What are we teaching our students? A descriptive examination of the current status of undergraduate sport mnagement curricula in the United States

Abstract

As undergraduate sport management programs continue to grow and expand in the United States, and with the recently developed Commission on Sport Management Accreditation (COSMA) accreditation guidelines for such programs, it is important to examine the current status of undergraduate sport management curricula in the U.S. The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of each program’s curriculum and other program components such as the school/college in which each program is housed, program name, and degree(s) offered. A total of 227 undergraduate sport management programs were identified and examined using a content analysis methodology. Results revealed the percentage of programs offering specific sport management courses, as well as significant differences between programs based on the school in which the program is housed, the status of the university (public or private), and the university size. These findings, along with recommendations for future research, are presented in the discussion and conclusion sections.

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

“…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).…”

“…Scholars have previously indicated that studies regarding assessment of sport management curriculum are limited (Eagleman & McNary, 2010). Over the course of the last several decades, however, several important studies have assessed curriculum in an investigative manner.…”

“…Shortly thereafter, and using a quantitative content analysis methodology, Eagleman and McNary (2010) examined 227 undergraduate sport management programs using COSMA guidelines as a means for the analysis. Results concluded that curriculum offered among the sample sport management programs in the study was inconsistent and, in fact, the course offerings varied greatly.…”

“…According to Weese (1995) and Cuneen and Parks (1997), the NASSM contingency should be continually evaluated to build upon the mission of the society to better the relationship between academics and practitioners. Previous studies on the improvements of sport management programs previously focused on the assessment of topics such as sport management curriculum (DeSensi, Kelley, Blanton, & Beitel, 1990;Eagleman & McNary, 2010;Hardy, 1987;Kelley, Beitel, DeSensi, & Blanton, 1994;Parkhouse, 1987;Petersen & Pierce, 2009;Floyd-Jones, Brooks, & Mak, 2008) and faculty preparation and qualifications (De Haan, 2011;Mahony, Mondello, Hums, & Judd, 2004;Nite & Singer, 2013).…”

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

“…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).…”