RESEARCH NOTES Soctology of Sport Journal, 1992, 9, 60-69 Teaching ‘‘Sport and Society’’: Problems and Consequences D. Stanley Eitzen and Susan Hyatt-Hearn Colorado State University This is a case study of the consequences of a ‘‘sport and society’? course for students, Data from a pretest and posttest of one class in sport and society suggest that students changed in ‘‘desired’’ directions. At the conclusion of the course they tend to adopt the sociological perspective, as indicated by a greater probability of criticism rather than the acceptance of societal arrangements, a greater willingness to change social structures, and a greater tendency to consider society rather than individuals as the cause of social problems. Students also became less sexist, and the posttest indicated that the course challenged conventional wisdom and thus demythologized the social reality of sport. Since this study was of one class, the results are tentative. The paper concludes with suggestions for further study. This paper is an outcomes assessment for one ‘‘sport and society’* course, taught by the senior author. While [ have always wondered about the impact of this course on students, this question has become more important to me in recent years. In the 1960s and 1970s I felt that the course made a difference to students because they, for the most part, came to the course unaware of the dark side of sport. In short, they needed and I provided the debunking and demythologizing of sport. Also, during the 1960s and early 1970s the students were relatively receptive to the critical view of society and of sport in society that I presented. Today's students, however, appear to differ from their predecessors. They seem to be more knowledgeable of the problems in sport, yet at the same time they seem less willing to question society. In short, they are more accepting of the way things are even if these are less than perfect. I have never tested these assumptions. Thus the impetus for this case study. What are the students in the sport and society course like today? What ideological assumptions and sports knowledge do they bring to the course, and do these change over the semester? Most important, do they leave the course with a sociological perspective? My strong belief is that the heart of the sociological An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 1991. The authors are with the Dept. of Sociology at Colorado State University, Fi. Collins, CO 80523. 60Teaching “Sport and Society” 6 perspective is the critique of social structure. This requires, most fundamentally, that the ‘sacredness’ of sport be stripped away. Sociologists ask fundamental questions about social structure, traditions, and values. We ask, how does the system really work? And who benefits and who does not under the existing social arrangements? These are troublesome questions that sociologists must ask in order to encourage students to see through the facades of social structures. This makes sociology and the sociological approach uncomfortable for many. The predictable result is anguish for some students. The big question is whether this anguish results in the students being turned off or enlightened. 1 assume that these concems about teaching a sport and society course are not idiosyncratic but represent concems others also have who teach this stimulating and interesting course. Consequences for Students To assess the outcomes for the students in a sport and society course, a questionnaire was administered to students in that course both at the beginning and at the end of the spring semester, 1990. Ninety-four students took both the pretest and posttest, The characteristics of the class were as follows: more males than females (53 to 41); more seniors (47) and juniors (32) than sophomores (13) and first-year students (2); all but 10 had taken at least one prior sociology class, with 36 having had one, 19 having had two, and 29 having had three or more; and all but 9 had participated in high school (56) or college (29) sports. The class, on average, watched slightly more than 3 hours of televised sport a week, read the sports in a newspaper daily, and about half read Sports Illustrated regularly. The questionnaire examined three areas: (a) the possible liberalizing effect of taking the course, (b) whether students became less sexist, and (c) the demythologizing effects of the course. The Liberalizing Effect Two previous studies have shown that taking a sociology course moves students in a liberal direction (Brouillette, 1985; Eitzen & Brouillette, 1979). Does this also occur in the sport and society course? The scale employed in the present study was constructed by Eitzen and Brouillette (1979) to tap three dimensions of conservatism/liberalism: orientation toward the status quo or toward change, acceptance of societal arrangements or criticism of them, and whether it was the individual or society who was to blame for social problems. The scale contained 18 pairs of statements, each pair consisting of a liberal and a conservative response on a particular issue. Students were instructed, ‘For each of the pairs of statements, select the statement that most closely reflects your views.”’ (See Table 1 for a list of the paired statements and the results.) The combined scores of the respondents for the 18 items were used to determine the overall attitudinal changes for the respondents. Each conservative response was coded as a | and each liberal response as a 2, providing a possible range for the scores of from 18 to 36. The mean scores for the class at pretest was 29,5806 and 32.3298 for the posttest (p<.0001).Eitzen and Hyatt-Hearn 62 +000" 4000 re 4000" 4000" eb e- 00'r- OL'b- 46'S- 226 L edit 92st 2296 + vege 2ple epee yeEgh 96224 2296't eozeb boep'h 4 e6ueYo 0) Shem Wey) ut U9 8q O} Sjuapnis WIEN Pinoys sjoOoYyos © MOY sjuepnis UIE} Pinoys sjooyog S@SSEIO J8Mo} 2 Gupyom ays isuleBe Sxom »g s1ejUN A1BA S1 wWaysAs D1LJOUODS Jueseld INE "SN EUR Uy afdoed ysou 40} ysnf g 41} S! WaISXs aIWIOUODE INO ‘es8UEB Ul BWUD SS@] YON 8q PINOM a1eY) YSN{ 448M WaYsfs DIWOUODE yUAserd 3nd jt 8181 BUD ey) eONpeJ oO} exe am 4! PaBUEYO aq ysnw JOIAEYEq yenpraipuy Aeros jo senyen Bugsixe ayy GusBusieyo sueew yj! Uane AyeonUD YUIY} 0} SjUapnys YORE} PiNoYs sjooyos Aaios JO sanjea Buysixe ay) eBueyey9 jou 0p Aay} SB sBOSU! AjUO INg ABONYO ULL O} SjUapnys YOBE) Pinoys ‘sjooyoS Ax Keun prey moy jo SseypreBes pagoons 0} ejdoed AUeW! 10} JNDIYIP A1aA 3! SEHEW Wa}SKs euL BoyeUIy UJ pasoons UBD euo{ue ‘peleAnoU Auedoid jf e\doed yo du ‘aineu Aven sseyt Aq ‘suoneodiog ‘Ayunod ey) 10} poof Ajjereuab s1 AuISNPU! »g ssauIsNg 40} POOB s) eUAA, dojanap 9 Aje}00s Buns}xe eu jo Ayetv0s Bunsixa ay) 04 , Aunqeqoid payel-euO .anen ysausog, wejeig ‘881005 ueay SA@PNVV IBdN}10g UO ISENSOd PUB ySajalg Je S2109S URE! + eqes ‘SWO}! Je1eqy pue eAREAIeSUCO paxegTeaching “Sport and Society” (ques) 4000" €00° $00" ‘su $00" 10" 4000" bee i'e- en oge- 06 - se'e- o8'é- 68691 s908"t z999'1 ze06't 908} ze06'l OLE t peg t edy'h 2999" 6925} onze" 288gt oleh Les’ gLes'h pucosip jo eaunos eg ‘{uessaoauun “isnfun Ajjeo1seq S! SPeEMai Jo UONNQUISIP yenbeun ey. sysey JUeLOdU! »g yjNd\YIP GOW ey) ye OM 0} SEUO poytyend§ 38g ey) seBesnooue ¥ ejdoed sayennow y esneseq Auessadeu s) Ajenbeu} pueisiepun j,uop 10 yy Bese Juop 18yyo Aayy sBuiy) Sou} UOASANb 0} g /eONU9 6G O} IYBNe} eq PINOYS UEUp|1YO JNO ‘ueup|iyo ano Buowe Auoyyne 10) jadses *g eduE|pago UO PsoR\d eq Pinoys siseydue 192015, ‘sjooyas @L JO ne} ayy S| sjooyos Ognd UI SOUBDIUD JO ayes jnodosp YBIY Ajenyejes GUL soURDIYQ Jo Mey By} S} SJOOYOS OIGNd UL soUkDIYO 40 eyes jnodosp yBiy Ajaanejareus UO}e]UOUOS aye Ajuo Ay! -sedsoud 9 Ayiqeisedsau peule6 Au0}SIy sno jnoyBno.y) sdno16 uepposjuMog s@inu s,Aja1o0s 0} Bulpicooe BuiAeid Aq Ajuedsoud g Al! -jiqeisedse: paureb Ajjenyuane A1oys|y 1No jnoyBrosyy sdnoi6 ueppoumog uweyshs ey} jo SuoOd GBujBueyo Aq Perjos aq pinoo swalqoud je\90s jSOW JO|MEYaQ [eNPIAIpU BuBUeYD Aq PEAIOS aq Pinod SWE|GOJC JeI90S }SOW RoueWwy U! UO Bulo6 s} JEUM JNOge jeu e10W eq Pinoys BM. Ayeioos sno 40 eonuo Ayano ese e\doed Auew OL Jood ay) uRY) YoU e4} HeUIEG UEaYyO BOL SMB} JNO jo }SON ‘eye 400d pue YOU 0} Ayfenba Ajdde smeE| ino jo SOW pessons 0} ajdoed jo Jequinu eBue| @ ‘Moje Jou seop WeIsAs sno esnedeg Wed e6ie| uJ sys|Xe OYE) BUILD YBIY OWL S1epUayO BY) JO JeORIeYO By} U! SMEY 0} Wed ABE] UI ENP S!“g*7 BY) UL EYE? SLU YB|Y OULEitzen and Hyatt-Hearn *(g9e-29¢ ‘dd ‘1661 ‘unquie} aes) UoeAiesgo pared 40} 1s8) 7, “yeseqy sou ay} ‘ex00s ey) seYyB}y ay) “ojo +000 tLe- s6ze'ze 908s'6z SIEIOL, soa" 692- vyeo ‘9P6r') uaUWWOS & ons ayew pinom juewusenoB ay) {1 peleuiuuite @q pinoo Ayenod awasxy SN YUM 8 SABAIE [WM 200d OUI WEYL BIH $0 1984 E 81 10 see~ ceee't poel't ‘Apro0s ur saymnbeu! »y eon: SOnjasWayy 200d ay) UI ‘su 00) S6re'L S6reL ‘seyuys seuinbar OL HOM AJSANOR Pinoys Aya!0s UESUEWY UY 1H Bneay PiNOYs ‘S'f EYE YIM Addeyun ese OYM aydoeg £00" tee~ 6reL'L eg¢9"t seo Hay) ysydwoase 0} spoyjeu eandnusip asn 0} PeY $Og, ay) JO SISIANOR eyy JEM WEUISIA 84) 40} UONOAYESID slay? erEISUOWEP 0} SUBaW \nyB9Bad e1OWN PUNO} BAY PINOYS SOB, @Y) JO SISIANOE ayy .anyen 1seysog Sala sway fe/aq\ pUe BATeNIesUDD pasted 1 ‘$9J098 URS (quoo) 4 aiqeLTeaching “Sport and Society’” 65 Frequency 10 Liberalism Conservat t3m Figure 1 — The magnitude and direction of attitudinal change from pretest to posttest (N=93, one case had incomplete data). Figure 1 presents the data in another way to illustrate the magnitude and direction of attitudinal change for each student from the beginning to the end of the course. This figure shows that 13% of the respondents became more conservative during the semester they took the course, 12% evidenced no attitudinal change, while 75% became more liberal. Observing the magnitude of the change, the data from this figure show that 1% of the respondents made a major shift toward conservatism (arbitrarily assumed to be a shift of 5 or more points), while 28% made a major shift toward liberalism, again demonstrating the rather dramatic impact for many students taking the sport and society course. The objective was not to make the students in this course more liberal politically. Rather, it was to encourage them to incorporate the sociological perspective, which is to challenge existing social arrangements and to think structurally. The data show that this goal was achieved. Ironically, the scale items had nothing to do with sport. Moreover, the content of the sport course did not deal with the issues included in the scale. Apparently two forces work to effect this change. First, the nature of sociology itself may have a liberalizing effect on students (Eitzen & Maranell, 1968, p. 52; Lipset & Ladd, 1972). The student in any sociology class is asked to reflect in a critical manner on traditional (conservative) belief systems and on the consequences of social structures. This critical examination of social life may push students in a liberal direction. Another possible explanation for this movement to the left is exposure to a liberal teacher. A number of studies have shown thas sociology professors are the most liberal faculty members at the college level (Ladd & Lipset, 1976; Lazarsfeld & Thielens, 1958; Spaulding & Turner, 1968), Since my (senior author) approach to this course is from the conflict perspective, clearly, my students are exposed to this theoretical bias in the materials assigned, interpretations offered, and66 Eitzen and Hyatt-Hearn questions asked. However, it may be that the discipline of sociology is more important and that the theoretical orientation of the professor does not matter. This was the conclusion of two studies using the 18 statements. The first one used students in four introductory sociology classes, in which the professors varied from functionalist to Marxist (Eitzen & Brouillette, 1979). The other study found that students became more liberal in four different sociology courses, regardless of the professor’s theoretical stance, but did not change at all in an introductory economics course (Brouillette, 1985). Changing Sexist Attitudes Sport, as other institutions, has contributed to the perpetuation of male dominance in society (Bryson, 1987; Hall, 1984, 1985). One way this is accom- plished is through trivialization, whereby women’s sports and women athletes are belittled and diminished. One mechanism for the trivialization of women is the sexist naming of women’s teams—‘‘Wildkittens,’’ ‘‘Teddy Bears,’* ‘‘Lady Kats,”” and the like (Eitzen & Baca Zinn, 1989). This is an issue at Colorado State University where the women’s teams are the ‘‘Rams”’ (i.e., male sheep). Among the statements on the pretest and posttest was, ‘*The use of a ram (a male sheep) as the symbol for female teams at CSU is sexist and should be changed.’” The students were given five options, from strongly agree (coded 1) to strongly disagree (coded 5), that is, the higher the score, the more sexist the response. The average for the 93 respondents was 4.32 on the pretest and 2.96 on the posttest, a move from strong rejection of the statement to neutral. This significant move held whether the students were males or females, seniors or underclassmen/women, athletes or nonathletes. Throughout the semester, various studies, data, and interpretations were provided to the students about the types and extent of sexism prevalent in sport. One lecture was presented on the sexist naming of athletic teams. As a result of these efforts, presumably, the students moved significantly in a less sexist direction during the course (see Table 2). If so, then education makes a difference. Table 2 Student Responses to “The Use of Ram (a Male Sheep) as the Symbol for Female Teams at Colorado State University is Sexist and Should be Changed” Pretest Posttest Response N % N % Strongly disagree & disagree 85 90.4 32 34.0 Undecided 5 64 25 26.6 Strongly agree & agree 3 3.2 36 39.4 Totals 93 100.0 93 100.0 Note. Chi square = 64.5337 (with Yates correction), of = 2, P<.001. Means: Pretest = 4.3191; Posttest = 2.9574. Paired t value = -10.65, of = 92, p<.0001.Teaching “Sport and Society” o7 Admittedly, the lecture on the sexist naming of teams was partisan. Some might argue that this was political and therefore inappropriate because it used the lectern to advocate a position. This charge is correct, but politics in the classroom is not limited to challenges to the status quo. The classroom is also a political forum when the messages explicitly or implicitly support existing social arrangements. In the words of Eitzen and Baca Zinn, The sex-gender system is one structure of domination in society that does psychic and material harm to one social category while elevating another. This structure of domination [and the others] must be revealed to students in all of its guises and with all its consequences. Only then will students lear to recognize sexism throughout society. This is not always easy because students are immersed in a sexist society and social arrangements that seem “‘natural’” are not perceived negatively. The sexism that prevails is so powerful that it is accepted without an understanding of its presence let alone the mechanisms and implications. One aim of sociology in the classroom is to get students to see and understand social arrangements they had not seen before yet thought they understood. Thus, it seems to us, that the description and condemnation of sexism in sport and society must be an integral part of the courses we teach. (Eitzen & Baca Zinn, 1990, pp. 16-17) Demythologizing A major thrust of the sport and society course, at least in our vision, is to correct the misinformation about sport held by so many. Eight statements were included on the questionnaire, with five response categories from strongly agree to strongly disagree, to assess whether the students were aware of these sports issues at the beginning of the course and if participation in the class made a difference. Table 3 shows that for each sports myth, the posttest mean differed significantly from the pretest mean in the predicted direction. In effect, at the conclusion of the course the students were more likely to (a) question the character building function of sport, (b) know that social mobility through sport is unlikely to occur, (c) understand the irony that as women received more opportunity to participate in sport since Title IX, their chances for leadership positions in sport diminished, (d) know that most professional football and basketball players are not college graduates, (e) understand that the National Collegiate Athletic Association does not protect college athletes and their rights, (f) see that racism is prevalent in sport, (g) perceive big-time college sport as a professional rather than amateur activity, and (h) understand sport as a microcosm of society. Thus the course ‘‘sport and society’’ serves an important demythologiz- ing function, just as do other sociology courses. Suggestions for Further Study This survey showed that the course does make a difference for most students, at least in the short term. Obviously these results are exploratory and tentative. They are of one course, from a particular professor, and at a particular time. Future studies should replicate the methods employed here to assess whether the results are idiosyncratic to the methods, tactics, and theoretical orientation ofEitzen and Hyatt-Hearn 4000 ve'p- g982'7 Glee [pepoo asianai) “O}9 ‘swoiqoud ewes ay; “payigiyxa SanjeA ewes ay) YUM ‘Ale190s jo jse1 BYL OX!| S| Wods, +000" see over'y 8266 {papoo asians} ieee “WNEYWE UB JOU ‘eud!ssejosd © s} pods eBa[/09 oI 4000" os2- reset gore [pepoo asieAas] Aepo; puom SYOds ey) uy uelered S! usoeg tooo" ve bi- geg0'r Bee SIYBu 4184 pue saaiute eB2100 yoajoud 0} Buwes uoyeziuebio juepodwi ue S! YWON ay) 4000" vs'6- 2196'E L96L% ‘seyenpesB 260/100 ove siafeid yeqjeyseq pur jJeq}00}) JBuoIssejoid jo Auorew ayy 4000" vS'OL~ geso'y zeae uesu Sey Say9e00 ue su0jes|siuupe UaWOM JO UONUOdosd ay) ‘UONEONPS uy SBIq |ENxes aSBalDEp O} SUOOE sjuewUIEA0B ey) edUIg to Lee- sp90'e 2esLe Auanod ‘anee} 0} Sefew 10} anueak JOfeW & s) yonedOMed sods 1000 »g's- es10z 2999" seyeeyo sping uoned ued spods ‘seBeyueapesip pue SeBeyueape eu) BujyBropy Aiqeqoid anjen ysaysod sag anss| Uodg paye}-2uO_ 1 Sa100s ueayW, ‘sanss) HOdS UO ysay}SOd PUB ISala/q 18 S2109S Ure € e1qeLTeaching “Sport and Society” 69 one professor. Does region of the country make a difference? Does the discipline of the professor teaching the course (sociology or physical education) affect the results? Does the gender of the professor make a difference? Is class size an important variable? Most important, is the theoretical perspective of the instructor the key? If several professors conducted this study in the same semester, the data could be pooled to answer another set of questions: What kind of student is affected most by this course (nonsociology majors, physical education majors, racial minorities, athletes, males, fraternity/sorority students)? Another study could entail a follow-up of students one or more years after taking the course (a suggestion from Brouillette, 1985). This proposed study would assess the extent to which the perspective and insights gained in the sport and society course were amplified or diminished over time. Finally, in addition to employing an objective questionnaire, in-depth interviews should be conducted of a random sample of students. If students were asked to reflect upon their experience in the sport and society course, the responses might lead to insights that are overlooked when only objective indicators are used. References Brouillette, J.R. (1985). The liberalizing effect of taking introductory sociology. Teaching Sociology, 12, 131-148. Bryson, L. (1987). Sport and the maintenance of masculine hegemony. Women's Studies International Forum, 10, 349-360. Eitzen, D.S., & Baca Zinn, M. (1989). The de-athleticization of women: The naming and gender marking of collegiate sport teams. Sociology of Sport Journal, 6, 362-369. Eitzen, D.S., & Baca Zinn, M. (1990, July). Language and gender stratification: The unequal naming of collegiate athletic teams by gender and resistance to change. Paper presented at the International Sociological Association, Madrid. Eitzen, DS., & Brouillette, J.R. (1979). The politicization of college students, Adolescence, 14, 123-134. Eitzen, D.S., & Maranell, G.M. (1968). The political party affiliation of college professors. Social Forces, 47, 145-153. Hall, M.A. (1984). Femininist prospects for the sociology of sport. Arena Review, 8, 1- 9. Hall, M.A. (1985). Knowledge and gender: Epistemological questions in the social analysis of sport, Sociology of Sport Journal, 2, 25-42. Hamburg, M. (1991). Statistical analysis for decision making (Sth ed.). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Ladd, E.C. Jr, & Seymour, MLL. (1976, Nov. 1). It's 2 for 1 for Canter. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 4-6. Lazarsfeld, P., & Thielens, W. Jr. (1958). The academic mind. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Lipset, S.M., & Ladd, E.C. Jr. (1972). The politics of American sociologists. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 67-104. Spaulding, C.B., & Tumer, H.A. (1968). Political orientation and field of specialization among college professors. Sociology of Education, 41, 247-262.Copyright of Sociclogy of Sport Journal is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.