History of the Field of Sport Management: Relationship between the Intellectual Structure of Sport Management and Business Studies

Abstract

This study explores how studies from the field of business have influenced sport management scholarship historically. For this, we identify central themes, theories, paradigms, and methods to investigate how the subfields establish the intellectual structure and how these subfields are related to each other espoused in the Journal of Sport Management (JSM). We employed principal component analysis of 20,839 citations of 664 JSM articles published between 1987 and 2015. The results show that the central themes between 1987 and 2000 are management studies, reflective studies, and quantitative method-related studies. Between 2001 and 2005, new central themes emerged such as marketing, sport tourism, and qualitative methodrelated studies. While the sport management area developed with the studies of organizational behavior in sport from a post-positivistic view at the beginning, divergent paradigms such as feminism and social constructivism tended to anchor studies since 2000. Additionally, since 2000, sport marketing studies became more convergent and centralized towards consumer behavior.

Headnote

Abstract

This study explores how studies from the field of business have influenced sport management scholarship historically. For this, we identify central themes, theories, paradigms, and methods to investigate how the subfields establish the intellectual structure and how these subfields are related to each other espoused in the Journal of Sport Management (JSM). We employed principal component analysis of 20,839 citations of 664 JSM articles published between 1987 and 2015. The results show that the central themes between 1987 and 2000 are management studies, reflective studies, and quantitative method-related studies. Between 2001 and 2005, new central themes emerged such as marketing, sport tourism, and qualitative methodrelated studies. While the sport management area developed with the studies of organizational behavior in sport from a post-positivistic view at the beginning, divergent paradigms such as feminism and social constructivism tended to anchor studies since 2000. Additionally, since 2000, sport marketing studies became more convergent and centralized towards consumer behavior.

Keywords: sport management, business studies, bibliometrics, knowledge development, business history

Introduction

"Sport Management" has been one of the fastest growing academic disciplines as the size of the sport industry in North America expands rapidly, estimated to be 71.86 billion dollars in 2018 (Statista, 2018). In the 1980s, scholars from physical education began to realize the need of business-like professionals in the field of athletic administration and managing sport, and this resulted in the emergence of the discipline of sport management (Parkhouse, Ulrich, & Soucie, 1982). Started from about 20 programs in the early 1980s in the U.S., the number of sport management program has grown drastically from roughly 100 programs in the 1990s (Kjeldsen, 1990), 200 programs in the 2000s (Parkhouse & Pitts, 2001), and as of 2018, to a total of 504 institutions (NASSM, 2018a). Due to its interdisciplinary nature, many sport management educators have had discussions about its proper home in academic institutions (Chalip, 2006; Costa, 2005). In response to growing demands from leading sport industry executives that focus on managerial and commercial aspects of sports, the University of Oregon initiated the first endowed sport business program in the Lundquist College of Business at the Warsaw Sports Marketing Centre in 1993 (Warsaw & Swangard, 2004). Since then, more than 200 sport management programs in the U.S. are housed in a school of business (Zaharia, Kaburakis, & Pierce, 2016).

In 1986, when the first professional association of sport management (i.e., North American Society for Sport Management, called NASSM) was inaugurated, the NASSM constitution explains the body of knowledge of sport management as "management theory and practice specifically related to sport, exercise, dance, and play as these enterprises are pursued by all sectors of population" (NASSM, 1986, p. 1). While the management and administration aspects were the focus in the beginning of the field, in 2018, the NASSM has expanded the definition of sport management elaborating its body of knowledge as "an essential common body of knowledge in sport management that is cross-disciplinary and related to management, leadership, and organization in sport; behavioral dimensions in sport; ethics in sport management; sport marketing; communication in sport; sport finance; sport economics; sport business in the social context; legal aspects of sport; sport governance; and sport management professional preparation" (NASSM, 2018b).

As many newly emerged disciplines such as entrepreneurship went through, the field of sport management also has experienced a period of broad acceptance as a unique academic discipline (Zeigler, 2007). The question of whether "managing sport" is distinctive has been a critical reflective question continuously to numerous scholars (Chalip, 2006). As Chalip (2006) stated, sport management scholars should recognize distinctive aspects to the management of sport for enhancing the legitimacy of the field. As some scholars considered sport industry as another mere form of business (e.g., Rottenberg, 1956), many contemporary sport management scholars have endeavored to highlight various special features of sport industry that requires a specialized set of practices for its effective management (e.g., Fort & Winfree, 2009; Smith & Stewart, 2010; Stewart & Smith, 1999). The shared features of sport and other business areas are mostly observed from the commercialization of sporting structures such as value creation branding, product innovation, market expansion, and advertising (Foster, Greyser, & Wash, 2006; Syzmanski & Kuypers, 1999). The unique features of sport include its idiosyncratic structure (Syzmanski, 2009), a belief in the social value of sport (Hess, Nicholson, Stewart, & De Moore, 2008), sharing revenues, irrational passions of fans followed by high levels of product and brand loyalty, vicarious identification, tendency of favoring winning over profit, and a high degree of structural ambiguity having greatly different business models around the world (Hoye & Cuskelly, 2007).

Several studies in sport management have provided insights to these philosophical questions regarding the matter of legitimacy of sport management (e.g., need of theoretical development, need of diversified paradigms, theories, and methods, need of wider range of topics) since 1970s (e.g., Parkhouse & Ulrich, 1979; Newman, 2014; Zeigler, 1987). A majority of these reflective studies have been experience-based narrative reviews or content analyses (e.g., Chadwick, 2009; Chalip, 2006; Chelladurai, 2013; Cunningham, 2013; Doherty, 2013; Fink, 2013; Paton, 1987). While many scholars have suggested how we need to set the directions of the discipline to enhance the legitimacy of the field, there has been no empirical evidence to systematically analyze what we have studied in the field longitudinally. What were the central themes in the 1980s? Are these central themes in the 1980s different from the ones in the 2000s? If so, how? To answer these questions, mapping the intellectual structure of a flagship journal is critical to track and reflect the history of central research themes, theories, methods, and paradigms, which allows us to comprehend better the development of sport management field (Kuo & Lee, 2012). This study explores explicitly the overall landscape of knowledge structure of the publications Journal of Sport Management (JSM), one of the oldest and impactful journals, through co-citation analysis.

Bibliometrics is an "empirical, quantitative methodology that can describe the underlying structure of an intellectual field and help identify paradigms within that field" (McMillan & Casey, 2010, p. 209). One of the most dominant bibliometric analytical tools is citation analysis that enables scholars to trace the visible channels connecting scientific products that can represent the formal communication system of the scientific field (De Bellis, 2009). There are two approaches to analyzing citations. First, citation serves as a tool to assess the overall scientific performance of authors, publications, and/or journals by providing the quantified scores of influences of each (e.g., Baumgartner & Peters, 2003; Oppenheim, 1995; Narin, 1976). The analytical tools of this approach are categorized as evaluative techniques (Thelwall, 2008). On the other hand, citation can be used to trace the structure of scientific knowledge based on the way scientists use the previous publications by co-citation analysis (e.g., Benckendorff, 2009; Crane, 1988, Ma, 2009). The techniques of this approach are categorized as relational techniques. In sport management, a few studies (i.e., Shilbury & Rentschler, 2007; Shilbury, 2011a; 2011b) have contributed to assess the impact of sport management and marketing journals by identifying the most cited sport management journals and non-sport management journals in the sport management journals (Shilbury, 2011b) and develop the rating schemes for evaluating the quality of sport management journals (Shilbury & Rentschler, 2007). In sum, nevertheless, all of these studies have focused on the frequency of citations of certain articles from an evaluative approach.

Employing co-citation analysis, the purpose of this study is to answer two research questions: (1) what are the central themes, theories, paradigms, and topics espoused in JSM between 1987 and 2015; and (2) how have the studies from the business field influenced the sport management scholarship historically?

Methods

Many studies in various academic fields have focused on identifying the components and network of citations to explore the interrelationships of central subjects, theories, methods, and paradigms by exploring the co-citation relationships from a relational approach (Small, 1973). The co-citation analysis "aims at displaying the structural and dynamic aspects of scientific research" (Cobo, Lopez-Herrera, Herrera-Viedman, & Herrera, 2011, p. 1382). Exploring the components of co-citation matrix using principal component analysis can disclose the underlying intellectual structure of the discipline overtime at a macro-level (White & McCain, 1998). The premise of co-citation analysis is that if two documents are cited by another document, it is likely that a certain type of structural connection among them does exist. Heavily co-cited documents tend to unveil the patterns of links between key concepts, theories, methods, or experiments. Thus, exploring the groups of highly co-cited documents can lead to the identification of the socio-cognitive structure of a certain academic field (i.e., sport management in our case), its subfields and the emerging research fronts in it, and its relationships with other fields (de Bellis, 2009). Co-citation represents the inter-document relationships among scholars. Investigating the central groups of this relationship may tell us different stories (e.g., debates on contradicted views, popular methods and paradigms in a certain subarea of the field). Clusters of co-cited documents can represent both the development of previous theories/frameworks and the emergence of new frameworks. As new information, new opportunities arise, new co-cited clusters will be detected. This indicates the emergence of new ideas in the field from the combination and/or recombination of knowledge.

Data Collection

We chose the Journal of Sport Management (JSM) to analyze its knowledge structure because JSM is the oldest Sport Management journal, having been initiated in 1987. It is the official publication of the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM), the first association of sport management to be formed. It is one of the premier journals in the field of sport management (Shilbury & Rentschler, 2007; Shilbury, 2011b). Revisiting the history of the flagship journal using co-citation analysis has been popular across various academic fields because it allows scholars and editorial members to understand the historical development and current position of a particular journal (Üsdiken & Pasadeos, 1995). In retrieving the JSM articles, we included only substantial articles (e.g., research and review articles, Earle F. Zeigler lectures, sport management perspectives) and excluded non-substantial documents such as off the press and sport management digest. The raw data of citations and co-citations were extracted from the Web of Science (WoS) directly using SITKIS software (Schildt, 2002).

A thorough data screening was required as the retrieved raw data from the WoS had many spelling errors. These erroneous entries were corrected by crosschecking the data with the reference lists of original JSM articles manually. If a certain citation was a book or software, we checked if the different editions or versions of the same book or software were cited by other articles. Overall, a total of 20,839 different publications were cited a total of 31,702 times in 664 JSM articles between 1987 and 2015. For gaining a longitudinal perspective on the changes in intellectual structure as the field progressed, we established five different periods: (a) period 1 from 1987 to 1993, (b) period 2 from 1994 to 2000, (c) period 3 from 2001 to 2005, (d) period 4 from 2006 to 2010, and (e) period 5 from 2011 to 2015. Due to the variation in the number of published articles in each volume, we set the length of each period differently. Table 1 presents the number of JSM articles in each period, the number of cited publications, and the total number of citations in each period and overall.

Data Analysis

We conducted principal component analysis (PCA) to provide statistical evidence of the decomposition of the co-citation network. Employing PCA as a clustering procedure is beneficial because of its capability to measure the document similarity that describes the co-citation profiles (McCain, 1990). Each component is explained by the subset of documents loading on it. indicating the substantial contributions to its construction (McCain, 1990; Tang & Tsai, 2016). To carry out this analysis, we converted the co-citation raw matrix into a Pearson's correlation matrix (McCain, 1990) using the R package 'psych' (Revelle, 2016). The main diagonals of the matrices were considered as missing values. First, parallel analysis was employed to determine the number of factors (Horn, 1965) via R package 'paran' (Dinno, 2012).

Based on the results of parallel analysis, we completed PCA with the correlation matrices to identify the clusters within the co-citation networks in each period using R package 'psych' (Revelle, 2016). Varimax rotation was performed to produce a simple structure by allowing independent facts to be loaded under a single factor (McCain, 1990; Ozcinar, 2015; White & Griffith, 1981). Only documents with loadings higher than ± 0.7 were chosen for interpreting each component as previous bibliometric studies suggested (e.g., McCain, 1990).

Result

Period 1 (1987-1993)

Table 2 presents the summary of the principal components of each period. In this table, only the first author was identified. In the first period, the three components accounting for 51% of the total variance consisted of reflective studies. Component 1, the largest component (explaining 25% of the variance) consisted of two different themes- reflective studies of sport management and management studies. More specifically, studies of Kelliher (1956), Monaghan (1985), and Hatfield (1987) focused on the context of intercollegiate athletics. Component 2 (accounting for 14% of the variance) consisted mostly of reflective studies on career preparation in the field of sport management. Component 3 (accounting for 12% of the total variance) consisted of reflective studies that focused on curriculum development and design in sport management. In this period, there was no study from the outside of the field.

Period 2 (1994-2000)

In the second period, six components accounted for 38% of the total variance. Different from the first period, most components of the second period were related to management studies. Component 1 consisted of leadership, organizational culture, and organizational performance studies, whereas Component 5 included human resource management studies, including leadership studies. It is noted that all studies of these two clusters were from the general management field. Component 2 comprised of organizational structure studies. Two studies about the structure of Canadian sport organizations (MacIntosh, 1990; Slack & Hinings, 1987) had a close relationship with two organizational structure studies from the general management field (Miller & Droge, 1986; Pugh, 1968). Similarly, Component 4 also composed of organizational structure and organizational change studies, but all studies were related to voluntary sport organizations (Hinings & Slack, 1987; Kikulis, Slack, & Hinings, 1995; MacIntosh, 1998; Slack & Hinings, 1987). Co-cited documents of Component 3 were the studies of diversity and women studies in both general organizations (Kanter, 1997) and sport organizations (Acosta, 1992; Hart, Hasbrook, & Mathes, 1986; Hasbrook, Hart, Mathes, & True, 1990; Holmen & Parkhouse, 1981; Pastore, 1991). The sport-oriented studies were conducted in both interscholastic and intercollegiate athletics. These components accounted for 9%, 9%, 5%, 5%, 5%, and 5% of the total variance respectively. Management-related components accounted for 33% of the total variance. Last, Component 6 consists of reflective studies of sport management. Different from the period 1, the identified reflective studies focus on the reflections in research practices.

Period 3 (2001-2005)

In the third period, four components accounted for 36% of the total variance. Component 1 (accounting for 11% of the variance) was related to management studies focusing on institutional change in both sport organizations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Stern, 1979) and general business contexts (Abrahamson, 1994; Greenwood & Hinings, 1996; Leblebici, Salancik, Copay, & King, 1991; Oliver, 1992). Additionally, the cluster includes one study on qualitative methods (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 1994). Component 2 consisted of studies of a new topic - sport tourism accounting for 9% of the variance. Component 3 also covered the new topics - fan behavior in sport along with a work on psychometric theory. This component accounted for 9% of the variance. Accounting for 7% of the variance, Component 4 was comprised of reflective studies of research practices in sport management.

Period 4 (2006-2010)

During this period, the results showed that seven components explained 45% of the total variance. Component 1 accounting for 11% of the variance was composed of sponsorship studies (Gwinner, 1997; Madrigal, 2001; Meenaghan, 2001; Speed & Thompson, 2000) and brand management studies (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, & Donthu, 1995; Hill & Green, 2000). Component 2, explaining 7% of the variance, was comprised of studies of fan behavior. Similarly, Component 3 (explaining 7% of the variance) consisted of fan behavior studies (Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Kwon & Trail, 2003) but also included literature on quantitative methods (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Browne & Cudeck, 1992; Churchill, 1979). In particular, all studies related to measure development. Component 4 consisted of studies of diversity management in sport organizations (Cunningham, 2004; Cunningham & Sagas, 2005; Doherty & Chelladurai, 1999; Fink & Pastore, 1999) and in general contexts (Tsui & Gutek,1999). The studies of Component 5 addressed gender issues and feminism in sport organizations (Amis & Cornwell, 2005; Chelladurai, 2001; Shaw & Hoeber, 2003) and general contexts (Ely & Meyerson, 2000; Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). Component 6 was comprised of management studies about agency theory (Eisenhardt, 1989) and stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) along with works on qualitative methods (Glaser & Strauss, 1965; Miles, 1994). Component 7 was comprised of studies on quantitative methods. In sum, sport marketing studies (Component 1, 2, and 3) accounted for 25% of the total variance, whereas management studies accounted for 15% of the total variance during this period.

Period 5 (2011-2015)

Between 2011 and 2015, three components- Component 1, 2, and 4 (accounting for 10%, 10%, and 7% respectively) covered the marketing area. Component 1 and 2 were comprised of studies of fan behaviors (Iwasaki & Havitz, 2004; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Wann & Branscombe, 1990) in sport events, social identity and consumer behavior in general organizational context (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992; Tajfel & Turner, 1985) and quantitative methods including psychometric theory (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1999; 2002), structural equation modeling (Hu & Racherla, 1999; Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006), and regression analysis (Cohen & Cohen, 2003; 2010). Notably, in Component 2, fan behavior studies tended to co-cited often with social identity studies in the context of consumer behavior.

Component 4 included studies that focused on brand management and fan behavior. Two brand management studies in general (Fournier, 1998; Keller, 1998) were identified along with the studies of brand management in sport context (Bauer, Stokburger-Sauer, & Exler, 2008) and the effect of social identity on fan behavioral intention studies (Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000; Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001). Last, component 3 mostly consisted of studies of quantitative methods such as multivariate statistics (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996; 2001; 2006; 2007; 2008; 2012), structural equation modeling (Browne & Cudeck, 1992), moderatingmediating effects (Baron & Kenny, 1986), and nonresponse effects (Jordan, Walker, Kent, & Inoue, 2011) accounting for 8% of the total variance. One study about the antecedents of behavioral intentions also identified in this component (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

Discussion

The boundary of the field of sport management has elaborated to be more specific and broader since the inauguration of the JSM in 1987. While many scholars have suggested how sport management scholars need to set the directions of the discipline and JSM to enhance the legitimacy of the field, there has been no empirical evidence that shows how the field and journal have been developed intellectually. To fill this gap, this study analyzed the co-cited documents of the JSM - one of the oldest and most influential journals in our field.

The results show that the central themes of the co-cited documents of the JSM between 1987 and 2000 are management/administration studies and reflective studies. The dominance of management studies is not surprising as the NASSM constitution defined the field as management theory and practice specifically related to sport in 1986. While many scholars recognized the significance of physical education as an academic field at that time, some scholars began to recognize the lack of studies on administration of different types of sport organizations including intercollegiate athletic departments or interscholastic athletic departments in 1980s. Even though these athletic programs are a part of the academic institutions, it needs the distinctive administration strategies that go beyond the education aspect (Parkhouse et al., 1982; Zeigler, 1987).

Embracing this history, in particular, between 1987 and 1993, the management/administration cluster included the studies about job analysis of athletic directors in the context of intercollegiate athletics and general managers in professional sports. Between 1994 and 2000, various subthemes of the management area are dominant. These subthemes include leadership, organizational structure, organizational change, diversity management, and organizational performance. In particular, in this period, whereas the most of organizational structure and organizational change studies were conducted in the context of voluntary sport organizations (non-profit organizations), diversity management studies were conducted in the context of intercollegiate athletics. Since this was the first decade of JSM, many co-cited documents contributed to establish the legitimacy and identity of sport management at the beginning era of the JSM. Before 2000, the JSM articles tend to cite the studies related to job analysis, organizational culture, leadership, institutional theory, and strategic management from the general management field. It is noteworthy that in periods 4 and 5, reflective studies are not part of any of the components.

Between 2001 and 2005 (period 3), new central themes emerged. These new knowledge domains include tourism and marketing (e.g., consumer behavior) in sport. Related to methods, particularly, structural equation modeling studies and the software designed for structural equation modeling (i.e., LISREL) were newly identified. Also, studies of qualitative methods were also identified for the first time. Specifically, fan behavior studies tend to be clustered with studies of quantitative methods, including structural equation modeling.

In period 4 (2006-2010), sport marketing was the dominant knowledge domain. Twentyfive percent out of 45% of the total variance was explained by sport marketing components (e.g., sponsorship, consumer behavior, brand management). In addition, management studies, reflective studies, and publications on quantitative methods were dominant. Publications on qualitative methods formed a component for the first time in this period. It should be noted that the group of marketing studies was linked with studies of quantitative methods, whereas the group of management studies were related to studies of qualitative methods.

In period 5 (2011-2015), the popularity of fan behavior studies and publications on quantitative methods still were dominant as in period 4. Consumer behavior-related components explained a total of 27% of the total variance. The group of fan behavior studies was linked to the studies of quantitative methods strongly. Thus, Zeigler's (1987) call in the first issue of JSM for more marketing studies has been satisfied.

Overall, the findings show that the two dominant subareas of sport management-sport management and sport marketing-adopting different patterns in their intellectual themes. The knowledge group of sport marketing is based on deductive-oriented reasoning, while the knowledge group of sport management (organizational studies) had shifted from deductiveoriented reasoning to inductive-oriented reasoning since the late 2000s. As sport marketing more based on psychology-based consumer behavior, this pattern became even more patent. The field of sport management developed with the studies of organizational behavior in sport from a postpositivistic view at the beginning. As time went by, divergent paradigms such as feminism tended to anchor studies published in JSM. Since the 2000s, the intellectual structure surrounding sport marketing became more convergent and centralized towards "consumer behavior."

Ciomaga (2013) argued that sport consumer behavior developed in academic departments of mother disciplines such as business schools or departments of psychology. Yet, we believe that there have been our "own" sport management scholars who endeavored to pursue the development of unique models or conceptual frameworks that can only be applied to the fan behavior, at least in JSM. The works of the Psychological Continuum Model (Funk & James, 2001) has been influential over a decade now in the field of sport marketing. While many concepts, models, and theories appeared and quickly faded away in sport marketing, PCM has thrived and evolved through more than a decade since it was first published in 2001 (Funk & James, 2016).

Kuhn addressed the notion that critical thinking in science assumes a particular view of science, a view in which science advances through unbridled imagination and divergent thinking. Kuhn recognized that such thinking was responsible for some historical scientific progress, but he suggested that convergent thinking was also an important means of such progress. While revolutions, which depend on divergent thinking, are a crucial means for scientific progress, Kuhn proposed that few scientists consciously design revolutionary experiments. Rather, most scientists engage in "normal research," which is "a highly convergent activity based firmly upon a settled consensus acquired from scientific education and reinforced by subsequent life in the profession" (Kuhn, 1962, p. 163). For the scientific progress in sport management, we need to discuss what is the optimal balance between normal research with convergent thinking and innovative practices with divergent ideas. The results of the co-citation analysis indicate that sport marketing has been more normal research practice focusing on post-positivistic behaviorbased studies whereas sport management has been more divergent to tackle the issues in sport organizations from not only from a post-positivistic view but also from feminism or social constructivism.

Limitations

The present study provides empirically grounded evidence that can be used by all scholars to identify the opportunities and challenges for research contribution in the field according to their expertise (e.g., sport management, sport marketing, sport economics, sport tourism, sport policy). Because these experienced scholars have a wider range of qualitative knowledge and insights, they may contribute reviews at various levels based on the results of this study.

Because the choice of the sample was the articles published by the JSM, the results cannot represent the overall landscape of sport management. Rather, it presents the intellectual landscape of the JSM. Further studies need to be done combining samples from other sport management related journals such as Sport Management Review or European Sport Management Quarterly. Additionally, the journal-level co-citation network analysis will provide the positions of each sport management journal and non-sport management journal and how each journal is related to each other to create knowledge domains within the discipline of sport management (Köseoglu, Sehitoglu, & Craft, 2015; Shafique, 2013).

This study used each document as the unit of analysis rather than the authors. The scholars in the field of sociology of science argue that there is a direct relationship between the patterns of social interaction among scholars and the structure of knowledge space (e.g., Love & Andrew, 2012; Moody, 2004; Quatman & Chelladurai, 2008). Future studies may employ coauthor network analysis of the published JSM articles to take into account the social construction of knowledge. The incorporation of the results of co-citation analysis and co-author analysis may tell us how social relationships of scholars and knowledge domain generation are related in the discipline of sport management, implying a social influence on the knowledge creation process (Shafique, 2013).

Sidebar

About the Authors

Amy Chan Hyung Kim ([email protected]) teaches at Florida State University, in the United States. Dr. Kim's research interests lie in two streams within the contexts of sport at various levels: sport for health from a social epidemiological perspective and knowledge development in sport management. She investigates these streams of research further through quantitative methods including but not limited to, social network analysis, bibliometric analysis, and applied statistics.

Chelladurai, Packianathan ([email protected]) teaches at Troy University. Dr. Chelladurai received a B.Com., D.P.E.D., from the University of Madras; an M.A. in Physical Education from the University of Western Ontario; and an M.A.Sc. and a Ph.D. in Management Science from the University of Waterloo in Canada. The University of Western Ontario bestowed an honorary degree on him for his contributions to the development of the field of sport management. Dr. Chelladurai had been among the few international scholars offering Olympic Solidarity's Executive Master's in Sport Organizations Management (MEMOS). He specializes in organizational theory and organizational behavior in the context of sport and teaches courses in organizational behavior and human resource management.

Yukyoum Kim ([email protected]) teaches at Seoul National University, in Korea. Dr. Kim received a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Physical Education from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. in Sport Management from University of Florida. His research interest lies in consumer behavior in sport.

Han Joo, Lee ([email protected]) teaches at Yonsei University, in Seoul, Korea. Dr. Lee received a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Physical Education from Yonsei University and a Ph.D. in Physical Education from Purdue University. His research interest lies in health promotion through physical education programs.

Discussion Questions

1. What kind of academic fields influence the knowledge structure of Sport Management?

2. What are the factors that influence citing behaviors in the field of Sport Management?

To Cite this Article

Kim, A. C. H., Chelladurai, P., Kim, Y., & Han Joo, L. (2020, Spring). History of the field of sport management: Relationship between the intellectual structure of sport management and business studies. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 12(1), 49-68.

Footnote

56 References available upon request.

References

References

Abrahamson, E., & Fombrun, C. J. (1994). Macrocultures: Determinants and consequences. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 728-755. https://www.jstor.org/stable/258743

Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (1992). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal, national study. Retrieved from http://acostacarpenter.org

Amis, J. M., & Cornwell, T. B. (2005). Global sport sponsorship: Sport, commerce, and culture. New York, NY: Berg Publishers.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258189

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//00223514.51.6.1173

Bauer, H. H., Stokburger-Sauer, N. E., & Exler, S. (2008). Brand image and fan loyalty in professional team sport: A refined model and empirical assessment. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 205-226. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.22.2.205

Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (2003). The structural influence of marketing journals: A citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 123139. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30040527

Benckendorff, P. (2009). Themes and trends in Australian and New Zealand tourism research: A social network analysis of citations in two leading journals (1994-2007). Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 16(01), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1375/jhtm.16.1.1

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21(2), 230-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005

Chadwick, S. (2009). From outside lane to inside track: Sport management research in the twenty-first century. Management Decisions, 47(1), 191-202. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 00251740910929786

Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.20.E1

Chelladurai, P. (2001). Managing organizations for sport and physical activity: A systems perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.

Chelladurai, P. (2013). A personal journey in theorizing in sport management. Sport Management Review, 16(1), 22-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2011.12.003

Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150876

Ciomaga, B. (2013). Sport management: a bibliometric study on central themes and trends. European Sport Management Quarterly, 13(5), 557-578. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 16184742.2013.838283

Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 25-40. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/4188979

Cobo, M. J., Lopez-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedman, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382-1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003, 2010). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Costa, C. A. (2005). The status and future of sport management: A Delphi study. Journal of Sport Management, 19(2), 117-142. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.19.2.117

Crane, D. (1988). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Cunningham, G. B. (2004). Strategies for transforming the possible negative effects of group diversity. Quest, 56(4), 421-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2004.10491835

Cunningham, G. B. (2013). Theory and theory development in sport management. Sport Management Review, 16(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2012.01.006

Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2005). Access discrimination in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 29(2), 148-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0193723504271706

de Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the Science Citation Index to cybermetrics. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

Dinno, A. (2012). R Package 'paran' (Version 1.5.1). Retrieved from https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/paran/index.html

Doherty, A. (2013). Investing in sport management: The value of good theory Sport Management Review, 16(1), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2011.12.006

Doherty, A. J., & Chelladurai, P. (1999). Managing cultural diversity in sport organizations: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 13(4), 280-297. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.13.4.280

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74. https://www.jstor.org/stable/258191

Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to organizational analysis and change. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 103-151. https://doi .org/10.1016/S0191 -3085(00)22004-2

Fink, J. S. (2013). Theory development in sport management: My experience and other considerations. Sport Management Review, 16(1), 17-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.smr.2011.12.005

Fink, J. S., & Pastore, D. L. (1999). Diversity in sport? Utilizing the business literature to devise a comprehensive framework of diversity initiatives. Quest, 51(4), 310-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1999.10491688

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fort, R., & Winfree, J. A. (2009). Sports really are different: The contest success function and the supply of talent. Review of Industrial Organization, 34, 69-80. https://doi .org/10.1007/s 11151 -009-9201 -8

Foster, G., Greyser, P., & Walsh, B. (2006). The business of sports: Texts and cases on strategy and management. New York, NY: Thompson.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-373. https://doi.org/10.1086/209515

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Funk, D. C., & James, J. D. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understanding an individual's psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4(2), 119-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3523(01)70072-1

Funk, D. C., & James, J. D. (2016). The psychological continuum model: An evolutionary perspective. In G. B. Cunningham, J. S. Fink, & A. Doherty (Eds.), Routledge handbook of theory in sport management (pp. 247-262). New York, NY: Routledge.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1965). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Routledge.

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022-1054. https://www.jstor.org/stable/259163

Gwinner, K. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International Marketing Review, 14(3), 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 02651339710170221

Hansen, H., & Gauthier, R. (1989). Factors affecting attendance at professional sport events. Journal of Sport Management, 3(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.3.1.15

Hart, B. A., Hasbrook, C. A., & Mathes, S. A. (1986). An examination of the reduction in the number of female interscholastic coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57(1), 68-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1986.10605390

Hasbrook, C. A., Hart, B. A., Mathes, S. A., & True, S. (1990). Sex bias and the validity of believed differences between male and female interscholastic athletic coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61(3), 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02701367.1990.10608688

Hatfield, B. D., Wrenn, J. P., & Bretting, M. M. (1987). Comparison of job responsibilities of intercollegiate athletic directors and professional sport general managers. Journal of Sport Management, 1(2), 129-145. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.1.2.129

Hess, R., Nicholson, M., Stewart, B., & De Moore, G. (2008). A national game: A history of Australian Rules Football. Camberwell, UK: Viking Penguin.

Hill, B., & Green, B. C. (2000). Repeat attendance as a function of involvement, loyalty, and the sportscape across three football contexts. Sport Management Review, 3(2), 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3523(00)70083-0

Hinings, C. R., & Slack, T. (1987). The dynamics of quadrennial plan implementation in national sport organizations. In T. Slack & C. R. Hinings (Eds.). The organization and administration of sport (pp. 127-151). London, ON: Sports Dynamics.

Holmen, M. G., & Parkhouse, B. L. (1981). Trends in the selection of coaches for female athletes: A demographic inquiry. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 52(1), 9-18. https://doi .org/10.1080/02701367.1981.10609290

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447

Hoye, R., & Cuskelly, G. (2007). Sport governance. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Hu, C., & Racherla, P. (2008). Visual representation of knowledge networks: A social network analysis of hospitality research domain. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 302-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.01.002

Iwasaki, Y., & Havitz, M. E. (2004). Examining relationships between leisure involvement, psychological commitment and loyalty to a recreation agency. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(1), 45-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2004.11950010

Jordan, J. S., Walker, M., Kent, A., & Inoue, Y. (2011). The frequency of nonresponse analyses in the Journal of Sport Management. Journal of Sport Management, 25(3), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.25.3.229

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Kelliher, M. (1956). A job analysis of the duties of selected athletic directors in colleges and universities. (Ed.D. dissertation), University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

Kikulis, L. M., Slack, T., & Hinings, C. R. (1995). Toward an understanding of the role of agency and choice in the changing structure of Canada's national sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 9(2), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.9.2.135

Kjeldsen, E. K. (1990). Sport management careers: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Sport Management, 4(2), 121-132. https://doi.Org/10.1123/jsm.4.2.121

Köseoglu, M. A., Sehitoglu, Y., & Craft, J. (2015). Academic foundations of hospitality management research within an emerging country focus: A citation and co-citation analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 45(1), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.12.004

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Kuo, C.-T., & Lee, Y. (2012). Evolution of the intellectual structure of leadership studies in the last decade: Perspective on the invisible network of knowledge. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 8(2), 182.

Kwon, H., & Trail, G. (2003). A reexamination of the construct and concurrent validity of the psychological commitment to team scale. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(2), 88-93.

Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284919

Leblebici, H., Salancik, G., Copay, A., & King, T. (1991). Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the US radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 333-363. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2393200

Love, A., & Andrew, D. P. S. (2012). The intersection of sport management and sociology of sport research: A social network perspective. Sport Management Review, 15(2), 244-256. http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2011.08.001

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302-318. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0146167292183006

Ma, Z. (2009). The status of contemporary business ethics research: Present and future. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(3), 255-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0420-6

Macintosh, D., & Whitson, D. (1990). The game planners: Transforming Canada's sport system. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Madrigal, R. (2001). Social identity effects in a belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy: Implications for corporate sponsorship. Psychology and Marketing, 18(2), 145-165. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6793(200102)18:2<145:AID-MAR1003>3.0.CO;2-T

Mahony, D. F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. A. (2000). Using the psychological commitment to team (PCT) scale to segment sport consumers based on loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9(1), 15.

McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433-443. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199009)41:6<433:AID-ASI11>3.0.CO;2-Q

McMillan, G. S., & Casey, D. L. (2010). Paradigm shifts in industrial relations: A bibliometric and social network approach. In D. Lewin, B. E. Kaufman, & P. J. Gollan (Ed). Advances in industrial and labor relations (pp. 207-255). Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations Series, No. 17. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.

Meenaghan, T. (2001). Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology and Marketing, 18(2), 95-122. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6793(200102)18:2<95:AID-MAR1001>3.0.CO;2H

Meyerson, D. E., & Kolb, D. M. (2000). Moving out of the 'armchair': Developing a framework to bridge the gap between feminist theory and practice. Organization, 7(4), 553-571. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840074003

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Miller, D., & Droge, C. (1986). Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4), 539-560. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2392963

Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213-238. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/000312240406900204

Monaghan, P. (1985, October 16). Scandals and allegations of rules violations beset members of the Southwest Conference. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 31, 37.

Narin, F., Pinski, G., & Gee, H. H. (1976). Structure of the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 27(1), 25-45. https:doi.org/10.1002/ asi.4630270104

Newman, J. I. (2014). Sport without management. Journal of Sport Management, 28(6), 603615. https://doi.org/10.1123.jsm.2012-0159

NASSM [North American Society for Sport Management]. (1986). Article II. Constitution, 1.

NASSM [North American Society for Sport Management]. (2018a). Sport Management Programs: United States. Retrieved from http://www.nassm.org/Programs/ AcademicPrograms/United_States

NASSM [North American Society for Sport Management]. (2018b). Purpose and History of North American Society for Sport Management. Retrieved from http://www.nassm.com/ NAS SM/Purpose

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1999; 2002). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGrawHill.

Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13(4), 563588. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069201300403

Oppenheim, C. (1995). The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise ratings for British library and information science university departments. Journal of Documentation, 51(1), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026940

Ozcinar, H. (2015). Mapping teacher education domain: A document co-citation analysis from 1992 to 2012. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47(1), 42-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tate.2014.12.006

Parkhouse, B. L., & Pitts, B. G. (2001). Definition, evolution, and curriculum. In B. L. Parkhouse (Ed.), The management of sport: Its foundation and application (pp. 2-14). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Parkhouse, B. L., & Ulrich, D. O. (1979). Sport management as a potential cross-discipline: A paradigm for theoretical development, scientific inquiry, and professional application. Quest, 31(2), 264-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336279.1979.10519943

Parkhouse, B. L., Ulrich, D. O., & Soucie, D. (1982). Research in sport management: A vital rung of this new corporate ladder. Quest, 34(2), 176-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00336297.1982.104832776

Pastore, D. L. (1991). Male and female coaches of women's athletic teams: Reasons for entering and leaving the profession. Journal of Sport Management, 5(2), 128-143. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.5.2128

Paton, G. (1987). Sport management research: What progress has been made. Journal of Sport Management, 1(1), 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.11.25

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., & Hinings, C. R. (1969). An empirical taxonomy of structures of work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 115-126. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2391367

Quatman, C., & Chelladurai, P. (2008). The social construction of knowledge in the field of sport management: A social network perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 22(6), 651676. https://doi.org/10.1123/j sm.22.6.651

Revelle, W. (2016). R Package 'psych' (Version 1.6.6). Retrieved from<https://cran.rproject.org/web/package s/psych/index.html

Robinson, M. J., & Trail, G. T. (2005). Relationships among spectator gender, motives, points of attachment, and sport preference. Journal of Sport Management, 19(1), 58-80. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.19.1.58

Rottenberg, S. (1956). The baseball players' labor market. Journal of Political Economy, 64(3), 242-258. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1825886

Schildt, H. A. (2002). SITKIS: Software for Bibliometric Data Management and Analysis v0.6.1. Helsinki: Institute of Strategy and International Business. Retrieved from www.hut.fi/~hschildt/sitkis

Shafique, M. (2013). Thinking inside the box? Intellectual structure of the knowledge base of innovation research (1988-2008). Strategic Management Journal, 34(1), 62-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2002

Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). "A strong man is direct and a direct woman is a bitch": Gendered discourses and their influence on employment roles in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 17(4), 347-375. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.17A347

Shilbury, D. (2011a). A bibliometric study of citations to sport management and marketing journals. Journal of Sport Management, 25(5), 423-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.smr.2010.11.005

Shilbury, D. (2011b). A bibliometrics analysis of four sport management journals. Sport Management Review, 14(4), 434-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2010.11.005

Shilbury, D., & Rentschler, R. (2007). Assessing sport management journals: A multidimensional examination. Sport Management Review, 10(1), 31-44. https://doi .org/ 10.1016/S1441-3523(07)70002-5

Slack, T., & Hinings, B. (1987). Planning and organizational change: A conceptual framework for the analysis of amateur sport organizations. Canadian Journal of Sport Science, 12(4), 185-193.

Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406

Smith, A. C. T., & Stewart, B. (2010). The special features of sport: A critical revisit. Sport Management Review, 13(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2009.07.002

Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 226-238. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0092070300282004

Statista. (2018). North America sports market size from 2009 to 2021 (in billion U.S. dollars). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/214960/revenue-of-the-northamerican-sports-market/

Stern, R. N. (1979). The development of an interorganizational control network: The case of intercollegiate athletics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 242-266.

Stewart, B., & Smith, A. C. T. (1999). The special features of sport. Annals of Leisure Research, 2(1), 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.1999.10600874

Syzmanski, S. (2009). Playbooks and checkbooks: An introduction to the economics of modern sports. Harmondsworth, UK: Viking Press.

Syzmanski, S., & Kuypers, T. (1999). Winners and losers: The business strategy of football. Harmondsworth, UK: Viking Press.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2012). Using multivariate statistics. London, UK: Pearson.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276-293). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Tang, K.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2016). The intellectual structure of research on educational technology in science education (ETiSE): A co-citation network analysis of publications in selected journals (2008-2013). Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9596-y

Thelwall, M. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 605621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551507087238

Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Üsdiken, B., & Pasadeos, Y. (1995). Organizational analysis in North America and Europe: A comparison of co-citation networks. Organization Studies, 16(3), 503-526. https://doi .org/10.1177/017084069501600306

Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-weather fans: Effects of identification on BIRGing and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 14(2), 103-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/019372359001400203

Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Pease, D. G. (2001). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators. New York, NY: Routledge.

Warsaw, J., & Swangard, P. (2004, November 29). From the classroom to the boardroom. Sports Business Daily. Retrieved from https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues2004/ 11/29/opinion/From-The-Classroom-To-The-Boardroom.aspx.

White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author co-citation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 163-171. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630320302

White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327-355. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10974571(19980401)49:4<327:AID-ASI4>3.0.CO;2-4

Zaharia, N., Kaburakis, A., & Pierce, D. (2016). US sport management programs in business schools: Trends and key issues. Sport Management Educational Journal, 10(1), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1123/SMEJ.2015-0007

Zeigler, E. F. (1987). Sport management: Past, present, future. Journal of Sport Management, 1(1), 4-24. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.1T4

Zeigler, E. F. (2007). Sport management must show social concern as it develops tenable theory. Journal of Sport Management, 21(3), 297-318. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2T3.297