UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Bump, set, spike...spandex : examining coaches' and athletic directors' interpretations of the Canadian.. MacDonald, Kelly 2009

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


ubc_2009_fall_macdonald_kelly.pdf [ 2.2MB ]
JSON: 1.0069920.json
JSON-LD: 1.0069920+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0069920.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0069920+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0069920+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0069920+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0069920 +original-record.json
Full Text

Full Text

BUMP, SET, SPIKE..SPANDEX:EXAMINING COACHES’ ANDATHLETIC DIRECTORS’INTEREPRETATIONS OFTHE CANADIAN INTERUNIVERSITYSPORT WOMEN’S VOLLEYBALLRULE ONPLAYER UNIFORMSbyKELLY MACDONALDB.A. Sociology, Universityof College of the Cariboo,2003A THESIS SUBMITTEDIN PARTIAL FULFILMENTOFTHE REQUIREMENTSFOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATESTUDIES(Human Kinetics)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISHCOLUMBIA(Vancouver)August 2009© Kelly Mac Donald,2009AbstractDespite a gender equity policy and an identical uniform rule for both men’s and women’sCanadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) volleyball players, every CIS women’s volleyball teamwears tight fitting spandex uniforms, while the men’s teams wear looser and longer shorts toplay. The dissimilarities between uniforms for the men’s and women’s volleyball teamsdemonstrate how CIS female volleyball players are governed in inequitable ways that feminizeand sexualize the female players. Informed by feminist critical theory this research provides adiscussion of the gendered power relations that work as a backdrop to the study of one aspect oforganizational culture, namely the uniform rule that has developed in CIS volleyball. UsingMartin’s (1992) three perspective approach to organizational culture this study examines thewomen’s volleyball uniform practice from the perspective of the Canada West, CIS women’svolleyball coaches and athletic directors. The three main themes that emerged from theinterview data reveal that volleyball culture, player input and the power of coaches and athleticdirectors all impact the women’s uniform practices. Additionally, each theme provides supportfor Martin’s integration, differentiation, and fragmentation perspectives. Most notable are thecontradictions, ambiguities and confusion around the spandex uniform as they highlight thecomplexity of the issue by illustrating how coaches’ and athletic directors’ lack clarity andunderstanding about the practice and its implications. This study exposes the gendered sub-textthat flows through the Canada West Volleyball organization and acts as ajumping-off point forengaging in new dialogue about team uniform practices.TABLE OF CONTENTSAbstractiiTable of ContentsiiiCHAPTER 1 Introduction1FIVB Uniforms2Volleyball in Canada3Feminist Critical Theory5Rules as an Aspect of Organizational Culture8Context and Purpose of the Study8CHAPTER 2 Literature Review11Feminist Critical Theory12Power13Hegemony14Gender Discourses and Ideologies14Hegemonic Masculinity and Heterosexism15Emphasized Femininity16Gendered Readings of Organizational Documents17Martin’s Perspectives on Organizational Culture18Integration19Institutional Theory20Differentiation21Fragmentation22Research using Martin’s Framework in Sport Organizations23Equity Policies25Canadian Equity Policies25Liberal Equity Policies25Sexualizing Female Athletes27Media and Marketing28Sports Rules28Rule Interpretation28Rule Creation and Change29Gendered Rules29Female Athlete Uniforms30Social Positioning and Attire31Damaging Consequences32CHAPTER 3 Methodology.35Sample35Ethical Issues37Informed Consent37Anonymity38Data Collection39Interviewing39Elite Interview Schedule39Challenges Encountered41Data Analysis42Coding42Analysis43Trustworthiness46Reflexivity46Soundness of Research47CHAPTER 4 Findings and Discussion49Herstory50From Skirts to ‘Bum-Huggers’50They were Bad. They wereShort. They were Awful51A Sexier Uniform52Factors Affecting the Interpretationsand Enforcement of the UniformRule 54Heternormative Volleyball Culture54It’s not Outrageous to See WomenWear Spandex55A Homophobic Sport57The CIS is Part of a Bigger System58Select and Limited PlayerChoice59Privileged Selection Process60Factors Influencing Players’Decisions61Constraints on Player Choice62Coaches’ and Athletic Directors’ Responsibilities65Explanations for the Differencesin Male and Female VolleyballUniforms 67Traditional Volleyball Practices67That’s What Volleyball LooksLike67Male Versus Female Athlete Input68Spandex Looks Better on Womenthan Men68Whose Comfort Counts. 69Coaches’ and AthleticDirectors’ Justificationsfor GenderingUniforms7 1Different Gameshave DifferentRequirements71Market Availability72Reasons for the Lackof Change tothe Spandex UniformPractice73Sexualized VolleyballCulture73Ignoring Player Resistanceand ProblematicBehaviour75Beauty, Braun, Brains77A Liberal Feminist AthleticDepartment79CHAPTER5 Conclusions and Recommendations81Conclusions81Hegemony82Three Perspectives83Integration83Differentiation85Fragmentation86Recommendations forChange88Critiquing Spandex88Changing the Rules89Suggestions for FutureResearch89Endnotes91References92Appendix A InterviewGuides for athletic directors104Appendix B InterviewGuide for Coaches105Appendix C ContactLetter106Appendix D ConsentForm107Appendix E Ethics Certificate109VLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1.1 Analytic Framework43vi1INTRODUCTIONIt is difficult to think of women’s volleyball without conjuring up images of athletic feats,long and lean bodies, and revealing uniforms. However, volleyball has a long history thatpredates many of the aspects that we relate to today’s game. Volleyball was invented in the1800’s as a less physical activity for business men who did not want to play basketball (Bertucci,1979). Because of its reduced physical contact, it was also considered a suitable sport forwomen; albeit with different rules from the men’s game, specifically with regards to the heightof the net, court dimensions and number of players permitted on the court (Reeser, 2003). Theorganization responsible for the standardization of volleyball rules was the FederationInternational de Volleyball (FIVB), formed in 1947 in Paris, France. This official governingbody held the first men’s world championships in 1949, followed by the women’s in 1952. Theindoor sport made its first appearance as an Olympic sport at the 1964 Olympics, with beachvolleyball being a later addition to the Olympic Games (FIVB — history). The outdoor sport,which originally began as a men’s game played along side women’s beauty contests, did notbecome a FIVB sanctioned game until 1986 and made its first appearance as an official Olympicsport in 1996 at the Atlanta Games (FIVB — history). While the sport drew mediaattention, inpart because of the bikini-like uniforms worn by female beach volleyball players, little researchhas been uncovered to date that criticallyanalyses outdoor or indoor volleyball uniform rules.This study will focus on the latter by analyzing how coachesand athletic directors in oneconference of the Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS)league interpret the women’s indoorvolleyball uniform rule. Addressing this issue will provide a glimpse into the organizationalculture of the sport of volleyball in its broader historical andcultural context.1Volleyball is now second in participation levels to soccer globally (Kenny & Gregory,2006). However, after the successful introduction of beach volleyball at the 1996 OlympicGames, byl 998 the professional beach volleyball associations were struggling for viewershipand sponsorship money (Beach Volleyball Database, 2008). As a means of survival, the twoprofessional beach leagues sanctioned by the FIVB, namely the Association of VolleyballProfessionals (AVP) and the Women’s Professional Volleyball Association (WPVA), began aTV campaign to give exposure to an upcoming tour (FIVB - history). Goals of increasing publicinterest and enhancing the popularity and visibility of the sport were cited among the reasons forsome major rule adjustments to the game in 1998 (Beach Volleyball Database, 2008). Amongthese new rules included changes to the uniform requirements for both beach and indoorvolleyball players. Although the ruling applied only to those competing at the professional andinternational level, many volleyball organizations outside the FIVB jurisdiction, including theCanadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) organization have complied with the FIVB uniformspecifications. It is examining the reasoning behind and the implications of the uniformregulation for women’s indoor volleyball in the CIS that will be the focus of this study.FWB UniformsIn the FIVB casebook, the uniform rule indicates that player jerseys should have anathletic look with short sleeves, a collar, and mustfollow the body line (2003). This regulation isthe same for both women and men, but the FIVB ruling differs on the shorts for male and femaleplayers. Men’s shorts are required to be fitted in the waist, must not be loose or baggyand theinseam must not exceed 10cm. The women’sshorts are required to fit the bodyline, with inseamno longer than 5cm, or must be cut in an upwardsangle towards the top of the leg. Women arealso permitted to wear one piece uniforms (FIVB, 2003). These 1998 FIVB uniform changes for2both men and women differ significantly from the previous rules which simply required playersof either gender to wear a jersey, shorts, socks, and shoes. While both the men’s and women’srules now stipulate a prescribed fit and length of shorts, it is obvious that the women’s shorts rulehas been taken to more of an extreme than that of the men. On their website, the FIVB indicatesthe men’s and women’s rules changed for various reasons including: player development,spectator interests, marketability and sponsorship (FIVB, 2003,p.5). Although the governingbody cited commercialization as the reason for their amendments to the volleyball uniformregulations in 1998, a closer examination of the historically gendered treatment of male andfemale athletes is needed to more fully understand how this rule has been implemented at theamateur level.Volleyball in CanadaTo date, Volleyball Canada, the governing body of volleyball in Canada and activemember in international volleyball, has yet to adopt the FIVB’s 1998 uniform amendment as partof its own governing mandate. Although Canadian teams must abide by the FIVB ruling whilecompeting internationally, the uniform ruling is not in the 2008 Canadian Volleyball rulebook.Under Canadian volleyball rules, the uniform requirements consist ofajersey, shorts, socks, andshoes, with no prescriptions regarding fit or length of the player’s shorts (Volleyball Canada,2008,p.21). The only requirement is that all players must have the same jersey and shorts(p.21). On their website, Volleyball Canada does not specifically mention the reason for thisdivergence from the FIVB, but does provide a link to their policy’ regarding gender equality. Itstates that: “Volleyball Canada is committed toencouraging gender equity in the administration,policies, programs and activities of the Association” (Volleyball Canada, 2007). The documentgoes on to explain the goals of the association whichare: “To ensure equal opportunities, addressthe concerns and needs of both genders, to promote andsupport both sexes equally and to ensure3that governing structure encourages and promotes full and equal participation of both genders”(Volleyball Canada, 2007). Volleyball Canada appears to be employing a liberal feministinterpretation of gender equality, claiming that equal opportunity should be provided to theplayers. However, the terms equality and equity are not interchangeable. Kidd and Donnelly(2000) explain that, “Whereas ‘equality’ means treating persons the same, ‘equity’ means givingall persons fair access to social resources, while recognizing that they may well have differentneeds and interests” (p. 139). Therefore, simply providing equal opportunities for men andwomen does not ensure their fair and equitable treatment. In this study, gender equity will referto the quality of treatment that male and female athletes recieve, where as equality will denotesameness. Volleyball Canada has created its uniform rule in accordance with their equalitymandate as there is to be no difference in treatment based on the gender of the player.The volleyball rules adapted by the CIS organization, the association to which allCanadian university sports teams belong, are essentially the same as those established byVolleyball Canada. While there are slight rule variations in terms of substitutions, playerpositions (eg. Libero1’)and hosting duties, there are no differences based on gender in theuniform requirements between the Volleyball Canada rulebook and those of the CIS. Therefore,the CIS appears to adhere to the gender neutral uniform rule specified by Volleyball Canada.However, it should be noted that all CIS women’s volleyball teams do wear tight spandexshorts to compete in, while the men’s teams wear looser longer shorts, so the actual practice isnot gender neutral as specified in the rulebook. This is problematic because it demonstrates thatso-called equity policies and gender neutral regulations are not enough to eradicate the genderedtreatment of male and female players. Current research and historical analyses of Canadian sportorganizations has shown female athletes are governed in different ways than their malecounterparts and this manner of governance can be oppressive to female athletes (Hall, 2002;4Hoeber, 2007). As such, women’s spandexuniform should not be viewed merely as agarmentworn by female volleyball players, but asan example of the ongoing feminization of femaleathletes. The tight fitting uniforms sexualize the femaleplayers by bringing attention to theirlower bodies (legs and buttocks); in comparison tothe men’s uniforms which are looser and donot focus attention specifically on themale anatomy. A feminist lens is useful when examiningthe values and beliefs that guide the decisions of CIScoaches and athletic directors regarding theuniform rule.Feminist Critical TheoryCritical theory focuses on social injustices and problematizes structuresand institutionsthat operate to maintain inequitable and unjust socialand political relations (Marshall, 1997).The foundations of traditional criticaltheory are solid, but need to be re-conceptualized in orderto be more useful in studying women’s oppressionAccording Marshall (1997), a feministcritical approach combines strands of critical theory,feminism and post-structuralism to examinethe effects of institutional power on women’slives. Different elements of each theory, likediscourse deconstruction, troubling oppressive socialstructures, and critiquing patriarchy, areincorporated under one theoreticalumbrella to address how policy and rule interpretations, forexample, are gendered (Marshall, 1997;Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002; Dongxiao, 2004).Feminist critical theory examines howpower and values are embedded in institutions and are notoften seen as problematic by identifyingboth the formal and informal processes underlyingoppressive power (Marshall, 1997).This theory starts from theassumption that gender inequity results from purposeful,though perhaps unconscious, choices thatserve some groups’ ideology and dominance overothers. Even the interpretation ofsports rules and the resulting practices are affected bydominant discourses that createand reinforce inequitable power relations (Taylor, 1997; Bryce &5Humes, 2003; Skinner, Edwards & Stewart, 2004; Wilson, 2007). In order to critically analyzeindividual rule interpretations, it is important to have an understanding of the discourses thatshape them and how they come to exist. Discourses are dominant forms of knowledge that areexpressed through written, spoken and body language (Penney & Shaw, 2003). They workthrough social institutions to create ideologies, which are social constructs made up of widelyheld beliefs and values. They are used to control both the actions and bodies of people (St.Pierre, 2000, p.8). For example, a gender ideology refers to the commonly held assumptions andexpectations that social actors have about what it means to be male or female. Powerfuldiscourses not only inform the construction of gender ideologies, but are also the channelsthrough which they are displayed (Clark & Cockbum, 2002). They are sustained by a persuasiveform of social control known as hegemony which is central to feminist critical theory because ittheorizes how gender inequities are the result of unequal power relations that are legitimated bytheir depiction as being normal and natural (Donaldson, 1993; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002).Connell (1987) first employed Gramsci ‘ s theory of hegemony to study gender relations in thenow classic work, Gender and Power by theorizing that what we view as ideal male and femalebodies are socially created. She argues that although alternatives and challenges to these genderideals exist, at a collective level certain ideological practices are sustained in order toinstitutionalize men’s dominance over women.Sport is an environment that is guided by heteronormative and masculinist ideals ofgender, where powerful discourses produce and sustain the notion of male and female genders asbinary opposites (Ross & Shinew, 2004; Travers, 2006). This dichotomizes the two genders andassigns them different signifiers with different values attached. For example, men are -traditionally valued for their strength and physical abilities, whereas women are often seen asless physically capable, having their roles tied more to their femininity and sexuality. Connell6(1987) refers to these ideals as hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity, and arguesthat these social categories provide justification for privileging males over females.These social constructions become problematic in sport because powerful individuals likesport managers, coaches, marketing personnel and the media often rely on heteronormativeviews of women to manage the actions and bodies of female athletes.This often means that theathlete’s beauty and sexuality is emphasized over her athletic ability (Guiliano & Knight, 2001;Hardin, Lynn, & Waldorf, 2005; Rinehart, 2005; Bissell & Duke, 2007; Chrouser& Gurung,2007). For some coaches and athletic directors, feminine ideals guide the way they governwomen’s sports (Hoeber, 2007). For example, the rules of sports are often used as a way tofeminize female athletes when they are altered from the men’s game to accommodate aperceived inferiority in female physiology (Vertinsky, 1990; Hall, 2002). In fact, a historicalanalysis of Western sport demonstrates that the feminization of female athletes throughregulations is a long standing practice (Calm, 1993; Lenskyj, 1995; Wright & Clarke, 1999; Hall,2002). It is one that needs to be investigated further because it is through the analysis of thesesocial practices “that we become aware that certain interpretations of values are implementedand maintained by dominant powerful groups” (Hoeber, 2004, p.’7).Because the goals of feminist critical theory are to disrupt the status quo, to critiquedominant power structures by analyzing taken for granted assumptions about gender, and tocreate alternatives meanings and practices that are more equitable (St. Pierre, 2000), thisemancipatory approach is a very useful tool when looking rules of sport. However, an additionaltheory which focuses more on micro organizational cultures is needed to further unpack the CISpractice of spandex uniforms and to critically analyze interpretations of the volleyball uniformrule.7Rules as an Aspect of Organizational CultureOrganizational practices are those which shape the operations of an organization and caninclude formal or informal guides for behaviour (Martin, 1992). Equity policies, sports rules andeven unwritten norms fall under this category. I argue that studying the spandex uniform rule asan aspect of organizational culture will reveal how gendered ways of thinking are embedded insport rule making and how these create and sustain the inequitable treatment of female athletes.Martin’s (1992) theory builds on DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) institutional theory that arguesthere is homogeneity within and among organizations by expanding the level of analysis toexplore the additional complexities of organizational culture, which includes conflict andambiguity. She developed three approaches for analyzing organizational cultures known asintegration, differentiation andfragmentation which helps to explain how values can be shared,viewed differently by different organizational sub-groups, or silenced altogether.Fenton, Frisby and Luke (1999) and Hoeber (2004) used these same perspectives in theirstudies of sport organizational cultures and serve as the guiding studies behind my own research.They found evidence of consistent themes across the organizations, as well as other beliefsshared only at the sub-group level, and silenced and ambiguous values that contributed to thehow the organizations handled policies and practices related to the gender of students andathletes.Context and Purpose of the StudyThe purpose of this study is to critically analyze how spandex shorts have become theuniform for women’s volleyball teams in British Columbia and Alberta that compete in the CIS,when the CIS rulebook has no specific uniform requirements. This will be accomplished byinterviewing the coaches and athletic directors of each CIS school in BC and Alberta with a8women’s volleyball team about their reasoning and roles in implementing the spandex uniformpractice. My research questions are as follows:1. What considerations are made by CIS women’s volleyball coaches and athleticdirectors when implementing the uniform rule?2. What explanations do the coaches and athletic directors cite for the differences inthe uniforms worn by male and female CIS volleyball players?3. Do coaches and/or athletic directors feel there is a need to change the spandexuniform practice?Coaches and athletic directors hold powerful positions within the CIS organization and itis their responsibility to help make team decisions (Armstrong-Doherty, 2005; Hoeber, 2007;Kihl, Kikulis, & Thibault, 2007), including implementing and enforcing the uniform rule.Because these team authorities often act as the cultural leaders for their teams, individualvolleyball players were not consulted in this study. The aim of this research is to get theperspective of sport leaders as their voices would provide significant insight into the study ofpower dynamics and gender relations in CIS volleyball program.Despite a gender neutral uniform rule and gender equity policies in the CIS, the practiceof dressing the men’s and women’s teams according to FIVB uniform prescriptions illustratesthat male female volleyball players in the CIS level are governed in gendered ways. I do notnecessarily advocate that men’s and women’s teams should be run identically as this assumes thegenders are socially neutral constructs and overlooks other external factors that may affect themen and women’s teams differently. The uniform practices should be examined critically andthis has not yet been done in the literature. The goal of this study is to shed some light onto whythese uniforms continue to be chosen for amateur female athletes with a hope of providing9additional insight into the study of gender equity in CIS sport and potentially makingrecommendations for change to the CIS volleyball organization.102LITERATURE REVIEWThis chapter discusses the theories and literature that inform my study in more depth.The first section focuses on how feminist critical theory is useful for studying the genderedtreatment of female athletes, because of its emphasis on socially created gender ideals andpower. This approach helped me to analyze and critique the current gender order in CISvolleyball and the concepts of masculinity and femininity which are of particular relevance giventhe connections between power and gender ideologies and their impact on rule formation andimplementation. However, in order to critically analyze sport rules one must also have anunderstanding of the organizational culture in which they are created, understood andimplemented. Martin’s (1992) theory examines organizational culture and how thesemanifestations impact the decisions made by organizational members. Her approach works wellwith DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) institutional theory as they both focus on the practices oforganizational members and the resulting effects, although Martin’s work offers additionalperspectives on how this occurs.In the next section of this chapter, I discuss the literature that contextualizes my study.Research on gender equity policies provides insight into the efforts taken by Canadian universitysport organizations to create more equitable environments for student-athletes. The literaturecritiques liberal feminist equity policies and demonstrates how multiple interpretations of thesepolicies can affect the ways in which sport is governed. This leads into a discussion of thesexualisation of female athletes by leaders in the sport world including coaches, sport managers,media professionals, and marketing agents. This literature is important because it demonstrateshow feminized, heteronormative and sexualized ideologies of female athletes are perpetuated11through practices in sporting cultures. A review of the literature on how therules of sport areinfluenced by these agents of sport and by other factors follows. It examines howrules arecreated and changed, interpreted, and how they are gendered. The chapterconcludes withresearch on female athletes’ uniforms and how dress code regulations and requirementshave along standing history in the study of gender and sport and a discussionof the damagingconsequences that these practices can have on female athletes.Feminist Critical TheoryFemininst critical theory questions how the social construction of gender limits thepossibilities for equity. Specifically, it examines how ideological agendas in organizationaldocuments serve and benefit dominant groups (Marshall, 1997). Because thesetheorists studypower relations found within structures, institutions and the social constructionof knowledge,the sporting world is an interesting site to examine because it is embedded in politics, culture,theeconomy and historical patterns of men’s patriarchal control over women (Cole, 1994; Theberge,1985). The hierarchies in dominant forms of western sports are skewed toward reproducingandreifying a cultural myth of male physical superiority (Rinehart, 2005), making sportaninstitution that keeps most women from occupying positions of power and rewards men formonopolizing those channels (Theberge, 1985). It reinforces a power differential based ongender that is not only favourable to some males, but also constraining towards most women(Ross & Shinew, 2004).The production of knowledge is an exercise in power where only some voices areheardand few are acted upon (Hoeber, 2007). Organizational decisions are rarely inclusiveand tend tobe patriarchal and masculinist, thus embedding and rationalizing gender inequities inorganizational cultures (Benschop & Doorewaard,1998; Fenton & Frisby, 1999; Hoeber&Frisby, 2001; Hoeber, 2007). Because policies and rules are interpreted at differentlevels and12from varying points of view depending on the discourses available to the reader, they can yieldmultiple perspectives (Taylor 1997; Humes & Skinner, 2003; Skinner, Edwards & Stewart,2004). Yet, powerful social actors determine the availability of discoursesand are primarilyresponsible for the interpretations that take precedence in the governanceof a sport (Hargreaves,1990; Hoeber, 2004; Ross & Shinew, 2004).PowerPoststructuralists theorize that power is embedded in the production of knowledge andcan shift from one source to another because as Foucault (1977) claims, no one is ever simplyfully oppressed or dominated. However, it is important to understand that powerful groups oftenresist challenges to the historically entrenched social order by suppressing alternative or‘deviant’ forms of knowledge, resulting in the maintenance of the status quo. As Green (2004)argues, “one person’s agency is another’s structure” (p.380). Power is mediatedby andinstantiated in structures and through institutions (Green, 2004), that create and communicatesocial knowledge that constructs our notions of reality (Barnett & Finnemore, 1999). Thisresults in “rituals of truth” (Foucault, 1977,p.194) or master narratives about the ways the worldshould work that can become taken for granted and rarely challenged. While I agree that poweris relational, I argue that it is often exercised in an exclusionary manner becauseas St. Pierre(2000) articulates, although everyone is born into relations of power, not everyone is free to fullyexpress their agency.Green (2004) theorizes that power should be measured by the capacity of actors toredefine the parameters of what is socially and politically possible for others, indicating that“allactivity takes place within the context provided by a set of pre-existing social structures”(p.383). CIS coaches and athletic directors possess the power to shape the playing context forathletes because they have the capacity to establish rules and norms, passing on and instilling13models of behaviour over time (Barnett & Finnmore, 1999). KihI, Kikulis and Thibault (2007)found that although there has been increasing support for athlete-centredapproaches to sportdecision making, there are few documented examples of this. In addition,it is administratorswho ‘give authority’ to the players and their input is often “limitedand expedited rather thanjudged as a critical part to enhancing policy making decisions (Kihi, et al., 2007,p.24). Suchorganizational practices originate from and remain linked to normative behaviours andcontradictions in the larger social and historical environment (Barnett & Finnmore, 1999).HegemonyHegemonic theories argue that ideological concepts and binary social categories,including male/female, and masculinity/femininity are socially created and bound by historicalcontexts. Western feminists contend it is white, upper/middle class, heterosexual males whopossess the authority to create and maintain dominant ideologies that guide our values andactions (Shaw & Slack, 2002, Wilson, 2007). Hegemony is a theory of persuasive rather thancoercive power. Complicity is a key element as ideas are achieved and sustained becausesubordinate groups come to believe their place in the social system is right and natural (Ross &Shinew, 2004). This does not mean total cultural dominance or the obliterations of alternativeways of knowing or being (Connell, 1987; Cockburn & Clarke, 2002; Hargreaves, 1990),butspeaks to the cultural and ideological pressures that embed certain behaviors, while discouragingothers.GenderAnderson (1999) argues that while there are often many competing versions ofmasculinity and femininity in a culture at any given time, power structures influence whichconstructions of gender become dominant or subordinated. Biological differences between the14sexes are emphasized and ground masculine and feminine ideologies that are inscribed on thebody (Sankaran & Volkwein-Caplan, 2002; Ross & Shinew, 2004; Travers, 2007).Hegemonic masculinity and heterosexismAccording to Connell (1987) the most important aspect of hegemonic masculinity isheterosexuality and the appearance of heterosexism. A man’s body should provide clues or signsof his sexual preference according to established symbols of ideal hetero-masculinity whichhistorically have been bound to size, physical abilities, strength and sexual prowess (Connell,1990; Dworkin & Wachs, 2000). Participation in sport is commonly believed to reify the notionof hegemonic masculinity because it facilitates the production of the idealized male body andprovides an arena for the display of masculine traits, including athleticism and strength(Anderson, 1999). However, this hyper-masculine stage risks being viewed as homoeroticbecause bodily displays are generally associated with a feminine ideology. Ideal men are notmeant to be viewed as objects of gaze; they “are not supposed to enjoy being surveyed” (Bordo,1999,p.173). There is a social association between male homosexuality and male bodydisplays, including wearing tight or revealing clothing like sport uniforms (Bordo, 1999; Dunbar& Hunt & Messner, 2000; Adams, 2005; Miles, 2005; Reilly & Rudd, 2007). Becauseappearances serve as cultural symbolic systems that communicate personal characteristics toothers, men’s appearances must be policed to reject all signs of homosexuality and femininity(Swain, 2002; Reilly & Rudd, 2007). For example, Adams (2005) found that male ballet dancersare often criticized for allowing their bodies to be put on display. The rejection of ‘feminine’clothing by most males reinforces ‘natural’ boundaries between the genders, and helps to ensurethat male hegemonic discourses are maintained.15Emphasized femininityUnlike our understandings of men’s roles as leaders, protectors and athletes, the feminineideology is premised on reproduction. Indeed, a woman’s value has historically been tied to herreproductive capability (Vertinsky, 1990). As a result they are often viewed as sexual objectswhose bodies are meant for public display (Connell, 1987; Bordo, 1999). Like the hegemonicman, the ideal woman must also be heterosexual, however the ways in which her sexuality isdisplayed differs significantly from males because femininity must be emphasized (Connell,1987). Accordingly, a female’s role is to be beautiful, vulnerable and small (Ross &Shinew,2004). Pronger (1990) argues that cheerleading is a sport that explempifies the concept ofemphasized femininty because the majority of the women who participate in this sport are petite,attractive and sexually appealing. They are seen as having the ideal feminine body andparticipating in a sport that is meant for the consumption of men. While I concur thatcheerleading can be seen as espousing feminine ideals, I would add that female athletescompeting in less aesthetic sports are not necessarily considered to be less feminine, though inthese sports appearance monitoring becomes extremely important to ensuring that femininity andheterosexuality are not questionned (Dworkin, 2001; Adams-Curtis, Forbes, Holmgren &White,2004; Ross & Shinew, 2004).Most female athletes are encouraged not to overdevelop their muscles (Dworkin, 2001;Robinson, 2002) and to dress in ways that convey traditional notions of femininity, like wearingmakeup and dressing in feminine uniforms (Ross & Shinew, 2004). For their efforts they arerewarded with social acceptance, the potential for media attention and for a few, lucrativesponsorship deals (Balsamo 1994; Koivula 1999; Guiliano & Knight, 2001; Shugart, 2003;Barnes et.al, 2004; Schultz, 2005). In contrast, those “who resist the gender regime will facealienation from the people around them and those most important to them” (Clarke, Gill &16Cockburn, 2002, p.657). Their femininity is heavily marked to reinforce the idea of the naturedifferences between men and women and to silence challenges to dominant gender categories(Hargreaves, 1990). This dichotomization locks people into fixed gender categories(Hargreaves, 1990) and provides justification for setting different rules for male and femaleathletes.There is still a widely held belief that females are less physically able than males due tophysiological inferiorities (Vertinksy, 1990; Hall, 2002). This notion is exemplified in sport,where modified rules are seen to be necessary for many women’s games in order toaccommodate their ‘lesser ability’. In sports like women’s basketball, volleyball, and hockey therules have been adapted from the men’s versions. Some examples include smaller and lighterballs for female basketball players, lower net heights for women volleyball players, and rulesagainst physical contact in women’s hockey. These feminized rules reflect the broader discoursearound the lack of size, strength and overall fragility of the female body. They also serve to limitthe potential for female athletes to challenge the dominant understandings about the capabilitiesof males and females.Gendered Readings of Organizational DocumentsThe rules of sport can be considered to be social constructions of power when theybecome institutionalized as written rules to govern sportbehaviour. According to feministcritical theorists, “for any text with a plurality of readers, there will exist a pleurality of readings”(Anderson, 1999, p.32). Therefore, we must take into account the broader context in whichtextsare understood, as organizational control and decisions are most often dependent on sociallyconstructed ideologies (Connell, 1987). As sport operates primarily in a male-centricenvironment, it is not surprising that the creators of sport policy and rules are often guided bygendered ‘truths’ (Hargreaves, 1990; Marshall, 1999; Hoeber, 2004).17Smith (1991, 2001) contends that texts are responsible for socialand organizationalconditions and many researchers argue that a gendered subtextflows through institutional sportdocuments, like policies and rules (Edwards, Skinner, & Stewart,2004; Frisby & Shaw, 2006).Martin (2000) suggests that even when gender assumptions and discoursesappear to be genderneutral, they are often quite the opposite. As an example, Hoeber (2007)found gender inequitywas embedded and rationalized in the organizational culture of an athleticdepartment when sherevealed several contributing factors including: a liberal feministattitude, rationalizing andnormalizing factors regarding inequity, and a silence surrounding oppositionaldiscourses. Whengender is ignored in discourse, it essentially neutralizes the differencesbetween men and womenthat may be result in unequal treatment (Martin, 2000).Martin’s Perspectives on Organizational CultureMartin (1992) theorizes that there are different manifestations thatmake uporganizational cultures: forms, practices and content themes. Cultural formsprovide clues as towhat employees are thinking, believing and doing and can be studiedby examiningorganizational rituals, humour and dress codes. Cultural practices refer to theformal andinformal modes of operation within an organization including structures,rules and unwrittennorms. Those who study content themes explore the threads of concern that manifestthemselvesin the forms and practices of the organization. Martin (1992) argues that each manifestationispart of a matrix needed to study and understand organizational cultures.Martin’s (1992) book Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives,provides atheoretical guide for analyzing the multiple interpretations of sport rules.Using the transcriptsfrom a previous study of a fortune 500 company, Martin developed her three perspectiveapproach to describe the different types of interpretations that can co-existamongstorganizational members concurrently. Her approach is in keeping with feministcritical theory18because it takes gender relations into account and considers multipleand shifting view points oforganizational activities, including rule making. With her perspectivesof integration,differentiation, andfragmentation, she theorizes thatsimilarities, differences and ambiguities canall exist simultaneously within an organization at one point in time, eventhough they are rarelystatic.IntegrationMartin (1992) suggests that there often are some constantthemes that exist inorganizations that are well understood and shared by most organizationalmembers and guidepractices. She refers to this set of shared values as the integration perspectiveof organizationalculture and argues it serves to control actions when leaders act as organizationalcultural creatorsand transformers. In sports organizations, historically entrenched valuesare often passed downfrom league executives or boards through policies and rules in a top downfashion. Researcherswho study integration argue that members of sport leagues followthese mandates, rules orinfonnal norms not just because of external forces, but because they often share similarphilosophies on how sport organizations should function (Barr, Mitchell & Crosset,1999;Tajima, 2007).Some members use these shared understandings to their personaladvantage. In Wachs’(2005) study of a co-ed softball league, some female players were usinga commonunderstanding of female athletic inferiority to gain an advantage over opponents.For example,when a female player stepped up to bat, she would play up the notion of her inabilityby makingjokes or looking afraid in order to draw the outfield in towards home plate and wouldthen hit theball into the outfield.19Institutional theoryInstitutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) shedslight on the mechanisms thatmight be responsible for integrated or shared meanings in Martin’s(1992) framework oforganizational culture. Isomorphism is a term first coinedby Hawley (1968) and refers to theconstraining processes that force one unit in a population to resembleother units that face similarenvironmental conditions (Hawley 1968, cited in DiMaggioand Powell, 1983, p.149). Onecould look at the consistency of the spandex rule across women’svolleyball teams to be a resultof isomorphic processes across CIS athletic departments due to coercive, mimeticor normativepressures.Coercive pressure stems from political influences and the problemof being viewed as alegitimate and lawful organization. This type of pressure results from formaland informalpressures exerted on organizations by others upon whom they are dependentand by social andcultural expectations of the society within which they are situated(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).For example, the women’s CIS volleyball teams could feel an informal pressureto comply withFIVB uniform requirements because they are members of the elite volleyballcommunity and theFIVB is the leading authority on international volleyball. Institutionaltheorists theorizeincreasing homogeneity is the result of increased conformity tothe practices of largerinstitutions.However, these same theorists argue that homogeneity may alsoresult from anorganization’s response to uncertainty. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) suggestthat whencompanies feel unstable in their position in the market they will model themselvesafter otherorganizations whom they perceive to be more legitimate and successful in thefield (DiMaggio &Powell, 1983; Martin, 2000; Amis & Shaw, 2001). This is referred toas a mimetic pressure ininstitutional theory. Studies have shown the FIVB’s requirements about revealing female20uniforms have been a successful way of attracting audiences, sponsors and media attention(Balsamo 1994; Koivula 1999; Guiliano and Knight, 2001; Chrouser & Gurung, 2007).If coaches and athletic directors from different CIS athletic departments were to exhibitismorphic practices because of similar professional traits and a common understandingof howintercollegiate sports should be governed, this would be an example of DiMaggio and Powell’s(1983) third isomorphic pressure, known as normative pressure. Due to lack of variation in theprofessional traits of organizational actors, similarities across organizations are often apparent.This may be due to a small hiring pool with similar training and experience, the same promotionprocesses and/or having comparable skill requirements for occupations (DiMaggio & Powell,1983). Organizational homogeneity seems inevitable and unavoidable in institutional theory,however this theory does not allow for the differentiation or ambiguity that Martin (2000)suggests can also exist within organizational cultures. As she explains, organizationalhomogeneity may be the result of consensus, consistency and clarity of meanings amongorganizational members (integration), but a lack of cohesion (differentiation), silence andambiguity (fragmentation) can simultaneously exist in organizational culture.DifferentiationDifferentiation acknowledges that conflict and differences of opinion exist and helps toaccount for the inconsistent meanings and practices present in organizations. Martindemonstrates how it is possible for consensus to exist at this sub-group level using her concept ofdifferentiation. Subcultures often arise as reactionaries and exert their own power in anorganization by creating their own meanings that are in opposition to dominant discourses(Young, 1989; Martin, 1992; Bloor & Dawson, 1994). For example, in a study of femaleworkers in industrial plant in England, Young (1989) found that although all the women were allworking to make the same products for the company, the shop floor was divided into two groups21with different values in terms of work ethic, job security, friendships and the need forcooperation between them. Even shared events that led to a feeling of unity (e.g., wearing a roseon St. Georges Day) was divided in meaning between the two groups as the older groupassociated it with the royal family, and the younger women saw it as more of an informal socialevent. Young’s (1989) study supports Martin’s contention that multiple and diverse interests canbe present in organizational sub-cultures. However, as Martin (1992) points out, thedifferentiation and the integration perspectives are limited on their own because some values areambiguous, or not freely expressed and shared by all sub-cultural members.FragmentationFragmentation refers to the silences and ambiguities observed in organizational cultures,even when some values are shared by all organizational members or by certain sub-cultures. Inthis perspective, organizational values are seen as always being in flux, so meanings areconstantly changing (Martin, 1992). This perspective recognizes that power is exercised ratherthan possessed and that authority is not always top-down or located in sub-cultures which canresult in a lack of clarity or conflict. This dissensus can create symbolic and ideologicalambiguity among members, the latter being of particular relevance to this study as this type ofduality results from the conflict between espoused values and actual practices. Hoeber’s (2007)study of an athletic department revealed that while members vocally indicated gender equity wasan organizational priority, little action was being taken to ensure it was implemented. She foundthe ambiguities and silences within the department were detrimental to implementing genderequity policy, because staff members had a limited understanding of it and were unsure ofproposing alternative to the existing notions of gender equality, which focuses more on equalopportunities to participate rather than on quality of treatment. As a result, the established andinequitable social order went unquestioned and unchanged (Hoeber, 2007).22Research Using Martin’s Framework in Sport OrganizationsOne study that employed Martin’s three perspective approach in a sport setting is that ofFenton, Frisby and Luke (1999). In a case study of a low income multi-racial school, theresearchers used focus groups, observational techniques, interviews and document analysis andfound support for Martin’s theory. Evidence of integration included a shared value amongorganizational members about the importance of physical education and fair play. At the sametime, differentiation was apparent as students and teachers had differing values regarding studentsafety, gendered play, and the gym clothing policy. For example, the girls were displeased withthe selection of spare clothing provided by the physical education teacher for those who did notbring proper gym attire. They felt that long pants or their regular clothes should be acceptableforms of clothing, but the teacher only provided shorts and t-shirts.Also apparent were inconsistencies and silences, evidence of Martin’s fragmentationperspective, around issues associated with gender, poverty and race. The school’s policy was totreat everyone the same, so their practice of having a girls’ only gym class were quitecontradictory. The researchers also noted that although the multiracial makeup and poverty ofthe student body and community were acknowledged in a general way, these issues were absentin discussions about the physical education program. The findings of Fenton, Frisby and Luke(1999) demonstrate that the three perspective approach can be useful in explaining how theorganizational culture of a sport organization influences its practices and policies, although theyalso argue that Martin’s perspectives did not have equal explanatory power.Despite this criticism, Hoeber and Frisby (2001) found Martin’s concepts of integration,differentiation, and fragmentation helpful in analyzing the organizational culture of a Canadianuniversity athletic department. They used her framework to gain insight into how the differentmeanings of gender equity could account for disjunctures between policy and practice. They23found the majority of organizational membersshared a liberal feminist understanding ofgenderequity which meant ‘equal opportunity’for male and female athletes. This initiallyappeared todemonstrate integration because of the consensus,consistency, and clarity amongthe group.However, the findings also suggested thatsubgroups within the organizationhad differentmeanings of the term ‘equal opportunity’ assome felt it was about funding thatwas not equalbetween male and female teams, while otherslinked it to equal treatment interms of mediaexposure and game times. These variationsprovide evidence of differentiation. Fragmentationwas also apparent when uncertainty was expressedregarding the implementation of thegenderequity policy and in the contradictions betweenthe members’ dialogue and direct examplesprovided of their practices. The results ofthis study once again demonstrate that Martin’stheoryis helpful for studying organizational culture in a sportorganization.However, Hoeber and Frisby (2001), likeFenton, Frisby and Luke (1999),also maderecommendations for future research using thistheory. One suggestion was to “morefullyexamine the practices of administrators, coachesand athletes, in order to illustrate if desiredorganizational values are being translated into practice”(Hoeber & Frisby, 2001,p.199). Mystudy addresses this suggestion directly by interviewing coachesand athletic directors in the CISregarding their choices in volleyball uniforms.In addition, I hope to add a further dimensiontoMartin’s perspectives by incorporating differenttheories, like that of DiMaggio and Powell(1983) into her existing concepts. I use this multi-perspective approachto examine howorganizational values, like gender equity, are expressed in CISvolleyball team uniform practices.24Equity PoliciesCanadian Equity PoliciesSport uniform rules should be understood withinthe broader historical evolution ofgender equity policies in university sport.Gender equity has been an ongoing issuefor Canadianuniversity athletics since second wave feminismin the late 1960’s and 1970’s(Harrigan, 2003).Since the merging of the men’s and women’s governingbodies of university sport in 1978(Harrigan, 2003, p.58), and the 1984 Canadian Charterof Rights and Freedoms, genderequityhas been a stated priority in Canadian university sportorganizations. Harrigan’s (2003)historical investigation indicates that starting inthe mid 1990’s the governing body ofuniversitysport, now known as Canadian InteruniversitySport (CIS), has made significant efforts towardsgreater gender equity. Between 1993 and 1997, theCIS developed gender-integratedsponsorship and television packages to ensure theexposure of women’s sport. In 1997,itintroduced an anti-discrimination and harassmentpolicy and in 2000 an equity policy wasestablished regarding athlete funding (Harrigan, 2003). However,much like Title IX in the US,most of the initiatives emphasized equal accessto participation, and this quantitative focus doeslittle to challenge organizational discourses, structuresor conditions that create and sustaingender inequalities (Hargreaves, 1990; Boutilier& SanGiovanni, 1994; Slack & Shaw,2002;Shaw & Frisby, 2006).Liberal Equity PoliciesLiberal feminist approaches to gender equity, like those mentionedabove, assume that allsocial categories (e.g. male/female) are neutral andcan be treated equally. They ignore othersocial factors, such as gender, race, ethnicity, and class that createinequalities (Penney & Shaw,2003). By treating each social category as equal, it canbe argued that liberal policies are aimedat governing a homogenous social body. This disregards researchshowing that policies willbe25interpreted in different ways by individual readersand that these interpretations will be shapedby their own beliefs, values, opinions and culture (Taylor,1997; Humes & Skinner, 2003;Skinner, Edward & Stewart, 2004; DeD’amico, Girginov,& Papadimitrou, 2006).A good example of how policy is subjectto individual interpretation is the USA’s TitleIX from the Education Amendments of 1972. The billenacted during the period of second wavefeminism indicates that: “No person in the UnitedStates shall, on the basis of sex,be excludedfrom participation in, be denied the benefits of, orbe subjected to discrimination under anyeducation program or activity receiving federal financialassistance” (Yaracko, 2002,p.80). Aspublic universities in the US receive governmentfunding, all programs in educationalinstitutions were subject to comply with the law, includingsports programs. Influenced by liberalfeminist pressures, the bill addressed issues of opportunityfor some female students. To liberalfeminists, equal opportunity and equality were synonymous (Boutilier& SanGiovanni, 1994),where the law formally recognized that female studentsat public universities and colleges shouldreceive the same opportunities and funding that their malecounterparts.In the patriarchal sport arena, the bill was interpretedin such a way that failed to alter thesystem favouring males. For example, although the bill created moreopportunities for femaleathletes to compete in university sports, it has also been credited withthe decline of femalecoaches and administrators, as their positions were taken overby an influx of men into thesystem (Wolohan & Mathes, 1996). It has also been criticizedfor failing to address the lack ofopportunities for women of colour (Boutilier & SanGiovanni, 1994)and for causing strongfeelings of resentment from the male athletes towards thefemale athletes, whom they sawastaking away their resources (Yaracko, 2002).Policies alone do not influence behaviour, but howthe text is interpreted andimplemented is also important. One could argue that gender inequitiesin sport are the result of26‘neutral’ policies interpreted according to dominant ideas about male and female athletes andtheir sporting cultures. Sport equity policies may theoretically guide an organization’s actions,but it is the interpretations of these texts that can impact the decisions of sport managers andaffect the way a sport is run.Sexualizing Female AthletesWhile the focus of my study is on the women’s volleyball uniform rule in the CanadaWest regional district of the CIS, it should be noted that other sports organizations have madesimilar suggestions regarding the possibility of implementing more revealing uniformrequirements for their female players. In 2004, Sepp Blatter, president of the FederationInternational de Football Association (FIFA), the governing body of soccer, announced thatwomen’s soccer should promote a more “aesthetic look”. He questioned why women players didnot wear tighter shorts and suggested letting “the women play in more feminine clothes like theydo in volleyball” (Soccer, 2004). Similar sentiments about the male soccer players’ appearancewere notably absent. By focusing on the female players’ appearance and sexuality, Blatter iseffectively shifting the attention away from the athlete’s ability to more readily accepted socialroles as sex objects or objects of the male gaze. In fact as recently as 2009, women’s socceruniforms were still being adjusted to fit a more ‘gender appropriate’ look. On February 24,2009, the Women’s Professional Soccer (WPS) league website unveiled the new professionalwomen’s soccer uniforms, now consisting of an optional skorttm (2009). While these instancesprovide examples of how female athletes are feminized as a marketing tactic of sport authorities,this practice can also be seen in media coverage of female athletes.Media and MarketingMedia studies have shown that feminized and sexualized language is the dominant waythat female athletes are portrayed and discussed in the sports media (Guiliano & Knight, 2001;27Hardin, Lynn, & Waldorf, 2005; Rinehart, 2005; Bissell & Duke, 2007; Wilson, 2007). Themedia often represents women in keeping with cultural ideals of “natural” femininity and eroticbeauty (Balsamo, 1994; Wilson, 2007). A female athlete’s attractiveness, sexuality and/ormaternal obligations often dominate media coverage both linguistically and in imagery. In astudy of the pictures taken of women’s beach volleyball at the 2004 Olympic Games,photographers had used highly sexualized camera angles when photographing the femalecompetitors (Bissell & Duke, 2007). When compared to photographs of the male players,pictures of female volleyball players focused on individual body parts, with close-ups of theirchests and buttocks and celebratory embracing rather than on acts of athleticism (Bissell &Duke, 2007). Other studies have echoed these findings, with some authors even suggesting thatthe images of female volleyball players resemble the photographs of soft-core pornography(Barnes, Bower & Thomsen, 2004). Despite the obviously sexualized uniforms of the women’sbeach volleyball players, it is surprising that there is not more literature that crtitiques thepractice.Sports RulesRule InterpretationRegulations are text that can be understood in many ways by different individuals andthere is a wealth of literature dedicated to the study of changing sport rules (Kando & Watson,1976; Kew, 1987; Kew 1992; Russell, 1999; McFee, 2004). While it has been suggested thatgames and sports change because of the rule inadequacies (Kew, 1992), it is more likely that ourchanging interpretations of the rules continue to shape and change sport (Kew, 1987; Russell,1999; McFee, 2004). For example, Russell’s (1999) study of baseball rules, found that sportsrules are often untidy and ambiguous because, as illustrated in an interview with one umpire whosaid, “When I’m right no one remembers. When I’m wrong, no one forgets” (p.41). This28implies that not only are multiple meanings of rules possible, but that power relations must alsobe examined when considering whose interpretaions count.Rule creation and changeAccording to Vamplew (2007), exclusion has been the guiding principle behind modernsport regulations. In his historical analysis of the origins of sports rules of British sport,Vamplew (2007) argues that although rules were first established to govern the gambling habitsof men to ensure no unfair advantages, rules were later used in order to determine eligibility.Rules were created to exclude ‘undesireables’ (women, professionals, non-whites) fromcompeting along side wealthy, white men. When women did begin to participate in competitivesport at the turn of the20thcentury, it was under a different set of rules than men (Hall, 2002).This ensured that women remained mostly excluded from participating in men’s sports or againstmale competitors. Separation and exclusion are outcomes of power imbalances that need to becritically explored in sport in order to understand how rules become gendered.Gendered rulesImportant questions to ask when looking at men’s and women’s sport rules are: Whomakes the rules and why do differences between men’s and women’s rules exist? Hall’s (2002)book, ‘The Girl and the Game: A History of Women’s Sport’ in Canada chronicles Canadianwomen’s sport participation during the 1900’s. She explains how in the early years of women’ssport, rules about how a game should be played were created and enforced by female physicaleducators. It was assumed that only women could understand the female body and thereforehave the knowledge to properly govern the body’s actions. Women’s rules were guided by thescientific discourse of the time that assumed a woman’s body was weaker than a man’s body. Infact, there was a widespread belief that women were chronically weak and had a limited amountof energy (Vertinsky, 1990). As a result, the rules of sport needed to take a female athlete’s29inferior physiology into account. Unlike their male counterparts, female basketball players usedthe “Spalding Rules” to govern their games. The court was divided into thirdsand each playerwas assigned to mark one zone. A player was not permitted to move beyond her zone as thiscould lead to over exertion (Hall, 2002). While the rule was an obvious feminizing of basketball,physical educators defended their actions by indicating that the rules were “not an adaption ofthe men’s game” (p.72), but a different game designed to suit the reduced physicality of womento ensure feminine qualities were maintained.Female Athletes’ UniformsMany researchers have studied the role that the feminist theory has played in shaping ofwomen’s sports in the20thcentury, including the prevalence of dress codes for female athletes.As Bordo (1993) wrote:We are no longer given verbal descriptions or exemplars of what a lady is or ofwhat femininity consists. Rather, we learn the rules directly through bodilydiscourse: through images that tell us what clothes, body shape, facial expression,movements, and behaviour are required. (p.170)Homophobia is one such factor that drove women’s sports leagues to enforce mandatory dresscodes and ‘feminine’ uniforms for their players (Calm, 1993; Lenskyj, 1995; Wright & Clarke,1999; Hall, 2002; Shugart, 2003). Since sport was considered to be a man’s domain,participation within that arena conflicted with feminine ideals. One strategy to dispell the fearsof overly masculine women and suppress any fears about lesbianism in sport was through theenforcement of female appropriate attire. These findings appear consistent across women’ssports from the early 1900’s to the present day, supporting the the idea that the reification offemininity in sport is an enduring practice.30Social Positioning and AttireHistorical analyses of women’s clothing have shownthat a female’s clothing reflects herposition in society (Schweinzbenz, 2000). Hall (2002)argues that the feminine uniformswornby female athletes in the 1920’s and 30’s were designedin ways that reminded not only thewomen but also their audiences of their feminine traitsand of their social roles. The uniformsemphasized their beauty and modesty. Female basketballplayers wore knee length middies withbloomers and stockings covering the knee (Hall, 2002).The bulky and restrictive clothingeffectively hindered the athletes’ performances, ensuringthat they did not challenge the notionofmale superiority in sport. The guiding ideologies of uniformsdesign that emphasized femininityover function changed very little prior to the women’smovement in the later half of thecentury. In the 1940’s and 50’s when the all-female All AmericanBaseball League wasestablished, the players were still required to wear skirts and makeupin competitions. Althoughthese modest garments may be quite outdated today, the actof feminizing female athletesthrough dress codes and uniform requirements is very mucha current issue.In the past two decades major governing bodies of women’s sportshave institutedregulations around the players’ attire. For example, the AustralianWomen’s Cricket Board hasimposed expectations that skirts and dresses must be worn by female playersat all officialfunctions. Glamour shots of the cricket players are also availableon file for media consumption(Wright & Clarke, 1999). In golf, professional ‘image ladies’ have beenhired to promote amore publicly acceptable image for the LPGA golfers, and on some Americanuniversitycampuses there are mandatory ‘makeover’ classes for members of women’svarsity sport teams(Lenskyj, 1995). This policing and constant monitoring of the femaleathletes’ appearance actsto silence fears of homosexuality and legitimate heteronormative beliefsabout how womenshould look and behave. It homogenizes particular feminine ideals as ameans of reproducing31the gender order (Schultz, 2004), which is favourable to males and constraining for women (Ross& Shinew, 2004). The spandex uniform appears to be an extension of this feminizingpracticedesigned to solve the ‘image problem’ for female athletes who may appear overly masculine, butI argue that it also carries with it potentially dangerous consequences for volleyball players.Damaging consequencesIn line with Connell’ s (1987) notion of emphasized femininity, researchers of women’seating disorders have found that the most desired bodies among women are thin and toned, notoverly muscular, and very similar to the build of an adolescent male (Markula, 1995; Dworkin,2001, Robinson, 2002). Arguably this body ideal is rarely attainable for most women, andespecially challenging for high level athletes, because their sports require significant strength tocompete and because their increased activity leads to increased muscle development (Robinson,2002). In one study of female volleyball players, Barnes et al. (2004) found they expressedresentment over having to wear spandex shorts as they served as a reminder that womenareunable to meet idealized body expectations. In fact, studies that link body image to clothinghave found that larger-bodied athletes or those with a lower body image have a preference forlarger, looser clothing (Chattaraman & Rudd; 2006). This becomes problematic when athleteswho do not feel confident with their bodies are made to wear revealing uniforms.Although lowered self-image and eating disorders are most noted in aesthetic sports likegymnastics and figure skating where the women’s bodies are judged as part of the sport (Beals,2002), volleyball players are more likely to employ body altering techniques than less bodyrevealing sports like basketball and softball (Martin, Schalabach & Shibinski, 1998). Studieshave shown that volleyball players as young as 16 years old use extreme dieting techniques, likediuretics and laxatives and calorie intake monitoring (anorexia and bulimia) to achieve a slimand toned physique (Martin, et al, 1998; Beal, 2002). The pressure to possess the ideal female32body combined with a uniform that displays so much of their lower bodies could contribute tohigher instances of eating disorders on women’s volleyball teams compared to other team sports.As Urla and Swedlund (1995) so aptly claim, “not all bodies are subject to the same degree ofscrutiny or the same repercussions if they fail”(p.300). I argue that spandex uniforms not onlyfeminize and sexualize the female volleyball players, but place additional harmful pressure onthe athletes to meet cultural ideals of beauty and femininity.Summary of Relevant LiteratureIn this chapter, I began with a review of the literature on feminist critical theory,hegemony and Martin’s (1992) three perspective approach to organizational culture. Followingthe theoretical discussion, I explained how liberal feminist and heteronormative gender idealshave affected sport policy and rules, women’s sport media and marketing, and have hadpotentially damaging effects on female athletes. By adopting a feminist critical approach with itsfocus on power and gender relations and organization cultural theory, I will able to examine andexplain how Canada West’s volleyball uniform practices are shaped and informed by traditionaland oppressive gender discourses. As rules can be interpreted and enacted in multiple ways, ahistorical and social review of research on women’s participation in sport becomes crucial toanalysing the spandex uniform practice. It acts as a backdrop for this study, and illuminates theunderlying social problem that drives my interest in this study, that female athletes are feminizedin the governance of their sports. In the next chapter, I outline the methodology that will be usedto address the research questions.333METHODOLOGYIn this chapter the criteria for sample selection, a discussion of ethical issues, therationale for my data collection methods, and a description of data analysis techniques areprovided. In addition, the challenges encountered and criteria for research soundness arediscussed.SampleMartin (2000) has criticized researchers for putting too much emphasis on understandingorganizational values by talking only to those in top administrative positions because thisreinforces the notion of shared organizational meanings and ignores the voices of those who mayhave different interpretations. However, researchers of sport organizations have found athleticdirectors are the prime decision makers in athletic departments and coaches have a majorinfluence over the operation of their sport, whereas athletes remain relatively uninvolved in thegovernance of their sport programs, even though there have been calls for greater athleteinvolvement (Armstrong-Doherty, 1995; Hoeber & Frisby, 2001; Kihl, et al., 2007). As such,this study considers coaches and athletic directors to be the primary decision makers of teamuniforms for university volleyball teams given CIS policies and rules, as a starting point forexamining this issue.Initially I had planned to interview every CIS women’s volleyball head coach and athleticdirector from each CIS school with a volleyball program in British Columbia and Alberta.However, one athletic director refused to participate on the grounds that he was not the correctperson to speak to, and directed me to the associate director of the athletic department, whom hefelt had more insight into my topic and control over the volleyball program. I have included this34associate athletic administrator in my study, because s/he fit the participant criteria of this studybecause s/he had direct authority over the women’s volleyball team and worked directly with thecoach on team decisions.I also had difficulty obtaining an interview with another athletic director, although I wasreassured by the coach at the school that s/he was independently in charge of the team’s budgetand that the athletic director had very little role in the women’s volleyball program. As a result,my sample population included five athletic administrators (1 woman, 4 men) and six coaches (2women, 4 men) from every CIS school with a women’s volleyball program in British Columbiaand Alberta, for a total of 11 interviewees. It was not financially feasible for me to interviewother coaches and athletic directors in the CIS or Canada West conference.It was important for this sample to consist of members of the same regional governingassociation of the CIS, for two reasons: shared governing policies, including bi-law rulings, anda shared historical context. Canada West governs the CIS universities in BC, Alberta, Manitobaand Saskatchewan. This regional governing body creates and operates under rules that are notunanimously shared by all of the CIS member universities, but ensures organizational membersof Canada West share similar processes across the four provinces. Additionally BC and Albertashare a similar historical sport background. In the early days of women’s participation in sport,eastern Canadian women’s college teams were run almost exclusively by female physicaleducators, while those in western provinces were run primarily by men (Hall, 2002). As a result,eastern universities women’s teams played according to modified rules, like the ‘SpaldingRules’, whereas western teams played according to the men’s rules of the games. Arguablythese different systems can be attributed to different knowledge sets and philosophies about thecapabilities of women by the athletic directors. Although I am unable to confirm that this historyor tradition in the eastern or western colleges would affect the organizational behaviour today,35for the sake of transferability of data I argue that my sample shouldcome from a region thatshares operating processes and a similar sporting history.Ethical IssuesBryman (2004) describes four ethical principles that shouldbe addressed in socialresearch including: informed consent, deception, privacy, andharm. These concerns tend tooverlap, making it difficult to discuss one without the others. However,for the sake of clarity, Iwill address these issues in two sections discussing informed consentand deception separatelyfrom privacy and harm.Informed consentAfter obtaining ethical approval from the Research EthicsBoard Association (REBA) atthe University of British Columbia, contact information for the selected administratorsandcoaches was obtained from the athletic departments’ websites. Eachpotential interviewee wasthen contacted by email to provide the basic details of the research andto inquire about possibleparticipation in the study. See Appendix C and D for the initial contact letters.Because I was aformer CIS female volleyball player, I did use my contacts in the system as gatekeepersto helpreassure my potential participants of the legitimacy of the study andmy credibility as a graduatestudent-researcher. After receiving confirmation of their interest, a follow-upemail with a copyof the consent form attached was sent to the participant to allow the intervieweetime to reviewthe document before setting up a time and location for our meeting. In the consentform Ioutlined the premise of my study and a copy is attached in Appendix E. My intentionwas not todeceive my subjects, but to initiate a dialogue with coaches and athleticdirectors about thespandex uniform practice. This approach worked for nearly all of my participants,althoughthere were some who wanted to talk by telephone about the study prior to confirmingtheirinterview.36Because the participants were sent copies of the consent forms by email, signed consentwas not obtained until the day of the interview. Prior to commencing the interview, theparticipants were given another copy of the consent form and time alone to re-read it whennecessary. After returning to the room, I verbally reminded the participants of their rights as aresearch subject, that their personal information would remain confidential, and asked if theywould consent to being audio recorded. After receiving signed consent and giving them an extracopy of the consent form for their records, I began the interview process. During the course ofthe interviews, I was asked for my opinion of the spandex uniform. I candidly replied that it wasnot a uniform that I had been comfortable wearing as a CIS player, though I was careful not toharshly criticize the practice to avoid leading the interviewees. The inclusion of my personalexperience in the dialogue proved to be an effective way to further demonstrate the transparencyof my research interests.AnonymityAlthough my study can be considered minimal risk for the participants, there still existsthe potential for any research to do harm. This research involved discussions of gender equityand some of the interviewees’ responses showed them in an unfavourable light, particularly withregards to their responsibilities as coaches and athletic directors. Because of the potential fornegative consequences to the participants, as well as the small sample size of my researchgroup,the need for confidentiality and anonymity was a priority. To begin, I assured all of them thattheir names and those of their institution would not be used in any papers, publications orpresentations resulting from this study. Instead participants were identified only by their title.Even the gender of the interviewees were kept out of the writing process as this could act as an‘outing agent’ by revealing their identity to the reader. To ensure further confidentiality, all of37the interviews were conducted and transcribed by me, were notshared with other individuals andare being kept in a secure location.Data CollectionInterviewingAmis (2005) indicates that we make sense of the worldaround us based on our ownindividual values, experiences and beliefs; that each of us interprets eventsin our livesdifferently, even shared events. He argues that the most logical wayto access these differentrealities is by interviewing people (Amis, 2005). Interviews providedetailed descriptions of thesocial and/or physical realities of the participants’ lived experiences thatare not always possiblewith other forms of data collection (Fontana & Frey, 2000; King, 2004; Amis,2005). The goalof this method is to “see the research topic from the perspective of the intervieweeand tounderstand how and why they have come to this particular perspective”(King, 2004, p.11).Feminist researchers, like Cotterill (1992), also argue that the best wayto find out about anindividual is to make the research process interactive. As opposed to surveys or questionnaires,the interviews allow respondents to elaborate on their interpretations that may reveal multiple orcontradictory meanings (Martin, 1992; King, 2004).Elite interview” scheduleElite individuals are those “considered to be influential, prominent and/or well-informedin an organization or community” (Marshall & Rossman, 2006,p. 105). Although Marshall andRossman (2006) contend that elites often respond well to open-ended questions that allow themthe freedom to demonstrate their knowledge and express their expertise, I used a semi-structuredqualitative interview schedule that allowed for a more natural conversation style interview, butensured that certain themes and topics were covered (Fontana & Frey, 2000).38My interviews were conducted from early December 2008 to mid January 2009, in therespective offices of the coaches and athletic directors. I began by asking the interviewees aboutthemselves, including their involvement in athletics and their role and history in their currentathletic department. As Amis (2005) suggested, starting the interviews with these type ofstraight-forward and non-controversial questions helped me establish rapport with myrespondents and allowed the participants to become comfortable with the interview process. Mystatus as a former CIS volleyball athlete also helped the participants relax and speak fairly freelywith me. While the athletic directors appeared to speak openly and candidly,it was the coacheswho appeared to be most at ease with me and my questions. They leaned back in their chairs andassumed casual postures with feet on their desks or hands behind their heads. Amis’ (2005)technique of easing into the interview as well as my insider status were useful in obtaining data.I constructed my interview schedule to obtain information that would help to address myresearch questions and included probes to encourage elaboration from the coaches and athleticdirectors. Each individual was asked about their influences in choosing the teams’ uniforms(RQ1), to reflect on the differences between CIS men’s and women’s uniforms (RQ2), andwhether they felt that there was a need to change the current uniform practice (RQ3). While thesame types of questions were used in each interview, the wording and order of the questions, aswell as the probes used varied depending on the tone of the interview and the type of informationprovided by the participants.As the interviews progressed new topics emerged that I had not previously consideredand needed to be incorporated into future interviews. As well, I attempted to conduct myinterviews in a more conversational manner, with flow being a major consideration to my styleand technique. Using this style encouraged elaborate responses, helped to clarify answers anduncovered more in-depth responses from the interviewees (King, 2004; Bloom & Vallee, 2005).39This also provided me with the flexibility to add interview questionswhen new themes emergedover the course of the interview (Fontana & Frey 2000; Amis, 2005).To further encourage amore relaxed and casual setting, I took limited written notes, and insteadopted to record post-interview thoughts to help contextualize the interview and add to the analysisprocess. While theinterviews were mainly used to gain insight into my topic, insome cases they also gave theparticipants the opportunity to reflect on their experiences and thoughtson the uniform practice.Many of them indicated they had never thought about this subject priorto the interview andwould continue to consider the implications after our meeting. For a fulllist of the interviewathletic director’s and coaches’ questions, see appendix A and B respectively.Challenges EncounteredAs with any research method, interviews have potential disadvantages.The firstdifficulty I faced dealt with gaining access to elite interviewees. While one potential intervieweerefused to participate, others who had expressed interest in my study and confirmed they wouldbe willing to participate, were ‘no-shows’ on the day of the interview. This was a frustratingoccurrence, and meant that it took longer to complete my interviews than planned. However,after re-connecting with the interviewees to arrange new times for the interviews and sendingthem a reminder one or two days in advance, all eleven interviews were eventually completed.Another challenging aspect was dealing with coaches and athletic directors who wantedto manage the interview. Hawkesworth (1994) indicates that decision makers seldom employ orenjoy evaluators who criticize their ideas, decision or policies. I found that short and choppyanswers were sometimes given by the interviewees to questions that may have brought criticismupon themselves or their programs. However, having an interview guide that kept the interviewon track, as well as having in-depth knowledge of the subject and a casual approach did help to40elicit detailed answers from the participantsas the interviews progressed (King, 2004; Amis,2005).Technological difficulties also hamperedmy data collection processes. Above I mentionthat I interviewed eleven participants fromBC and Alberta, though in actuality I conductedtwelve interviews in total. During the interviewprocess the name of a former female Canadianvolleyball player was mentionedby five of the interviewees who suggested this individualhadsignificant historical insight into thesubject. I therefore applied for an amendmentfrom theEthics board to contact this individual foran interview and received approval inearly January2009. A telephone interview was conductedin mid-January but the recordingdevicemalfunctioned and the interview was not recorded. AlthoughI contacted this individual fora reinterview, I was unable to arrange another one.While I do have notes from the interviewthat aresummarized in the next chapter, no directquotes were used because I was unableto record themverbatim.Data AnalysisCodingA code is a tag or label used to assign descriptive or inferentialmeaning to a chunk ofdata, like words, phrases, sentences or entire paragraphs(Huberman & Miles, 1994). Coding isthe first step in analyzing and interpreting data set becauseit is a way of forcing yourself tounderstand what is still unclear by putting names onincidents and events, trying to cluster them,communicating them and trying them out (Huberman& Miles, 1994). Thomas (2006) contendsdata analysis is determined by both the research objectivesand multiple readings andinterpretations of the raw data. I used a general deductiveand inductive approach to the codingprocess as a way to manage and interpret my findings(LeCompte & Schensul, 1999; Sipe &Ghiso, 2004; Thomas, 2006). With deductive codingthe researcher inspects the differentstories41found in the data for preconceivedideas (Polkinghorne, 1995), like linksto the study researchquestions and the literature reviewed. Aninductive method allows codes toemerge from thedata and condenses extensive and varied rawdata into brief summary format, allowing theresearcher to draw some conclusionsabout the experiences or processesevident in the raw textthey may not have anticipated (Sipe & Ghiso,2004; Thomas, 2006).To begin the coding process, I firsttranscribed all the recorded interviewsand field notesinto electronic documents in MicrosoftOffice Word. Each interview wasbetween twenty andthirty double spaced pages in length, andin total I had 284 double spaced pagesof interviewdata. As a means of simplifying and makingmy data set more manageable, I initiallycoded thedata deductively. Any informationthat was related to the research questionsand historicalcontext of the uniform practice was placedit in a separate Word document.Because qualitativeresearchers contend that “we don’t discoverconceptual categories in our data;we build them”(Sipe and Ghiso, 2004, p.474), I felt confident thiswas an appropriate first step to codingandone that would eventually allow me to addressmy research questions. Each quote wasanalyzedto see which research question it pertained toand was labelled accordingly (eg. RQ1, RQ2, RQ3,History). While this initial process eliminatedinformation unrelated to my study,as Sipe andGhiso (2004) warned I was left with too much vaguelycoded data. Taking the adviceofHuberman and Miles (1994), I then beganto code inductively by reading and re-readingthe textsto see what themes emerged in each research questiondataset. I gave descriptive codes to theinterviewees’ quotes that best described theirmeanings, allowing their transcriptsto drive mycoding scheme going forward (Huberman& Miles, 1994; Thomas, 2006). Using thecopy andpaste mechanism of the Word processing system Ipooled the descriptive labels, and the quotesthat fit under those headings, and noted I hadover 30 codes per research question, hundreds of42pages of quotes and descriptive codesthat repeated in each researchquestion’s dataset.Therefore, I employed yet another strategyto help me further analyse the overlappingdata andreveal the relationships betweenmy codes.Qualitative researchers advocategrouping codes and the creationsub-codes in coherentand study-important ways to begin thedata analysis process (Chase, 2003;Sipe & Ghiso, 2004).Trying to find the broader categoriesin my data I looked for patterns,themes, similarities anddifferences in the sorted data andclustered these codes, assigningthem to four levels of analysis.The most conceptually inclusive themes werebroken down into smaller, moredifferentiatedcodes, sub-codes and topics asshown in Figure 1.Figure 1.1: Analytic FrameworkVOLLEYBALLCULTURE:Organizational customs,norms and expectationsfor its players.-Volleyball Norms: theaccepted and expected ways oflooking and behaving involleyball- Canadian Culture/NorthAmerican Culture: values,beliefs, opinions, ways ofacting, norms in Canada andNorth America-Heteronormative Sport: sportguided by heternormativegender ideals and discourse-Accepted Practice:individuals are so accustom to thepractice that it goes unnoticed orunquestioned (players, parents, fans, etc)- Social Expectations: socialexpectations about how malesandfemales should look and act-History/Tradition-Everybody wears it-No difference noted-No thoughts-blindness/numbness-Comparison withMen’s Volleyball-Beach Volleyball:-Femininity/Feminine Sport: referencesmade to femininity whether it be tothesport, other sports, the uniforms or theathletes themselves-Homophobia: referring to a fearoflesbianism in the sport of volleyball-Sexualization: the sexualizationoffemale volleyball players becauseof:their uniforms, bodies, or sport43Figure 1.1: Analytic FrameworkPLAYER CHOICE: -Everybody wears it: belief -ProfessionalsWear Them: -CIS Wears ThemThe power that female that every female in volleyball comparisonsto the uniforms worn byplayers have over team wears spandex to play professional volleyballplayersuniform decisions-Functionality: how functional -differentgamesthe uniform is for women’s and -techniques usedmen’s volleyball-Comfort: players’ physical and -Used to it (players): the lack of player -historyemotionallmental comfort while questioning or concern withthe uniforms -agewearing the spandex shorts due to their extended historywearing thespandex bottoms-men vs. Women-How it Looks/Aesthetics: references to -fashionhow the men and women look in their -basketball trendsrespective uniform -feminine sport______________________ ____________________________ ____________________________________-body/PhysiqueCONSTRAINTS TO -Token Player Choice: only-captainsPLAYER CHOICE: certain players are given the -seniorsthe barriers to player authority to make decisions on -representativescontrol over uniform behalf of the team with regardsdecisions to uniforms --Team: need to go along with -Individual Problems: resistance orwhat the majority of the team concerns expressed by individualswants -Peer Pressure/Part of Team: pressuresto conform to the majority —-Volleyball Rules: the rules -CIS Rules: the rules that govern CISthat govern the sport of indoor volleyball (players must all be dressedvolleyball identically in order to play CIS volleyball.As such, individuals cannot choose todress differently from their teammates ingames, or they will be unable to play)-Volleyball Market: how -Suppliers: what is available from -cataloguesvolleyball is marketed to the volleyball apparel and equipment -sponsorsdifferent genders suppliersCOACH/AD -CIS Equity Policy: the written -staff inputUNIFORM document that dictates how -personal experienceDECISIONS: male and female athletes shouldFactors influencing be treateduniform decisions made -Resistance: player displays or -school Imageby coaches and AD’s-Authority Figure: ability toverbalizations of dislike for spandex -wearing differentmake team decisionshorts or wishing there was an alternative, shorts-voicing Opinions-comments heard-Sexualization: the sexualization of-Not Problematic: do not viewfemale volleyball players because of:the practice as problematictheir uniforms, bodies, or sport-fansFigure 1.1: Analytic Framework44CONTRADITIONS/ -Problematic: the spandex -Mental Health:looking at the self- -eating disordersAMBIGUITIES: practice as problematic esteem and confidenceissues of female -body dysmorphiaInformation that opposesvolleyball players -lower self-esteemprevious themes-Would Change: has consideredchanging-Not Functional: uniform has no effect-No Comfort: players areor inhibits performance-g ueuncomfortable wearing spandex-tugging-no advantage-resistance______________________ ____________________________ ____________________________________-ageAs I proceeded with the analysis, a narrative on the spandexpractice began to developand I identified three dominant themes including: theidea of a volleyball culture, the players’impact on the practice, and the roles of coachesand athletic directors on team practices.Searching the codes in each main theme, I selected the quotesthat best conveyed the coreessence of the categories to bring the narrativeto life and make it more explicit to readers(Thomas, 2006). I used six criteria for determining whichpassages to include in this study. Theprimary criterion involves how well the quote relatedto my research questions and thusrelevance to the study. I also considered possible links to existingliterature (Polkinghorn, 1995)and the gaps that this new and interesting data may fillin the work done on gender, sport andorganizational practices. As well, effort was made to ensurethat every participant’s voice wasrepresented in the fmdings by either using their own wordsor selecting quotes that reflected thegroup’s responses. Additionally, I tried to anticipate which dataand information could helpelicit change in the uniform practice and incorporated it into the analysisas I argue thisemancipatory goal is a significant part of this research.45TrustworthinessThomas (2006) states the main reason for dataanalysis is to capture the key themes andprocesses important to the research at hand. However,one must remember that although theinterview narrative is created by both the researcherand respondent, it is ultimately theresearcher who tells the story (Fontana and Frey, 2000;Peshkin, 2000). Therefore, it isimperative to be reflexive in this type of qualitativeresearch. Rubin and Rubin (2005) advocatethat researchers need not drop their cultural assumptionsand assume those of their participants,but must remain cautious to hear the voices of their interviewees.I contend that one need not‘bracket’ (King, 2004; Rubin & Rubin, 2005; Marshall &Rossman, 2006) off their assumptionsor world views but must recognize and make apparentto the reader their role in determiningwhat is more or less important in the data (Thomas,2006). Brayboy and Deyhle (2000) feel thatthere is value in acknowledging that the researcher is part of thedata collection process as longas s/he acknowledges their positionality.ReflexivityTo be reflexive means acknowledging the lenses used to contextualizeour study and ourunderstandings of the research subject (Doucet & Mauthner, 2003). The findingsof this studyare inevitably shaped by my status as a white, female graduate student with formerties to CISvolleyball who is drawing on feminist critical theory. What theresearcher sees in the data isinescapably selective (Miles & Huberman, 1994) because asSipe and Ghiso (2004) point out“we are not lifeless cameras or scanners” (p.474). It is the job of the researcherto link and unitethe data into a story that makes sense for the reader (Polkinghom,1995; Brayboy & Deyhie,2000), and it is also their responsibility to unpack their positioning to make clearthe lenses beingdrawn on to obtain, analyze and interpret the data.46Golombisky (2006) contends thatbeing reflexive “means taking on the finalrole of criticto scrutinize our own performances” (p.166).Therefore, I must admit that because ofmyeducational background in thesocial sciences and my own athletic backgroundas a CIS athlete, Ihad expected to find a sport culture steepedin heteronormative gender ideologies. Whilethetraditional concepts of femininity andmasculinity were not specifically discussedduring myyears playing volleyball at university,upon reflection I now recognize thata gendered undertonewas ever-present. During this researchI have drawn on my own experiencesin a CIS volleyballprogram and the literature that suggeststhat female athletes are often viewedas women first andathletes second. My feminist orientationprovides the starting point of inquiryand ultimatelyguides my understanding and beliefs,which is to say that other meaningsor interpretations of thedata are possible, but I have attempted toavoid self-deception and self-delusion whenpresentingmy findings (Pesbkin, 2000). For example, I madesignificant effort to be open to hearingalternative discourses about the spandex uniformpractice. Martin’s (1992) framework wasauseful tool in my attempts to be reflexivebecause I had to examine the data closelylooking forties to her perspectives and this forced me to recognizealternative discourses in the data thatchallenged my preconceptions.Soundness of ResearchBecause qualitative research is fundamentally differentfrom quantitative and positivistresearch it needs to be held to different measuresof soundness (Bryman, 2004). Rather thanlooking for reliability and validity inthe results, Guba and Lincoln (1985) indicate thatmoreappropriate categories to ensure quality should includecredibility, confirmability, transferabilityand dependability.Credible and confirmable studies are thosein which the research is carried out in goodpractice, ensuring that the social world of those studiedis accurately contextualized and47interpreted (Guba & Lincoln, 1985).Efforts to be reflexive were made incollecting andanalyzing the data, though misinterpretationsof the data are still possible. My interpretationshave been informed by previous researchand attempts have been made to makethe researchprocess as transparent as possible tothe reader. As Pesbkin (2000) aptlyconcludes, qualitativeresearch may lack the formal and internaltests that positivists often use tosubstantiate theirinterpretations, but the goal in this typeof research is not to prove things rightor wrong, but tocreate new knowledge that canbe modified and critiqued by others.Transferability parallels the quantitativemeasure of generalization. However,qualitativeresearch is context and situation dependent,therefore, the data collected will likelybe influencedby the researcher, the participant and the environment(Guba & Lincoln, 1985). Qualitativedatacollection methods do not claim to be neutral,but the findings and/or processescan betransferrable to other similar research, in similarcontexts. For example, while this studyinvestigated CIS universities in BC andAlberta, other university and college volleyballorganizations in Western Canada operatein similar manners with regards to women’s volleyball.Thus, the theoretical applications andprocesses uncovered in this study may be transferrableandinformative/illuminative to these other organizationsgiven the nature of the processes beingstudied. In addition, I do provide informationabout the social and historical contextin which thespandex practice occurs so that readers candecide if the findings are applicable to other similarsituations (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999).In the next chapter I describe the historicaland social contexts, as well as the institutionalconditions that have helped to shape the CISvolleyball organizational, along with an analysis ofthe findings as they relate to the research questions.484Results and DiscussionDrawing on the work of Bordieu (1977),Burns-Ardolino (2003) contends that eventhemost seemingly insignificant details ofdress are those through which culture canbe seen andmaintained. The findings will be presentedin four parts. The first section providesa briefhistorical account of the progressionof volleyball uniforms from its beginningsto theideologically significant 1990’s, to serve asa contextual backdrop for the researchfindings. Thelatter three sections discuss the main findingsof the study as they relate to each researchquestion. I will first discuss the factorsthat influence the rule interpretationsof coaches andathletic directors, then the findings that helpto explain why men’s and women’steams aredressed differently. Finally, the data thatsheds light on why coaches and athleticdirectors do notfeel the need to change the women’s currentuniform practice is analyzed.The three main themes that emerged fromthe data are broken down to into smallercomponents that best address each research question.The first major theme is the existence of aheteronormative volleyball culture. Underthis theme, volleyball gender norms and expectationshelp to answer the first research question, volleyballhistory and traditions address thesecondresearch question, and the sexualized nature ofthe culture sheds light on research question three.The second major theme is the role of the playerin the spandex uniform practice. The limitedpower female players have over the practice, comparisonof men’s and women’s agency and theextent to which players’ input is ignored help to answer the researchquestions in their respectiveorder. Last, the impact that coaches and athletic directors haveon the spandex uniform practiceis unpacked. This includes a discussion of the responsibilities theseindividuals face and howthat affects their interpretations of the uniform rule, thejustifications and explanations they have49for the differences between the men’s and women’s uniforms and how their adherence to aliberal feminist equity policy contributes to the limited need to change the practice.Martin’sintegration, differentiation and fragmentation perspectives are also woven throughoutthe chapterand reveal how the issues are shared, contradicted and/or silenced by organizational members.HerstoryFrom Skirts to ‘Bum-Huggers’In the early years of women’s volleyball (e.g., the 1920s), women were playingamodified version of the men’s volleyball game, with eight playersaside and two attempts atserving the ball over the net (Reeser, 2003). Much like other women’s sportsin their infancy,women volleyball players were wearing different uniforms from men becausethey wore skirts.From the responses of my interviewees, it appeared that this uniform trend would continueinCanada well into the 1960’s and 1970’s. However, at this point a major change came towomen’s volleyball, both in the style of play and dress, as it was around thistime when theculotte” style bottom was introduced to Canadian women’s volleyball.Many names have been given to this new uniform bottom. Among those heard in thisstudy were the ‘bum/butt hugger’, ‘grabbers’ or ‘diapers’. Reeser (2003) argues that influencesfrom Cuba, the Philippines and Eastern Europe significantly altered the techniquesand style ofplay, as these regions were among the first to play the sport outside of America when it wasintroduced by American soldiers stationed abroad in World War I. In fact, it was the Philippinoplayers who first developed the offensive skill that we now know as the spike, though at the timeit was referred to as the Filipino Bomb (FIVB — Chronological highlights).However, all the coaches in this study who commented on the uniforms changes at thistime credit Asian teams, specifically the Japanese, who acted as the catalyst for this shift inwomen’s attire from skirts to culottes, because of a new style of volleyball that brought new50defence techniques to women’s game. At its debutat the 1964 Olympic Games in Tokyo (FIVB,history), the Japanese women’s team displayed a playingstyle previously unseen in women’svolleyball. Rather than playing a mostly offensive gameplayed primarily from a standingposition, the Japanese women had moved to the floor, and were nowtrying to keep the ball fromhitting it. The new techniques necessary for playing thisdefensive style were no longercompatible with the skirts being worn. As one intervieweepointed out, there was now a need fora new uniform that not only allowed the players to movefreely, but one that would also stay inplace. “It’s not very practical to wear skirts. So the next level,I guess they went from that towhat we call affectionately the bum huggers” (Coach 3).They were bad. They were short. They were awful.According to several interviewees, during the 1970s and1980s the ‘bum hugger’ or‘grabber’ bottom was the mandated uniform at the international level, but fora significantnumber of female volleyball players at the universityand high school levels in Canada this wasnot the case. From the late 1970’s to the early 1990’s, manywomen were wearing looser, boxer-style shorts and those who were required to wear the ‘bum huggers’ were extremelyunhappy oruncomfortable with the practice. One athletic director indicated, “They werebad, short. . . Theywere awful. Girls hated wearing those” (AD 5). Among the reasons givenby interviewees forthe discomfort in the ‘diaper’ style were issues of age, level ofcompetition, fitness, selfconsciousness, fashion and a lack of technology.Around the same time that volleyball became an official Olympic sport, advancementswere being made to aid in the training of volleyball players. Several of the coachesand athleticdirectors who were on the volleyball scene in the 1970’s and 1980’s witnessedthe developmentof training spandex for the women’s teams. Long lycra shorts with paddingin the hips werebeing used at women’s practices to help them hone their defensive techniques,which involved51strideslidingi.However, none of the respondents had seen this typeof short being worn forformal competition during this time frame, as this coach recalled:I think that they used to call them digger pants, so they were longer but that wasmore for training. Like I saw them more for training thanI ever did see it forcompetition, so that they would train in like these digger pants. I think we hadthem too because they had these ones with sort of hip padding that were inthem.And that was more for training than it was actually forthe competitions.(Coach 5)A Sexier UniformAlthough there were teams that continued to wear the longer, looser shortsfor bothpractice and competition in the 1970’s and 1980’s, by the early 1990’s and prior tothe FIVBspandex uniform rule, women playing at the higher levels of competitionin Canada werewearing spandex shorts to play. However, it should be noted thatthey were longer spandex thenwhat we see today, with inseams around 20cm in length, reaching a fewinches above the knee.The 1990’s were noted to be a highly transitional time for domesticand international volleyball.This was a decade that saw beach volleyball come under the jurisdiction of the FIVBandbecome an official Olympic sport (Beach Volleyball Database, 2008). The use ofcoloured ballsbecame a requirement for international competition, with the men playing with a blue ballandwomen a pink one, and the first major push was made by the FIVB to publicly promotevolleyball to the masses (Gregory & Kenny, 2006; Beach Volleyball Database, 2008;Strengthand power for volleyball, n.d.). After struggling to build a significant followingfor both indoorand beach volleyball in the early 1990’s, by 1998 the FIVB had launcheda massive TVcampaign to promote both the men’s and women’s sport. Amongone of their many marketingtools, was the implementation of the new volleyball uniform requirements.Men’s and women’s uniforms were altered to create a sexier image, by slimming downthe cut of the jersey to give it an “athletic look” (FIVB Casebook, 2003, p.3),and by52streamlining the fit and shortening thelength of the players’ shorts. The FIVB2003 rulebooknow specifically required the men’sshorts to be fitted in the waist, they couldnot be loose orbaggy and the inseam could not exceed 10cm.The women’s rules dictated that they could weara one piece uniform or could wear shorts that fitthe bodyline, with inseams no longer than 5cm,or cut in an upwards angle towards thetop of the leg (FIVB Casebook, 2003).A few of theinterviewees who were players duringthis time, commented that the pushfor the sexier uniformswas an effort to keep volleyball at the forefrontof media attention and to fend offcompetitionfrom other sports at the upcoming OlympicGames in Sydney, Australia in 2000.While themarketing strategy appears to have beenquite successful in gaining publicand media attention,this new ruling was not implementedwithout some controversy and protest(N.A., 1998; Moos,1999).The coaches and athletic directors commentedthat although some countries’ women’steams, like Brazil, conformed to the new rulingby adopting uniforms resembling one piecebathing suits to play indoor volleyball, the Canadianplayers protested the change implementedby the FIVB president Reuban Acosta in 1998.There was a lot of opposition to that ruleand the Acostas (FIVB president and hiswife) haven’t had a lot of good things tosay about Canadians because of it andother things.. .the history of this” (Coach6).This animosity towards the rulingfamily in volleyball and the uniform rule controversyhelps toaccount for Volleyball Canada’s refusal to implementthe international uniform rule on its homesoil. However, despite the apparent ‘neutrality’of the Canadian volleyball uniform rulerequiring shoes, a jersey and shorts with no prescriptionabout fit or length, the trend in indoorvolleyball was a shorter inseam and fitted cut for women’s shorts.Determining the factorsbehind this rule interpretation has been the goal ofmy research, and several reasons for this were53evident in the data including: theculture of the sport, player decisions,and administrators’decisions.Factors Affecting theInterpretations and Enforcementof the Uniform RuleThe findings demonstrate thatthe spandex uniform practice isinfluenced by severalfactors including the norms, traditionsand expectations in the sportof volleyball. Anorganization founded upon and steepedin gender ideals, CIS volleyballcan be seen as aheternormative sport environmentthat shapes the way female volleyballplayers are required todress. Pressures to conform andunequal power relations createdby the gendered subtext thatflows throughout the CIS volleyballorganization ultimately contributesto the genderedinterpretations and enforcementof the uniform rule.Heteronormative VolleyballCultureMartin (1992) contends that examiningorganizational forms, practicesand contentthemes helps to reveal an organization’sculture. However, she did not adequatelytake intoaccount how the wider hegemonic culturein which an organization is situatedinfluences itspractices. As Barnett and Finnmore (1999)contend, “organizational culture,understood as therules, rituals and beliefs that are embeddedin the organization, has importantconsequences forthe way individuals who inhabit that organizationmake sense of the world”(p.719).One of the main themes that emergedfrom the data was that the broader volleyballculture has a major influence on uniform practices.Every interviewee referredto this in one wayor another by alluding to either the historicalor traditional uniforms wornby the players and theexpected gendered practices in the performanceof the sport. There was a shared and consistentunderstanding that the CIS was part of thelarger volleyball community andthat the behaviour ofCIS athletes, coaches and athletic directorswas significantly influenced byit. In fact it appears54that dominant heteronormativediscourses about how male and femaleplayers should be dressedare readily taken up by the interviewees,creating a primarily integrated sportculture (Martin,1992). Social and volleyballclothing nonns, homophobicbeliefs and valuing ties to the largervolleyball community help to explainthe consistent interpretations ofthe uniform rule and thewidespread enforcement of the spandexpractice, even though it is nota specific CIS rule.It’s not outrageous to see womento wear spandex (Coach3)According to Bordo (1999),men and women have different roleswhen it comes to thegaze of the ‘Other’. She theorizesthat while the idealized woman ismeant to anticipate andeven play to the sexualizinggaze, the heterosexual man is not supposedto enjoy being surveyed.Because clothing is a prominentway of displaying gender andsport is linked to the constructionof ‘proper’ gender ideologies, it isnot surprising that the uniforms ofmales and females involleyball have been appropriated in differentways.An athletic director indicated that the publichas,gotten used to it [women wearingspandex] and so when you get usedto it, itdoesn’t have the shock value. People aren’tupset by it or opposed to it becausethey are used to it (AD 2).In fact, the prevalence of spandex shorts inwomen’s volleyball is so commonthat over half therespondents indicated they had nevereven thought about or paid attentionto the uniform rule.This not only demonstrates an acceptanceof the FIVB practice within the CanadaWestVolleyball Association, but also supportsthe acceptance of Western heteronormativegenderexpectations, where women’s bodies are seenas objects to be displayed and sexualized (Aimar,et a!., 2004; Adams, 2005; Gurung & Chrouser,2007).A few coaches and athletic directors acknowledgethat Canadian culture is steepedintraditional views of gender and thatthese understandings contribute to the Canadianspandexuniform practice. However, the majority wereless specific about the origins oftheir ideas about55what is acceptable attire. They felt womenshould be feminine looking and attractive andclothing plays a major role in conveying these qualities.Conversely males must generallyrestrict themselves from performing behaviours deemedtoo feminine like focusing onappearance, and instead must embody and portraymasculine traits like heterosexuality andpower (Connell, 1987; 1990). Sport researchers contendthat the practices within sportsorganizations, like uniform choices, reflect the greatersocial expectations regarding masculinityand femininity that serves to naturalize the genderingof athletes (Burn-Ardolino, 2004; Gurung& Chrouser, 2007). As a result, this type of attire is widely sociallyaccepted as appropriateexercise attire for females more generally and isexpected in volleyball.Because FIVB changed the uniform rules in the late1990’s, interviewees indicated themajority of them had been wearing the shorts requiredby the international federations for mostof their volleyball careers. This coach indicated that the spandex is:a part of the uniform wear. It’s part of the culture. Like every girlthat’s evercome into, or every girl that’s ever played here, thisis what they wear. This iswhat they wear in high school. This is what they wearin club volleyball. And soit’s kind of accepted. (Coach 2)In fact, one athletic director felt this normative practice is so strongthat “volleyball people(women) would feel weird wearing shorts” (AD 5). The data suggeststhat most coaches andathletic directors not only subscribe to the organizational discourseabout women’s volleyballuniforms, but also adhere to ways of behaving that correspondwith this way of thinking (Martin,1992). This finding provides insight into the consistencyof the spandex practice on women’sCIS team and becomes particularly evident in this interviewee’s quote:It’s not like of the teams playing in Canada West we are one of three[athleticconferences] that wants to wear this, that’snot the issue. The issue is that I can’tthink of any team I have ever seen at the Olympics or otherwisethat are wearinganything different from what we are wearing. It’s standard for worldvolleyball.(AD 3)56Based on these responses, I argue that coaches and athletic directors are partly basingtheir uniform decisions on what they believe to be normative practices of the sport. The line ofreasoning is aptly stated by another athletic director who said, “They are conventional because ifone team has it, almost every team has the same thing. So it’s very hard to go off the rails I thinkwith new uniforms” (AD 1). The culture of the sport provides ideological support for thespandex practice by discouraging alternatives which creates isomorphic organizations(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).A homophobic sportThe lack of critique around the effects that these gender stereotypes have on the CISvolleyball organization, including the creation of a homophobic environment was evident.Homosexuality is widely believed to be one of the biggest fears in men’s and women’s sports. Infact, researchers contend that player uniforms have been used throughout history as a means ofdispelling fears of same-sex orientation in sport and conveying a message of normativeheterosexuality to both players and audiences (Cahn, 1993; Lenskjy, 1995; Adams, 2005;Travers, 2007). While only one of the participants specifically mentioned the homophobicenvironment of the CIS volleyball organization, s/he was unwilling to speak about this whilebeing tape-recorded. Off the record this individual emphasized that s/he had personallywitnessed prejudice towards gays, with players approaching her/him with complaints andconcerns about lesbian athletes on other teams in the athletic department. This athletic directoralso mentioned that it was not just the players who espoused homophobic opinions, but otherathletic administrators and coaches as well. In fact s/he indicated that lesbian coaches feared‘coming out’ because of the discriminatory repercussions that could result. Although this line ofdialogue was only heard from one interviewee, this finding is very much in line with many sport57and sexuality researchers who argue there are consequences for those who challenge or resist theheteronormative ideals in sports (Cahn, 1993; Kolnes, 1995; Lenskyj, 1995; Travers, 2006).The CIS is part of a bigger volleyball systemAll of the coaches and half of the athletic directors indicated that uniform decisions wereinfluenced by the volleyball governing body, the FIVB. Participants indicated there is a “carryover or trickle down” (Coach 2) effect from professional volleyballthat affects how volleyball isplayed at the CIS level. While these international rules are not exactly those mandated byVolleyball Canada or CIS volleyball, they nevertheless impact the waythe game is governed.According to the coaches, the primary reason for the closeadherence to the professionalrules appears to be an allegiance with the Canadian governing bodyof volleyball. For instance,the interviewees stated CIS teams want to be seen as legitimate volleyball clubsso following theinternational rules puts them more in line with professional standards. This strategy is referred toby researchers who theorize that by mimicking the established patterns and standards of officialgoverning bodies, smaller organizations are attempting to appear more legitimate in order toachieve similar successful results and attention (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Cousens & Slack,1996; Amis & Shaw, 2001). One coach insisted that Canadian universities were playing a “truerversion” of volleyball than American schools that use a “bastardized rulebook” to govern theirsport (Coach 3). This coach went on to say that “we’ve always tried to stay true to FIVB, partlybecause of our relationship with the national teams. We want kids to be ready to go to that level”(Coach 3). This coach’s commitment to following the international rules appears to be beneficialfor CIS schools with players who hope to play on the national teams, by acclimating their playersto the standards that will be required of them at this next level of competition. This idea thatprofessional uniform standards should be used on CIS teams provides support for Martin’sdifferentiation perspective, because it was mostly heard from coaches, not athletic directors.58This may not be surprising giventhe dual membership that coaches hold asmembers of bothathletic departments and of thelarger volleyball community,unlike the majority of the athleticdirectors. However, both coachesand athletic directors commentedon the impact beachvolleyball has on CIS uniform practices.The revealing beach volleyball uniformshave made the sport more popularwith themedia and audiences, but this typeof attire is seen as too revealing andinappropriate for indoorvolleyball. This coach reasoned:And to be honest, we rival our own sport,volleyball and beach volleyball,youknow how they are kind of separate? Andthe reason beach volleyball for a largepart gets more television air time, get morefan support is because of sex appeal.That has nothing to do with the sport whatsoever.I think it’s gross. I think whatwe do should be good enough. (Coach4)Demonstrative of the type of culturalintegration discussed by Martin (1992),this sentiment wasechoed by nearly all of the intervieweeswho commented on beach volleyball,leading me tobelieve that there is common understandingamong coaches and athletic directors.In comparisonto using the more sexually explicit beach volleyball,the indoor uniform is more conservativethough I argue both uniforms adhereto heteronormative and sexualizeddiscourses within theorganizational culture of women’s volleyball.Select and Limited Player ChoiceAmong the other reasons given by coachesand athletic directors for the spandexuniforms in women’s CIS volleyball was playerinput. When asked who chooses the volleyballuniforms for the women’s CIS teams, nearly every intervieweeindicated it was the femaleplayers who make the decision. This feeling isclearly expressed by a coach who said,“Girlsalways have a say in what they are wearing”(Coach 4). However, by looking closelyat theuniform selection processes, we cansee that only some of the athletes have input on uniformdecisions. The majority of the data in the transcriptson this topic supports Martin’s(1992)59fragmentation perspective of organizationalculture, as the ambiguities and lack of consistencyaround issues of power in the spandexuniform selection was apparent. This section will discussthe players influence by examining theprocesses of uniform selection, the factorsthat affect theplayers’ decisions like mimicry andfeminine appearance, as well as the limitationson players’control over uniform decisions.Privileged selection processI had expected that female players would have little inputinto the uniforms they wore.However, the data suggests that the coachesand athletic directors feel it is players whohavecontrol over this decision; though the twogroups differed in their insights on this. In addition,anumber of inconsistencies were apparent.For example, nearly all the coachesindicated thewomen’s choices were based on theirinnate femininity and a desire to look likeprofessionalplayers, whereas the athletic directors wereuncertain if the professional uniforms hadanyimpact. This finding is not surprising given the different rolesof the coaches and athleticdirectors where athletic directors indicated it wastheir role to oversee decisions and act as fmaldecision makers, while coaches have more directinvolvement with their teams.All of the coaches provided similar explanations forthe processes used to select the newteam uniforms. In each instance, the uniform decisionwas assigned to a representative group ofplayers from the team, although it should be notedthat in many cases the coaches had alreadyselected a range of spandex bottoms that could be chosen fromby the group. The committee wasusually comprised of the returning fourth or fifthyear players and/or the team captains, as thiscoach articulated, “That’s pretty much just saying to the captains,you pick your shorts” (Coach1). Coaches feel these individuals act as representative voices for the teamand base theirdecisions around creating a strong volleyball identity.60Factors influencing player decisionsSimilar to the data on the influenceof FIVB uniform rules, coaches partiallyattribute theplayers’ preferences for spandexshorts to modelling themselves afterprofessional players.DiMaggio and Powell (1983) refer tothis as a mimetic practice where behaviouris commonlyseen in organizations that model themselvesafter those perceived to be more legitimate andsuccessful (Amis & Shaw, 2001; Martin, 2000).This is highlighted by an athleticdirector whosaid:In any sport, the development levelaspires to look like the top. And whateverisbeing worn at the top end of the sport,is going to come down to the next levelbelow. And as you become more andmore elite becomes more important for theathlete to be at that top standard.So let’s just say for volleyball, the ladiesarechoosing to wear spandex becausethat is what they wear on the nationalteam.That’s what they wear in the pros. (AD5)Looking like a serious and legitimate volleyballteam and maintaining a feminine appearancewere cited as significant determinants of theplayers’ uniform choices.On several occasions, coaches made comparisons betweenfemale volleyball players andother female athletes, stating volleyballplayers were more inherently feminine. For example,when I asked why basketball players arenot choosing these types of uniforms,a belief about theinherent feminine makeup of a female volleyball playersurfaced.We don’t share the same mentality as basketball...they like contact. You knoweven a gentle little run-in (on the volleyball court) is alldramatic, so you know itis a different kind of kid who plays volleyball”(Coach 3).These types of comments suggest that coaches believethe women’s more feminineidentity is reflected in their uniform choices. “If youask them why do you wear these? They aregonna go, because it looks good” (Coach 1). Overhalf of the interviewees shared similar beliefsthat the female players felt attractive andsexually appealing in their spandex shorts. This findingis in line with Robinson’s (2002) argument that althoughfemale athletes want to be recognized61for their athletic achievements, some still place a great deal of emphasis on aesthetic appeal andphysical beautification and as such, like to show off their bodies to highlight their femininity. Itappears that coaches and athletic directors are ascribing to a dominant discourse that their playerswant to be the object of the others’ gaze, that they are happy to display their athletic bodies to anaudience, and the decision making players are accurately representing the wishes of theirteammates.Kihi et al. (2007) argue that this type of player representative decision making isbecoming a more valued in colleges and university sport as “the implementation of athleterepresentation as a means to develop a more athlete-centred sport system has enabled athletes tobecome involved in informal and formal deliberations about issues that affect them”(p.20).However, researchers have also found these efforts often rely on the inclusion of only selectathletes and the collective voices of other teammates are rarely heard when organizationaldecisions are made (Kihl, et a!., 2007; Benschop & Dooreward, 1998; Hoeber, 2007).Constraints on player choiceThroughout the coaches’ interviews, many contradictions began to surface with regardsto the power players actually had over uniform selection. Evidence of Martin’s (1992)fragmentation perspective began to surface because although coaches first declared it wasplayers who choose them, after probing the issue further, contradictory datawas divulged. Forexample, captains, senior players and voted representatives were consistently among those giventhe task of acting as the voice of the team. As one coach articulated, “We use the senior’scommittee. So we trust them to act the voice for the team. We have a group of three people thatwe can talk about a lot of those things” (Coach 4). As well, some coaches also mentioned thatuniform decisions for the year are generally made at the end of the previous season. These typesof comments run contrary to earlier statements made about the teams’ power to choose because62not every player is being included in the selection process. Returning second and third yearplayers and new corners to the team do not appear to have a say in the uniform decisions whichare predetermined by narrow selection they have to choose from.This type of player inclusion and exclusion, as well as the coaches’ authority to narrowdown the uniform selection process from the start, are important because they reinforce previousresearch suggesting that athletes’ power is secondary to that of their coaches (Kihi et al., 2007).Another example of this power imbalance was noted when coaches and athletic directors saidthey were sympathetic to the individuals who may not have chosen the spandex uniform had theybeen given the choice, but could not make changes to the team uniform decisions based onindividual complaints. For instance one coach stated that, “if you have one player with aproblem, that would be hard. The majority would have to rule” (Coach 4). This sentiment wasseen throughout the coaches’ transcripts as is evident in this coach’s comment:It would be one of those things, you know like... I hate running lines. Well that’swhat you have to do. If the 14 other girls are doing it, you are gonna have to do it.You know so ‘I don’t like wearing spandex’. Well the other 14 are so, you aregonna have to do it too. (Coach 1)From this excerpt and others like it, we can see that the rights and decisions of individual playersare often silenced or overruled in favour of team uniformity that is controlled by the coaches.As mentioned earlier, the CIS volleyball league follows the Volleyball Canada Rulebookand these rules stipulate all the players must wear identical jerseys and shorts (VolleyballCanada, 2008). As a result, the possibility of individual uniform choice is limited. According tocoaches, individual players are permitted to dress as they wish for practices and other non-gamerelated functions, but uniformity is a requirement for game play. As one coach put it:You don’t have to wear it all the time. You don’t have to wear it to practice. Butwhen it comes to game time, you are gonna have to put them on because that isthe rule. Everybody has to look the same. (Coach 1)63Thus, while most coaches and some athletic directors were aware that the rules did not requiretheir female players to wear spandex shorts, they did, for the most part, abide by the league’sstipulation about the uniformity of player appearance during competition. It should be noted thata couple of the coaches indicated they would be willing to circumvent the rules in an attempt toallow a player with a different uniform to play, like e-mailing the other coach ahead of time, orspeaking to the referee prior to the match about making an exception. However, ultimately theinterviewees acknowledged that those players wishing to wear something different would bevery unlikely to do so because of peer pressure and the normative practices of the sport.Because the interviewees initially claimed the players were responsible for the spandexpractice, but after further probing disclosed that not all of them had a say, I argue that thesecontradictions provide support for the fragmentation perspective, albeit in a different way thanproposed by Martin (1992). In her theory, Martin (1992) argues that ambiguous beliefs andvalues are often present at any moment within an organization and that the values and beliefs oforganizational members are always in flux. However, I found this type of duality present in theindividuals themselves and I suspect their viewpoints would be largely consistent over timeunless there was a major incident (e.g., an entire team resisting the uniform practice). Myfindings reveal that all but one of the interviewees, who spoke about the power of player choice,also provided examples of the limitations and constraints on that agency. While I would suggestthat the duality of these responses can be credited partially to mixed feelings from theinterviewees, I suspect the later responses revealed a more accurate picture of the practice. Infact, the findings about players’ agency become even more complex when reviewing howcoaches and athletic directors described their own roles in the spandex practice.64Coaches’ and Athletic Directors’ResponsibilitiesAs the interviews progressed, theinterviewees began to acknowledgetheir power in theselection of the spandex uniforms, withseveral of the coaches directly admittingthey were theones with the ultimate authority. Insome years, coaches indicated theyalone made the decisionnot to buy new team uniforms, as a wayof stretching the team’s annual budget.While thisreusing of uniforms makes sense forfiscally strapped organizations, it is anexample of howmuch power the coaches had. As one coachput it, “I mean, they have input. Butultimately Ihave to make the decision. You have tomake the best decision for the team”(Coach 3). Thisstatement directly contradicts previouscomments about the players’ control overteam uniformsdecisions. For a couple male coaches whofelt uncomfortable asserting this typeof authorityover women, they placed partial decisionmaking authority with a female assistant coach orathletic administrator.The findings suggest a shared understanding and beliefamong the interviewees that theonus is on them to make the best decision for theirteams. Previous research confirms that this isa commonly felt responsibility by athletic staff, who feelthey must make choices that do notcompromise the school’s reputation, whilefostering team success and ensuring the needs of theirplayers are met (Armstrong-Doherty, 1995; Bar, Hums& Gullion, 1999; Bloom & Vallee, 2005;Wedgewood, 2005). As one athletic directorsaid:If I thought that something was off the boards,I would definitely step in and say,you know... I basically have to protect the imageof the university and if I thoughtthat somebody was taking advantage of that, I wouldstep in and do that. (AD 1)I argue that this can be problematic whenit is assumed players are comfortable in spandexbottoms. As most of the players are not consulted on this issue,there is not much of anopportunity for critical or oppositional voices to be heard.65All of the athletic directors pointedout they did not personally consult with the playersregarding team uniforms, leaving the responsibility foruniforms and equipment decisions up totheir coaching staff. This is of particularinterest because despite saying they were the ultimateauthority in their departments, athletic directors admittedthey had no idea what the playerswanted. As one athletic director noted:I don’t know whether they are happy wearing the shortsor would rather wearwhat the men wear. I really don’t know. I’ve neverreally talked to anybody onthe team. (AD 3)This finding may not be surprising given thelarge number of teams that athletic directors areresponsible for overseeing. However, it is troubling thatthe practices of their coaching staff,including uniform selections, are not being critically evaluated.Certainly volleyball has become a sport where the boundariesof acceptable attire forfemale athletes have been pushed and negotiated more thanin some other sports. Yet themajority of the interviewees concluded the women’s uniforms werecurrently well within thelimits of ‘good taste’. As one athletic director stated:I don’t think it will go anymore than it is. I don’t see room for it. LikeI think itis at the point where anything more revealing would be inbad taste. I think wherethe athletes are is appropriate. (AD 5)Based on quotes like this it appears there are well understood standardswhere looking sexuallyappealing is accepted (Lenskyj, 1995; Burn-Ardolino, 2003). Thereis some research to suggestthat although sport audiences want female athletes to look attractive and feminine,it would beinappropriate to be dressed more provocatively (Cahoon & Edmonds, 1989; Guiliano& Knight,2001; Barnes, et al., 2004; Gurung & Chrouser, 2007). In thenext section, data on thedifferences between men’s and women’s uniforms are discussed further.66Explanations for the Differences in Male andFemale Volleyball UniformsNot unlike the factors influencing the interpretationof the uniform rule, the findingsdemonstrate that cultural pressures, player input and coach/athleticdirector control explain someof the reasons for the differences. Citing standard volleyball practices asa guide for CISuniforms, coaches and athletic directors once again creditedthe volleyball culture for thegendered uniform practices. As well, they said players’decisions about aesthetics and comfortalso played a role, as did the functionality ofthe uniforms.Traditional Volleyball PracticesThe coaches and athletic directors commented on the traditional andnormativebehaviours of the larger volleyball community asa significant determinant of male and femaleuniforms at the amateur level. The consistent responses,as well as the enduring nature of thegendered uniforms are reflective of Martin’s (1992) integration dimensionof organizationalculture.That’s what volleyball looks likeThe interviewees noted that women have traditionally worn more feminine uniforms,likeskirts or tight and short bottoms to play, unlike the men who have wornlonger and looser shortsover the past decades. It was well understood that the spandex uniformhas never been theaccepted practice among male volleyball players, at any level of play or at any timein history,even though men wear spandex in other sports such as track,skiing and swimming (Reeser,2003). Based on the interviewees’ comments, I gather they feel it is acceptablefor some maleathletes to wear tight fitting clothing in other sports if it provides them witha technicaladvantage, like decreasing wind or water drag (Frederick, 1992). Butin volleyball, spandexwould offer little or no advantage and would be an aesthetic rather thanfunctional choice.67Conversely, this type of relaxed uniform had not been seen in women’s volleyball by theinterviewees in over a decade. In fact some of the newer coaches and athletic directors had notknown anything other than spandex shorts for the women’s teams. As this coach indicated:When I came into the CIS, they were already wearing them and so it wasn’tsomething where I thought oooooh, because it was something they were alreadywearing. (Coach 2)This apparent willingness to take up the spandex practice without question demonstrates that aprecedent has been established within the CIS volleyball system where alternative uniforms arenot being considered.The findings suggest that the broader volleyball culture encourages compliance to gendernorms and fosters the belief that CIS women’s teams should wear spandex and CIS men’s teamsshould wear baggy basketball type shorts. As a result there appears to be significant coercivepressure on the CIS members to conform to gender stereotypes (DiMaggio& Powell, 1983), anda gendered subtext is influencing the decisions of organizational members (Edwards, Skinner &Stewart, 2004; Frisby & Hoeber, 2007).Male versus Female Athlete InputCredit for the uniform choices in both men’s and women’s CIS volleyball was attributedto the desires and wishes of the players due to aesthetic appeal and/or the comfort level. Theyfelt because of differences between male and female bodies, the women looked better and weremore comfortable in spandex shorts than the men would be. At the same time, most of theinterviewees eventually contradicted this stance by noting discomfort and displeasure amongtheir female players while wearing short spandex.Spandex looks better on women than menThe interviewees often commented on how the female volleyball player’s build is wellsuited to wearing tight and revealing shorts, unlike that of the males. There was a common68attitude that “the general [female volleyball player’s] body type is tall and thin and that.. .thosegirls are happy to show off their bodies” (AD 5). While the participants shared a belief thatsome of women were pleased to be the objects of ‘gaze, they were quick toadd that the same didnot hold true for most male volleyball players. Some insisted that women “look better inspandex shorts than guys do” (Coach 1). Others stated that “...men’s physiquesdo not go verygood with spandex, for obvious reasons” (AD 1). Admittedly, I did not pursue this line ofquestioning as it seemed obvious from the interviewees physical gestures, nervous laughter andfacial expressions, that they were alluding to the idea that the men’s genitalia would be morevisible than a woman’s in this kind of attire. They went on to indicate theydid not think the menwould want their bodies to be displayed in this manner. This sentiment has long been articulatedby researchers who believe that while certain female forms are meant to be displayed, thehegemonic male body is not (Bordo, 1999; Adams, 2005; Reilly & Rudd, 2007).Whose comfort counts?Witnessing some of the women wearing spandex outside of the competitive arena, like inthe weight-room, and players choosing to wear even shorter spandex led some interviewees tobelieve the female players were comfortable wearing the spandex shorts. This same notion ofcomfort was also used to explain why male CIS players are not choosing to wear spandexbottoms. As one participant put it, “I think they [the male players] would feel absolutely silly inthem” (Coach 2). Because tight clothing and a preoccupation with the male form is oftenassociated with homosexuality, vigorous policing of male attire is required to disrupt notions ofsame-sex orientation and homoeroticism (Bordo, 1999; Pronger, 1999; Adams, 2005). Whileone participant was aware of a men’s professional team in Europe that had worn longer spandexshorts during the 1980s, the coach said the trend was short lived because of the high levels ofdiscomfort expressed by male players. This finding is significant because only male discomfort69was acknowledged as a deterrent of the spandex uniform, even though female players are notalways comfortable in them.Coach 4: The interesting thing is how it has evolved, how the girls are tuggingatthem all the time right? They ride up or whatever and they are tuggingat them half of the game. You know, play the game, tug the shorts,play the game, tug the shorts”Kelly: So they are not comfortable?Coach 4: Some of them... I guess not.Another coach informed me some women spray their shorts with an adhesiveproduct before thegame to “hold them in place, if it’s moving on them” (Coach 3). I contend that havingtocontinuously readjust their shorts or glue material to their legs is indicativeof a less thancomfortable garment.The idea that women and not men enjoy and are comfortable revealing their bodies isprevalent in the findings and appears to be evidence of cultural integration. However as Martin(1992) indicates, a common mistake made by those who assume only widely shared perspectivesexists, is that little attention is paid to less consistent or contradictory findings.While at firstathletic directors and coaches positioned the women’s acts of discomfort as exceptions to therule, their later acknowledgement of player discomfort demonstrates a less than consistentexplanation of the practice. Furthermore, the ever-changing positions provide further evidenceof a fragmented organizational culture (Martin, 1992). Indeed, the lack of consistency isimportant to understanding the differences between the uniforms of male and female playersbecause it highlights the untidiness around the gendered uniforms and also hints at the coaches’and athletic directors’ roles in reinforcing the practice.70Coaches’ and Athletic Directors’ Justifications forGendering UniformsComparisons between the men’s and women’s games were frequentlymade by coachesand athletic directors and was used as a reason whythey felt it appropriate to have differentunifonns for men and women. Additionally, coachesand athletic directors saw the currentuniform market choices as a reflection of the functionalrequirements of each game.Different games have different requirementsAlthough the rules of volleyball for men and womenare almost identical”, nearly all thecoaches felt that the men’s and women’s games are notcomparable in terms of the techniquesused and style of play. It was articulated that womenhave adopted more defensive strategiesinto their game and are on the floor more often than themen. As well, the coaches claimed thatmale players are more prone to divingon their fronts and bellies, whereas female players aremore likely to stride slide and layout to dig a hard driven ball.According to this coach:The dynamics of women’s and men’s volleyball are different. Likeinternationally it’s a little bit similar.., but men’s volleyballis more about thesideoutixgame and siding out and siding out and siding out.With women youhave a little more finesse because it is the diggingand the passing and the longerrallies. (Coach 5)Wachs (2005) argues that male and female performances are rarely comparedon the same levelto ensure that the male’s place as the better athlete remainsunchallenged. Interestingly in thisstudy, the coaches indicated that the women’s style was more pleasingand exciting to watch.Nevertheless, the differences between the men’s and women’sgames were repeatedly offered asexplanations for the gendered uniform preferences, as this was inevitably linkedto the differentfunctions required of the men’s and women’s uniform bottoms. Itshould be noted that only thewomen’s coaches spoke about the differences between the women’sand men’s game. Becauseof the difference in training and ties to the volleyball sport itself, this typeof information may beoutside the realm of expertise of the athletic directors. Martin (1992) would explainthis finding71as evidence of differentiation becausethe women’s volleyball coaches and athletic directorscould be considered different sub-groups withinthe CIS. However, while consensus about thedifferent games existed within the coaching subculture,both athletic directors and coachescommented on the functionalityof spandex shorts for the female players.All but one of the interviewees felt that because volleyballwas a sport involvingjumping, diving to the ground and other agile movements,spandex shorts made the most sense.They argued the tight shorts are neededin order stay in place when the women dive on the floorand the short length encourages freedom of movement.As well, some argued that there is a lackof functional alternatives for the women, as articulatedby this coach:It comes back to functionality. What’sthe option? What are you going to putthem in if not spandex? That works for the sport.If you come up with something,present it and you know it could be another option, butI really haven’t seen anyalternatives. (Coach 3)Market availabilityFrom marketing studies like that of Long and Veltri (n.d)and Lucas (2000), we knowthat the manufacturers of sport apparel do makeand market different products for the differentgenders. Even if the men and women did want alternativeuniforms, it would be difficult toobtain their choice from volleyball suppliers. Severalof the coaches showed me volleyballcatalogues to illustrate that spandex were the only choiceoffered for women and that this choicewas noticeably absent from the men’s catalogues. However,coaches and athletic directors alsoindicated they were not obligated to choose uniforms based onlyon the options available inwomen’s volleyball catalogues. They were ableto provide players with other catalogues fromdifferent sports where more options are availablein women’s shorts (e.g., soccer or men’svolleyball catalogues). However, this is not occurringbecause current uniform selections are inkeeping with a volleyball culture that encourages uniformityresulting in a practice that goes72unchallenged by coaches and athletic directors.The rationalizations and justifications providedby coaches and athletic directors appear tobe a public relations way of explaining the practicerather than an honest dialogue about the uniforms wornby male and female players.Reasons for the Lack of Changeto the Spandex Uniform PracticeInitially the interviewees indicated therewas no need to change the women’s uniformsbecause they felt the uniforms did not sexualizethe players and they faced little resistance to thepractice because they were adhering to guidelines outlinedin the CIS Equity Policy. Ultimately,I found that all but one of the coaches andathletic directors felt there was a need to change thispractice. Instead, coaches and athletic directorsused justifications and rationalizationsto defendtheir lack of action.Sexualized Volleyball CultureSocial and organizational culture shapes the attitudes, valuesand behaviour of individualsin an organization. According to Cousens andSlack (1996), organizational members aresocialized to internalize the values and beliefs of cultural leadersand will act without directguidance from the central office in the form of writtenrules and formal control mechanisms.The lack of expressed need to change the uniformpractice demonstrates coaches and athleticdirectors are adhering to the consistent messages within thebroader volleyball culture that thisbehaviour is valued and accepted. Yet, dominant discoursesabout the naturalness and normalityof the spandex uniform serve to silence or rationalize evidenceto the contrary (Martin, 2000).The data suggests the discourses around the exploitationand sexualisation of femaleathletes are not taken into account when coaches and athleticdirectors are determining whetheror not the practice should be altered. As this athletic director indicated:73I never thought of it as a sexual connotation at all... I just think it’s at the agewhen everybody’s looking and I think that is not unhealthy. I honestly don’t.Because when I was that age I was looking. (AD 1)This interviewee appears to be ascribing to the dominant discourse that looking at the women isnatural and normal. His/her quote also highlights the impact that CIS women’s volleyball fansand audiences have on how coaches and athletic directors determine if the uniforms need to bechanged. Because the interviewees have observed that the women’s volleyball games do notattract large audiences, they contend this was an indication that the shorts were not being used assexual lures for outsiders and thus did not necessitate further critique. However as I probedfurther on the subject a different story emerged.One coach admitted “sex is definitely there. That’s for sure. But that’s with anything”(Coach 1). It became obvious that some of the interviewees were very muchaware of therelationship between the spandex shorts and the sexualisation of the female athletes. Coaches inparticular noted hearing comments from teaching staff and volleyball fans referencing thewomen’s uniforms in sexualized ways. This coach remembered that he/she had university staffapproach her personally to make comments about sexualization. “I had professors say to me inthe hallways, ‘the best thing to happen to women’s volleyball was spandex” (Coach 3). Someathletic directors could also recall incidents when they had heard comments about theappearances of women’s bodies from fans. For example this athletic director indicated:I would say you hear more, that, our women’s volleyball team are very goodlooking athletes. Or from the guys, that ‘I want to go watch women’s volleyballbecause they are really pretty’. (AD 4)Similar findings have been documented in numerous media studies, indicating that viewers oftenprefer to watch women in revealing clothing (Guiliano & Knight, 2001; Shuggart, 2003; Barnes,et al., 2004; Schultz, 2004). However, although the coaches and athletic directors repeatedly74talked about the sexualizing nature of the spandex uniforms, all but one coach insisted there wasno need to change the practice.This resistance to change is well documented in the literature. Researchers offer multipleand sometimes competing explanations for the lack of organizational change. However, manysuggest that organizational practices go unchanged because organizational members deny theneed for change, feel the change threatens their personal values and beliefs, and/or are uncertainhow those changes will affect the organization (Agocs, 1997; Bovey & Hede, 2001; Ford, Ford& McNamara, 2002; Alas, 2007). From the interviewees’ responses, it is apparent that onereason coaches and athletic directors are unmotivated to change is because the current gendereduniforms are in line with volleyball and broader social norms about the roles of women. Becausewomen are seen as sexual objects (Connell, 1987; Bordo, 1999), putting the players in lesssexualized uniforms would challenge gender ideals, creating a dissonance within the sharedheteronormative organizational culture.Ignoring Player Resistance and Problematic BehaviourOther reasons cited by coaches and athletic directors for maintaining the current spandexuniform was they faced little to no resistance to the practice and as a result felt that it wasunproblematic. Initially, nearly all of the interviewees indicated players had never vocallyexpressed to them any disproval, dislike or refusal to wear the spandex shorts and this providedjustification for the lack of consideration of alternatives. However, as previously noted, thisrational was not as clear cut as the participants had first indicated.What first appeared to demonstrate integration in the athletic department became moreambiguous as the interviews progressed. Similar to the findings of other volleyball studies(Barnes et al., 2004), my data reveal that all of the coaches and half of the athletic directors hadencountered resistance to the uniform bottoms at some point in their careers. Examples of75aversion to the spandex uniform included wearing sweatpants or baggy shorts until game time,refusing to wear spandex shorts for practice, asking to stand in the back for teamphotos andopenly stating they disliked the shorts to their teammates. These findings suggestthat someathletes resent being sexualized in their uniforms (Collins, 2002; Burns-Ardolino, 2003; Aimar,et al., 2004; Barnes, et al., 2004; Ross & Shinew, 2004). Indeed I argue that these seeminglysubtle and covert ways of constructing their own definitions of gender displays (Burns-Ardolino,2003) are indicative of a less than total acceptance of the spandex uniforms by players.Future research is required to determine if players do not feel comfortable openlyresisting the practice because women acting within traditionally male dominated environmentsoften do not often have the luxury of expressing oppositional view points as they may facealienation (Obenour, et al., 2002; Cockburn & Clarke, 2002; Ross & Shinew, 2004). Howeverthe lack of vocal opposition expressed by coaches and athletic directors may be indicative of theplayers’ fear of expressing conflicting view points due to possible repercussions (Ross &Shinew, 2004; Hoeber, 2007), like being challenged about her sexuality, being seen as a troublemaker, losing game time or even her spot on the team.Despite expressing concern about the well being of their players, only one coach said, “Ifeel sorry, very sorry for the girls at times. Just because of what we ask them to wear and how itlooks” (Coach 2). This finding corroborates my previous argument that coaches only feel theresponsibility to address player concerns or resistance when it becomes the voice of the majority.Coaches rationalize overlooking resistance by indicating that the opposing players had comefrom other sports and were not used to the practice, had self-esteem issues or the player did notpersonally want the coaches to change the team uniform on her behalf. As this coach recalled:You know she wore sweatpants until she had to wear spandex. I’ve actually gotone girl on my team right now that would probably prefer not to. I don’t think she76wears spandex at practice ever, but Idon’t really look. I think most of the timeshe doesn’t wear spandex. But she wearsthem for every game. (Coach 1)The denial of the problematic natureof the spandex shorts provides justification for the limitedaction taken to change the ritualized practice(Agocs, 1997; Bovey & Hede, 2001). As indicatedbelow, I suggest this limited consideration and actionmay contribute to potential mental andphysical health problems of women volleyballplayers.Beauty, braun, and brainsWhile most participants felt it unnecessary to changethe spandex uniform practice, morethan half of the interviewees claimed it was their responsibilityto build up the self-esteem oftheir players and enhance their self body image.As Robinson (2002) notes, the pressuresonfemale athletes to have the ‘ideal’ body type are immense.Being thin and toned, but not overlymuscular, are essential to this feminine ideal(Markula, 1995; Lennon & Rudd, 2000). Coachesin particular, are aware of the pressures on their female athletesto conform to feminine standardsof weight and beauty, especially since volleyball uniforms are sorevealing. They had developedcertain strategies to help them cope with these demands.For example, coaches held teamworkshops where they showed the players media clipsof how models’ pictures are airbrushed orretouched as a way to show that these standards of beauty are unrealistic.Another commontechnique was to try and instil pride in their athletes about theirbodies, by adopting team mottoslike “Beauty. Braun. Brains” (Coach 5). As thiscoach indicated:Let’s be proud of our bodies by being fit and... notbeing ashamed of showingwhat you have got because you have invested in that. It’s your temple. Youarean athlete, so there is nothing to be ashamed of in wearing that typeof bottom.(Coach 3)This attitude that the women need to be strengthened or helpedto fend off the pressures ofunattainable beauty standards was more pronouncedin the findings than a desire to change thesystem that put the women’s bodies on display (Armenakis& Bedeian, 1999; Alas, 2007). Of77particular concern is how this practiceis allowed to continue, while potentiallycontributing tounhealthy behaviour on women’svolleyball teams.There are researchers who arguethere is a strong connection betweenbody image andeating disorders (Markula, 1995; Urlaand Swedlund, 1995; Beals, 2002).In one study, whilethe occurrence of eating disorders was lesscommon among volleyball playersthan moreaesthetically driven sports likegymnastics or figure skating, thesport still ranked higher inincidences than other CIS sportslike basketball and softball(Beals, 2002). As this coachindicated, “I think if there is a women’svolleyball program out therethat says they’ve never hadan eating disorder, they’re lying” (Coach2). This finding runs contrary tothe belief that sport isan environment where athletes’self-confidence and competenceare expected to thrive. It istroubling that the spandex practicecan be linked to the players’ self-monitoring and how thatbehaviour can be exploited bythose with power (Lennon & Rudd,2000; Beals, 2002).A few of the interviewees acknowledgethe spandex shorts are used as amotivational toolby some coaches to “help their athletes tobe in the best shape possible” (AD 2). Researchersindicate this type of exploitation doesoccur and unrealistic body expectationsmay result fromunethical coaching techniques (Lennon& Rudd, 2000; Beals, 2002).This coach acknowledgedthe uniforms do place pressure on the athletesto have a certain body type, “Doesit weigh onsome athletes? For sure. But I think sometimesthere are concerns that needto be met” (Coach1). Based on comments like this, I suggestthe use of revealing garmentsas an incentive forincreased fitness levels hasthe potential to be damaging onthe female players’ bodies and selfesteem. Despite research showing womenwith lowered body image and largerbody types showa preference for wearing baggy shorts (Chattaramn& Rudd, 2006), coaches’ acknowledgeknown eating disorders and how spandexmay contribute to unhealthy bodypractices, yet almostnone of them expressed interest in movingaway from the spandex uniform practice.78Certainly the coaches and athletic directorsseemed genuinely concerned for the safetyand well-being of their players, although the disconnectbetween this and the limited action theyare willing to take seems contradictory. As Fenton,Frisby and Luke (1999) and Hoeber andFrisby (2001) found, the organizational valuesthat are articulated by organizational members arenot always enacted in the same way. Barnettand Finnmore (1999) contend that “rules androutines may come to obscure overall missions andlarger social goals” (p. 718).I argue the coaches’ and athletic directors’ understandingsabout the problematic andsexualizing potential of the spandex practiceare anything but clear and constant across the CISconference examined. Martin’s (1992) fragmentationperspective helps to explain why coachesand athletic directors, whose job it isto ensure the safety and health of their athletes, were able tolink the practice of spandex uniforms to body-image andeating disorders, but resist the need tochange the practice. This ambiguity betweenwhat is said and what is enacted, or ‘actionambiguity’ (Martin, 1992) contributesto the entrenchment of inequitable practices.A Liberal Feminist Athletic DepartmentMuch like Hoeber’ s (2004) findings on equity in CIS athletic departments,it appears thatmy interviewees were unfamiliar with the stipulations of the CISEquity Policy as I needed todescribe the policy to each of them. When asked if they feltthis policy, which states that maleand female athletes cannot be treated differently based ontheir gender (Canadian InteruniversitySport, 2007), was being contradicted by the different uniforms worn, everycoach and athleticdirector indicated the policy was not being violated because the playerswere given the choice topick their own uniforms. This liberal feminist policy, which emphasizesequal opportunity formale and female athletes, does little to increase the recognition amongthe athletic staff that menand women do not all face the same social barriers.I argue that providing them with the same79uniform opportunities does not ensure they are receiving the same quality of treatment (Donnelly& Kidd, 2000). Comments like this one were consistently noted in the data:I think that the policy is more like you have to provide both with uniforms. Itisnot like you are providing the men with uniforms and the women have to pay orsomething like that. (AD 3)Alas (2007) argues individuals will resist change so long as the motivationto do so isabsent. Because the interviewees felt they were adhering to the specificationsoutlined in thegender equity policy, they did not feel a need to deviate from the existing practice.Bovey andHede (2001) add that individuals are unlikely to change theirbehaviour if they cannot anticipatethe outcome of that change. Because the liberal feministapproach to gender equality is readilyaccepted in athletic departments (Hoeber & Frisby, 2001), coaches and athleticdirectors do notappear willing to consider alternative styles of governance. This shared approach providessupport for Martin’s (1992) integration perspective and further explains why coachesand athleticdirectors do not feel the need to alter the current uniform practice.805CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONSUnlike international volleyball, the wording of the CIS uniform rule appears to be genderneutral, yet its interpretation is unmistakably gendered. Canada West women’s volleyballcoaches and athletic directors simultaneously adhere to the CIS Rulebook and the uniformprescriptions outlined by the FIVB, demonstrating how women’s teams are run in feminized andsexualized ways. While men and women need not be governed identically, the administration ofthese teams should ensure the same quality of treatment is received by players of both genders.Using feminist critical theory and organization culture theory, this study exposes the gendereddiscourses present in CIS volleyball programs and how the resulting inequitable power relationsimpact the way women’s teams are governed.The following section will summarize the conclusions and highlights my contributions tothe literature on organizational culture and gender equity in sport. I then present some practicalrecommendations for CIS volleyball coaches and administrators to encourage and promotechange. Finally, as this study is only a first step to understanding the spandex uniform practice, Ioffer suggestions for future research.ConclusionsThe findings reveal that hegemonic gender ideals affect organizational practices andprovide support for Martin’s (1992) organizational culture approach. This section discusses howhegemonic influences impact team uniforms and illustrate evidence of organizational integration,differentiation and fragmentation. Additionally, I will demonstrate how this study builds onMartin’s (1992) framework to add further analytical depth to her theory.81HegemonyHegemonic theorists contend that social order is maintained because those in subordinateindividuals comply with existing norms, believing them to be right and natural (Ross & Shinew,2004). Because some discourses are encouraged while others are strongly resistedby powerfulgroups, the availability of options to choose from is limited (Ross & Shinew, 2004). Complicityresults from adhering to strategically manipulated understandings of what behaviours are sociallyacceptable. This study reveals that although select players are given some input over uniformdecisions, these individuals are only given certain options to pick from. Whether their choicesare limited by a coach’s pre-selection or market availability, the players really only have spandexbottoms as a uniform choice. While the selection process may appear to give the playersdecision-making power, they are constrained from the outset to ensure that their choice conformsto existing standards of acceptable attire for women. In this way, the women are persuadedrather than coerced into choosing gendered uniforms (Hargreaves, 1990).The ideological pressure from the larger volleyball culture and society on the women tocomply with traditional gender ideologies also discourages the players from forcefully resistingthe normative spandex practice. Professional uniforms standards, limited market choices and alack of recognition and support for alternative uniforms by coaches and athletic directorssimultaneously encourages the spandex choice while discouraging alternatives (Connell, 1987;Cockburn & Clarke, 2002; Hargreaves, 1990). The extent to which the spandex uniform isexemplified, supported and pushed on the players makes the choice seem normal. Argumentsabout the functionality of the uniform further strengthens the players’ common sense attitudeabout selecting spandex uniforms.Strategies, like gender uniform rules, help to remove comparisons between male andfemale athletes and maintain the ideological differences between genders (Wachs, 2005; Travers,822006). Through these types of practices,the CIS women’s volleyball players are covertlydiscouraged from overstepping their feminine boundariesand to accept hegemonic ways ofbehaving in a way that reproduces an oppressivesystem that privileges maleness overfemaleness (Hargreaves, 1990; Ross & Shinew, 2004).Additionally, the spandex uniformpractice also provides insights into how hegemonicvalues, beliefs and understanding of genderhelp to shape decisions by organizational members.Three PerspectivesAccording to Martin (1992) cultural practices referto the organizational structures, rulesand unwritten norms within an organizationand are part of a larger matrix that makes uporganizational culture. The spandex rule is onesuch practice and provides an avenue to explorethe CIS women’s volleyball organization. Martin’s (1992)three perspectives are useful forcritically analyzing the spandex uniform practice becausethey shed light on the complexity ofinterpretations and allow researchers to examine multipleand shifting view points aboutorganizational activities.IntegrationIntegration accounted for the majority of the findingsas there were values, beliefs andunderstandings that were shared and consistent. Most evidentwere the depictions of thevolleyball culture (Martin, 1992). The norms and social gender expectations withinthis sportculture were noted to be significant in influencing howcoaches and athletic directors interpretedthe CIS uniform rule, helping to account for the differences betweenthe men’s and women’suniforms and partially explaining the enduring nature of the practice.Armstrong-Doherty (1995)argues in order to “understand the behaviour of an organizationone must examine the context orenvironment within which it operates”(p. 76). As such, it is not surprising that theheternormative ‘volleyball culture’ encouraged andsupported gendered practices. The83organizational values affecting the spandexuniform practice are premised on sociallyconstructed gender ideals which reinforcebehaviour and delineate the boundaries about whatisnormal or expected in organizations (Hoeber,2007). Indeed, nearly every participant indicatedthey felt the women’s teams were acting inaccordance not only with volleyball normsbut withsocial norms as well. Wright and Clarke(1999) explain that where discoursesaccord withmainstream beliefs and social practices, waysof knowing are taken-for-granted andother waysare marginalized or regarded as deviant.Both coaches and athletic directors referredto the natural differences between male andfemale bodies and felt women looked better inspandex shorts than men’s bodies. Similartoprevious research, the interviewees felt genderedclothing practices were not only acceptable, butalso expected in volleyball (Pronger, 1990; Adams, 2005;Reilly & Rudd, 2007). Referenceswere often made to the norms of the sport wherecoaches and athletic directors were notonlyfollowing CIS trends but those of professional leaguesas well. These choices were thenreinforced by the market selections available, wherespandex shorts are only offered to women’steams with little options for anything else. Hall (2002) arguesthat sport marketing is more thanever focusing on women’s bodies, depictingan ideal of normal womanliness which highlightstheir sexuality and this seems to be readily taken upby the coaches and athletic directors.While every individual said it was their responsibilityto ensure a respectable image oftheir school was upheld, nearly every interviewee advised methe uniforms did not move beyondwhat was considered acceptable attire in the sport of volleyballor in contemporary fashion.Because behaviours are partially drivenby what society feels is appropriate or acceptable(Sankaran & Volkwein-Caplan, 2002), the women’s spandex uniformwas not a practice theyconsidered moving away from. The group wasusing heteronormative gender cues from their84social surroundings to understandand explain the spandex uniformpractice. However, not everyparticipant shared the sameunderstandings, with coaches addinga different layer to the analysisin comparison to the athletic directors.DifferentiationThis study revealed limited differentiation,perhaps because unlike Martin (1992)wholooked within one organization,my sample included individualswith similar positions across sixorganizations in the Canada WestAthletic Conference. However,evidence of this perspectivebecame apparent when questions wereasked about processes of uniformselection, specificsabout the sport itself and potentialconsequences of the practice.Perhaps predictably, coacheswere significantly more informedas each were able to provide adetailed account of howspandex shorts are selected andto comment on what influenced the women’sdecisions,including the way the uniforms lookedon the players and a desire to looklike the professionals.Coaches also offered an additionalexplanation for the differences betweenthe men’s andwomen’s shorts not voiced byathletic directors when they claimedmen’s and women’svolleyball were two different games andthe uniform requirements were a reflectionofdissimilarities in playing style. The coachesare subscribing to highly motivatedideologicaldiscourses which maintain traditionalgender ideals by preventing challenges tothe genderbinaries so crucial to their construction(Connell, 1987; Wachs, 2005).As well, coaches reported that allegiancesto governing bodies of volleyball,likeVolleyball Canada and the FIVB, also contributeto the spandex uniform practice.Donaldson(1993) argues that this hegemonic influenceis demonstrative of how certain social groupsareable to establish and maintain social domination withoutcoercion or formal control. Not unlikeprevious research that indicates smallerorganizations mimic larger successfulorganizations(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Cousens &Slack, 1996; Amis & Shaw, 2001), thecoaches claimed85adherence to the professional rulebook was a way of legitimizing their teamsand connectingthem to the global sport. As farther evidence of differentiation, coaches were theonly ones whodiscussed the problem of eating disorders on women’s volleyball teams and the relationshipbetween them and spandex uniforms. This is related to the literature indicatingcoaches mayactually contribute to eating disorders of their players (Lennon & Rudd, 2000; Beals, 2002).Support for this type of sub-group consensus may not be surprising given that mostof thecoaches have significantly more personal contact with theplayers than the athletic directors(Armstrong-Doherty, 1995), as well as a more intimate knowledge of the gameitself. While thisis significant, I argue that the most interesting findings are those which revealed theinconsistencies and ambiguities around the spandex uniform practice.FragmentationWhile Martin (1992) conceptualized the fragmentation perspective by analyzing thelackof clarity and dissensus around issues in an organization, my findings suggestthat there is a lackof clarity about the spandex practice within individuals themselves. Initially, in the interviewsresponses from coaches and athletic directors seemed to be solely providing evidenceofintegration. However, after probing the uniform selection process, the sexualizing nature of theshorts and possible player resistance were acknowledged and supportfor Martin’s (1992)fragmentation perspective became clear. Similarly, although at first nearly every coach andathletic director indicated the female players were choosing the spandex shorts, the findingsreveal this was not necessarily the case. While some players’ input was influential in teamuniform decisions, individual agency was limited and constrained by factors like coaches andathletic directors’ standards of acceptability and market choices. This ‘action ambiguity’demonstrates there often is inconsistency between what is said and what is actuallyenacted(Martin, 1992).86Further ambiguities were revealed when the interviewees were questioned about possibleresistance to the spandex bottoms. For instance, at some point in each interview the participantsindicated players were choosing to wear the tight fitting shorts, however, stories were later toldabout players deciding to wear alternative bottoms and even vocally expressing their displeasurewith them. Additionally, coaches and athletic directors repeatedly indicated the feelings andhealth of their players was their primary responsibility and acknowledged the spandex uniformpractice conflicted with these values at times.These ideological contradictions were also noted in comments about the sexualizingaffect of the shorts. In the beginning, each interviewee advised me that there was little sexualconnotation to the spandex shorts. However, as the interviews progressed, the same participantsdivulged that they had heard audience members make sexual comments about the players thatwere tied to the uniforms. Ultimately, I concur with Martin (1992) that dominant organizationalideologies can be seen most in these types of contradictions.However, Martin’s (1992) theory fails to recognize the impact of the social environmenton organizational culture. This study demonstrates that a heteronormative environmentsignificantly influences organizational practices. Because “gender is a dynamic that is deeplyembedded in the structure of and meaning assigned to sport.. .its governance is strongly genderskewed” (Claringbould & Knoppers, 2007,p.496). This notion that the broader context inwhich uniform rules are read and interpreted is extremely important to understanding themultitude of reasons behind organizational practices (Anderson, 1999, Edwards, Skinner, &Stewart, 2004), is under developed in Martin’s (1992) three perspective approach. Exposing thegendered subtext that impacts organizational decisions is a necessary first step to creatingalternative practices.87Recommendations for ChangeThis study demonstrates traditional gender ideals and stereotypes are present in CISwomen’s volleyball and that ‘gender neutral’ rules are not enough to ensure gender equitableprograms. Through this type of critical examination changes can be made to the culture of anorganization, although it can be difficult in the face of historically entrenched gendered normsand practices (Hargreaves, 1990; Marshall, 1999; Hoeber, 2004). Therefore, I argue that inaddition to changing league uniform rules, key sport leaders like coaches and athletic directorsneed to engage in dialogues with athletes to expose the discourses behind practices as a first stepin re-envisioning them.Critiquing SpandexIt would be inappropriate for me to suggest what CIS volleyball uniforms should looklike. Rather, it is my responsibility to provide recommendations to coaches and athletic directorsthat will help make the CIS women’s volleyball organization more equitable. Most importantly,I would encourage coaches and athletic directors to start thinking more critically about thespandex practice and its implications. Special attention should be paid to the resistance andopposition towards the practice, as well as to the potentially dangerous relationship betweenrevealing uniforms, sexualisation, and eating disorders. Because hegemonic practices, such asdressing men and women differently, require consent it makes sense that the way it is, is not theway it has to be (Ross & Shinew, 2004). As such, a closer analysis of the normative practice bykey individuals like coaches and athletic directors, in consultation with all players, could makeclear the problematic nature of the practice and could be a starting place for change (Shaw &Slack, 2002; Shaw, 2007).88Changing the RulesRao and Kelleher (2000) argue that “in order to makelasting changes to what anorganization does, both formal rules and informalnorms need to change”(p. 75). I recommendthat the league loosen its rule on uniformity.The bottoms can remain the same colour,but theexact shorts need not be worn by every player.This would allow those who want to wearshorter, tighter shorts to do so, whilepermitting others the option of wearing longer and/orloosershorts. Arguably allowing for greater variationin the fit and length of women’s shorts inamateur volleyball would be an admirable firststep in making the sport more equitable. Thismay also permit those players, coaches or administratorsthe freedom to choose shorts of otherteam sports as an alternative to those offeredby volleyball equipment companies, which could inturn place greater demand on those companies to carrya wider selection of volleyball shorts.Suggestions for Future ResearchThis research on gendered practices in organizationalcultures reveals several potentialdirections for future research. Although I found Martin’s(1992) three perspective approach tostudying organizational culture to be a productive theory,like previous researchers (Fenton et. al,1999), I do not feel each perspective has the same explanatory potential.My findings indicatethat inconsistencies exist both in organizations and withinorganizational members themselves.Future research could expand the current fragmentation perspectiveby further unpacking theambiguities and contradictions uncovered in this study.By investigating the contradictoryfindings like the sexualizing nature of the spandex shorts, researcherscould add further depth toMartin’s theory and contribute to the larger body of literatureon organizational culture.Second, I would recommend similar research to that presented herebe conducted usingsamples from more of the regional bodies of the CIS. This extendedresearch would draw fromorganizations with diverse sport histories and offer insights intohow the broader sporting culture89affects each of these governing bodies. This would providea more diverse sample populationand make the results more transferrable across theCIS organization.Hoeber (2004) notes “opening up the discussionsto include athletes may also facilitatethe uncovering of hidden discourses or competing positions”(p. 220). I recommend futureresearch should also include the voices of the femalevolleyball players as this could yieldimportant comparative data to that offered by coachesand athletic directors. This type ofresearch would also offer insights into how the femaleplayers feel about the practice and givethe women the opportunity to offer potential alternatives.As well, an investigation of theplayers could better analyse the relationship between thespandex uniforms and the players’ bodymonitoring behaviours. Perhaps most significantly, thisapproach would provide the normallysilenced voices of female athletes the opportunityto be heard.Similarly I suggest that female players of varying ages,not just university-aged playerscould be interviewed as it would be interesting to see howthese types of practices are taken upby younger players coming up in the sport. Youth sport is an avenuethat could offer researchersthe opportunity to expose the discourses andstereotypes that impact the way children’s sportprograms are run (Messner, 2009) and could disrupt inequitable dialoguesearly enough to makean impact in higher level and more elite sport.90Endnotes1Tn this paper, policy and rule are not terms used interchangeably. Policy refers to the guidelinesand mandates set by a governing body to ensure the standardization behaviour within anorganization. Rules refer specifically to how a sport will be officiated according to approvedsport rulebooks. For the purposes of this paper, rules and regulations will be used synonymously.2The libero is a defensive player on the volleyball court. The player must not attack thevolleyball above the height of the net. S/he is not required to rotate through the various positionson the court like the other positions. The libero player may enter and exit the game to replace aplayer in the back row. This replacement does not count as a substitution.A skort is a piece of clothing consisting of a pair of shorts covered by a flap of fabric thatmakes that garment look like a skirt.Elite interviewing is term coined by Marshall and Rossman (2006) and refers to theinterviewing of individuals with influence and knowledge within an organization. For this studycoaches and athletic directors would be considered elite in the CIS volleyball organization. Theterm ‘elite’ is not used to imply that coaches or athletic directors are superior or higher class thanany other in the organization but merely to remain consistent with Marshall and Rossman’sconcept of interviewing knowledgeable and influential individuals.Culottes: shorts that resemble women’s underwear. They are fitted and cut high on the leg,hugging the woman’s buttocks.6Stride sliding refers to a defensive technique used by female players where she lunges to theside and dives onto her hip or side to pass or play a ball that is out of reach from a standingposition.volleyball in Canada closely follows the international volleyball rules, the Americangame differs significantly with regards to scoring, substitution and serving rules; though notablyshares the same uniform requirements consisting simply of a jersey, socks and shoes (Lenberg,2008)8The only difference between the rules for the men’s and women’s games is the height of thenet. Senior men play 2.43 m and Senior women at 2.24m.sideout refers to winning a point through an offensive attack.‘9)ReferencesAdams, M. (2005). Death to the prancing prince: Effeminacy, sport discourses and the salvationof men’s dancing. Body Society, 11, 63-86.Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction andrepression. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 16(9), 917-931.Aimar, C., Baird, M., Choi, P., Kauer, K. & Krane, V. (2004) Living the paradox: Femaleathletes negoitate femininity and muscularity. Sex Roles, 5 0(5), March, 315-330.Alas, R. (2007). Reactions to organizational change from the institutional perspective: The caseof Estonia. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 5(3), 19-22.Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Amis, J. & Shaw, S. (2001). Image and investment: Sponsorship and women’s sport. Journal ofSport Management, (15), 219-246.Amis, J. (2005). Interviewing for case study research. In D. Andrews, D. Mason, & M. Silk(Eds.), Qualitative methods in sport studies(pp.104-138). Oxford and New York: Berg.Anderson, K. (1999). Snowboarding: The construction of gender in an emerging sport. JournalofSport and Social Issues, 23(1), February, 55-99.Armenakis, A. & Bedeian, A. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research inthe 1990s. Journal ofManagement, 25(3), 293-3 15.Armstrong-Doherty, A. (1995). Athletic directors’ perception of environmental control overinteruniversity athletics. Sociology ofSport Journal, 12, 75-95.Balsamo, A. (1994). Feminist bodybuilding. In S. Birrell, & C. Cole (Eds.), Women, sport andculture(pp.34 1-352). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Barnes, M., Bower, D. & Thomsen, S. (2004). Photographic images in women’s health, fitnessand sports magazines and the self-concept of a group of adolescent female volleyball players.Journal ofSport and Social Issues, 28(3), 266-283.Barr, C., Crosset, T. & Mitchell, R. (1999). Encouraging compliance without real power: Sportassociations regulating teams. Journal ofSport Management, 13(3), July, 2 16-236.Barr, C., Hums, M. & Gullion, L. (1999). The ethical issues confronting managers in the sportindustry. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 20, 51-66.Beach Volleyball Database. (2008). History of beach volleyball. Retrieved on November 26,2008 from http://www.bvinfo.com/history.asp.92Beals, K. (2002). Eating behaviours, nutritional status, and menstrual function in elite femaleadolescent volleyball players. Journal ofthe American Dietetic Association, September, 1293-1297.Beaubier, D. (2004). Athletic gender equity policy in Canadian universities: Issues andpossibilities. Canadian Journal ofEducational Administrations and Policy, 34, September, 1-10.Benschop, Y. & Doorewaard, H. (1998). Covered by equality: The gendered subtext oforganizations. Organizational Studies, 19(5), 787-805.Bertucci, B. (1979). Championship volleyball. West Point, NY: Leisure Press.Bissell, K. & Duke, A. (2007). Bump, set, spike: An analysis of commentary and camera anglesof womens beach volleyball during the 2004 Olympics. Journal ofPromotion and Management,13(1-2), 35-53.Blinde, E. (1994). Unequal exchange and exploitation in college sport: The case of the femaleathlete. In S. Birrell, & C. Cole (Eds.) Women, sport and culture(pp.135-148). Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.Bloom, G. & Vallee, C. (2005). Building a successful university program: Key and commonelements of expert coaches. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology, 17(3), 179-196.Bloor, G. & Dawson, P. (1994). Understanding professional culture in organizational context.Organization Studies, 15(2), 275-295.Bordieu, P. (1977). Outline theory ofa theory or practice: Cambridge studies in socialanthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bordo, S. (1993. Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture, and the body. Berkeley:University of California Press.Bordo, S. (1999). The male body: A new look at men. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Boutilier, M. & SanGiovamii, L. (1994). Politics, public policy and Title IX: Some limitations ofliberal feminism. In S. Birrell, & C. Cole (Eds.), Women, sport and culture(pp.97-110). HumanKinetics: Champaign, IL.Bovey, W. & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change: The role of cognitive andaffective processes. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 372-3 82.Brayboy, B. & Deyhie, D. (2000). Insider-outsider: Researchers in American Indiancommunities. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 163-169.Brooks, C. (2001). Using sex appeal as a sport promotion strategy. Women in Sport and PhysicalActivity Journal, 10(1), spring. Retrieved on November 25, 2008fromhttp:I/209.85.1 73.1 32/search?qcache: IFVelw3 9riQJ :www.accessmylihrary.com/coms2/su93mmary 0286-591 7576_ITM+%22Brooks%22+%22Using+Sex+Appeal%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca.Bryce, T. & Humes, W. (2003). Post-structuralism and policy research in education. Journal ofEducational Policy, 18(2), 175-187.Bryman. A. (2004) Interviewing in qualitative research. Chapter 15 in A. Bryman (Author),Social research methods. New York: Oxford University Press.Bryson, L. (1994). Sport maintenance of masculine hegemony. In S. Birrell & C. Cole (Eds.),Women, sport and culture(pp.47-80). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Burns-ardolino, W. (2003). Reading women: Displacing the foundations of femininity. Hypatia,18(3), Fall, 42-59.Cahn, S. (1993). From the ‘muscle moll’ to the ‘butch’ ball player: Manishness, lesbianism andhomophobia in US women’s sport. Femininist Studies, 19(2), 343-37 1.Canadian Interuniversity Sport - Board ofDirectors. (n.d.). Retrieved Febraury 6, 2008, fromCanadian Interuniversity Sport: www.cisport.ca/e/contact/board.cfmCanadian Interuniversity Sport - History. (n.d.). Retrieved February 6, 2008, from CanadianInteruniversity Sport: www.cisport.cale/about/history.cfmChase, S. (2003). Learning to listen: Narrative principles in qualitative research methods course.Chapter 5 in R. Josselson, A. Lieblich & D. McAdams (Eds.) Up close andpersonal: Theteaching and learning ofnarrative research. Washington D.C: American PsychologicalAssociation.Chattaraman, V. & Rudd, N. (2006). Preferences for aesthetic attributes in clothing as a functionof body image, body cathexis and body size. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24(1), 46-61.Chrouser, C. & Gurung, R. (2007). Predicting objectification: Do provocative clothing andobserver characteristics matter? Sex Roles, 57, May, 91-99.Claringbould, I. & Knoppers, A. (2007). Finding a ‘normal’ woman: Selection processes forboard membership. Sex Roles, 56, 495-507.Clarke, G. & Cockburn, C. (2002). Everybody’s looking at you: Girls negotiating the femininitydeficit they incur in physical education. Women Studies International Forum, 25(6), 651-665.Clarke, G. & Wright, J. (1999). Sport, the media and the construction of compulsoryheterosexuality: A case study of women’s rugby union. International Reviewfor the Sociology ofSport, 34(3), 227-243.94Cole, C. (1994). Resistingthe canon: Feministcultural studies, sport andtechnologies of thebody. In S. Birrell,& C. Cole (Eds.), Women,sport and culture(pp. 5-29). Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.Connell, R. (1987). Genderandpower. Cambridge: BlackwellPublishers.Connell, R. (1990).An ironman: The body andsome contradictionsof hegemonic masculinity.In M. Messner & D. Sabo(Eds.), Spor1, men andthe gender order: Criticalfeministperspectives (pp.83-95).Windsor, ON: Human Kinetics.Cotterill, P. (1992). Interviewingwomen: Issues offriendship, vulnerabilityand power. WomenStudies International Forum,15(5-6), 593-606.Cousens, L. & Slack,T. (1996). Using sponsorshipto penetrate local markets:The case of thefast food industry. JournalofSport Management, 10(2),April, 169-187.Danyichuk, K. & Inglis,S. (1996). Understanding retentionfactors in coachingand athleticmanagement positions.Journal ofSport Management,10, 23 7-249.Danylchuk, K. (2001). Intercollegiateathletics in Canadian universities:Perspectives for thefuture. Journal ofSportManagement, 15, 364-379.DeDtAmico, R. Girginov,V., & Papadimitrou,D. (2006). Cultural orientationsof sportmanagers. EuropeanSport Management Quarterly,6(1), March, 35-66.DiMaggio, P. & Powell,W. (1983). The iron cage revisited:Institutional isomorphismandcollective rationality in organizationalfields. American SociologicalReview, 48(2), April, 147-160.Dongxiao,Q.(2004). Toward a criticalfeminist perspectiveof culture and self. Feminism&Psychology, 14(2), 297-312.Donaldson, M. (1993). Whatis hegemonic masculinity?Theory and Society, 22(5),643-657.Donnelly, P. & Kidd, B.(2000). Human rights insports. International Reviewfor the SociologyofSport, 35(2), 13 1-148.Doucet, A. & Mauthner,N. (2003). Reflexive accountsand accounts of reflexivityin qualitativedata analysis. Sociology, 37, 4 13-430.Dunbar, M., Hunt, D. &Messner, M. (2000). Thetelevised sports manhoodformula. Journal ofSport and Social Issues,24(4), 3 80-394.Duncan, M., Jensen,K. & Messner, M. (1993). Separatingthe men from the girls: Thegenderedlanguage of televised sports. Genderand Society, 7(1), March,121-137.95Edwards, A., Skinner, J. & Stewart,B. (2004). Interpreting policylanguage and managingorganizational change: Thecase of Queensland rugby union.European Sport ManagementQuarterly, 4, 77-94.Feather, B., Ford, S.& Herr, D. (1996). Female collegiatebasketball players’ perceptionsabouttheir bodies, garmentfit and uniform design preferences.Clothing and Textile ResearchJournal,14(1), 22-29.Fenton, M., Frisby, W. & Luke,M. (1999). Multiple perspectivesof organizational culture:Acase of physical education forgirls in a low-income multiracialschool. Avante, 5(1), 1-22.FIVB (n.d.) Chronologicalhighlights. Retrieved on March24, 2009 fromhttp://www.fivb.org/TheGame/ChronologicalHighlights.htm.FIVB History (n.d.) FederationInternational de Volleyball.Retrieved March 16, 2008 fromhttp://www.fivb.org/EN/FIVB/History.htm.FlVB Rule Book: volleyballsports material, team equipmentand advertising guidelines. (2003,July). Federation Internationalde Volleyball. Retrieved October2007 from:www.fivb.org/EN/Vol1eyba1l/Forms/Documents/Vistag.300703rla.pdfFontana, A. & Frey,J. (2000). Interviewing: The art of science.In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook ofqualitativeresearch(pp.36 1-376). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Ford, J., Ford, L. & McNamara,T. (2002). Resistance and thebackground conversations ofchange. Journal ofOrganizationalChange Management, 15(2),105-121.Foucault, M. (1977). Disciplineand Punish: the birth ofthe prison. NewYork:Vintage Books.Frederick, E. (1992) Mechanicalconstraints on Nordic ski performance.Medicine & Science inSports & Exercise, 24(9), September,1010-1014.Frisby, W. & Hoeber,L. (2001). Gender Equity forathletes: Rewriting the narrativefor thisorganizational value. EuropeanSport Management Quarterly,1, 179-209.Ghiso, M. & Sipe, L. (2004).Reflections from the field. Developingconceptual categories inclassroom descriptive research:Some problems and possibilities.Anthropology and EducationQuarterly, 35(4), 472-485.Gilenstam, K., Karp,S. & Henriksson-Larsen, K. (2007).Gender in ice hockey: womenin maleterritory. Scandinavian JournalofMedicine and Science in Sports, February,1-15.Golombisky, K. (2006). Genderingthe interview: Feminist reflectionson gender as performancein research. Women Studies in Communications,29(2), Fall, 165-190.Gregory, C. & Kenny, B. (2006). Volleyball:Steps to success. Human Kinetics: Champaign,IL.Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.96Guiliano, T. & Knight, J. (2001). He’sa Laker. She’s a looker: The consequencesof genderstereotypical portrayals of maleand female athletes by the print media.Sex Roles, 45(3-4),August, 2 17-229.Hall, M. (1996). Feminism and sportingbodies: Essays on theory andpractice.Champaign,Illinois: Human Kinetics Books.Hall, M. (2002). Assuming control: Women’ssport run (almost) by women. Chapter2 in M. Hall(Author), The girl and the game. Toronto,Canada: Broadview Press.Hardin, M., Lynn, S. & Waldorf,K. (2005). Challenge and conformityon contested terrain:Images of women in four women’ssport/fitness magazines.Sex Roles, 53(1-2), July, 105-117.Hargreaves, J. (1990). Genderon the sports agenda. InternationalReviewfor the Sociology ofSport, 25(4), 287-307.Harrigan, P. (2003). Women’s agencyand the development of women’s intercollegiateathletics,1961-2001. Historical Studiesin Education, 15(1), 37-76.Hawkesworth, M. (1994). Policystudies within a feminist frame. PolicySciences, 27, 97-118.Hawley, A. (1968). Human ecology.In D. Sills (Ed.), Internationalencyclopedia ofthe socialsciences. (pp.338-33’7). New York: MacMillan.Hoeber, L. (2004). Putting organizationalvalues into practice: Gender equityfor athletes in aCanadian University.Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Universityof British Columbia,Vancouver, BC.Hoeber, L. (2007). Exploring the gaps betweenmeanings and practices of genderequity in asport organization. Gender Work and Organization,14(3), May, 25 9-279.Huberman, M. & Miles, M. (1994).Early step in analysis. Chapter 4 inM. Huberman and M.Miles (Eds.) Qualitative data analysis:An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks:SagePublications.Kando, T. & Watson, G. (1976). The meaningof rules and rituals in little league baseball.ThePacific Sociological Review, 19(3), July, 219-236.Kane, M. (1988). Coverage of the femaleathlete before, during and after Title IX:SportsIllustrated revisited. Journal ofSport Management,2(2), July, 87-99.Kenny, B. & Gregory, C. (2006). Volleyball:Steps to success. Champaign, IL.:Human Kinetics.Kew, F. (1987). Contested rules: An explanationof how games change. International Reviewforthe Sociology ofSport, 22, 125-135.97Kew, F. (1992). Games-rules and social theory. International Reviewfor the Sociology ofSport,27, 293-307.Kihl, L., Kikulis, L. & Thibault, L. (2007). A deliberative democratic approach to athlete-centredsport: The dynamics of administrative and communicative power. European Journal ofSportManagement, 7(1), 1-30.Kincheloe, J. & McLaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. Chapter5 in T. Trueba & Y. Zou (Eds.) Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study ofeducation. Rowman & Littlefield: New York.King, N. (2004). Using interviews in qualitative research. In C. Cassell, & G. Symon (Eds.),Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research(pp. 11-22). London: SagePublications.Knoppers, A. (1994). Gender and the coaching profession. In S. Birrell, & C. Cole (Eds.),Women, sport and culture (pp. 119-134). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Koivula, N. (1999). Gender stereotyping in televised media sport coverage. Sex Roles, 41, 589-604.Kolnes, L. (1995). Heterosexuality as an organizing principle in women’s sport. InternationalReview ofSociology ofSport, 30(1), 6 1-77.LeCompte, M. & Schensul, J. (1999). Fine-tuning results: Assembling components, structuresand constituents. In Analysing and interpreting ethnographic data(pp.177-211). Walnut Creek,CA: AltaMira Press.Lennon, S. & Rudd, N. (2000). Body image and appearance-management behaviours in collegewomen. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18, 152-162.Lenskyj, H. (1995). Sport and the threat to gender boundaries. Sporting Traditions, 12(1),November, 47-60.Long, S. & Veltri, F. (n.d.). A new Image: Female athlete-endorser. Cyber-Journal ofSportMarketing, ISSN: 1327, 1-9.Lucas, S. (2000). Nike’s commercial solutions: Girls, sneakers and salvation. InternationalReviewfor the Sociology ofSport, 35(2), 149-164.MacIntosh, D. & Whitson, D. (1989). Gender and power: Explanations of gender inequalities inCanadian National Sports Organizations. International Reviewfor the Sociology ofSport, 24,13 7-149.Markula, P. (1995). Firm but shapely, fit but sexy, strong but thin: The postmodern aerobicizingfemale bodies. Sociology ofSport Journal, 12, 424-453.98Marshall, C. (1997). Dismantlingand reconstructing policy analysis.Chapter 1 in C. Marshall(Author) Feminist criticalpolicyanalysis. A perspective fromprimary and secondary schooling.The Farmer Press: London.Marshall, C. & Rossman,G. (2006). Designing qualitativeresearch, 4th edition. ThousandOaks: Sage Publications.Martin, J. (1992). Cultures inorganizations: Three perspectives.New York and Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Martin, J. (2000). Hidden genderassumptions in manstream oganizationaltheory and research.Journal ofManagement Inquiry,9(2), June, 207-2 16.Martin, M., Schalabach, G.& Shibinski, K. (1998). The use of non-prescriptionweight lossproduct among female basketball,softball and volleyball athletesfrom NCAA Division Iinstitutions: Issues andconcerns. Journal ofAthletic Training,33, 41-44.Mathes, S. & Wolohan, J.(1996). Title IX and sexual harassmentof student athletes: A lookback and to the future. JournalofSport Management, 10(1),January , 65-76.McFee, G. (2004). Sport,rules and values: Philosophicalinvestigations into the natureofsport.London & NewYork: Routlege.Mikoza, J. & Phillips, M.(1999). Gender, sport and the bodypolitic: framining feminintyin thegolden girls of sport calendaran the Atlanta Dream. InternationalReviewfor the SociologyofSport, 34(1), 5-16.Moos, J. (1999). Bikini blues—Beach volleyball make theswimsuit standard. CNN.com.http ://www.cnn.comISTYLE/9901 / 1 3/vollyball.bikini/. RetrievedNovember 25, 2008.Neuman, L. (2003). The meaningsof methodology. Chapter 4 in.In L. Newman (Author), Socialresearch methods: Qualitativeand quantitative approaches(pp. 68-94). Boston: Allyn andBacon.No author. (1998). Eye-catchingwomen’s outfits shakeup world championships. CNNSportsIllustrated.com. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/news/l998/11/04/volleyball_outfits!.Retrieved November 25,2008.No author. (2003). Examining stereotypicalwritten and photographic reportingon the sportspage: An analysis of newspapercoverage of interscholastic athletics.Women in Sport andPhysicalActivity, 12(1), March, 67-82.No author. (2004) Soccer: Therewill be tears shed as FIFA cutsup its cake. Retrieved February14, 2008, from InternationalHerald Tribune:www.iht.com/artic1es/2004/02/18/soccer_ed3_13.php99No author. (2007).Gender Equity Policy.Retrieved September19, 2007, from VolleyballCanada: www.volleyball.caObenour, B., Pederson,P. & Whisenant,W. (2002). Successand gender: Determiningthe rate ofadvancement forintercollegiate athleticdirectors. Sex Roles,47(9-10), November, 485-491.Penney, D. & Shaw,S. (2003). Gender equity policiesin national governingbodies: Anoxymoron or vehiclefor change? EuropeanSport ManagementQuarterly, 3, 78-102.Peshkin, A. (2000).The nature of interpretationin qualitative research.Educational Researcher,29(9), December,5-9.Polkinghorn, D.(1995). Narrative configurationin qualitative analysis.Qualitative Studies inEducation, 8(1), 5-23.Pronger, B. (1990).Gay jocks: A phenomenologyof gay men in athletics.In M. Messner and D.Sabo (Eds.) Sporl, menand the gender order:Criticalfeminist perspectives(pp. 141-161).Champaign, Illinois:Human KineticsBooks.Reeser, J. (2003). Introduction:A brief history of thesport of volleyball. InJ. Reeser & R. Bahr(Eds.) Volleyball: Olympichandbook ofsports medicine.Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Reichert, T. (2007).The ageless allure:Sex, media, marketing. JournalofProductionManagement, 13(1-2),3-11.Reilly, A. & Rudd,N. (2007). Stress anddress: Investigatingthe relationshipbetween socialanxiety and appearnacemanagementamong gay and straightmen. JournalofHomosexuality,52(3/4), 151-166.Rinehart, R. (2005). “Babes”& boards. JournalofSport and Social Issues,29(3), August, 232-255.Rao, A., & Kelleher,D. (2000). Leadershipfor social transformation:Some ideas andquestions on institutionsand feminist leadership.Gender and Development,8(3), 74—79.Robinson, L. (2002). Starvingfor the gold: Athletesand eating disorders.Chapter 7 in Blacktights: Women, sportand sexuality. Toronto:Harper Collins Publishers.Ross, S. & Shinew, K.(2004). Perspectivesof women college athleteson sport and gender.SexRoles, 1-18.Rubin, H. & Rubin,L. (2005). Whywe do what we do. InH. Rubin, & I. Rubin(Authors),Qualitative interviewing:The art ofhearing data(pp.19-30). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.Russell, J. (1999). Are rulesall an umpire hasto work with? Journalofthe Philosophy ofSport,26, 27-49.100Sankaran, G. & Volkwein-Caplan,K. (2002). Sexual harassmentin sport. International Reviewfor the Sociology ofSport,23(3), 283-295.Schultz, J. (2004). Disciplineand push-up: Female bodies,femininity and sexualityin popularrepresentations of sportsbras. Sociology ofSportJournal, 21, 185-205.Schultz, J. (2005) Readingthe Catsuit: Serena Williamsarid the production ofblackness at the2002 US Open. JournalofSport and Social Issues,29(3), August, 338-357.Schweinzbenz, A. (2000).Not just early Olympicfashion statements:Bathing suits, uniformsand sportswear. Fifth InternationalSymposium ofOlympic Research,13 5-142.Shaw, S. & Frisby,W. (2006). Can genderequity be more equitable?:Promoting an alternativeform for sport managementresearch, educationand practice. JournalofSport Management, 20,483-509.Shaw, S. & Slack, T.(2002). It’s been likethat for donkey’s years: Theconstruction of genderrelations and the cultureof sport organizations. Culture,Sport, Society, 5(1), Spring,86-106.Shaw, S. (2007). Genderin sport management.In C. Aitchison (Ed.), Sportand genderidentities: Masculinities, femininitiesand sexualities(pp. 74-89). London & NewYork: Routlege.Shugart, H. (2003).She shoots, she scores: Mediatedconstructions of contemporaryfemaleathletes in coveageof the 1999 US women’s soccerteams. Western JournalofCommunications,67(1), Winter, 1-3 1.Smith, D. (1974). The socialconstructionof document reality. SociologicalInquiry, 44(4), 257-268.Smith, D. (1991). Writingwomen’s exerperiences intosocial science. Feminism& Psychology,1(1), 155-169.Smith, D. (2001). Testsand the ontology of organizationsand institutions. CultureandOrganization, 7(2), 159-198.St. Pierre, E. (2000). Poststructuralfeminism in education:An overview. JournalofQualitativeStudies in Education,13(5), September/October,1-37. Retrieved September12, 2007 fromEbsco Host database.Strength and power for volleyball.(n.d.). Volleyball history. Retrievedon November 26, 2008from http://www.strength-and-power-for-volleyball.com/volleyball-history.html.Tajima, K. (2007). The Theoryof institutions and collectiveaction in Adam Smith’s theoryofmoral sentiments. The JournalofSocio-Economics,36, 578-594.Taylor, S. (1997). Criticalpolicy analysis: Exploringcontexts, textsand consequences.Discourse Studies inthe Cultural politicsofEducation, 18(1), 23-35.101Taylor, T. (2004) The Rhetoric of Exclusion:Perspectives of cultural diversity in Australiannetball. Journal ofSport and SocialIssues, 28(4), November, 453-476.Theberge, N. (1985). Sport and feminism inNorth America. In J. Fuller, & A. L. Reeder (Eds.),Women in sport: Sociological and historicalperspective studies in the social sciences(pp. 41-54). West Georgia, USA: West Georgia College.Theberge, N. (1994). Toward a femininst alternativeto sport as a male preserve. In S. Birrell, &C. Cole (Eds.), Women, sport and culture(pp.181-192). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approachfor analysing qualitative evaluation data.American Journal ofEvaluation, 27(2), 237-246.Travers, A. (2006) Queering sport: Lesbiansoftball leagues and the transgender challenge.International Reviewfor the SociologyofSport, 4 1(3-4), 43 1-446.Urla, J. & Swedlund, A. (1995). The anthropometryof Barbie: Unsettling ideals of the femininebody in popular culture. Chapter 10 in J.Terry and J. Urla (Eds.) Deviant bodies: Criticalperspectives on difference in scienceandpopular culture. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress.USA Volleyball. (2008). Domestic competitionregulations as presented by USA Volleyball. InK. Lenberg (Ed.) Rules ofthe game as authorizedby the International Volleyball Federation atthe XXXth Congress, Tokyo, Japan 2006and amended. Retrieved on April 28, 2009 fromhttp://assets.teamusa.org/assets/documents/attached_file/filename/231 2/Indoor_Rules_09.pdfVamplew, W. (2007). Playing with therules: Influences on the development of regulationsinsport. the International Journal ofthe HistoryofSport, 24(7), July, 179-209.Vertinsky, P. (1990). The eternally woundedwoman. Manchester and New York: ManchesterUniversity Press.Volleyball Canada Policy. (2007). Retrievedon September 19, 2007 from Volleyball Canada:www.volleyball.caVolleyball Canada. (2008). 2008-2009 Officialvolleyball rules. Gloucester, ON: VolleyballCanada.Wachs, L. (2005). The boundaries of difference:Negotiating gender in recreational sport.Sociological Inquiry, 75(4), 527-547.Wedgewood, N. (2005). Just one of the boys?A life history case study of a male physicaleducation teacher. Gender and Education, 17(2), 189-201.Wellard, I. (2002). Men, sport, body performanceand the maintenance of ‘exclusive masculinity’.Leisure Studies, 2 1(3), 235-247.102Wilson, B. (2007). Oppression is the message:Media, sport, spectacle and gender. In K. Young& P. White (Eds.), Sport and gender in Canada.(pp.2 12-233). Oxford: Oxford Press.Yaracko, K. (2002). Title IX and the problemof gender equality in athletics. Gender Issues,20(2-3), April, 65-80.Young, E. (1989). On the naming of the rose: Interestsand multiple meanings as elements oforganizational culture. Organizational Studies,10(2), 197-206.103APPENDIX AInterview Schedule forAthletic DirectorsRapport:1. How did you becomean athletic director?RQ1: What considerationsare made by coachesand athletic director’swhenimplementing theuniform rule for theirteam?1. How do you thinkit came to be that men’s andwomen’s volleyball playerswear differentshorts to play?2. What role do youplay in your school’s uniformdecisions?3. How does the CIS genderequity policy influence thedecisions made about the treatmentof male and female athletes4. What kind of responsedo these uniforms getfrom players, fans, yourself...?RQ2: What explanationsdo the coaches and athleticdirectors cite for thedifferences in the uniformsworn by male andfemale CIS volleyballplayers?1. How do you thinkthis practice of male and femalevolleyball uniforms hasbecome sowide spread?2. Why do you think other men’sand women’s sports like socceror basketball haven’tadopted this type of uniformdifference for their men’sand women’s teams?RQ3: Do coaches and/orathletic directors feel thatthere is a need tochangethe spandex uniform practice?Why or Why not?1. How would you liketo see the females and males dressedto play?2. How did you or how wouldyou deal with negative responsesor resistance?3. Would you like tosee other women’s sports like basketballor soccer, use this type ofuniform?4. What would you like tosee happen to women’s uniformsin the future?5. Do you have any questions forme?104APPENDIX BInterview Schedule forAthletic DirectorsRapport:1. How did you becomean athletic director?RQ1: What considerationsare made by coachesand athletic director’swhenimplementing theuniform rule for theirteam?2. How do you thinkit came to be that men’s andwomen’s volleyballplayers weardifferent shorts to play?3. What role do you playin your school’s uniformdecisions?4. How does the CIS genderequity policy influencethe decisions madeabout thetreatment of male and femaleathletes5. What kind of responsedo these uniformsget from players, fans, yourself...?RQ2: What explanationsdo the coachesand athletic directorscite for thedifferences in the uniformsworn by maleand female CIS volleyballplayers?1. How do you think thispractice of male and femalevolleyball uniformshas becomeso wide spread?2. Why do you think othermen’s and women’s sportslike soccer or basketballhaven’tadopted this typeof uniform difference fortheir men’s and women’steams?RQ3: Do coaches and/orathletic directors feelthat there isa need to changethe spandex uniformpractice? Why or Whynot?1. How would you like tosee the females and malesdressed to play?2. How did you or how wouldyou deal with negative responsesor resistance?3. Would you like tosee other women’s sportslike basketball or soccer, usethis type ofuniform?4. What would you like tosee happen to women’s uniformsin the future?5. Do you have any questionsfor me?105APPENDIX CContact LetterTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAIJBCFacultyofEducationSchool of Human Kinetics210 War Memorial Gym6081 University BoulevardVancouver, BC, CanadaOctober 2, 2008V6T 1Z1Dear (Participant),I am a Masters of Arts student in the School of Human Kineticsat the University of BritishColumbia working on a study dealing with the rulesof Canadian Interuniversity sport (CIS),specifically women’s volleyball. The study istitled “Bump, Set, Spike...Spandex?: Examiningthe Interpretations of coaches and athletic directorson the Canadian Interuniversity SportVolleyball uniform rule”. The projectis designed to better understand how individualinterpretations of the CIS volleyball rulebookcan impact the how women’s CIS volleyball teamsare governed.The purpose of this letter is to request an interview withyou because of your association with aCIS women’s volleyball team. Your participation wouldbe most helpful in my attempts tounderstand how the CIS volleyball rulesare interpreted by coaches and athletic directors.The research portion of the study would involveyour voluntary participation in a one to twohour, audio-taped, personal or telephone interviewwith me.I have attached an information letter and consent form to provide amore detailed description ofthe study. Once you have had time to reviewthe information letter and consent form, pleaseadvise me if you are interested in participating inthis study. You may reach me by emailatkpmacl0interchange.ubc.ca, by telephoneat (778) 238-1606 or by fax at (604) 822-5884. Ifyou are interested in participating, we can then arrange a timeand place to meet for an interviewat your convenience.Thank you for your time and consideration. I lookforward to your reply.Sincerely,Kelly MacDonald106APPENDIX DConsent FormTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAIUBCFacultyofEducationSchool of Human Kinetics210 War Memorial Gym6081 University BoulevardVancouver, BC, CanadaV6T 1Z1Telephone: 604-822-3838 Fax: 604-822-6842www.hkin.educ.ubc.ca/schoolINFORMATION AND CONSENTSHEET: FOR A STUDY OF CANADIANENTERUNIVERSITY SPORT (CIS) VOLLEYBALLCOACHES AND ATHLETICDIRECTORS INTERPRETATIONSOF THE CIS VOLLEYBALL RULING ON PLAYERUNIFORMS.Brief Description of the Study: The goalof my research is to investigate the howCIS women’svolleyball athletic directors and coaches interpretthe CIS rulebook and how they govern theirwomen’s volleyball teams accordingly. Specifically,I am interested in examining how theuniform rule is interpreted. As well,I am interested in exploring if gender equity policiesandthe culture of an organization can impact a coach’sor athletic directors understanding of thevolleyball rules.The hope of this study is to uncoverinformation regarding the how sport rules are interpretedbykey stakeholders in women’s sport. The goal isto address a gap in the academic literatureregarding amateur sport rules.The study will be conducted through the Schoolof Human Kinetics in the Faculty of Artsat theUniversity of British Columbia (UBC). This studyis part of a graduate degree and will becarried out by Kelly MacDonald, a Master of Arts student,under the supervision of ProfessorWendy Frisby.The Interview and Your Participation: Personalor telephone interviews with individual CIScoaches and athletic directors will be conductedby Kelly MacDonald and will last between 1and 2 hours. The interviews will discuss your rolein interpreting the CIS women’s volleyballrules and what factors contributed to your understandingsof the rules. The interviews will beaudio-recorded.Confidentiality: You have been chosen becauseof your association with a CIS women’svolleyball team. Your demographic information,like your age and gender, will be takenfrom107online information provided by your university. However,your name and that of your schoolwill not be referred to in any documents emerging from emergingfrom the completed study.The transcripts from your data will be secured by a passwordon computer and any hard copytranscripts and audio-tapes will be secured in a lockedcabinet. All data will be kept at a UBCfacility.Voluntary Participation: There are no personal benefitsto your participation in the study.Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You arefree to refrain from answeringany question(s) during the interview process or to withdrawfrom the interview at any time. Ifyou have any concerns about your treatment or rights asa research subject, you may contact theResearch Subject Information Line (RSIL) in the Universityof British Columbia (UBC) Officeof Research Services at (604) 822-8598 or by email atRSIL@ors.ubc.ca.Additional Contact Information: Should you have questionsor require additional informationregarding the research project, please contact the Student-InvestigatorKelly MacDonald at(778)238-1606 or the Principal Investigator Dr. Wendy Frisby at(604) 822-6445.ConsentI have read the above information and understand thenature of the study.I understand that my participation in this study is entirelyvoluntary and that I may refuse toparticipate or withdraw from the study at any time.I hereby agree to the above stated conditions and consent to participatein this study.Your signature below indicates that you have received a copy of this consentform and agree toparticipate in this study.Name (please print)Signature Date108APPENDIX EThe University of British ColumbiaOffice of Research ServicesBehavioural Research Ethics BoardSuite 102, 6190 Agronomy RoadVancouver, B. C. V6T 1Z3CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL - MINIMAL RISKPRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: INSTITUTION I DEPARTMENT: UBC BREB NUMBER:Alendy Frisby juBClEducationfHuman Kinetics H08-02 170NSTITUTION(S) WHERE RESEARCH WILL BE CARRIED OUT:InstitutionISiteJBC Vancouver (excludes UBC Hospital)Other locations where the research will be conducted:The location will be determined by the subject (the goal is for the subject to be comfortable in the location, and to bein a location that is convenient to both the participant and researcher). Sites will include a university classroom,university office. and a vublic location of the subject’s choice.CO-INVESTIGATOR(S):SPONSORING AGENCIES:ROJECT TITLE:3UMP, SET, SPIKE...SPANDEX:iXAMrNING THE NTEREPRETATIONS OF COACHES AND ATHLETIC DIRECTORS ON THECANADIAN INTERUNIVERSITY SPORT WOMEN’S VOLLEYBALL UNIFORM RULECERTIFICATE EXPIRY DATE: November 7, 2009)OCUMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS APPROVAL: ATE APPROVED:[November 7, 2008)ocument NameIVersionIDateConsent Forms:Consent Form 1.3 November 30, 2008r)uestionnaire,Ouestionnaire Cover Letter, Tests:Sample Interview schedules 1.1 October 30, 2008Letter of Initial Contact:Contact Letter 1.1 October 30, 2008‘he application for ethical review and the document(s) listed above have been reviewed and the procedures wereound to be acceptable on ethical grounds for research involving human subjects.Approval is issued on behalfofthe Behavioural Research Ethics Boardand signed electronically by one ofthefollowing:Dr. M. Judith Lynam, ChairDr. Ken Craig, ChairDr. Jim Rupert, Associate ChairDr. Laurie Ford, Associate ChairDr. Daniel Salhani, Associate ChairDr. Anita Ho, Associate Chair109


Citation Scheme:


Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 80 7
China 13 0
France 7 0
Canada 6 1
Sweden 5 0
Japan 2 0
Singapore 1 0
Serbia 1 0
Germany 1 3
City Views Downloads
Washington 44 0
Beijing 13 0
Unknown 12 8
Redmond 8 0
Ashburn 8 0
Stockholm 3 0
Curtis Bay 3 0
Wilmington 2 0
San Jose 2 0
Abilene 2 0
Dublin 2 0
Tokyo 2 0
Millbrook 2 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items