The Senior Woman Administrator Designati

T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L

JOURNAL

of SPORT

& SOCIETY
Volume 1, Number 4

The Senior Woman Administrator Designation in the
NCAA
Jennifer Lee Hoffman

www.SportAndSociety.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY
http://www.SportandSocietyJournal.com
First published in 2010 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC
www.CommonGroundPublishing.com.
© 2010 (individual papers), the author(s)
© 2010 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and
maps.
All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or
review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be
reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other
inquiries, please contact
.
ISSN: 2152-7857
Publisher Site: http://www.SportandSocietyJournal.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY is peer-reviewed,
supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative
commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest
significance is published.
Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel
typesetting system
http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

The Senior Woman Administrator Designation in the
NCAA
Jennifer Lee Hoffman, University of Washington, Washington, USA

Abstract: In the United States, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the largest
governing organization for intercollegiate athletics. All NCAA member institutions must designate the
highest-ranking woman in athletic administration as the Senior Woman Administrator (SWA). The
SWA role is “intended to encourage and promote the involvement” of women in decision-making,
enhance the representation women’s experiences and perspectives, and support women’s interests in
intercollegiate athletics (NCAA, n.d.). This theory focus paper uses a feminist poststructural policy
analysis of the NCAA’s SWA policy. First this paper introduces the historical background of women’s
leadership in higher education and Title IX policy that frame the context of the SWA designation. Next,
previous research related to the SWA is discussed, revealing inconsistency in this policy’s impact on
women in leadership and governance of athletics. From the presentation of the historical framework
and previous research this paper concludes with an analysis of the SWA designation using a feminist
poststructural lens and offers recommendations for policy reform.
Keywords: Women, Athletic Administrators, Feminist Perspectives

I

N THE UNITED States, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the
largest governing organization for intercollegiate athletics. Approximately half of all
schools and colleges that sponsor intercollegiate athletics are members of the NCAA.
This is the only governing organization that singles out a speciic leadership role for

women. All NCAA member institutions must designate the highest-ranking woman in athletic administration as the Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) (National Collegiate Athletic
Association, [NCAA], n.d., a). The SWA role is “intended to encourage and promote the
involvement” of women in decision making, enhance the representation women’s experiences
and perspectives, and support women’s interests in intercollegiate athletics (NCAA, n.d.,
a).
The NCAA created the SWA role in 1981 after forcing the closure of the Association for
Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) and their sponsorship of women’s championships (Cahn, 1995; Carpenter & Acosta, 2001; Festle, 1996; Hult, 1994; Sack & Staurowsky,
1998). Originally named the Primary Woman Administrator (PWA) the title and responsibility was assigned to the individual man or woman responsible for overseeing women’s
athletics at each institution after the NCAA took over the AIAW (Cahn, 1995; Carpenter &
Acosta, 2001; Sack & Staurowsky, 1998). Then renamed to the current title in 1989, the
SWA role was assigned only to women as a strategy to integrate women in the governance
of women’s athletics at the institutional, conference, and national level within the previously
all-male NCAA (Sweet & Morrison, 2006; see also Stallman, Kovalchik, Tiell, & Goff,
2006).

The International Journal of Sport and Society
Volume 1, Number 4, 2010, http://www.SportandSocietyJournal.com, ISSN 2152-7857
© Common Ground, Jennifer Lee Hoffman, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY

Since its inception, the role has continued to change and evolve. After the NCAA clariied
the SWA designation as a women-only role, legal concerns over discrimination in hiring
practices prompted further clariication. The SWA designation was changed to the highest
ranking woman rather than a position within the department (Copeland, 2005). Yet the
NCAA’s SWA policy stirs debate.
Designating the SWA designation has had beneits and unintended consequences for infusing women in to the leadership and governance of the NCAA and its member institution
athletic departments. There are very low numbers of women serving in leadership roles
among NCAA member institutions. For all NCAA institutions combined, only 19.3% of
schools have a woman athletic director. At 13.2% of all NCAA member schools there is no
woman in athletic administration, despite the requirement for an SWA (Acosta & Carpenter,
2010). Acosta and Carpenter also reported that among all NCAA member institutions there
is an average of 3.78 administrators per institution, but only 1.32 women (Acosta & Carpenter,
2010).
The low number of women overall in athletic administration is further compounded by
the SWA role. An unintended result of this policy is that it pinches the pipeline at the senior
level of administration to one woman at most institutions (Author, under review). Even by
the NCAA’s own account, “The SWA provides a female voice at the table, many times the
only female voice, by providing a diverse, different view – a different perspective” (Copeland,

2005). “The question is, how do you culturally encourage and infuse the value of women –
and the role that women play – in leadership positions within the Association? And then
balance that with the legal problem of, you just can’t lat advertise for a woman administrator?” (see Belgiovine in Copeland, 2005). Yet the problem of the SWA goes well beyond the
legal limitations of a gender-speciic job description. The NCAA’s SWA policy reinforces
the “token woman – the isolated individual functioning with, but never fully accepted by,
the male enclave” in intercollegiate athletics (Glazer & Slater, 1987, p. 71).
Although some women have leveraged the SWA role to achieve senior leadership and
athletic director positions, athletic departments remain a male-dominated area of the academy.
Not every woman serving as the SWA has beneited from the role (Hosick, 2005). Among
the governance and decision making responsibilities for this designation is oversight and
advocacy for gender equity and women’s athletics within the department. For some women
this responsibility has been met with resistance. In some cases it rises to hostility, harassment,
even retaliation. In October 2007, Diane Milutinovich, former associate athletic director and
senior woman administrator was awarded 3.5 million dollars in a settlement with Fresno
State University. She sued after retaliation for advocating for equal treatment of women’s
athletics.
This theory focus paper explores the NCAA’s policy for designating a Senior Woman
Administrator in intercollegiate athletics. What follows is an analysis of the SWA role that
utilizes a feminist critical poststructural framework. This paper has four sections. First the
history of SWA is described. Second is a review of previous research on the SWA, framed

in the context of decision making. Next, a feminist critical postructural conceptual framework
and perspective is presented. The last section presents suggestions for future policy development and recommendations for reform.

118

JENNIFER LEE HOFFMAN

History of the SWA
Congress passed Title IX in 1972, ushering in changes across the landscape of higher education, including intercollegiate athletics. However, it was not until 1979 that the Department
of Education and Welfare promulgated guidelines for institutions with regard to athletic departments. In the years after Title IX passed, the women’s governing organization, the AIAW,
and the NCAA were at odds over Title IX and who would control women’s athletics. By
1981, the NCAA began offering championships and created the Primary Woman Administrator (PWA) designation, as an “inducement to gain votes” from women leaders in the AIAW
for NCAA sponsorship of women’s championships (Hult, 1994, p. 99). After the AIAW
suspended operations, the NCAA - who had fought vigorously against Title IX for women’s
athletics - assumed control of women’s intercollegiate competition.
Most institutions were merging their previously separate men’s and women’s athletic departments into one program in the wake of Title IX and the NCAA takeover of the AIAW.
Universities began shifting organizational structures and combining athletic department arrangements. This resulted in the men’s program director assuming the athletic director role
and the women’s program director, demoted to a title of associate or assistant athletic director
within the athletic department.
The early PWA role helped usher in the representation of women in the governance of

the NCAA (Hosick, 2005; NCAA, 2005), by guaranteeing a place for women on the NCAA
Council and other committees to women (Hult, 1994). The PWA also created a NCAA vote
for women on legislation that took place at the annual convention (Crowley, 2006). After
the implementation of the PWA, “a token number of women entered the NCAA hierarchy”
(Hult, 1994, p. 99). In 1989 the title changed to Senior Woman Administrator - or SWA –
and was further clariied to designate the SWA as a role speciically for women. Later,
concerns over potential legal issues associated with the SWA designation, prompted review
and clariied it even further to a role rather than a job title or description (Copeland, 2005;
Hosick, 2005).
Linda Carpenter and Vivian Acosta collected the irst data on career experiences and job
patterns of SWAs in 1992. Their research found that most SWAs in the study had not contemplated a job change or sought other positions (Carpenter & Acosta, 1992). Furthermore,
when asked what would encourage women to pursue another job, higher salary, matching
authority with responsibility, and “don’t ask me to wear more than one hat” were reported
(Carpenter & Acosta, 1992, p. 4). The NCAA surveyed the SWAs in 1994 and found confusion and inconsistency about the SWA title and responsibilities (Watson, 1994). Only 18
percent of the respondents indicated that they had decision making authority. A 1999 survey
of SWAs by Swearingen found that the “SWA was in ‘name only’ with no assigned duties”
(1999, p. 37).
Today the NCAA describes the SWA role as “active involvement of female administrators
as part of the athletics management team with program-wide administrative responsibilities,
including decision making at the institutional, conference, and national levels” (Sweet &

Morrison, 2006, p. 8; see also Stallman, et al., 2006). Among the potential areas of responsibility at the institutional level are: senior management team decision making, gender equity
and Title IX, student-athlete advocate and educator, role model and resource, assisting studentathletes with balancing athletics and academics, and the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act
Report (Sweet & Morrison, 2006; see also Stallman, et al., 2006). This equity oversight often

119

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY

involves monitoring implementation of the gender-equity plan and advocating for women
in the athletic department (Sweet & Morrison, 2006; see also Stallman, et al., 2006).
The designation of the SWA within NCAA governance has created a complex set of
conlicting roles that women in senior athletic administration must navigate at the institutional
level (Author, under review). The advocacy responsibility and perception, oversight of student-athlete welfare, and the responsibility for Title IX oversight inhibit the individual efforts
of women leaders to advance in intercollegiate athletic administration. However, simply
doing away with the role is not something the women in athletic administration see as a
solution for infusing more women into the leadership pipeline or structures (Author, under
review).

Previous Research on the SWA Role
Previous research explains this policy in the context of the SWA within the NCAA member

schools. The NCAA is the only governing body with an SWA policy. The NCAA is divided
into three broad member categories. Currently there are 1,055 NCAA member institutions
and they are divided among three competitive divisions. There are 335 Division I members,
288 Division II members, and 432 Division III members (NCAA, n.d., a). These member
categories are designated by philosophical orientations as well as speciic departmental criteria. Division I is characterized by large, highly visible athletic programs with football and
basketball games that garner attention from a wide spectator audience. Athletes participating
at the Division I level are eligible for athletic scholarships. Division II athletic programs are
more modest in their overall spectator audience interest, but like Division I scholarships are
allowable for athletic participation. Division III programs are the smallest in scope and do
not offer athletic scholarships to students. Yet, the NCAA membership only represents 52%
of the approximately 2100 colleges and universities in the U.S. that sponsor intercollegiate
athletic competition. The other 48% of colleges and universities with athletic programs belong
to other governing organizations that have no SWA designation.
The previous research on the SWA role focuses on the challenges and beneits of this
policy within the NCAA member institution types, including some of the unintended outcomes, and the pipeline of potential women in intercollegiate athletics. Still, the complexities
of this role are not fully understood. For example, it is not clear whether the SWA role is a
terminal career position or prepares women leaders for career advancement (Hatield 2003;
Hatield, Hatield, & Drummond, 2009).
The inluence of the SWA policy on promoting the decision making authority of women
in the athletic department is not clear from the previous literature. The areas of decision

making authority in athletics are presented in the next four sections. They are 1) decision
making authority, 2) inancial decision making, 3) gender equity decision making, and 4)
perceptions in decision making.

Decision Making Authority
In general there is variability in decision making authority among SWAs (Clausen & Lehr,
2002; Tiell, 2004; Grappendorf, Pent, Burton, & Henderson, 2008; and Tiell & Dixson,
2008). Clausen and Lehr (2002) examined the degree of decision making authority in 11
areas among SWAs at athletic programs in all three NCAA Divisions. Their indings suggest
120

JENNIFER LEE HOFFMAN

that most SWAs have “only advisory authority for most functions” (Clausen & Lehr, 2002,
p. 223), such as being consulted or informed rather than responsibility for approval for decisions. Conversely, when asked about areas of appropriate responsibility, authority, decision
making, and leadership, Hatield (2003) reported that Division I SWAs had moderate levels
of satisfaction with their responsibilities, job, authority, and their ability to mentor others in
the department.
Among Division I athletic programs SWAs have decision making authority to a greater
degree than their peers at Division II and III member institutions (Clausen & Lehr, 2002).

This is likely due to SWAs in Division I having administrative titles rather than coaching
roles, as is often the case with Division II and III. This is also consistent with Tiell’s (2004)
indings about the Divison II SWA role where 56 percent of the respondents did not have
an administration title (i.e. Assistant or Associate Athletic Director). The greater incidence
of decision making among Division I SWAs is also thought to be due in part to the specialization inherent to those athletic departments in areas such as compliance, media relations,
inance, and advising (Clausen & Lehr, 2002).

Financial Decision Making
SWAs in all Divisions have indicated that they would like more involvement in inancial
decisions. Grappendorf et al. (2008) examined the perceptions of SWAs regarding their
participation in this area of decision making within intercollegiate athletics. SWAs from all
three NCAA Divisions indicated that they “were often not involved in various areas of inancial decision making” and many “wanted more participation in inancial decision making”
(p. 40).
Pent, Grappendorf and Henderson (2007) studied the actual versus desired levels of participation in inancial decision making of SWAs in all three NCAA Division categories and
found that they desire more inancial decision making than they are currently involved with.
However, Hatield (2003) found that less than half of SWAs surveyed in Division I thought
that their primary function should be in inancial areas such as budgeting (40%), marketing
women’s athletics (33.1%) and fundraising for women’s athletics (24.8%) (see also Hatield,
Hatield & Drummond, 2009). This is in contrast to the Pent, Grappendorf, and Henderson
(2007) study that found these were areas SWAs indicated a desire for more decision making
opportunities.

Gender Equity Decision Making
A notable exception for decision making authority among Division I programs is related to
gender equity oversight. This is an area where SWAs reported having decision making authority related to compliance with federal Title IX gender equity laws. The perception that
the SWA is responsible for representing women’s interests is seen as “a natural part of the
SWA’s realm of responsibility, regardless of their actual job description” (Clausen & Lehr,
2002, p. 224). When SWAs in Division I athletics departments were asked to select from a
list of SWA responsibilities and respond to the question, “What should be the primary
functions of the SWA?” advocating for women’s athletics or supporting others received the
highest response (Hatield, 2003; Hatield, Hatield & Drummond, 2009). Speciically, 88.3
percent of respondents noted advocating for women’s athletics, 80 percent noted gender
121

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY

equity, and 75.2 percent indicated serving as role model. Over half of SWAs also indicated
that mentoring should be a primary function of the SWA (Hatield, 2003; Hatield, Hatield
& Drummond, 2009).

Perceptions in SWA Decision Making
Tiell (2004) examined differences in perceptions of the SWA role and tasks between athletic
directors, who are mostly men, and SWAs at Division II institutions. Among the indings,
athletic directors and SWAs are in agreement about jobs and duties performed by SWAs for
men’s issues and gender-neutral roles, but their beliefs about the roles related to decision
making and women’s issues were not consistent. Additionally, athletic directors believed
SWAs are more involved in “group work participation, athletic program governance, and
decision making” than the SWAs reported in the survey (Tiell, 2004, p. 204).
There are also differences in perceptions about decision making between athletic directors
and SWAs at the Division III level in later research (NCAA, 2005). In particular, the differences were in the areas of budget and inance, fund-raising, and personnel decision making
(NCAA, 2005). This was also true of differences between SWAs and athletic directors with
regard to how much SWA perform roles “related to core management team participation”
(Tiell & Dixson, 2008, p. 339).
The lack of clarity about the SWA and decision making authority underscores the complexities of this role. The SWA role in the context of leadership in intercollegiate athletics
raises several dilemmas about the SWA role and decision making authority. These dilemmas
provide the foundation for interrogating the NCAA’s SWA policy from a feminist critical
poststructural perspective.

A Feminist Critical Poststructural Perspective of the SWA
The inconsistency in the previous literature about the decision making authority of SWAs
and the complexity illustrated by this policy warrants further analysis. Critical theories illustrate how “the relationship between power and culture and the ideologies, knowledges, and
languages” reproduce systems of power and exclude people in the very contexts where
policies are instituted to promote equity (Bensimon & Marshall, 1997, p. 5). There are many
critical analysis traditions that could be used to draw out the underlying inequities related
to the SWA role (Apple, 2010). Merging a feminist critical policy analysis with a poststructural view is a useful lens for unpacking how this role creates problems for the advancement
of women and why decision making authority of SWAs is unclear.
First, feminist critical perspectives illuminate how power and institutions are gendered;
and how power is socially constructed (Bensimon & Marshall, 1997; 2003). In intercollegiate
athletics men hold most of the leadership and decision making positions, therefore retaining
the power to deine and control intercollegiate sports. “Feminist critical policy analysis is
concerned with the scrutiny of hidden gender bias in taken-for-granted policies and in ferreting
out the disparate impact they have on women” (Bensimon & Marshall, 2003, p. 339). Using
a feminist critical framework, the ways in which power is socially constructed in ways that
disadvantage SWAs, offers an explanation for the inconsistency in decision making authority
found in the literature about this role.

122

JENNIFER LEE HOFFMAN

One of the key challenges brought forth by Bensimon & Marshall (2003) is how to
transform higher education institutions. Speciically, they note that a goal of feminist critical
policy analysis is to transform institutions. Simply “adding” women has little impact on the
structures and practices of higher education institutions. Furthermore, examining policies
from conventional methods overlooks gendered assumptions embedded in policies (Bensimon
& Marshall, 2003).
The SWA policy is one that cannot transform the male gendered leadership of intercollegiate athletics because it was created as a result of the ight for control of women’s sports
between the all-men’s governing organization (the NCAA) and the all-women’s organization
(the AIAW). In the end, the NCAA took over the governance of women’s college sport and
dismantled the infrastructure of women’s leadership. A feminist critical poststructural analysis of the SWA illustrates how the role created by this policy is built with the master’s
tools and from within the master’s house (Lorde, 1984 as cited in Bensimon & Marshall,
2003). Simply adding a role for women within the NCAA and among member institutions
is merely an artifact of the dominant power structure. The result is an unintended perpetuation
of inequity between women and men within the leadership of NCAA member institutions.
A feminist critical perspective helps explain why the decision making and perceptions regarding decision making authority of SWAs are described with such inconsistency in the
previous literature. The SWA role is gendered in ways that disadvantage women and do
little to transform the leadership structure. This results in wide variability in the effectiveness
of SWAs in decision making because the role lacks power within control of intercollegiate
sports.
Secondly, the SWA is a policy that remains gendered, both in formal and informal, duties
and practices. Examining the discourse related to the duties and practices of the SWA role
and the ways in which this policy relects and creates gendered disparities draws a poststructural frame into the analysis. “Poststructural perspectives position policies as dynamic and
productive” (Allan, 2008). The migration of the role from PWA to SWA and the legal
challenges to institutionalizing a position just for women illustrate the dynamic nature of
this policy. A poststructural analysis of the discourse surrounding this policy further exempliies how this role is limited in its reach to transform institutions, except in a few isolated
settings.
Initially, the SWA role was not intended to foster the development of women’s authority
for decision making in intercollegiate athletics. It was merely an incentive to draw women
into the NCAA Council and other committees (Hult, 1994). Today decision making is among
the stated areas of SWA involvement at the institutional, conference, and national level
(Sweet & Morrison, 2006). Yet, the SWA role is one that both relects and creates gendered
social practices that favor men in systems of power and authority over decision making. In
this way the SWA policy re/produces the constructs of decision making along gendered
lines. Decision making is not transformed; rather men are kept at the center and women remain
on the margin. This additional lens helps account for the inconsistency in practice and further
underscores the indings from Hatield, regarding the legitimacy of the role as a locus for
career advancement (2003; Hatield, Hatield, & Drummond, 2009).

123

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY

Suggestions for Future Policy Development
To increase the authority of women leaders in intercollegiate athletics administration, several
simultaneous initiatives that distribute the burden for gender equity decision making and
integrate more women in other areas of decision making authority in intercollegiate athletics
leadership are needed. Programming that focuses on networking, mentorship, workshops,
and executive training place too much of the burden on women to prepare for leadership in
athletic administration in the decision making areas. This training must be paired with NCAA
and departmental efforts that promote the participation of more women in the decision
making work of the department. Two suggestions are offered for policy reform of the Senior
Woman Administrator role.
First, acknowledge the role as a gendered construct that reinforces the dominant power
structure and disentangle the SWA role from women’s leadership. Recognize it as a terminal
role as Hatield (2003) suggests and provide incentives from the NCAA for institutions to
provide more opportunity for the involvement of more women in decision making, particularly
at the upper levels of athletic administration. Integrate 3-4 or perhaps more women from the
assistant and associate ranks in departmental decision making, preparing all of them for
senior level administration. This reduces the burden for decision making on the only woman
at the upper levels of administration and increases the likelihood that more women will gain
access to the senior associate level.
Secondly, distribute the work of monitoring and reporting related to equity in a unit
within the athletic department or other campus units, rather than left to the oversight of one
person. Despite the NCAA suggestion for collaboration for all areas of decision making
among the senior team, the SWA is viewed as primary position for gender equity oversight.
As a result the responsibility for Title IX monitoring falls largely on the SWA.
Therefore, the author suggests distributing the day-to-day oversight of gender equity
compliance among the department staff and several levels of campus level oversight of athletics, representation at the conference, and NCAA committees. Much like the model in
compliance, equity should be housed under a separate unit or combined within the compliance
staff within the athletic department and coordinated with other campus ofices. For example,
the NCAA should require regular institutional reporting from the Equal Opportunity Ofice,
Ofice of Institutional Research, and department level equity staff.
For women currently serving in Senior Associate level administration, they should remain
there as well as contribute their effort and experience to the equity staff. Previous mergers
and reorganizations in the NCAA governance and among institutions have shown that the
expected reaction will be to demote women to the Equity Director role. Protections should
be in place and monitoring by the equity staff to ensure that their duties remain squarely on
senior level department business but distribute the oversight of gender equity across several
units and personnel in the department.
Additionally, in the areas of NCAA and conference level governance where the SWA has
real decision making authority and power, such as voting authority in conference level
governance, the SWA role should remain unaltered. The focus needs be on promoting more
women to decision making authority and creating a critical mass of women at the highest
levels of athletic administration. This suggestion is aimed at transforming the decision
making infrastructure, while still providing the safety net of the SWA policy to ensure women
remain in institution, conference, and NCAA governance.

124

JENNIFER LEE HOFFMAN

Making changes to the SWA role will likely meet resistance and raise legitimate concerns.
Creating an equity staff within compliance will add the burden of more personnel and reporting on budgets already stretched. However, the complexity of college athletics continues to
grow and women in leadership positions have not matched the gains made by women studentathletes. To reverse the trend that eliminated women from athletics leadership, governance,
and decision making, new strategies that focus on generating the critical mass of women are
needed.

References
Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2010). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal, national
study - Thirty three year update, 1977-2008. Retrieved from http://www.acostacarpenter.org
Allan, E. J. (2008). Policy discourses, gender, and education: Constructing women’s studies. New
York: Routledge.
Apple, M. (2010). Putting “critical” back into education research. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 152162.
Bensimon, E. M., & Marshall, C. (1997). Policy analysis for post-secondary education: Feminist and
Critical perspectives. In C. Marshall (Ed.), Feminist Critical Policy Analysis II: A Perspective
from Post-Secondary Education (pp. 1-21). London: The Falmer Press.
Bensimon, E. M., & Marshall, C. (2003). Like it or not: Feminist critical policy analysis matters. The
Journal of Higher Education, 74(3), 337-349.
Cahn, S. K. (1995). Coming on strong: Gender and sexuality in twentieth-century women’s sport.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carpenter, L.J., & Acosta, R. V. (1992). Job stasis: Relections of immobility and resistance to job
change among senior woman athletic personnel. Unpublished manuscript.
Carpenter, L. J., & Acosta, R. V. (2001). “Let her swim, climb mountain peaks”: Self-sacriice and
success in expanding athletic programs for women. In Women Administrators in Higher
Education: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (pp. 207-229). Albany, New York:
State University of New York Press.
Clausen, C. L., & Lehr, C. (2002). Decision making authority of senior woman administrators. International Journal of Sport Management, 3(3), 215-228.
Copeland, J. (2005). Association takes steps to improve understanding of ‘SWA.’ NCAA News. Retrieved
from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2005/association-wide/association+takes+steps+to+improve+understanding+of+_swa_+-+8-1505+ncaa+news
Crowley, J. N. (2006). In the arena: The NCAA’s irst century. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA Publications.
Retrieved from http://www.ncaapublications.com/ProductsTileView.aspx?t=arena&c=&s=0&p=0&y=0&index=xml&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Festle, M. J. (1996). Playing nice: Politics and apologies in women’s sports. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Grappendorf, H., Pent, A., Burton, L., & Henderson, A. (2008). Gender role stereotyping: A qualitative
analysis of senior women administrators’ perceptions regarding inancial decision making.
Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 1, 26-45.
Glazer, P. M., & Slater, M. (1987). Unequal colleagues: The entrance of women into the professions,
1890-1940. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Hatield, L. M. (2003). The perceived role of the senior woman administrator at NCAA Division I institutions. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3103659)

125

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY

Hatield, L. M., Hatield, L. C., & Drummond, J. L. (2009). The perceived role of senior women administrators in NCAA Division I institutions. The Sport Journal, 12(3). Retrieved from
http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/perceived-role-senior-women-administrators-ncaadivision-i-institutions
Hosick, M. (2005). Senior class: Research raises new questions about role of woman administrators.
NCAA News. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/
ncaa+news+online/2005/association-wide/senior+class+-+8-15-05+ncaa+news
Hult, J. S. (1994). The story of women’s athletics: Manipulating a dream, 1890-1985. In D. M. Costa
& S. R. Guthrie (Eds.), Women and sport: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 83-106).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2005). SWAs perceive lack of involvement in inance,
personnel. NCAA News. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+
news/ncaa+news+online/2005/association-wide/swas+perceive+lack+of+involvement+in+inance%2C+personnel+-+8-15-05+ncaa+news.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d., [a]). Senior Woman Administrator. Retrieved from
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/NCAA/About+The+NCAA/Diversity+and+Inclusion/Gender+Equity+and+Title+IX/SWA
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d., [b]). Composition & Sport Sponsorship of the NCAA.
Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/NCAA/About%20
The%20NCAA/Membership/membership_breakdown.html
Pent, A., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2007). Do they want more?: An analysis of NCAA
senior woman administrators’ participation in inancial decision making. Journal for the
Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 1(2), 157-174.
Sack, A. L., & Staruowsky, E. J. (1998). College athletes for hire: The evolution and legacy of the
NCAA’s amateur myth. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Swearingen, T. (1999). Examination of the senior woman administrator role in college athletic departments. (Master’s Thesis, Boston College, 1999). Masters Abstracts International, 37(4),
1125.
Sweet, J. & Morrison, K. (2006). Current Status of the SWA within the NCAA. Presented at the NCAA
Convention, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/
ncaa/about+the+ncaa/diversity+and+inclusion/gender+equity+and+title+ix/swa
Stallman, R., Kovalchik, M., Tiell, B., & Goff, A., (2006). Paper presented at Live NCAA Web Cast,
Washington, DC. Clariication of the senior woman administrator designation.
Tiell, B. (2004). Career paths, roles, and tasks of senior woman administrators in intercollegiate
athletics. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3132761)
Tiell, B., & Dixon, M. A. (2008). Roles and tasks of the Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) in intercollegiate athletics: A role congruity perspective. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes
in Education, 2(3), 339-361.
Watson, V. (1994). Survey: Confusion surrounds SWA role. The NCAA News, Retrieved from 1, 14,
15, 16. Retrieved from web1.ncaa.org/web_iles/NCAANewsArchive/1994/19941010.pdf

126

JENNIFER LEE HOFFMAN

About the Author
Dr. Jennifer Lee Hoffman
I am an Assistant Professor in the Center for Leadership in Athletics at the University of
Washington. My research focuses on leadership and policy in intercollegiate athletics. My
recent work focuses on the intersection of gender, ethnicity, and the lack of women in senior
levels of leadership in intercollegiate athletics. I also examine the unintended consequences
of state and federal gender equity policy, including inequities for women of color. My work
appears in the Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education and in “Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives” (Allan, Iverson, &
Ropers-Huilman, Eds., 2009). I have also presented at the Association For the Study of
Higher Education and the American Educational Research Association.

127

EDITORS

Keith Gilbert, University of East London, UK.
Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Mojca Doupona, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Mark Hargreaves, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, USA.
Jack Jedwab, Association for Canadian Studies, Montreal, Canada.
Sid Katz, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Richard Lichen, Beijing Sports University, Beijing, China.
Abdul Hafidz bin Haji Omar, University Technology Malaysia, Malaysia.
Otto J. Schantz, University of Koblenz, Landau, Germany.
Karin Volkwein-Caplan, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, USA.
Rhodri Williams, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

www.SportAndSociety.com

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS

www.Arts-Journal.com

www.Book-Journal.com

www.Climate-Journal.com

www.ConstructedEnvironment.com

www.Design-Journal.com

www.Diversity-Journal.com

www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com

www.Humanities-Journal.com

www.OnTheImage.com

www.Learning-Journal.com

www.Management-Journal.com

www.Museum-Journal.com

www.ReligionInSociety.com

www.Science-Society.com

http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

www.SpacesAndFlows.com

www.SportAndSociety.com

www.Sustainability-Journal.com

www.Technology-Journal.com

www.ULJournal.com

www.Universities-Journal.com
FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT
subscriptions@commongroundpublishing.com