the role
particular actors played in their experiences, and the impact of the athletic and
scholar communities. The interview protocol started with a grand tour question
asking student-athletes to share their reasons for attending college. After the grand
tour question, questions called for student-athletes to reflect on their academic role
and support systems followed by questions regarding the athletic culture. The
interview concluded with questions that assessed awareness of academic and social
stigmas along with the impact of community and parents figures.
After self-reflection and initial analysis of demographic questions, the audio-
taped interviews were coded using the techniques discussed in Rubin and Rubin
(2004). Themes related to the agents of socialization, affect of athletic and non-
athlete peer groups and academic ideologies were coded for analysis. The outcomes
of the analysis of coded data provided an understanding of the emerging themes and
phenomenon. For a copy of the interview protocol, please see Appendix D.
Observations
In addition to conducting interviews, data collection also took place through
an analysis of the institutional culture. Janesick (2000) discussed the importance of
understanding the setting where participants engage in order to gain insight into
46
social and cultural contexts otherwise not present within the interview process. In
order to gain familiarity with the campus, campus observations of the athletic study
center and athletic department were conducted. Notes taking during the observations
served an additional insight into the athletic and academic culture.
The center is comprised of a large open room with 10 to 15 individual round
tables where tutors conduct their sessions. Individual offices, conference rooms, and
the computer lab surround the room. Student-athletes often work in groups and
interacted during their tutoring session. A full-time staff member is on hand from 8
a.m. to 10 p.m. each day to provide supervisory assistance and support. This staff
routinely discussed academics and personal growth with the student-athletes and
maintained an “open door policy” within the center. However, often times that
culture of openness, which allowed student-athletes to feel less restrictive, provided
an opportunity for distraction and extra-curricular conversation to occur during
study-hours.
Demographic Questionnaire
Prior to each interview, participants were asked to complete a demographic
questionnaire. This questionnaire determined the current athletic status (i.e.,
recruited, scholarship, or walk-on), academic success (GPA, course completion,
etc.), and general demographic information (name, major, and hometown). The
questionnaire provided the opportunity for a comparison of socializing experiences
between scholarship and non-scholarship athletes, while accounting for current
academic success. For a copy of the questionnaire, please see Appendix C.

47

Data Analysis
This study followed the strategy of Strauss and Corbin (1998) and used a
constant assessment of themes method. After each interview, data was coded and re-
evaluated compared to previous data. The constant examination of data led to the
emergence of complex relationships of similarity and disparity. Creswell (1998)
discussed the process of data analysis as the reduction of information, analysis of
relevant statements, identification of relevant themes, and constant exploration of
emerging themes expanding from the data.
However, prior to data analysis, it was important for the researcher to
conduct a critical self examination – epoche. Moustakas (1994) discussed the process
of epoche as a “process when everyday understandings, judgments, and knowing are
set aside, and the phenomenon are revisited, visually, naively, in a wide-open sense,
from the vantage point of pue or trancendal ego“ (p. 33). In acknowledging any
potential biases, the researcher discussed his role with multiple faculty members and
those who have conducted similar research. This process allowed for a reflection of
personal biases and created an environment for the researcher to conduct interviews
and analyze the data with a clear sense of personal and intrinsic biases.
Trustworthiness
In establishing trustworthiness, the researcher not only used measures to
ensure reliability and validity, but also utilized triangulation to ensure data was
accurately presented. In addition to triangulation, the researcher employed member
checks as an accountability measure. In qualitative research, the issues surrounding
48
reliability and validity are imperative to producing accepted research. Lincoln and
Guba (1985) discussed the importance of increasing validity and reliability through
the process of constant observation; “the purpose of persistent observation is to
identify those characteristics and elements in the situation that are most relevant to
the problem or issue being pursued and focusing on them in detail” (p. 304). Lincoln
and Guba also discussed the four terms important in the evaluation of data:
credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. The researcher defined
credibility as the congruence between the respondents’ views of their lives and an
accurate replication in this study. A faculty advisor served as a member check to
ensure credibility and accurate replication of the student-athlete voice within the
data. Transferability is further defined as ability for a given study to be generalized
to the similar situations outside of this study. Given that this study was conducted
within an athletic department at a Division I institution, there exists an inherent
ability to replicate in a similar athletic setting. Dependability and confirmability are
measures that ensure the study and data analysis were conducted logically, suitably,
and with the ability to be traced by future researchers.
The process of triangulation was employed to increase validity and reliability.
Triangulation is the process of ensuring the integrity of the inferences drawn from
the data source (Schwandt, 2001). This study utilized multiple sources (different
student-athletes from a single sport, institutional observation, and member checking)
to triangulate the data-driven conclusions. Member checks were employed along
with the four measures described by Lincoln and Guba (1985). A team of informants
provided member checks by engaging in post interview conversations with
49
participants to ensure an accurate representation of attitudes towards academics and
the college experience. Additionally, a peer debriefing team, consisting of five
individuals representing various consistencies, served as checks to ensure proper
interpretations and conclusions of the data. The team consisted of one doctoral
candidate, one senior member of the athletic department, one athletic administrator
in academic services, and three faculty members. Individual meetings were
conducted with peer debriefers to ensure proper data analysis throughout the
interview and demographic analysis processes.
Limitations
The first limitation is related to the scope of the study. This study focused on
a single academic institution within Division I athletics. Additionally the focus solely
on revenue-generating sports limits the interpretations to student-athletes attending a
highly selective, privately funded, and athletically successful institution participating
in revenue-generating sports. To be able to generalize the findings, a sample of
institutional variety (i.e., publicly funded institutions, historically Black colleges and
universities, Division II and III athletic programs, and Ivy League institutions) is key
to gaining contextual and environmental understanding.
In addition to the scope of the current research, the researcher’s position also
provides a limitation to the qualitative interpretations. Even though a contingency of
academicians and professionals in athletics were in place to provide checks of data
interpretation, the researcher’s identity as a Caucasian male may have influenced
both the data collection and analysis processes. The majority status of the researcher
influenced the interpretation of that data. The data is further open to different
50
interpretations from researchers of different contextual backgrounds (i.e., Asian
American or African American researcher). The utilization of a phenomenological
approach provides limitations in the creation and interpretation of both the
research/interview protocol and analysis of data. The use of additional methods (i.e.,
grounded theory, peer group approach, etc.) would provide a comprehensive
methodological understanding of the phenomenon. Finally, the sample of
convenience provides an additional limitation. The variability within participants
does not provide the ability to articulate a depth of data regarding specific
characteristics.
Using qualitative methods to understand the experience of student-athletes is
crucial to provide depth to the data. The use of the phenomenological approach
allows the researcher to gain insight into participants’ socialization process.
Interviews with student-athletes provided an opportunity for participants to reflect on
the impact the collegiate environment had on their academic success. The approach
outlined in this chapter, ensure a depth of data available for interpretation, best
practices, and policy interpretation.
51
Chapter Four:

Findings

The qualitative nature of this study allowed student-athletes to express their
voice regarding the impact of participating in intercollegiate had on academic
pursuits. In reflecting on the socialization that occurred during college, participants
discussed four distinctive themes: (1) academic value added through intercollegiate
athletics; (2) the role of self and support of others; (3) student-athlete identity
conflict; and (4) the business of college athletics. When combined, these themes
provide a holistic perception of participants’ experiences as male student-athletes
participating in revenue-generating sports. When examined individually, these
themes provide insight into the struggles participants faced in adjusting to college,
balancing their academic and athletic commitments, and navigating the athletic and
academic cultures.
Academic Value Added Through Intercollegiate Athletics
Throughout the interview data, there existed a connection between the
student-athlete experience in high school and in college. In both cases, student-
athletes articulated a focus on athletic commitments and how participation in sports
served as a motivator for academic success. Participants discussed their focus on
athletics in high school and the impact sports had in the decision to attend college.
Additionally, athletic specific motivators, such as the college recruiting process and
athletic eligibility standards, created an environment that motivated academic
success both on the secondary and postsecondary institutions.

52
Pre-College Socialization
The socialization student-athletes faced in high school served as a foundation
to a similar socialization in college. In talking to the participants about their focus in
high school, student-athletes discussed a focus weighted heavily on their athletic
commitment. Participants described two prominent ideologies related to their high
school experiences and socialization. The first of these was the constant lack of
effort toward academic success; the second was the urgency to succeed academically
when the athletic recruiting process began. Edwards (2000) discussed the importance
of sports within the African American community, which led African American
athletes to overemphasize their athletic commitments more than their peers.
However, the data within this study suggests that scholarship athletes of African
American and Caucasian backgrounds both participated in high school experiences
that overemphasized athletic participation. Spencer, a Caucasian scholarship football
student-athlete stated, “My high school experience was mostly about football. I mean
I guess I was average in my academics but I really didn’t apply myself in high
school, I just didn’t care enough. I did what I needed to do to get by and have the
grades to play on the next level.” This apathetic effort towards academics was also
described by Benjamin, an African American sophomore football player, who stated
that his experience in high school was “just athletic to be honest, I mean I really
didn’t do much academically. I was really known as a football player and didn’t care
about my grades.” Finally, Hayden discussed the status that came with being a
student-athlete, “I had more focus on football because that was like the thing to be
the big man on campus. As a football player you never really know about
53
education.” Twenty of the twenty-four student-athletes interviewed discussed a poor
effort and outlook toward academic success during their early high school
experience; however, student-athletes also discussed the ability for college athletics
to increase the value of academic pursuits.
Similar to the lack of racial difference of academic effort in high school, both
Caucasian and African American student-athletes discussed a connection between
the added value to academics and the college athletic recruiting process. For
example, one participant stated, “Man, high school, like honestly, I don’t know how
I got by in high school. I just did what I needed to do in school to be able to play
football.” Another African American student-athlete, Manuel, articulated the high
school academic transition in more detail when he stated,
I would say in my freshman and sophomore years, I was like, ’Nah, I’m not
really thinking about school.’ I was mainly into sports and going to the NFL.
Come junior and senior years when I really found out that I was going to
need to be recruited if I wanted to go somewhere, that’s when I really put my
time into academics, ‘cause I knew I had to get my grades up to get to college
and be eligible to play.

For the elite student-athletes going through the high school recruiting process, the
need to qualify academically served as an academic motivator. The idea of added
academic value was not limited to African Americans, as a Caucasian student-athlete
Marc, who attended an academic elite West Coast high school, stated, “I didn’t go to
class at all, but when I found out that I needed to get grades to play in college, I
started to focus more on my grades.” Despite being afforded access to an elite
scholastic education, Marc demonstrated the ability to the athletic subculture to
54
create an environment that accepts apathetic attitudes towards academics until there
are athletic gains at stake.
The utilization of college athletics as a motivator for high school academic
success was limited to the student-athletes who went through the high school
recruiting process. Walk-ons, or non-scholarship student-athletes, possessed a strong
academic self-concept throughout high school. Christopher, a non-scholarship
football player, stated, “I was also focused on academics, since I wasn’t the best
player on the team and I knew I wanted to become an aerospace engineer or air pilot,
I knew I had to go to college to reach my ultimate goal.” Garrett, another walk-on
basketball player, discussed an academic balance when he recalled his experiences:
“It was a good combination of both because it was a pretty good school and I took a
couple of AP classes so I had to try to stay on top of that. I mean, since I wasn’t the
star on my team and was not being recruited heavily, I think that gave me a different
experience then many of the other guys on the team.”
Student-athletes’ idea of academics are shaped early by their participation in
scholastic athletics. There existed a constant unmotivated outlook towards academics
in the absences of athletic gains. The impact of intercollegiate athletic recruiting
facilitated the value needed for these student-athletes to meet academic standards.
This phenomenon crossed both racial and educational environments, but was limited
to student-athletes who were socialized to believe they had high athletic talents and
the ability to play in college.

55
Reasons for Attending College
Despite the added academic value to the high school experience, participants
also discussed a decision to attend college influenced by the ability to participate in
college sports. The three prominent reasons for attending college were: (1) a
dominant focus on athletic commitments; (2) the idea of using an athletic scholarship
as a way to explore intercollegiate participation and secondarily their academic skill
set; and (3) the idea of getting the “best of both worlds” in terms of securing the
ability to play professionally and obtain a high quality education.
Lance, who participates in football, was direct in articulating his reasoning
for attending college, “Honestly, I came to this school to play, mainly for football.”
Similar to the idea of coming to college to play football, other student-athletes
discussed the idea of college as the next step for playing sports. An African
American football player, Jarred, discussed his reasons for coming to college,
Uh, well for me, it’s a career; you know I always wanted to play football.
College was the next step for me to be able to get to the professional league.
You know I never really knew the steps when I was little but I knew I just
wanted to go straight to playing professional. When I got older, I realized you
got to go to college to be able to play professionally.

Twenty-two of the twenty-four participants expressed a desire to play professionally;
however, student-athletes also demonstrated that they utilize their athletic
scholarship to explore both their athletic talents and academic pursuits.
Senior student-athlete Spencer asserted his reason for attending college as, “I
got a football scholarship here, so I definitely wanted to pursue that and hopefully
take that as far as it goes, but I am also here to see what I can do in the classroom,
finish up, and get a degree.” George, a freshman student-athlete, also discussed the
56
idea of using an athletic scholarship to explore the possibility of an athletic career
and access to education, “I’m here because of my football scholarship and playing
football, so they gave me opportunity to come and see how college is and possibly
graduate.”
Along with the desire to play professional and the utilization of an athletic
scholarship, student-athletes discussed the opportunity to engage in both high quality
athletic and academic settings. Leonard, a transfer student-athlete, stated his reason
for attending college as,
A little bit of both [academic and athletic] I guess. I mean it started like an
opportunity to get to the next level. At the same time it is also a huge safety
policy and huge benefit to us along the way to be able to get this education
and be able to take that. If we don’t make it to play professionally we still
have a great opportunity with training for a career in something outside of
football. It is a good situation on both ends.

The idea of added benefit was also reported by Corey, a freshman football player,
who had just completed the decision making process: “It was pretty tough choosing
the college to go to. But I felt that this is the right school for me, because the
coaching staff knows what they are doing. They know how to see guys off to NFL;
but not only that, the academics here are great too. So I mean, I’m getting the best of
both worlds here.”
The current stigma on student-athletes is their desire to participate in higher
education is solely due to their desire to become a professional athlete (Sellers,
2000). Despite a majority of student-athletes’ desire to play professionally,
participants discussed the ability to utilize the access to college, through their athletic
scholarship, to explore educationally opportunities. Student-athletes exuded the
57
foresight to understand the likelihood of playing professional and the necessity of a
college education to success outside of sports.
Transitional Factors of Academic Value
Within the structure of intercollegiate athletics, student-athletes discussed
how environmental and personal factors added value to their academic experience. In
discussing factors supporting academic success, the participants described two
prevalent factors that facilitated a transfer of value from athletic participation to
academic success. Both the experience or visualization of injury and the use of
academic progress as supplemental to athletic performance and eligibility emerged
from the data.
The most common factors for the transfer of value from athletic participation
to academic success was a familiarity or fear of injury and the inability to compete in
professional sports. Patrick, who is recovering from an injury, discussed his
transition: “I know before I tore my ACL in high school, I was focused on only
football. Now I have like moved closer to education and not put all my future in
football or in one basket.” The impact of injury was not only limited to student-
athletes who experienced an injury themselves, Edward, a junior African American
participant recalled an academic motivating story:
My brother is four years older than me, and he got hurt playing and at that
point he had good grades. But then he stopped academically and he was like I
can’t play anyway so why do I need grades. He kind of slacked and picked
his grades up at the last second so he could play and he is telling me like you
know I just don’t like to slack because you never know what can happen.

Another student-athlete, Spencer, contemplated early college prior to graduating;
however, an injury suffered refocused his academic priority, he recalled this
58
experience: “I had thoughts about leaving early, but when I got injured, I knew going
pro was not guaranteed so I’m glad I stuck with it and got better grades. I will be
graduating in May.”
Student-athletes also discussed the importance of the academic structure in
support of their athletic gains. In particular, one student-athlete discussed how his
ineligible status served as a great motivator for academic success. Matthew, who is a
senior, reflected on his experiences when he stated, “Definitely, missing out on a
whole year of football, really six months, hit home with me. It made me refocus my
priorities to make sure I was able to compete both in the classroom and on the field.”
Fifteen participants discussed the ability to succeed academically would yield more
time to develop athletically. Marc, who was a highly recruited student-athlete,
discussed his thoughts:
I’m in a whole different spot and I most certainly don’t think I will be at my
peak two years from now or a year from now when I am eligible to leave and
so I know I need to compete in the classroom so I can have that extra year to
succeed on the field. I prefer to be able to get through and get my degree and
then move on.

Horace, a sophomore peer of Marc, remarked, “I plan on graduating, but I really
want to go pro, so, I mean, it goes both ways. I want to finish my years here so I can
get all the training I need before I go pro.”
In both high school and college, student-athletes articulated an added value to
their education as a direct product of their participation in athletic activities. Twenty-
three of the twenty-four student-athletes discussed academics as secondary to their
athletic commitments; however, an understanding existed of how important
academic success is to their aspiration to play professional sports. Mandated
59
academic standards and success rates create an environment that integrates academic
success with athletic pursuits. Student-athletes wanting to play professionally must
meet these academic standards in order to participate in athletic activities. These
levels of academic standards create a culture that sees student-athletes as having only
a desire to meet the low academic standards to participate in sports (Edwards, 2000).
Role of Self and Support of Others
Motivating factors and the existence of a support system presented the second
major finding of this study. When asked about the role of self and the support of
others, student-athletes discussed ideas that fell into three thematic areas: (1) an
internal motivation for success; (2) parental influence; and (3) peer support. Each of
the 24 participants discussed motivators for both academic and athletic success
within this subset of areas and the impact each has had on their development.
Internal Motivation for Success
Sixty percent of particpants discussed an internal desire to succeed
academically. Internal motivation was not relegated solely to focusing on academic
or athletic commitments, but it was integrated into an overall motivation to be
successful in college as well as life itself. Matthew, now as a senior, reflected on the
way college has affected his personal desires: “As I’ve gotten older, I’ve begun to
realize the importance of academics. I think college has helped me become my own
motivating factor. Yeah, motivating myself is important, when I was younger, it was
pretty difficult. But as you get older and you start to just see things and how you
gotta do this.” The development of a self motivating factor was not only seen in
scholarship student-athletes, Garrett, a junior walk-on student athlete, articulated his
60
motivation as, “I think that something I have learned through the college process is
that you have to do things for yourself, otherwise you won’t be motivated to do it.”
In addition to the development of an inner accountability during college,
Roger, an African American sophomore, talked about how he approaches academic
motivation from a personal standpoint:
I would say it is my own inner passion, you know when I set goal and I like
to reach it, my goal, which has always been a 3.0 GPA. Sometimes you know
I’m a big procrastinator but when it’s getting down to crunch time it is really
that inner passion and drive or strength that allows me to push through that
tiredness and get the job done. Every year I go into every class wanting an A
and then I kind of see where my classes are and I set goals. So I set goals
early and try to reach those goals, and that goal always would be a 3.0.

A personal drive to success was not solely found to be related to academic
success. Manuel, a senior student-athletes, articulated an example of a transference
of this desire between academics and athletics, “I’ll probably say just myself [as a
motivator], cause, you know, I gotta be willing to take care of work both on and off
the field because I’m the one living my life and not anyone else.” Mike also asserted,
“I think that [self motivation] is something you learn in college, you have to motivate
yourself. You need to be motivated to get up for 5 a.m. workouts, go to practice, and
then get all your work done for class. It is all on you to handle your business.” The
prevalence of an internal motivation was evident and it served as an important tool to
success both within the athletic and academic settings.
In motivating academic success, student-athletes have an innate and personal
drive. Additionally, student-athletes demonstrated the ability to transfer this self
motivation between both their athletic commitments and academic pursuits. Eighteen
of twenty-four student-athletes explicated the need to be self motivated as a
61
foundation for success. In addition to the foundation of self motivation, student-
athletes discussed an additional positive motivating factor – their parents.
The Role of Parents
In addition to the internal motivation, participants possessed the desire to
please parents academically along with academic pressures from family members
towards graduation. Benjamin described an interaction between him and his father
which has served as an academic motivator:
He [his father] didn’t go to college, just goes to work every day, and
struggles. You know, he’s a janitor. He says, ’You know you play football
but you have to get your degree, you don’t want to be doing what I’m doing.
You don’t want to come home. You don’t want to fail, drop out of school,
come back home, and have to clean toilets and so forth.’

Seven student-athletes also drew their motivation from watching the struggles and
successes of parents and family members. Andrew, a sophomore football player,
stated that his motivation comes from:
Watching my mom staying up late at night, because she was in college while
I was young. Seeing her stay up at night doing homework and I got a sister
going to college – and I want to follow behind them in my education because
they are both are going to be doctors. So I want to be educated as well and
know more.

In addition to the modeling of academic behaviors, participants described the
ability for proactive parents to assist in their academics. Matthew, a senior captain,
described his parents’ involvement when he acknowledged, “My parents are just
always on me about it, just about doing good in school and just, you know, like just
expressing to me how they felt as if they didn’t care if I played a down at football as
long as I graduated.” William confirmed his parents as being a proactive influence in
his education:
62
[My parents] help me edit some papers and stuff. You know when I got
questions; I just emailed my mom actually yesterday for the speech topic that
I have to do. And I’m only an child so my mom and dad know me, real well,
real close like my best friends, so I email mom ’what would you think I
would like to do for the speech topic.’ So she emailed me back three options.
So they are always in my ear to help me with little things.

Finally, ten student-athletes articulated that their parents motivated them
academically by integrating athletic participation with academic success at an early
age. Stephen remembered, “My dad when I was growing up, he didn’t let me play
football unless I had a 3.0 grade point average. One year I [was unable to play]
because I didn’t have the grades and he wouldn’t let me play.” Christopher
confirmed the prevalent notion, within participants, of parents tying athletic
participation to academic success, “[His mother] would like take away my ability to
play football if I didn’t do my work. I couldn’t work out or do anything.”
Student-athletes discussed two ways in which parents served as motivators
for academic success. First, student-athletes talked about the modeling positive
parental behavior towards academics. Participants recalled seeing their parents
persevere through academic hardships and used that as a form of motivation for
personal success. Additionally, proactive parents also serviced as constant motivators
for academic success. Parents involved in educational activities and those tying
athletic participation to academic success, served as role models to ensuring
academic success over athletic pursuits. Despite the ability for parents to positively
motivate academic success, peers created an environment that did not mirror positive
academic messages.

63
Support from Teammates and Athletic Department Personnel
Despite the intrinsic motivation and the parental support to succeed at a high
academic level, the structure of intercollegiate athletics still provides support that
reinforces minimal success strictly related to athletic participation. Participants
discussed the inability for members of the athletic community, and non-athletic
peers, to motivate academic success. When asked about the support of teammates,
coaches, and other athletic administrators, Roger described the support he felt:
You know there is not a lot of academic support from teammates and coaches
until someone starts to slip with grades. The idea is that if I keep my 3.0, 2.9,
2.0 just to go down little low as to 2.0 it doesn’t matter I am eligible. I mean
of course you don’t want someone just going by the whole time with a 2.0
but if you see someone is getting that 3.0 and you think they should a 3.2
there is really is no need for teammate and coaches to push them.

Patrick confirmed the same sentiment regarding academic support, “[We] really
never talked about, unless it’s a question of eligibility, like we kind of don’t talk
much about academics.”
Participants established that the role of teammates and coaches mainly
focused within the realm of athletic success. Garrett, a walk-on student-athlete,
recognized that “the team has to worry about winning, you know. But at the same
time they know have to keep their grades up so they can play.” The constant
connectedness by the coaches and teammates between academics and athletic
participation permeated through many discussions. The same ideology was
expressed by scholarship and walk-on players along with both African American and
Caucasian student-athletes.
64
Despite the structure of peer support that reinforces eligibility standards,
participants routinely mentioned a single individual as the key academic motivator.
George, a freshman, stated, “the older guys, the ones who know that academics is
key, they’ll be the ones to tell you like, you know, to make sure you keep your
grades up cause you don’t wanna, you know, fall behind or anything like that.”
Corey, another freshman, went further to describe the specific individual when he
said, “LJ did the most [supporting academically] because he would tell us that we
need to get our grades right to succeed. LJ was a bright guy even off the field he had
good grades, I think he had over 3.0.” The same sentiment was describe by a
sophomore, Lance, when he recalled, “We don’t really talk about academics much as
a team, except for LJ. LJ is always on us to get our work done in class. I guess he
wants everyone to play.” Through the comments from the participants, it becomes
clear that the team structure related to academic support is minimal and reinforces
the attainment of only eligibility standards of academic success. However, even one
individual who is passionate about academic success can make a large difference.
Student-Athlete Identity Conflict
In addition to adding academic value and the role of self and support of
others, student-athletes discussed an inherent identity conflict between balancing
roles as both students and as athletes. While different experiences existed,
participants discussed three major subset themes. The first was an understanding of
their role as a student and a conscious effort to refute athletic stereotypes. Second,
the participants articulated a desire to be a “regular” student within an academic
setting. Finally, the student-athletes discussed an understanding of the athletic
65
stereotype from both the faculty and fellow students. The participants talked further
about wanting to debunk the stereotype and how it affected their participation in
class.
Separation of Academic and Athletic Roles
When asking participants about the integration of their athletic role within the
classroom, all the participants discussed an understanding of separating their athletic
and academic identities. Matthew, a senior, stated, “I don’t like be labeled as one [an
athlete]. I’m stepping away from football when I get in the classroom.” Henry, a
freshman athlete, in his second semester, recalled a similar situation when he said, “I
don’t think it matters that I’m an athlete, when I step in the classroom I want
everyone to know me as student before an athlete.”
In an effort to separate their athletic and academic roles, participants
discussed how they avoid introducing themselves as an athlete until necessary.
Junior Edward stated that he does not tell faculty members that his is an athlete
because, “I just feel they don’t need to know that cause I am regular student in
class.” Richard presented another strategy for introducing oneself in class as,
Generally, I like to introduce myself on the first day of class as just a normal
student. Like ‘hi my name is Richard and I am taking your class.’ I mean
during season it is bound to come up when I need to leave early for a road
trip or something, but I think that it really doesn’t matter in the class if I am a
football player or not.

Finally, Horace utilized a similar approach to separate his academic and athletic
roles, “I mean I don’t think it matters that I play football until I need to miss class or
turn an assignment in late because of traveling, but that only happens during season.”
66
As part of separating their roles as a student and an athlete, participants
discussed the enjoyment of taking classes with fellow student-athletes, but their
hesitation in working closely with them in the academic setting. For example,
William, a junior basketball student-athlete was quoted,
I mean it can be cool to take a class with an athlete cause you know someone
in the class and they can help with other things. But, it is also cool to take
classes with regular students as well cause you know we spend the majority
of our time with other athletes and it is cool to hang out with them as well
and meet new people.

Manuel, a senior, reported a similar sentiment about the enjoyment of taking classes
with other athletes when he said, “Yeah I like it, cause you have somebody to like
get your back. You know, that safety net.” He went further to explain his
reservations about taking class with his athletic peers “But as far as being in class
with them, I can’t sit with them. I will just wanna talk to them all day, so I kind of
like separate myself and put myself in the corner and pay attention.” That
acknowledgment and conscious desire to separate academic and athletic roles in key
to the development of a self concept rooted in balancing academic and athletic
commitments.
Desire to Be a “Regular” Student
Building on the separation of the academic and athletic roles, participants
discussed a desire to be a “regular” student while they are in class. Defensive starter
and senior Matthew stated, “I just wanna be a regular student. I mean I’m not on the
field or nothing like that.” Basketball student-athlete, Leonard explained in detail
when he said, “I mean I play basketball, but basketball is not the only thing that I do
and it doesn’t define me. In the classroom, I wanted to be known as just another
67
regular student who gets their work done and takes classes.” The separation of the
academic and athletic identities was an important distinction participants made. The
conscious awareness of their identities allowed the student-athletes to navigate their
dual roles as student-athletes.
Both scholarship and non-scholarship student-athletes discussed an
understanding of an academic role. “Because you know I am not just a football
player, I am a regular student too,” remarked Stephen, who is on scholarship. Walter,
who is also on scholarship, discussed his desire to blend into the normative class
structure. He discussed how he goes straight to his seat in class and just “tries to
work hard just as a regular student and get good grades.” The desire to be a regular
student was also felt by non-scholarship athletes, evident when Leonard stated that
he does not introduce himself as an athlete because, “I don’t want any more attention
drawn to myself already, you know, cause just I’m me and not only basketball
player.” The desire to be seen as “regular” student in an academic setting is related to
the understanding the participants had of the “dumb and lazy jock” stereotype and
the desire to refute it.
Awareness of the “Dumb Jock” Stereotype
All twenty- four participants acknowledged the existence of the “dumb jock”
stereotype on campus. Often times the stereotype was expressed when participants
talked about their interaction with academic peers in class; however, the idea was
also present in the treatment from faculty. Hayden recalled his interaction with a
fellow academic peer and being told, “Well, you don’t got to do anything. You’re
gonna get an A anyways.” Mike also reflected on his interactions with his academic
68
peers and stated, “The regular students in class don’t think I am as smart as them or
something or that we get away with more stuff so, it is kinda frustrating.” The
persistent exposure to a negative stereotype created a culture that disenfranchised the
student-athletes prior to any class assignment or test.
The stereotype and treatment went beyond the interaction with peers and
extended into the way faculty members perceive and treat the participants. Football
student-athlete Patrick explained, “Actually some [faculty members] are especially
hard on you because they think you just got everything paid for, you are not working
hard like that stuff and really they honestly don’t know what is going on.” This
attitude was shared by Spencer, who stated,
I think they [the faculty] already stereotype student-athletes into how they are
gonna be. They think ‘Oh he’s gonna slack. He might do this and that.’ I
think most of it is negative and faculty thinks a lot that as football players we
are giving grades and all this extra help. Sometimes I feel that they think we
don’t even belong in the classroom and we are just here to play football.

The idea of the “lazy jock” stereotype from faculty members transferred into
lower expectations for academic success. This is evident by the exchange between
the interview and Christopher:
Interviewer: Okay, now let us talk about your professors. Do you think the
professors treat you differently because you are an athlete?

Christopher: I think that in some cases they just expect less and that we are
lazy.

Interviewer: What do you mean by they [the faculty] expect less?

Christopher: Like if the average grade in the class is a C, they expect us to
meet the average. And, just being honest, I really think that
they do not expect us to meet the average. They are surprised
if an athlete makes an A in the class and the average grade is a
C, they are really surprised.
69

Despite the stereotypical behavioral many participants faced, four student-
athletes discussed different experiences with faculty members. Mike discussed the
“hit-and-miss” phenomenon that exists with faculty members when he stated that
faculty treatment is,
Hit and miss if you are going to get that professor who doesn’t like football at
all, so it is better to play it safe and not put yourself out there right away.
Especially if you do well in the beginning of the class you begin to prove that
teacher wrong that treats football players negatively.

Mike went on further to clarify, “Sure you will get that professor that calls you out in
class for being a football player and that sucks, but then you next class could be with
a season ticket holder who understands the demands of being a football player.” The
inconsistent and negative treatment of student-athletes by faculty members creates an
environment of fear for student-athletes. This fear was both socialized into the
student-athletes’ mentality toward the classroom environment and created
apprehension towards engaging with faculty members.
Despite the interactions with faculty members and non-athlete peers, non-
scholarship athletics discussed a positive experience. Non-scholarship football player
Christopher provided a positive experience with members of the faculty when he
stated, “I am pretty sure they treated me the same as they treated any other regular
student. If anything maybe a little more lenient in terms of how I show up in classes
and be exhausted some days and be like come up to me and ask if everything is ok.”
The only other participant who had an overall positive experience with faculty
members, George, expressed,
70
I have had great professors you know I have had teachers that are willing to
stay after with me, are willing to give me an extension, and are willing to
meet me before with something that I have missed out before a test. I have
had great professors and luckily every one of them has been really lenient
towards my schedule and my stuff, so it’s been great. They have helped me a
lot.

In balancing the roles of both a student and an athlete, participants described
their ability to separate an athletic identity from an academic one when in an
academic setting. Additionally, student-athletes discussed the prevalence of the
“dumb jock” stereotype by both academic peers and faculty members. Despite a
variance in experiences with faculty, the majority of participants discussed lower
expectations, unequal treatment, and the reinforcement of the “dumb jock”
stereotype created an unfriendly academic environment.
Business of Intercollegiate Athletics
Intercollegiate athletics, especially men’s football and basketball, are now
“big businesses” for colleges and universities. Participants demonstrated an
awareness of the business side of college sports and the impact it has on their
personal development. Participants further defined the business of intercollegiate
athletics as the underlying desire for the athletic department to increase revenues and
produce athletically successfully teams. The following data will present a
representation of the ability for the business of college athletics to affect: (1) pre-
college recruiting process; (2) first-year experiences and redshirting practices; and
(3) the fatigue from athletic commitments.
Pre-College Recruiting Process
“The parents’ main concern is academics, the coaches know that and play
71
that up when they [coaches and parents] are together. They know us kids are mainly
focused and they use that to their advantage. It is pretty much a big business.”
Manuel’s statement above represents the general sentiment felt by participants when
they were asked about the integration of academic conversations in the recruiting
process. All participants mentioned that the coaches and athletic administrators
increased the awareness of academic opportunities when parental figures were
present. When asked about the blend of academics and recruiting, Horace stated,
“Talking to the parents about academics more than the athletes is just part of the
recruiting game.”
William recalled how athletic administrators isolated discussion about
academic opportunities with certain individuals, “I think all schools sell the
academic side of the university more when they are talking to the parents. Most of
the time that is what the parents are really concerned about and they want the parents
to think that the academics are their primary focus.” Jarred added, “all the athletic
departments try to sell you on whatever [the coaches] think sounds good to you.”
Jarred went further to describe the recruiting process, “ I quickly realized that the
recruiting process was a big game and the coaches will say whatever they need to say
to get you to play at their school. If that means playing up the academics when the
parents are around then they will do that.”
Finally, there exists a third response that if parents or student-athletes had a
desire to gather information about the academic side of the athletic department they
needed to be proactive with the coaches and athletic administrators. An African
American sophomore, Andrew, recalled, “They talked about academics only when
72
my dad brought it up. I mean they didn’t just come out and say all this stuff about
academics, but once my dad brought it up they started to talk about. Once he asked
questions they knew that he was interested in and they could sell him on it.” Jarred,
an African American student-athlete as well, stated, “I quickly realized that the
recruiting process was a big game and the coaches will say whatever they need to say
to get you to play at their school. If that means playing up the academics when the
parents are around then they will do that.” Nearly every African American student-
athlete discussed a similar idea of needed to be proactive in gathering information on
the academic opportunities during the recruiting process.
Despite the struggle African American student-athletes had in gathering
information, Caucasian student-athletes described a different experience, in that
discussions regarding academic opportunities were readily discussed during the
recruiting process. Caucasian freshman Mike described the infusion of academics in
the recruiting process when he said, “The athletic department talked about the entire
program. I mean since I was a 4.0 student in high school they focused on the
opportunities in the School of Business and Communication because I was
interested.” William, another Caucasian student-athlete, remembered:
You know the athletic department showed me a lot of the academics because
that’s something I was interested in. They knew that academics were really a
strong factor for me and coming here, I thought that the School of Business is
actually a better business school that the one Stanford had. It was really a
selling point for me and the coaches made sure to play that side up during my
official and home visits.

In attempting to “sell” student-athletes to attend a university, athletic recruiters
discussed academic opportunities less frequently with African American student-
73
athletes than Caucasian student-athletes. In doing so, African American student-
athletes and parents, had to be proactive in asking questions about academic
opportunities and had to possess the educational capital, or experience, to know the
questions to ask. The business of college athletes places a large importance on
getting the next “super star”, which creates an unequal emphasis on academic
opportunities. The impact of the business of intercollegiate athletic also affected the
policies and procedures surrounding redshirting during the first year of college.
Restriction with Redshirting
Up until 1973, freshmen were not eligible to participate in intercollegiate
athletics until their second, or sophomore, year of college. Now, student-athletes are
eligible to participate the moment they arrive on campus. Both student-athletes who
redshirted and those who did not, discussed the impact it had on their development as
a student-athlete. When asked if redshirting was a benefit for him, Manuel, a senior,
stated:
At first I didn’t really want to redshirt cause everyone wants to play their first
year they get here. But looking back on it, it gave me a chance to focus a
whole year on my academics and get nailed down and stronger.

Walter, a sophomore shared the same sentiment:

I mean redshirting that first year made things a lot easier for me. I was able to
focus on my academics and it gave me an extra year at the end to focus on
football. I mean it sucked to not get to play that first year, but it was
necessary to get my grades up.

Student-athletes also described a positive academic foundation that was a
product of their redshirting. George, a freshman, currently redshirting, stated, “I
think [redshirting] helped to provide a foundation for academics, so I don’t run into
74
any trouble down the road.” The same idea was also presented when Patrick
discussed his positive redshirting experiences:
I mean it gave me a chance to focus my first year on my grades and allowed
me to get things straight so I didn’t have any issues with my grades later on.
It also gave me an extra year so I didn’t have to take so many classes during
the season.

Edward attributed the benefits of redshirting more directly to their athletic
pursuits. He stated redshirting was “good, cause it provides you that cushion and you
can take bullshit classes your senior year and focus on getting ready for the pros.”
Edward went further to say, “It gave me a chance to get bigger, stronger, and learn
the system.” Even participants who did not redshirt during their first year articulated
the ability for redshirting to impact athletic and academics gains.
Student-athletes who did not redshirt during their first year on campus talked
about the idea of both academic and athletic gains due to the lack of pressure to
compete in athletic competitions. For example, Leonard, a sophomore, stated his first
year of college:
Would have been easier if I redshirted. I mean you don’t have all the
pressures of playing and you have a chance to get adjusted to the college
environment. As a freshman, you don’t know where everything is and you
want to make sure you are on time for everything and having that first year to
really get adjusted is key, as it allows you to get a good academic base.

Mike, a freshman, followed the same line of thought when he stated, “when you
redshirt you get an extra year and the transition to college is easier because you
aren’t playing on [game days].”
The connection between redshirting and the decline in pressures to play
during the first year was not only seen in underclassmen. Matthew, a senior, recalled
75
thinking, “redshirting would have been a good opportunity for me to get used to the
college environment and not have to worry about playing in the games every week.”
He went further to qualify his reasoning for not redshirting as, “but, I got to play my
first year that I think it was worth it.” Edward, a junior student-athlete, confirmed the
upperclassmen’s position when he stated:
Yeah, of course redshirting would have helped. I mean it gives you more time
to do your academics. I mean you still have to go to practice and all, but it is
not like you have to worry about playing in the game and getting ready
mentally. There is more of a burden on your shoulders when you are a
freshman and playing in the games every week.

The overwhelming response from participants articulated that the benefits of
redshirting outweighed the internal desires to participate in athletic competitions
during the first year. However, the business mentality of college sports precludes
elite student-athletes from redshirting as athletics gains takes precedence over
academic success. Student-athletes that enter college with a high level of skill
participate in athletics from day one and are unable to gain the benefits of
redshirting.
Athletic Fatigue
The same desire to win and generate revenue creates and environment filled
with hardships in participating in intercollegiate athletes. Student-athletes discussed
hardships such as fatigue from athletic commitments and the impact the athletic
academic support structure had on their academic and athletic development.
Academic support is mandated through athletic compliance and the pressures to
success athletics increase the intensity of athletic workouts; each of these are
76
products of the “business” of college athletics and creates an environment that is not
conducive to academic success.
Athletic fatigue emerged as a prominent product of the athletic environment.
Hayden, a freshman, recalled his thoughts after practice, “My schedule is so packed
that I have to run from practice to my first class and sometimes we don’t have the
time get there or I just wanted to take five minutes to sit in my locker, relax, and
close my eyes.” George, another freshman, further described his desire to take a few
minutes to relax when he said, “you just wanna take a few seconds, close your eyes,
and relax for a few moments before going to class. But, our schedule does not let us
do that unless we are going to be late to class.” Finally, Manuel, a senior, discussed
in detail the impact fatigue has on his academic experience:
During the season, it is crazy; I am constantly tired from all the training and
practices. It is really hard to find time to study. The coaches keep telling us
that it is important to go to class and get our work done, but most of the time
I am too tired for my early morning classes to even study at night. Sometimes
I can’t read cause I’m too tired.

All scholarship student-athletes discussed the inability to have time for
themselves and how their schedules account for every minute of the day. Sophomore
student-athlete, Marc, provided insight into his schedule when he stated, “I mean
every hour is accounted for. We [student-athletes] are being pulled in every direction
and need to be here than be there. Sometimes you just wanted to get that extra 10
minutes for yourself to gather your thoughts.” Finally, freshman Corey recalled his
experience:
The hardest adjustment for me was getting used to the schedule demands we
have and trying to stay 100 percent healthy all the time. As an athlete, you are
always tired, and it makes it hard to get up for class. It makes it hard to take
77
notes, study hard, and do things to be successful. Because in high school, you
can stay up late like every night to get your stuff done, but when I got here, I
just wanted to sleep every time I had a free hour, I just wanted to crash. The
schedule is so different from that in high school.

The experiences of these scholarship student-athletes were different from that
of the non-scholarship athletes interviewed. When talking about his experiences and
the impact of a full schedule, Garrett, a non-scholarship basketball player, stated:
Trying to go to class right after practice is tough, but I think the other guys
[scholarship athletes] who have to go to tutoring and all that other mandatory
stuff have it worse. I get to go home instead of having tutoring until like 10
p.m. so I think that helps. Also, I have more flexibility with my schedule
cause I don’t have all the mandatory things.

Christopher, a non-scholarship athlete on the football team, articulated a similar
position when he said, “I think my experience is different because I am not on
scholarship. Sure, I have to go to practice and games, but I have the ability to pick
my classes and relax some times.” The difference in scheduling was often times
attributed to the academic support and structure, which only scholarship players
experienced. Similar to the pressures of the recruiting process, the business of
college athletics stresses the importance of winning and creates an environment that
forces student-athletes to practice at an intense level, leaving themselves with no
energy with their academics. Student-athletes in this study discussed the impact of
the business of intercollegiate athletics and its effect on building an academic
foundation through redshirting and the inability to have the necessary energy to
success academically. Student-athletes on scholarships experienced the majority of
the “business” as they are required to participate in mandatory study-hours, tutoring,
and advising sessions. Non-scholarships athletes, without the financial backing on
78
the athletic department, felted empowered to choose their own classes and navigate
their own study schedule.
Summary of Findings
The data presented examined the question of the factors involved in the
academic socialization of male revenue generating athletes. As discussed, student-
athletes faced four major socializing themes during their collegiate experience. The
first was the ability for intercollegiate athletics to act as a motivator for student
secondary and postsecondary academic success. Student-athletes discussed the need
to achieve academically to both be recruited to and participate in intercollegiate
athletics. Secondly, student-athlete discussed the role of self and the support of
others. Student-athletes discussed an innate and internal desire to achieve
academically while balancing the positive support of parental figures and the
negative academic support of teammates and coaches.
The data further described an identity conflict that student-athletes face in
balancing their role as both a student and an athlete. Participants articulated a
conscious separation between their athletic and academic roles along with a desire to
be known as a “regular” or a “real” student when they engaged in academic
activities. There existed awareness, among participants, of the “dumb jock”
stereotype perpetuated by non-athletic peers and faculty in academic settings.
Student-athletes exhibited a desire to refute that stereotype. Finally, student-athletes
discussed the “business” of intercollegiate athletics. Their experiences during the
recruiting process and their first-year demonstrated the nature of intercollegiate
athletics and the desire for athletic gains at the expense of academic success.
79
Additionally, the issues surrounding fatigue and scheduling were described as such
that student-athletes felt they significantly influenced their ability to connect socially
and academically. The data presented provided a holistic view of the socialization
student-athletes face during their collegiate experience. The data provided evidence
that members of the athletic subculture, university staff, and community and family
members all affect the development of student-athletes’ academic and athletic
success. Understanding the socialization process is key to provide a positive
experience for student-athletes.

80
Chapter Five

Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations for Practice

This study examined the socialization experienced by male revenue-
generating student-athletes at a Division I institution. Data illustrated the impact of
the athletic subculture, collegiate environment, and community culture on the
academic experiences of student-athletes. In particular, this research sought to
understand the influence the socialization process has on academic and athletic
experiences. Three questions were asked: (1) what components of the athletic
subculture influence socialization; (2) how did components of the non-athletic, or
campus, culture impact the academic and athletic experiences of student-athletes;
and finally (3) how did the community, or non-athletic factors have on the
development of academic and athletic ideologies?
In answering the research questions, the aim of Chapter five is to utilize the
theoretical framework to examine the underlying assumptions and connecting theory
to practice. Briefly reviewing the literature, researchers have found a correlation
between participation in intercollegiate athletics and a disadvantaged environment
(Hollis, 2002). Male student-athletes are especially susceptible to obstacles regarding
academic success (Edwards, 2000), family pressures (Gropper, 1991), and an over
emphasis on athletic participation (Sellers, 2000). This overrepresentation of athletic
participation leads to a decrease in academic importance through the socialization
process.
This socialization has been empirically linked to participation in
intercollegiate athletics (Bloom & Smith, 1996). Berns (1997) found that agents such
81
as family, peers, athletic and university administrators, and role models socialize the
development of ideas towards academic pursuits. In further examining the impact of
athletic departments of socializing student-athletes ideas, Young (1983) found that
departmental values are socialized within the student-athletes through direct and
indirect contact with student-athletes. Data presented in Chapter four illustrate the
business of college sports and the impact on decreasing the importance of academics
while stressing the need to win and produce revenue. This movement towards a
professional sports mentality has crippled the ability for the athletic department to
promote positive academic success.
The theoretical framework served as the lens for interpreting the findings in
this study. First, Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory provides an understanding
of the impact of modeling on the socialization of athletic desires and success.
McPherson (1976) found that the athletic environment is absent of positive modeling
opportunities for minority student-athletes who are faced with stereotypes and stigma
marginalizing their academic abilities. The previous chapter presented findings that
illustrate the inability of student-athletes to model positive academic behavior due to
a decrease in academic importance, restrictive athletic culture, and the business of
athletics all of which are more concerned with “exploiting the athletic talent [of
student-athletes] than with nurturing academic potential” (Sack & Staurowsky, 1998
p. 104).
In addition to the inability to model positive academic behaviors, student-
athletes are presented with an environment filled with constant stereotypes. Building
on the theory presented by Bandura (1977), Steele and Aronson (1995) state that
82
individuals surrounded by negative stigmas will experience anxiety when they risk
confirming a negative stereotype of a task. The presence, or understanding, of
negative stereotype leads to a decrease in performance on the stereotyped task. The
student-athletes in this study discussed an environment filled with negative stigmas
created by faculty and peers. Engaging in negative situations isolated student-athletes
from the campus community and forced them to accept an athletic identity at the
expense of academic gains as they risked confirming the dumb jock stigma.
The acceptance of athletic roles was especially true in African American
scholarship athletes, as they were engaged in an environment that constantly
marginalized academic opportunities and overemphasized the prospects of athletic
success. Athletic departments foster the negative stereotypes of academics initially
socialized within a secondary environment. Student-athletes were forced to navigate
through the stigma-filled academic environment alone, while succeeding in athletics
as a collective whole.
Utilizing past literature and the theoretical framework, this study first
contends that participation in intercollegiate athletics creates an environment filled
with barriers towards academic success. The negativity was not isolated solely
within the athletic department as it was experienced within both the academic and
peer community. Further analyzing each research question provides data to educate
members of the athletic, academic, and community cultures and will provide insight
into the socialization experienced by student-athletes. Second this study found that
the academic culture perpetuate the negative stereotypes surrounding student-
athletes’ academic competencies. Finally, the community and non-athletic culture
83
provided the only outlet for positive academic motivation and success. In assessing
the three culture of higher education, the athletic subculture affected student-athletes’
academic to the greatest degree.
Impact of the Athletic Subculture
The impact of the athletic subculture is linked to producing obstacle
impeding the academic success of student-athletes. Arnold (1970), Pearson (1981),
and Young (1983) all examined the impact of the athletic subculture on access to
college, academic success, and development of interpersonal relationships. Unlike
previous studies, this research examined the impact of intercollegiate athletic
participation on the academic socialization. In examining the socialization process,
this study found that participating in intercollegiate athletics affected four distinct
areas: (1) secondary education; (2) transitional value to academics in postsecondary
education; (3) athletic peer support; and (4) the business of intercollegiate athletics.
Starting as early as high school, participation in the athletic subculture created an
environment that emphasized academic and athletic gains.
The intercollegiate athletic subculture’s ability to motivate academic success
in secondary education was the single positive impact of the athletic culture. Student-
athletes recalled their high school experiences and desire to participate in
intercollegiate athletics. Student-athletes also acknowledged their understanding of
the academic standards of eligibility, which was motivating for academic success.
The recruiting process became a driving force in their academic motivation during
high school. Despite engaging in an interscholastic culture focused solely on
participating in sports, the impact of the intercollegiate culture outweighed the
84
influence of interscholastic athletics during the last two years of secondary
education. Moreover, the intercollegiate athletic subculture could not outweigh the
culture created by secondary institutions, which fostered an environment that did not
value educational success during the first two years. It took prudence for the student-
athletes to find the connection between academic success and college access. This
understand came through the recruiting process during the final two years of high
school.
A focus on athletics in secondary education created an environment where
individuals overemphasized their role as athletes. Data provided support the claims
made by Edwards (2000) who stated that African Americans are more likely to
accept their athletic commitments at the expense of their academic gains. However,
in contrast to the statements of Edwards who limited his findings to African
Americans, both African American and Caucasian student-athletes readily accepted
their athletic roles. Individuals from both groups articulated an extreme desire to
participate in intercollegiate athletics and use that desire as a form of motivation to
reach academic eligibility standards. Student-athletes did not have a desire to meet
academic standards to gain knowledge, but saw academics as another requirement to
participate in high school and college sports. Even though the intercollegiate athletic
culture motivates academic gains, it did not motivate academic gains in the true
sense of education, but promoted academic success at the marginal standards needed
to participate in intercollegiate athletics. The overwhelming popularity of
intercollegiate athletics has created pressures for high school athletic programs to
85
produce elite athletes. This increase popularity has forced interscholastic athletic
programs to adopt an outlook on education that mirrors college sports.
The transference of ideas can be explained using the medium of social
learning. The increase exposure for college sports has created athletic role models
within intercollegiate athletics (Sperber, 2001). College athletic programs have
become a popular role model for high school athletes. The popularity of college
sports serves as motivation for high school athletes to gain access to higher education
and subsequently professional sports. This motivation both facilitates an
overabundant acceptance of the athletic role and facilitates academic gains and
access to college.
Student-athletes, both African American and Caucasian, discussed the
importance of athletic participation in selecting an institution. Since Athletic U. has a
reputation for fostering elite student-athletes, participants saw intercollegiate
athletics as a next step to a professional career. The ability for the athletic subculture
to foster educational access, through scholarships and athletic aid, provided an
important access point. Student-athletes saw their ability to participate in
intercollegiate athletics as a key component to their college choice.
Student-athletes experience pre-college socialization that produces an
underlying belief that athletics is the only way to gain access to higher education.
Participants felt they were socialized to believe they do not possess the academic
ability to merit college admission and that they needed to rely on their athletic
abilities to serve as an access point. The findings confirm the research of Sperber
86
(2001), which found that student-athletes utilize college athletics as a tool to gain
admission.
Once student-athletes selected an undergraduate institution, a shift in focus
existed as student-athletes began to take advantage of educationally opportunities.
The desire to achieve academically, in most cases viewed as maintaining academic
eligibility and exhausting four years of athletic participation, was a product of the
socialization that occurred within the athletic subculture. Two reasons for succeeding
academically existed. Both reasons related directly to participating in intercollegiate
athletics. Student-athletes cited either experiencing or witnessing an injury as the
most prominent reason for taking advantage of the educational opportunities at their
college or university. The athletic culture creates an environment that socializes
student-athletes to succeed academically as a secondary option to athletic
participation and to only used if student-athletes are unable to obtain a career in
professional sports. This environment is advantageous for athletic departments as it
ensures student-athletes are focused on athletics and increasing the likelihood of
producing winning teams – a product of the business of athletics.
Along with the fear of becoming injured or not participating in professional
sports, the connection between academic standards and athletic eligibility emerged as
themes for academic success. Engstrom and Sedlacek (1991) found that university
personnel and non-athletic students perceived that student-athletes’ motivation to
succeed academically was rooted in athletic competition. Engstrom Sedlacek went
further to explain that student-athletes strive to meet academic standards in order to
eligible for athletic participation. While not to the same degree as the participants in
87
Engstrom’s and Sedlacek’s study, participants mentioned a similar motivation
derived from the mandated academic standards. Since academic standards are set at
levels that do not facilitate undergraduate graduation, athletic departments are
creating environments which promote academic success on the margins. Low
academic standards allow for easy attainment of athletic eligibility, therefore
fostering the revenue production of athletic departments. However, these standards
also marginalize the intellectual ability of student-athletes, as in most cases the
standards set are below normal graduation rates.
Student-athletes discussed an inability for their athletic peers to support high
standards of academic success, thus confirming the findings of Benson (2000).
Benson found peers, both athletic and non-athletic, have lower academic
expectations and standards for student-athletes. The dream to compete
professionally, described by Parmer (1994) as “a multidimensional set of behaviors
and fantasies propelled by the super-stardom through sport participation,” created an
environment in which peers support academic success only when it directly effects
personal or team participation. The notion of team success is a direct product of the
“win at all costs” philosophy discussed by Barefield, McCallister, Bungum, and Pate
(1997). The adoption of the “win at all costs” within athletic departments parallels
with the disenfranchisement of individual academic success of student-athletes. The
focus of college athletics is on team success, which often times create a role strain.
Student-athletes have to decide between team success, athletic commitments, or
individual accomplishments, often in the form of academic gains.
88
College sports have become a revenue producer for college campus. This
production of revenue has refocused athletics to operate as a business (Sperber,
2001). Participants acknowledged an understanding of the “business” of college
athletics, which predated their enrollment in higher education. Interactions between
the coaches and the student-athletes facilitated an environment filled with
socialization where the importance of academics was downplayed. The “game” of
the recruiting process and practice consisted of coaches and athletic administrators
telling prospective student-athletes what they wanted to hear for the good of the
athletic program. The purposeful exclusion of academic opportunities by coaches
and recruiters influenced student-athletes’ early perceptions of how important
academic success was to athletic departments.
The “business” of college athletics also extended to the first-year experience
of student-athletes and the inability to redshirt. The process of redshirting provided
an opportunity to acclimate to the collegiate environment while ensuring academic
success without the pressure of competing weekly. Despite being a practice aimed at
providing academic support, student-athletes discussed the benefits of redshirting as
it is related to athletic gains. Participants equated redshirting with taking lighter
academic course loads while they were competing in athletics, having an easy senior
year, and gaining an academic foundation to ensure athletic eligibility. Coaches and
athletic administrators have socialized student-athletes to find athletic gains even in
practices aimed at providing academic assistance. By attributing redshirting to the
athletic gains of easy class schedule and academic eligibility, coaches framed
redshirting in a manner that mirrored the recruiting process – overemphasis on
89
athletic gains. Again, the culture of intercollegiate athletics places academic success
secondary to athletic commitments and participation.
In addition to connecting athletics gains with academic practices, student-
athletes also discussed the restrictiveness of the athletic schedule. Hollis (2002)
discussed how many student-athletes miss class and are unprepared for academic
success due to an inability to devote enough time to academic pursuits. The data
from this study confirm an inability to attend class on time, study at night, and stay
awake in class because of the demands of their athletic schedule. Despite the
mandates of the NCAA that a maximum of 20 hours per week be devoted to athletic
commitments, student-athletes discussed how every second of the day was accounted
for and they desperately wanted a fraction of time devoted to self-health and
relaxation. The imbalance of athletic and academic commitments left participants
without the ability to interact with faculty outside of the classroom, socialize with
other students, and find the time and energy needed to study. By accounting for the
entirety of a student-athlete’s schedule, athletic departments can not only maintain
the student’s awareness of athletic commitments, but can also monitor their daily
activity and to ensure marginal academic compliance and eligibility.
Despite the positive impact participation in intercollegiate athletics had on
motivating academic success in high school, the athletic subculture negatively
socialized postsecondary academic pursuits. Starting with the initial socialization
during the recruiting process and continuing through the schedule demands, the
athletic culture restricts academic engagement and fosters athletic gains. The athletic
subculture served as the primary vehicle for socializing student-athletes; however,
90
the academic culture produced similar negativity regarding student-athlete academic
success.
Impact of Academic and Campus Culture
In discussing the impact of the academic and non-athletic collegiate culture
on the student-athlete experience, two major themes emerged. First, the academic
setting that existed both a separation of roles and desire to relate to other individuals
in an academic setting. Second, the data presented the impact of faculty members
and non-athletic peers had within the academic setting. Along with the athletic
culture, the academic environment also mediated academic socialization in this
study. The academic culture precluded student-athletes’ classroom engagement and
their ability to navigate an academic environment free of stereotypes and prejudices.
Student-athletes discussed a desire to be known as “regular” or “real”
students in a classroom setting. In contrast to the findings of Kerpelman et al. (1997)
and Brewer et al. (1993) who found that athletic participation leads to an acceptance
of a single athletic identity, participants demonstrated a desire to balance their
educational and athletic pursuits. Moreover, student-athletes argued that their
participation in sports was not a sole defining characteristic, nor did they want to be
known only as athletes. The fact that student-athletes had a desire to be known as
“regular” students demonstrates a lack of self confidence in their role as students.
Even though student-athletes were aware of their academic role, they continued to
internalize their role as athletes and place the “regular” student classification as a
goal. In placing that classification as a goal, student-athletes effectively self-
handicapped themselves as academics and marginalized themselves in the classroom.
91
In addition to the desire to be know an as a “regular” student, participants
made efforts to interact with non-athletic peers in a classroom setting to ensure
academic success. Past research has attributed the benefit of athletic peer
relationships to social interaction and support (Sellers, Kuperminc, & Damas, 1997)
and to a sense of belonging and acceptance to the athletic groups (Adler & Adler,
1991). Even though participants discussed a desire to relate to other athletes in class,
student-athletes went further in expressing a desire to maintain individuality in the
classroom in order to increase their chances of academic success. The ability of the
participants to belong to the athletic subculture while maintaining individuality in the
classroom is evidence that the findings of Kerpelman et al. (1997) and Brewer et al.
(1993) are not generalizable to all athletic programs.
Even though student-athletes discussed a desire to balance their dual roles as
student and athlete, they acknowledged that athletic commitments were the priority.
Chartand and Lent (1987) classified this phenomenon as the culture of restrictiveness
within an athletic structure. Despite a desire to maintain a dual identity, socialization
to the demands of athletic participation was more influential than socialization within
an academic setting. Two key constituents, faculty members and non-athletic peers,
played large roles in the inability for the academic environment to positively impact
student-athlete academic development.
Participants described an overwhelming sense of negativity surrounding
academic competency from their non-athletic peers in class. Confirming the findings
of Sellers (1992), where student-athletes perceived a stigma placed on their academic
competencies. Student-athletes perceived their non-athletic peers as seeing them as
92
academically inept and receiving preferential treatment in terms of academic grades
and support. Engaging in this negative academic environment socialized the
participants into decreasing the priority of academics. Rooney (1987) found that peer
interactions yielded the largest impact on socialization. When compounded with
stereotype threat theory described by Steele and Aronson (1995) – the academic
environment for the student-athletes was clouded by constant peer negativity. The
awareness of the stigma socializes student-athletes to believe they are unable to
success academically despite any academic effort.
Faculty members also impacted student-athletes’ academic socialization.
Carey (2000) argued that as a whole, the campus environment was filled with
stereotypes, prejudices, and racism towards African American, especially student-
athletes. However, African American scholarship student-athletes participants
discussed a high prevalence of being stereotyped. Data from this study confirmed the
claim of Carey as African American scholarship athletes discussed the “lazy jock”
stigma placed by faculty members. In addition to feeling that faculty members
assumed minimal effort toward academics, student-athletes also talked about the
lower standards faculty members had for them. DeFracesco and Gropper (1996)
found that African American students-athletes believe that it is more difficult for
professors to see them as competent students serious about their academics,
compared to Caucasian student-athletes – a finding that was confirmed in this study.
Engstrom et al. (1995) found a similar existence of stereotypes and an academic
deficiency stigma placed by the faculty on student-athletes; however, Engstrom and
colleagues did not delineate the impact of the faculty members by race or scholarship
93
status. The academic disenfranchisement faculty placed on African American
student-athletes mirrored the phenomenon during the recruiting process and
furthered the stereotype threat many of the student-athletes experienced.
In contrast to the experiences of African American scholarship student-
athletes, Caucasian scholarship student-athletes and non-scholarship athletes
discussed both positive and negative experiences with their professors. Caucasian
scholarship athletes discussed how some professors are comfortable interacting with
student-athletes’ while others discussed feeling a similar stigma described by the
African American scholarship athletes. The experiences between the Caucasian and
African American scholarship athletes might be explained by the increased exposure
and socialization Caucasian individuals have traditionally had to collegiate
academics and their experience with education (Beamon & Bell, 2006). Increased
access and understanding of faculty members help to break down the stigmas
associated with student-faculty interactions. An absence of these stigmas accounts
for the racial differences in student experience.
Non-scholarship athletes presented a positive outlook on faculty engagement.
Non-scholarship athletes discussed the ability to attend their professors’ office hours
and engage in after class discussions. Additionally, non-scholarship athletes
attributed a positive relationship with their faculty members to the direct assistance
the faculty provided with their athletic commitments. Non-scholarship student-
athletes’ ability to create a positive relationship is related to the absence of time
constraints traditionally placed on scholarship athletes. As stated previously,
mandated tutoring and study hours create a schedule for scholarship athletics that
94
does not allow interactions with a faculty member outside of the classroom or after
class hours. Umbach, Palmer, Kuh, and Hannah (2006) found that faculty
engagement outside the classroom is a key component is creating a meaningful
academic relationship and increasing engagement in educational practices for
student-athletes. The ability to engage with faculty outside of the classroom is more
readily available to non-scholarship athletes, and creating informal relationships with
faculty members leads non-scholarships athletes to report more meaningful and
positive experiences.
By experiencing negative stereotypes from faculty members, scholarship
student-athletes are placed into an environment with an inherent deficit. Lower
academic expectations create an academic culture that further isolates student-
athletes. This isolation perpetuates barriers for student-athletes to separate their
academic and athletic identities. Despite making conscious efforts to separate their
dual role, student-athletes face constant negativity when engaging in academic
activities, which ultimately leads to a lack of academic support and motivation from
external and campus sources.
Impact of Non-Athletic and Community Culture

Aside from the athletic culture’s decrease in academic importance and the
negative stereotypes placed on student-athletes in academic environments,
participants turned to parental figures and personal motivation to succeed. Due to
African American student-athletes’ inability to find campus personnel mentors, they
are often left to turn only to family and peers for support (Herndon and Moore,
2002). While the participants did not find positive campus support, two findings
95
emerged as successful academic motivators: (1) parental influence and (2) an internal
motivation. Each finding was positively connected to academic success.
McPherson et al. (1980) found that the family unit continues to be the most
influential socializing agent for academics gains. Herndon and Moore (2002)
discussed three types of personal involvement in student-athletes’ lives: positive
involvement; non-involvement; and negative involvement. Participants each
articulated at least one parent’s positive involvement and their contribution to
academic motivation. Herndon and Moore suggest that a positive parental motivator
takes into account students’ interest and desires in academics. Participants stated
proactive parents increased their desire for education through the practice of
integrating athletic participation with academic activities. For student-athletes, a
positive and proactive parental figure served as a constant motivator and one of two
outlets for positive academic support.
Positively engaged parents used constant reminders of economic
disadvantage and a desire for social mobility as a tool for motivating academic
success. Student-athletes recalled conversations with parents which centered on the
importance of education to secure a better life and meaningful employment created
motivation to succeed while in college. Since student-athletes, especially African
American student-athletes traditionally come from working class backgrounds
(Lapchick, 1982) they are socialized to use athletic talents to financial provide for
their family. Student-athletes are under family pressure to succeed, primarily in
athletics and secondarily academics, and serve not only as an agent of economic
mobility for themselves but for their family as well. Much of this socialization and
96
parental pressure was a product of social learning as student-athletes discussed the
impact of watching their parents struggle in long-hour and low-paying jobs. In
watching their family members struggle, student-athletes experience constant
reminders of what failure would hold for them.
More meaningful than the desire for social mobility, proactive parental
involvement was important in creating academic motivation. In discussing their
parents, student-athletes expressed two avenues parents took in motivating academic
success. Similar to that of mobilizing economic wealth, student-athletes discussed
the ability to learning from modeling proactive parents in their studies. In this case,
student-athletes discussed various examples of parents either assisting with academic
assignments by directly providing ideas or indirectly checking in with them to make
sure he was on track to complete academic work.
Student-athletes also discussed how parents emphasized academic success by
linking athletic participation to academic success at an early age. Parents suggested
how important education was by the eventual inability to participate in sports due to
a lack of academic focus. In accordance to the findings of Jeynes (2003), who
suggested that parent involvement positively impacts African American academic
motivation and success, parents of the student-athletes in this study played an
important role in motivating academic success and socializing academics as a
priority over athletics.
Contrary to the literature, participants did not discuss the presence of parental
socialization in athletics, thus refuting the claims of Lomax (2000), who stated that
African American families socialized their children to focus on athletics over
97
anything else. Within this study, both African American and Caucasian participants
discussed the constant reinforcement of the importance of academic success starting
at an early age and its continuation into postsecondary education. Even though
parents played a large role in reinforcing academic motivation, a more influential
academic motivator existed.
Despite the claims made by Herndon and Moore (2002), McPherson et al.
(1980), and Lomax (2000) regarding the importance of parental involvement,
participants in this study illustrated that the most profound academic motivator was
self-determination. Student-athletes overwhelmingly discussed the development of
an inner desire to succeed academically. Similar to the research of Shapiro and
Levine (1999), who found that self-accountability and motivation was learned
through the collegiate process and the openness of the college environment, student-
athletes experienced a similar experience related to their academic accountability.
Participants routinely discussed that they were primarily accountable for maintaining
academic success along with balancing athletic commitments. While students’
emphasized self-accountability with academics, they focused on team accountability
within athletics. The separation of accountability factors serves as another tool to
view the strain student-athletes face in higher education. They are given constant
support and have collective accountability within athletics, but must navigate and be
accountable for academic success alone.
The influence of the non-academic and community cultures was important in
providing a positive outlet for the student-athletes in this study to find academic
motivation. Despite the emphasis on personally motivating academic success in this
study, literature has yet to explore how intercollegiate athletic participation fosters or
98
hinders academic development through the socialization process. In addition, the
positive interactions of parents solely in the academic arena refuted many studies
that articulated the negative impact parents had on socializing student-athletes
towards an athletic identity.
Summary of Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the process of academic socialization of
male student-athletes in revenue-generating sports. More specifically, this research
examined the impact of three distinct cultures present within the postsecondary
environment. The theoretical lenses of social learning (Bandura, 1977) and
stereotype threat (Steele and Aronson, 1995) highlighted how the intercollegiate
subculture creates barriers to academic engagement. The process of socializing
student-athletes away from academics start prior to enrolling in higher education, as
athletic administrators and recruiters foster the stereotype that student-athletes,
particular African Americans, did not have an interest or the ability to succeed
academically.
After enrolling in higher education, student-athletes continued to face stigmas
associated with stereotype threat as faculty members and peers perpetuating lower
academic expectations and foster the idea that student-athletes did not possess the
intellectual ability to success academically. This negative academic environment
creates a role strain for student-athletes, as they attempt to separate their academic
and athletic roles. This strain leads to an overemphasis of athletic participation. The
only release from this negative stereotype was to internalize motivation or seek
parental reinforcement in order to succeed academically.
99
Further the socialization of the intercollegiate subculture was fostered
through social modeling. Student-athletes were unable to find positive peer or
administrative mentors to model academic success. Coaches and athletic
administrators created an environment that rewards athletic eligibility and through
limiting opportunities for academic success. Student-athletes’ sole opportunity for
positive modeling came from observing parents and family members struggle in low-
paying jobs. Social modeling socialized student-athlete to succeed and create a better
life for their family. In many cases, with the support of the athletic subculture,
success was fostered primarily in athletics with academics seen as a safety net or a
contingency plan. By socializing student-athletes to desire a professional sports
career, athletic departments maintained students’ concentration of athletic
commitments and facilitate a desire to win. This desire to win is at the heart of the
business of college sports and influences social, academic, and interpersonal
development of student-athletes.
Conclusions

I. Participation in intercollegiate athletics serves as an academic motivation both
within secondary and post-secondary educational environments.
II. The business of intercollegiate athletics leads to a disproportionate impact on
the anticipatory socialization of African American student-athletes and creates
numerous athletic commitments and the inability to explore opportunities on
campus. Moreover, the business of intercollegiate athletes creates an athletic
subculture that rewards a high level of athletic success while keeping
academics on the margins.
100
III. Student-athletes felt the academic culture continues to foster the “dumb jock”
mentality. Student-athletes internalize this stigma that faculty and student peers
perpetuate. The student-athletes eventually find internal motivation with help
from parental figures to succeed academically and refute the stigma associated
with being a student-athlete in college.
IV. Parental involvement and internal motivation were the two driving forcing to
the socialization of academic success with student-athletes. An internal passion
for academics was developed through participation in the college combined
with the pressures of intercollegiate athletics.
Recommendations for Practice
The findings of this study are useful in creating a collegiate environment that
better serves the student-athlete population. The following presents key
recommendations for: (1) K-12 educators and athletic administrators; (2)
postsecondary administrators; (3) faculty members; (4) intercollegiate coaches; and
(5) the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).
K- 12 Educators and Athletic Administrators
Socialization of student-athletes not only occurs in the intercollegiate athletic
setting; participation in interscholastic athletic programs also shaped personal
ideologies toward academics (Adler & Adler, 1991). Student-athletes discussed
academic disengagement during the first two years of high school. Academic
engagement was not seen until success in the classroom was correlated with access
to intercollegiate athletics. It is imperative that K-12 educators and athletic
administrators create an athletic structure that not only demands higher academic
101
standards but also rewards academic success with participation in interscholastic
sports. By raising the eligibility standards or increasing the number of study hours
needed, K-12 educators would place an increased emphasis on academic success.
In addition to creating more efficient academic incentive programs for
student-athletes in high school, K-12 educators and athletic personnel also need to
become involved with the recruiting process and serve as additional resources for
student-athletes. By engaging in the recruiting process, K-12 educators will be
equipped to ask questions regarding academic opportunities and foster positive
ideologies of academic success – altering the anticipatory socialization currently
occurring. By creating an environment that places higher value on academics, K-12
administrators can begin to change the culture and create a transition from secondary
to postsecondary institutions of high academic expectations.
Postsecondary Administrators
Student-athletes are often only exposed to the athletic department and are
isolated from general campus activities. Postsecondary administrators and student
affairs personnel should begin to engage student-athletes on a level that integrates
them into the large campus community. Postsecondary administrators might consider
becoming involved in the recruiting process of scholarship athletes. Currently there
is a lack of exposure to academic opportunities during the recruiting process,
particularly among African Americans. Postsecondary administrators’ involvement
in the recruiting process, extending letters of information, or attending home
recruiting visits would not only provide student-athletes with access to information,
102
but would also create positive connections between the campus and the athletic
department.
Utilizing the connection built during the recruiting process, more
postsecondary administrators should consider becoming educated and engaged on
issues regarding intercollegiate athletics. Athletic departments and campus personnel
often have a reactive relationship, interacting only in times of crisis. By creating
constant communication, the athletic subculture will be better integrated into the
general campus culture. Increasing the education of postsecondary administrators on
issues student-athletes face will allow campus administrators to view the student-
athlete population as a non-traditional group and implement services that aid in
social and academic development. The current aid student-athletes receive from
within the athletic subculture is rooted in athletic gains. By providing campus
services to student-athletes, there will be a refocus in the environment that ties
academic gains to success in life.
Faculty Members
Faculty members play a large role in students’ level of academic engagement
(Campbell & Campbell, 1997). The same holds true for student-athletes. The
negative stereotypes and low standards created a culture unable to foster academic
success. Faculty members might begin to integrate student-athletes with the general
student body through group projects and assignments. The student-athletes in this
study discussed a separation of their athletic and academic roles along with the desire
to be known as “regular” students. Creating an environment that integrates both
student-athletes and traditional students will not only increase the likelihood of
103
academic success but will also start to refute the negative stereotypes non-athletic
peers have regarding student-athletes.
In addition to integrating student-athletes with other students, faculty
members need to be proactive in their approach with student-athletes. The schedule
of demands and the culture of negativity have made it difficult for scholarship
athletes to approach faculty to assist them (Pascarella et al., 1999). Faculty members
should consider approaching struggling student-athletes and offering flexible
assistance to match the student-athletes’ time demands. This approach will not only
aid in academic success but will socialize the student-athlete population to the
positive gains from integration with members of the faculty (Umbach et al., 2006).
Intercollegiate Coaches
The intercollegiate athletic subculture is the major contributor to the
socialization of student-athletes. Previous studies have articulated the profound
impact coaches have on the development of an academic ideology (Grooper, 1991;
Humphrey et al., 2000). It is imperative that intercollegiate coaches, particularly in
revenue-generating sports, begin to emphasize academics in the recruiting process.
Placing an important on academics during the recruiting and pre-college interactions
will result in positive socialization for both the student-athletes and their parents, as
it will create a culture that values the academic experience.
In addition to integrating academics into discussions during the recruiting
process, a team culture that values academics is necessary to facilitate academic
success. Coaches should identify team leaders who succeed academically and engage
them to mentor younger athletes. As several participants discussed, academically
104
successful, older student-athletes were the only positive validation to the importance
of academics within the athletic subculture. Rewarding academic success with team
leadership positions will create additional incentive for a focus on education and
encourage incoming student-athletes to model the positive academic behavior of
senior team leaders.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Major policy changes regarding athletic participation need to be made by the
NCAA at the national level. However, the current structure of the NCAA is primarily
focused on monetary gains rather student-athletes’ academic success. For change to
occur, the NCAA would need to find value in increasing the academic standards for
participating in college sports. More specifically, the NCAA should re-evaluate the
ability for athletes to participate in sports during their first year. While excluding
freshmen from participating is unfeasible, the NCAA should implement a policy that
ensures a foundation for higher academic standards. Such policy could include a
provision mandating a 3.0 grade point average for student-athletes who wish to
compete during their first year. Those student-athletes who enter college below the
3.0 standard would be mandated to redshirt during their first year. Participants
validated the positive impact redshirting has on first-year academic outcomes and
creating a structure that places academics ahead of athletic participation. By placing
academics in the forefront, the NCAA will begin the socialization of a new athletic
subculture.

Closing
105
The findings of this study provide insight into the effect that three distinct
cultures have on the development of student-athletes ideologies toward academics.
Despite the positive impact the athletic culture had on secondary education,
participating in intercollegiate athletics produces barriers to success academically.
Student-athletes also face stereotypes within the academic culture as faculty
members and non-athletic peers have marginal academic expectations. Finally, the
only positive outlet for student-athletes in this study was an internalization of
academic motivation or the presence proactive parents.
The alarming disparity centered on academic opportunities during the
recruiting process warrants to collaboration between, athletic administrators and
student affairs personnel in developing a recruiting platform that promotes a balance
between academic success and athletic participation. Additionally, members of the
faculty should consider furthering their education on the barriers student-athletes
face and create an environment that not only integrates student-athletes but also
helps to create an environment that is free from negative stereotypes and lower
standards.
The challenges student-athletes face is unique from any other group within
higher education. Future research should continue to examine the unique experiences
of various athletic groups (i.e., female versus male; revenue-generating versus non
revenue-generating; African American, Latino/Hispanic, etc.) to facilitate a cultural
change that mirrors the needs of the various populations. Dispelling the myth that
student-athletes are a monolithic group would allow for programmatic changes that
106
address the challenge each group faces during their socialization to the culture of
intercollegiate athletics.

107

References

Adler, P., & Adler, P. A. (1987). Role conflict and identity salience: College
athletics and the academic role. Social Science Journal, 24(4), 443-455.

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1991). Backboards and blackboards: College athletes and
role engulfment. New York: Columbia University Press.

Anderson, K. (1990). The effect of athletic participation on the academic aspirations
and achievement of African-American males in a New York City high
school. The Journal of Negro Education, 59, 507-516.

Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999).
When White men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in
stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29-46.

Arnold, D. (Ed.) (1970). The sociology of subcultures. Berkeley: The Glendessary
Press.

Bailey, W., & Littleton, T. (1991). Athletic and academia: An anatomy of abuses and
a prescription for reform. New York: American Council on Education,
Macmillan Publishing Company.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barefield, S., McCallister, S., Bungum, T., Pate, R. et al. (1997). Sociocultural
aspects of physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
86(1), 111-135.

Beamon, K., & Bell, P.A. (2006). Academics versus athletics: An examination of the
effects of background and socialization on African American male student
athletes. The Social Science Journal, 43(3), 393-403.

Benson, K.F. (2000). Constructing academic inadequacy: African-American athletes’
stories of schooling. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(2), 224-246.

Berns, R. M. (1997). Child, family, community: Socialization and support (4
th
ed).
Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

Bloom G.A., & Smith M.D. (1996). Hockey violence: A test of cultural spillover
theory. Sociology of Sport Journal, 13, 65-77.

108
Boggan, D. (1999). Student-athlete welfare or “welfare”? In S. Robinson (Ed.),
Gaining the competitive edge: Enriching the collegiate experience for the
new student-athlete. University of South Carolina, National Center for First-
Year Experiences and Student Transition.

Brand, M. (2001). Academic first: Reforming intercollegiate athletics. Vital Speeches
of the Day, 67(12), 367–371.

Brewer, B. W., & Cornelius, A. E. (2001). Norms and factorial invariance of the
Athletic Identity Measurement Scale. Academic Athletic Journal, 15, 103-
113.

Brewer, B.W., Van Raalte, J.L., & Linder, D.E. (1993). Athletic identity: Hercules’
muscles or Achilles heel? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24,
237-254.

Brown, C. (1994). The relationship between role commitment and career
developmental tasks among college student-athletes. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 54.

Campbell, T. A., & Campbell, D. E. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program: Effects
on academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education,
38(6), 727-742.

Carey, C. (2000). Academic achievement motivation in African American college
football players: An investigation of education expectation and values. Ann
Arbor, MI: University Press.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self regulation: A control
theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlad.

Castine, S. C., & Roberts, G. C. (1974). Modeling in the socialization process of the
Black athlete. International Review of Sport Sociology, 9, 59-74.

Chartrand, J. M., & Lent, R. W. (1987). Sports counseling: Enhancing the
development of the student-athlete. Journal of Counseling and Development,
66, 164-167.

Clow, C.T. (2001). Student-athletes’ perceived value of education: Effects of career
exploration intervention. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61.

Coakley, J. J. (1998). Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies (6
th
ed). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.

109
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cuyjet, M.J. (1997, Winter). African American men on college campuses: Their
needs and their perceptions. New Direction for Student Services, 80, 5-15.

DeFrancesco, C., & Gropper, R. (1996). Support services for African American
student athletes: A case study analysis. College Student Journal, 30, 2-8.

Edwards, H. (1984, Spring). The black “dumb jock” an American sports tragedy. The
College Board Review, 131, 8-13.

Edwards, H. (2000). Crisis of black athletes on the eve of the 21
st
century. Society,
37, 913.

Engstrom, C., & Sedlacek, W. (1991). A study of prejudice towards college student-
athletes. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 189–193.

Engstrom, C., Sedlacek, W., & McEwen, M. (1995). Faculty attitudes towards male
revenue-generating and non-revenue student-athletes. Journal of College
Student Development, 36, 217–227.

Ferrante, A.P., & Pinkney, J.W. (1996). Counseling college student-athletes: Issues
and interventions. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Gerdy, J. R. (1997). The successful college athletic program: The new standard.
Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.

Glesne, G. (1999). Becoming a qualitative researcher: An introduction (2nd ed.).
New York: Longman.

Grooper, R. E. (1991). Student support services: A needs identification process for
Black, college, student-athletes. Dissertation Abstracts International.

Harper, S. (2005). Inside the experiences of high-achieving African American male
students. About Campus, 10(1), 8-15.

Harper, S.R. (2006). Responding to the crisis concerning African American men in
college: Implications for practice and policy. Washington, D.C.: Joint Center
for Political and Economic Studies, Dellums Commission.

110
Harris, O. (1994). Race, sport, and social support. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11,
40–50.

Harvey, W. B. (2001). Minorities in higher education 2000-2001: Eighteenth annual
status report. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Herndon, M. K., & Moore, J. L., III. (2002). African American factors for student
success: Implications for families and counselors. The Family Journal:
Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 10, 322-327.

Hollis, L. P. (2002). Service Ace? Which academic services and resources truly
benefit student athletes? Journal of College Students Retention, 3(3), 26-283.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The Active Interview. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Howard-Hamilton, M.F., & Watts, S.K. (2001, Spring). Student services for athletes.
New Directions for Student Services, 93, 1-6.

Howard, J. A., & Hollander, J. A. (1997). Gendered situations, Gendered selves.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Humphrey, J., Yow, D., & Bowden, W. (2000). Stress in college athletics: Causes,
consequences, coping. New York: Haworth Half-Court Press.

Janesick, V. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets,
improvisations, and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
The Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 379-400). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Jeynes, W. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority
children’s academic achievement, Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202-
218.

Kennedy, S. R., & Dimick, K. M. (1987). Career maturity and professional sports
expectations of college football and basketball players. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 28(4), 293-297.

Kerperlman, J. L., Pittman, J. F., & Lamke, L. K. (1997). Toward a microprocess
perspective on adolescent identity development: An identity control theory
approach. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 325-346.

Lapchick, R. (1982). The Black athlete in contemporary American sport.
Presentation at the annual meetings of the North American Society for the
Sociology of Sport, Boston.
111
Lapchick, R. (1996). Sport in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lapchick, R. (2000). Crime and athletes: New radical stereotypes. Society, 37, 14-20.

Lapchick, R. (2003). 2003 racial and gender report card. Orlando, FL: University of
Central Florida, Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport.

Leonard, W. (1998). A sociological perspective on sport. New York: Macmillan
Publishers.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.

Lomax, M. E. (2000). Athletics vs. education: Dilemmas of Black youth. Society, 37,
21-23.

Loy, J. W., McPherson, B. D., & Kenyan, G. (1978). Sports and social systems: A
guide to the analysis, problems, and literature. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company.

Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.

Marcia, J. (1976). Identity six years after: A follow-up study. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 5, 145-160.

Martin, B. E., & Harris III, F. (2006). Examining productive conceptions of
masculinities: Lessons learned from academically driven African American
male student-athletes. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 3(14), 359-378.

Martin, B.E., & Kramer II, D. A. (2007, May). “State of emergency:” Enacting a
multi-pronged approach towards improving the academic achievement of
African American male high school student-athletes. Conference presentation
presented at the meeting of the College Board: Dream Deferred Conference,
Los Angeles.

McPherson, B. D. (1980). The Black athlete: An overview and analysis. In D.
Landers. (Ed.) Social problems in athletics: Essays in the sociology of sport
(pp. 122-150), Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Miller, P. S., & Kerr, G. (2002). The athletic academic and social experience of
intercollegiate student-athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25(4), 346-365.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
112
National Center of Educational Statistics. (2004). Digest of Education Statistics.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2003). NCAA Division I graduation rate
report. Overland Park, KS: NCAA.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2004). The NCAA Manual. Overland Park,
KS: NCAA.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2006). 2003-2004 NCAA Gender-Equity
Report. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from
http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/gender_equity_study/2003-04/2003
04_gender_equity_report.pdf.

Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., Alfeld-Liro, C., Fredricks, J. A., Hruda, L. Z., & Eccles, J.
(1999). Adolescents’ commitment to developing talent: The role of peers in
continuing motivation for sports and the arts. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 28(6), 741-763.

Parmer, T. (1994). The athletic dream and the black male student: Primary
prevention implications for counselors. The School Counselor, 41, 333-337.

Pascarella, E.T., Truckenmiller, R., Nora, A., Terenzini, P.T., Edison, M., &
Hagedorn, L.S. (1999). Cognitive impacts of intercollegiate athletic
participation: Some further evidence. The Journal of Higher Education,
70(1), 1-26.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.

Pearson, K. (1981). Subcultures and sport. In J. W. Loy (Ed.) Sport, culture and
society: A reader on the sociology of sport (pp. 131-145). Philadelphia: Lea
and Febiger.

Pututo, J. R., & O’Hanlon, J. (2005). National Study of Student Athletes Regarding
Their Experiences as College Students. Proceedings from September 2006
NCAA Research Committee Meeting, University of Nebraska.

Remer, R., Tongate, F.A., & Watson, J. (1978). Athletes: Counseling the over
privileged minority. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 56, 626-629.
113
Richards, S., & Aries, E. (1999). The Division III student-athlete: Academic
performance, campus involvement, and growth. Journal of College Student
Development, 40(3), 211-218.

Rooney, J. F. (1987). The recruiting game: Toward a new system of intercollegiate
sports. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Rubin, H.J. & Rubin, I.S. (2004). Qualitative Interviewing: the art of hearing data
(2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sack, A. L. (1987). College sport and the student athlete. Journal of Sport and Social
Issues, 11, 31–48.

Sack, A., & Stuarowsky, E. (1998). College athletes for hire: The evolution and
legacy of the NCAA’s amateur myth. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Sailes, G. A. (1984). Sport socialization comparisons among Black and White adult
male athletes and non-athletes. Dissertation Abstracts International.

Sailes, G.A. (1998). Betting against the odds: An overview of Black sports
participation. In G. Sailes (Ed.) African-Americans in Sport (pp. 25-35). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Scales, J. (1991). African-American student-athletes: An example of minority
exploitation in collegiate athletics. In E. Etzel, A. Ferrante, & J. Pinkey (Eds.)
Counseling college student-athletes: Issues and interventions (pp. 71–99).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.

Schwandt, T.A. (2001). Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Sedlacek, W. E. (2004). Beyond the big test: Noncognitive assessment in higher
education. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Selden, A. F. (1998). Career transition groups for college student-athletes.
Dissertation Abstracts International.

Sellers, R. M. (1992). Racial differences in the predictors for academic achievement
of student-athletes in Division I revenue producing sports. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 9, 48-60.

Sellers, R. M. (2000). African-American student-athletes: Opportunities or
exploitation? In D. Brooks & R. Althouse (Eds). Racism in college athletics:
The African American athlete’s experience (pp. 133-154). Morgantown, WV:
Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
114
Sellers, R.M., Kuperminc, G.P., & Damas, A. (1997). The college life experiences of
African American women athletes. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 25, 699-719.

Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical
guide to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing
programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Siegel, D. (1996). Higher education and the plight of the Black male athlete. In R.
Lapchick (Ed.) Sport in society (pp. 19-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Smith, K.J. (2000). Athletes and academics: The experiences of African American
student-athletes at a predominately White institution of higher education.
Dissertation Abstracts International.9961368.

Smith, A. L., Ullrich-French, S., Walker III, E., & Hurley, K. S. (2006). Peer
relationship profiles and motivation in youth sport. Journal of Sports and
Exercise Psychology, 28, 362-282.

Sperber, M. (2001). Beer and circus: How big-time college sports is crippling
undergraduate education. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test
performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 69, 797-811.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). The basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Synder, P. L., & Spreitzer, E. (1989). Social aspects of sport. Englewood Cliff, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Thelin, J. (1996). Games colleges play: Scandal and reform in intercollegiate
athletics. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Thompson, W. E, & Hickey, J. V. (1999). Society in focus: An introduction to
sociology (3
rd
ed). New York: Longman.

Toma, J. D. (2003). Football U.: Spectator Sports in the Life of the American
University. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

115
Umbach, P.D., Palmer, M.M., Kuh, G.D., & Hannah, S.J. (2006). Intercollegiate
athletes and effective educational practices: Winning combination or losing
effort? Research in Higher Education, 47, 709-733.

Waterman, A. (1982). Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An
extension of theory and a review of research. Developmental Psychology, 18,
341-358.

Williams T., & Taylor, D. (1994). Socialization, subculture, and wheelchair sport:
The influence of peers in wheelchair racing. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 11, 416-428.

Young, K. (1983). The subcultures of rugby players: A form of resistance and
incorporation. Unpublished master’s thesis, McMaster University.

116
Appendix A

University of Southern California
School of Education

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Huddle Up: The Effects of Athletic Subcultures on the Socialization of Academics in Male
Student-Athletes Participating in Football at the University of Southern California.

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Dennis A. Kramer II, from the
School of Education at the University of Southern California, as part of the requirement
toward a Masters of Education Thesis. You were selected as a possible participant in this
study because you have been identified as a member of the Men’s Football program at the
University of Southern California. You must be aged 18 or older to participate. A total of 25
subjects will be selected from student-athletes who participate in the football program at the
University of Southern California. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more about
how academics are socialized within the athletic sub-group on college and university
campuses.

PROCEDURES
You will be asked to answer a series of questions, including follow-up questions, regarding
different facets of your academic success, academic support, and environmental factors
influence your ideologies towards academics. It will take approximately 40 minutes to
complete the interview. Your answers will be recorded digitally with only a participant
number associated to the tape. If you do not wish to be audio-taped, you may continue wit
the study provided that you have informed the researcher prior to the start of the interview.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may experience some discomfort at
completing the questionnaire or you may be inconvenienced from taking time out of your
day to complete the questionnaire/survey instrument, etc.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study. However, the
benefits of this study could help to create programs that will increase the academics success
among student-athletes across the nation.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you. Your name, address or other information that may identify you will not
be collected during this research study, nor will your name or other identifiable information
be associated with your response.

117
The information collected about you will be coded using a fake name (pseudonym) or
initials and numbers, for example abc-123, etc.

Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this study.
The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file cabinet/password
protected computer and the data will be destroyed once the study was been completed.

Note your professors, coaches, etc will not know whether or not you participate, nor will
they have access to your responses. Neither your grades nor athletic eligibility will be
affected, whether or not you participate.

You have the right to review, edit, and request of copy of your digitally recorded interview.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information
will be included that would reveal your identity. However, the data derived from this study
and its subsequent interviews may be used in future studies under the same guidelines of
confidentiality.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you
may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to
answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty.
You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this
research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Grace Ford
Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to the following
investigators:

Dennis A. Kramer II Brandon E. Martin Ed.D.
Masters Candidate Associated Athletic Director
Rossier School of Education USC Athletics Department
(213) 740 - 8702 (213) 821 – 0754
dkramer@usc.edu brandoem@usc.edu

SIGNING THE CONSENT FORM
I have read (or someone has read to me) this form and I am aware that I am being asked to
participate in a research study. I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have had
them answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I am not
giving up any legal rights by signing this form. I will be given a copy of this form.

_______________________ ________________________
Print Name Signature

118
INVESTIGATOR / RESEARCH STAFF
I have explained the research to the participant or his/her representative before requesting the
signature(s) above. There are no blanks in this document. A copy of this form has been given
to the participant or his/her representative.

_______________________ ________________________
Print Name Signature

119
Appendix B
IVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
FWA 00007099

Approval Notice for Exempt Review Applications

Date: Wed Jun 13 11:34:06 2007
Principal Investigator: Dennis Kramer
Faculty Advisor: Alexander Jun
Co-Investigators:

Project Title: Socialization of Academics in First Year Male Student-Athletes
USC UPIRB # UP-07-00170

The University Park Institutional Review Board (IRB) designee determined that your project
meets the requirements outlined in 45 CFR 46.101 (b) (2), and qualifies for exemption from
IRB review. IRB Exemption of this study was granted on 6/13/2007.

Your study is exempt from the regulations under 45 CFR 46; however, in order to be
compliant with the principles of the Belmont Report, the UPIRB recommend that you use
the revised documents when recruiting or enrolling potential subjects. The recruitment
document(s) and/or Information Sheet will not be stamped by the UPIRB, and can be
accessed under the “Documents” tab in the study workspace in iStar.

The UPIRB has made minor revisions to the Information Sheet; the marked document is
attached for your records. Please use this document when making revisions in the future.

The recruitment documents were not attached; however since the study qualifies for
exemption, the documents do not need to be stamped approved. Attached are the guidelines
for recruitment and should be used when generating the documents. Please upload the
documents using the 'send message to IRB' function. The recruitment documents can then be
finalized uploaded into the documents section of the application.

The researchers are reminded that permission must be obtained from each entity; the policies
and procedures from those entities must be followed when conducting research. It is the
researchers’ responsibility to make sure all local polices and procedures are adhered to, as
well as UPIRB and USC Policies and Procedures. Copies of the approval/acceptance notices
can be uploaded using the 'send message to IRB' function.

Sincerely,

RoseAnn Fleming
120
Appendix C
Participant Profile Form
Personal Information:

Email Address: ___________________________________________________________

Hometown City & State: ___________________________________________________

Academic Information:

Years in School (Circle One): Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Major(s): _____________________________ _____________________________

Minor(s): _____________________________ _____________________________

Undergraduate G.P.A.: ____________ High School G.P.A: _____________

Do You Plan to Graduate with your Bachelors? (Circle One): Yes No Maybe

Do You Plan to Attend Graduate School? (Circle One): Yes No Maybe

Athletic Information:

Sport: _____________________________ Position: ______________________

Athletic Aid: (Circle One) Scholarship or Walk-on

Did You Redshirt Your Freshman Year? (Circle One) Yes No

In Your Ultimate Goal to Play Professionally? (Circle One) Yes No

Athletic Questionnaire
Please circle the number that best reflects the extent to which you agree or disagree with
each statement.
1. I consider myself an athlete
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

2. I have many goals related to sports.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

3. Most of my friends are athletes.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

4. Sport is the most important part of my life.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

5. I spend more time thinking about sports than anything else.
121
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

6. I feel bad about myself when I do poorly in sports.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

7. I would be very depressed if I were injured and could not compete in sports.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

122
Appendix D
Sample Interview Protocol

1. Explain why you decided to attend college?

2. Describe your academic experience in high school. (i.e. Teachers,
Administrators, Athletics vs. Academics)

3. Describe your parental involvement in your sports?

[FOLLOW UP]: What your parents want you to get out of your college
experience?

[FOLLOW UP]: How do they motivate you to achieve this?

4. What did you know about the academics at USC before you started here?

[FOLLOW UP]: Describe what you thought about the academic standards at
USC.

[FOLLOW UP]: Describe how these academic standards influence your
decision to enroll at USC?

[FOLLOW UP]: Who was the most influential person or source leading to
the development of your academic role at USC?

5. Who did your have the most contact with prior to enrolling at USC? (i.e.
coaches, counselors, administrators)

[FOLLOW UP]: What was that conversation like? Where you told that the
expectations of would be high or low?

[FOLLOW UP]: In any of your recruiting visits to USC or discussions with
coaches, where academics mentioned? If so, what was talked about?

[FOLLOW UP]: Did other student-athletes talk about academics during your
recruiting visits?

6. What academic expectations did you have of yourself prior to enrolling at
USC?

[FOLLOW UP]: Prior to enrolling at USC did you plan on graduating?

[FOLLOW UP]: If so, do you still plan on graduating USC?
123

[FOLLOW UP]: If not, what influenced you to change your mind about
graduation?

[FOLLOW UP]: Have these expectations about USC been met?

[FOLLOW UP]: If not, where did your athletic department or coaches fall
short?

[FOLLOW UP]: If not, where did your university fall short?

7. How often are you late of miss class due to your athletic commitments?

8. What/Who has been your greatest source of academic motivation?

[FOLLOW UP]: Describe how they motivate you academically?

9. What is a normal conversation between you are your teammates like about
academics?

[FOLLOW UP]: Describe some ways your team supports you academically.

10. Discuss the challenges of balancing your academics and your athletic
commitments?

11. Describe your interaction with Professors members on your campus

[FOLLOW UP]: Do you see a difference in how student athletes and non-
student athletes are treated? If so, how would you describe those differences?

[FOLLOW UP]: How does your being a student-athlete in football effect the
Professors member’s perception of you?

[FOLLOW UP]: What are the general attitudes of your teammates regarding
Professors members?

12. Has the media ever influenced your participation in sports? If so, explain
how.

[FOLLOW UP]: Do you gravitate towards the spotlight of the media?

[FOLLOW UP]: How do you think the media can be a harmful part of
college sports?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The effect of intercollegiate athletic participation has received considerable attention. A void exists in the examination of the academic socialization student-athletes face due to their participation in sports. This study specifically focuses on male student-athletes in revenue-generating sports, men's football and basketball, as the media attention, popularity, and pressure to win creates a unique environment. The impact of the: (1) athletic subculture

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A grounded theory study on the academic and athletic success of female student-athletes at a private, research, Division I university

PDF

A comparative case study analysis of academically at risk African American male student athletes

PDF

Career development of Black male revenue generating student-athletes within an environment of anti-Black racism

PDF

Exploring the academic success of black male former student-athletes and their experiences with academic support upon re-entry to college

PDF

Student-athletes and leadership: a case study of the impact of collegiate athletics on social change behavior and leadership development

Asset Metadata

Creator Kramer, Dennis A., II (author)

Core Title Huddle-up: a phenomenological approach to understanding the impact of intercollegiate athletic participation on the academic socialization of male revenue-generating student-athletes

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Master of Construction Management

Degree Program Postsecondary Administration

Publication Date 07/09/2008

Defense Date 06/05/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic socialization,African American males,athletic culture,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,popular culture,student-athletes

Language English

Advisor Martin, Brandon E. (committee chair), Jun, Alexander (committee member), Tierney, William G. (committee member)

Creator Email dkramer@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1325

Unique identifier UC1271284

Identifier etd-Kramer-20080809 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-81226 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1325 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Kramer-20080809.pdf

Dmrecord 81226

Document Type Thesis

Rights Kramer, Dennis A., II

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu