Research Methods in Sport Reflection Although this class was not my favorite, due mostly to the regimented way

the course material flows, it is a very important and must-have to staying relevant in the sport industry. Our research method in sport class outlined the following objectives for students to grasp at the end of the semester: (1) apply the fundamental tools and steps involved in the research process to help build further knowledge; (2) view sport as a series of questions that are constantly being reframed and critically investigated; (3) follow ethical and scholarly practices for using sources and working with colleagues; and (4) communicate appropriately about sport management research to professional and lay audiences. While keeping the above-listed objectives in mind, our class went through several different aspects of the research process, focusing mainly on identifying ripe research questions, applying ethical principles in research, implementing a research design which produced the most accurate results, and disseminating those findings in a full research proposal. One of the main focuses on research in practice is the setting up of your research method and design to ensure you produce accurate results; invalid or results skewed in any way negatively effect the researchers credibility and, therefore, discredit any results collected. Prior to beginning the research process, you must first develop a research design - qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approach. With our research process focusing on ethics in intercollegiate athletics, we felt as though a quantitative numbers approach would not fully encompass what we were trying to measure, so we went with a mixed-methods approach to try and capture the biggest picture possible. The topic we chose to research was one inspired by the recent happenings at Penn State University and other major conference schools who had committed NCAA violations with complete disregard for compliance. Our concern was the loss of ethical standards seeming to become the new norm in college athletics. Our mock research implemented a mixedmethods approach including both qualitative and quantitative studies to examine the pressures placed upon collegiate athletic directors in large NCAA Division I schools based on producing winning, revenue-based programs. The study proposed to examine these pressures and the effect that these pressures have on the athletic directors daily ethical decisions in running their respective program. Our hope from the study was to allow there to be light shed on the root of the problem in these situations and hope to make changes in the administration of collegiate athletics that would eradicate this problem from the university system. Our study looked to the top of these organizations, mainly the athletic directors, and offered a new topdown approach to collegiate athletics. In this study, a mixed-methods approach was required to gain further understanding of compliance officers and athletic directors moral thinking in relation to carrying out their professional roles and responsibilities. The main focus of our study was a quantitative focus using questionnaires posed to current athletic directors and compliance officers. Using the questionnaire approach was necessary in order to ensure the subjects were being honest and open with the answers given; we did not want the subjects to feel as though we were policing their programs in an effort to uncover a scandal. For these reasons, the qualitative portion of the study using in-person interviews was posed to former athletic directors and compliance officers; those who no longer were in charge of making these decisions at a Division I

institution. We felt it necessary to get explanatory answers from former employees who no longer have the pressures hanging over his/her head in order to ensure more truthful and open answers. Using both qualitative and quantitative approaches allows the research of this study to be verified by each approach and to also expand the findings. The population from our study was gained by utilizing a non-probability approach with purposive sampling in order to get a better representation of the targeted population: successful NCAA Division I revenue-producing programs. The subject population was gained by taking the Associated Press Top 25 end of season rankings over the past fifteen years for Division I collegiate revenue sports (football and mens basketball) and tallying which schools appeared most frequently in the polls. The top fifteen schools which appeared most often in the Top 25 rankings were chosen to participate in the quantitative prong of the study. In addition to the fifteen schools appearing most often in the rankings, five other schools were chosen who appeared least often and were also included in the quantitative prong of the study. As for the qualitative prong of the study, that sample was chosen by examining all of the schools included in the Top 25 rankings and choosing five former athletic directors or compliance officers of these programs, who are now in retirement. The entire population, including both the quantitative and the qualitative group, consisted of twenty-five subjects. These subjects were a combination of compliance coordinators and head athletic directors from these chosen institutions. These specific employees in these positions were chose due to the decisions made in their everyday working environment. Both the compliance coordinator and the head athletic director of an institution are responsible for coordinating, monitoring, and verifying compliance with all NCAA requirements, and they are the ones who make the final decisions in regards to these issues. Access to these participants was gained by contacting colleagues who worked with the conference offices of which these schools were a member. With all of the steps in the research process, there is nothing more important than keeping in mind the ethical principles and standards which must be upheld during the implementation of those methods. Each professional society and academic association has its own set of standards researchers must adhere to; however, the American Psychological Association provides guidance in five ethical principals for researchers to follow: (1) beneficence and nonmaleficence, (2) fidelity and responsibility, (3) integrity, (4) justice, and (5) the respect for peoples rights and dignity. Each of these guidelines seek to minimize misleading results and focus upon the protection of the health, confidentiality, and safety of the research subjects. Of course, as in any aspect where standards are set, these were established due to the abuse of power by one or more which resulted in some injustice to another. A few examples where ethical standards and regard for human decency and welfare were completely neglected were the Nuremberg Code, Tuskegee syphilis study, and Stanford Prison experiment. Think about what happened at Penn State University with Jerry Sandusky. If the situation which arose there were compared to a previous research debacle, it would mirror the Stanford Prison experiment: where power and reinforcement of that given power reigns and corrupts. The direct correlation to our study and compliance fits well to my chosen field.