Defining Quality: Should Educators in Sport Management Programs Be Concerned about Accreditation?

Abstract

This paper explores concepts about educational quality, accreditation, and assessment as they relate to sport management programs. It reports, analyzes, and synthesizes the results of a survey sent to teaching professionals associated with sport management programs. Accreditation and its alternatives are discussed in addition to the issue of professional responsibility for ensuring educational quality. Levels and degrees of professional responsibility are considered.

An Examination of Sport Management Faculty Journal Publications and Conference Presentations in the United States and Canada

“…Efforts to improve credibility within the sport management field were recognized by several scholars through assessment of (i) education quality and accreditation (Fielding, Pitts, & Miller, 1991), (ii) increased specialization in sport management (Mahony & Pitts, 1998), (iii) consideration of where sport management programs should be housed within a college or university (Chalip, 2006), and the (iv) improvement of interdisciplinary research within the field (Doherty, 2012). While these and other areas of assessment are valid towards improving perceptions of the sport management field as a whole, bridging the gap between assessment and credibility, and understanding that any assessment is another step towards credibility, begins with the ambiguity of the term credibility.…”

“…Shortly thereafter, the NASPE partnered with NASSM to develop an accreditation process strictly for sport management programs (Eagleman & McNary, 2010). Between 1990 and 2009, numerous sport management scholars suggested or directly recommended the necessity to have an accreditation body for sport management (c.f., Fielding et al, 1991;Mahoney et al, 2004;Zakrajsek, 1993). Currently, the Commission on Sport Management Accreditation (COSMA) is the lone accreditation body for sport management academia.…”

“…DeSensi, Kelly, Blanton, and Beitel (1990) reviewed the perspectives of sport management constituents (e.g., employers, academics, and students) in developing curricula models to aid curricula developers and determine the appropriate course for a sport management program. Similarly, Fielding et al (1991) reached out to 109 sport management programs in North America to collectively determine the characteristics of a quality program. Although many responses were conflicting, results suggested that characteristics necessary for a quality sport management program revolved around the education of the instructors and the coursework offered to its students.…”

U.S. Sport Management Programs in Business Schools: Trends and Key Issues

“…COSMA launched an outcome-based, missiondriven specialized accreditation model (Williams & Colles, 2009), but it has gained limited traction, as only 15% of all sport management programs are institutional members of COSMA ("Commission on Sport Management Accreditation," n.d.; Gladden & Williams, 2012). Questions exist regarding the broader need for accreditation within the sport management discipline, as well as the feasibility and efficiency of an accreditation mandate (Fielding et al, 1991;Williams & Colles, 2009). Accreditation efforts require the participation of the stronger programs and people for successful implementation as well as the acceptance of professionals in the sports business community (Cuneen, 2004;Gladden & Williams, 2012;Mahony, 2008).…”

“…Most sport management programs evolved from physical education programs (Boucher, 1998). In the 1990s, the great majority of sport management programs in the U.S. were housed in departments of physical education (Alsop & Fuller, 2001;Fielding, Pitts, & Miller, 1991;Sawyer, 1993). By 2010, Schools of Health, Physical Education, & Recreation (HPER) were still the most popular placement for undergraduate sport management programs with 35%, but Schools of Business had grown to 25% of programs (Eagleman & McNary, 2010).…”