Pod talking with Changing the Game Project

ctg_logo_main-1024x572A couple years ago I did a podcast for John O’Sullivan of Changing the Game Project about youth sport, sport parent behavior research, and how to help parents be better on the sidelines. Take a listen!

 
Show Notes
5:00 When she became interested in issues for Women in Sport Leadership?
8:00 Why is there a decline in women in sport leadership?
15:00 What would it take to get more women coaching sports?
21:00 Why does Nicole think kids are quitting sport?
28:00 Nicole explains “background anger” and how it affects children
35:00 What is Kid Speak?
48:00 Winning and Character Development are not mutually exclusive

Game On: Women Can Coach, a documentary

By demand, the full documentary for
Game ON: Women Can Coach
Game ON promo imageWhile girls and women participation in sports since Title IX has exploded, only about 40% of them are coached by women. The film explores supporting research, dispels false narratives, celebrates female coaching pioneers at all levels of competition and highlights stories of success and hardship. Their stories are the universal stories of women coaches who fight many battles to pursue their passion to coach. Produced in collaboration between Twin Cities Public Television and the Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport.
Share it widely to your networks and help be a part of changing the culture of sport for women coaches, where they feel safe, valued and supported.

 

Girls Physical Activity Declining

This week the Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport released a new report : 2018 Tucker Center Research Report, Developing Physically Active Girls: A Multidisciplinary Evidence-based Approach.

TCRR 3.0 Full Report_cover picThe report includes eleven chapters written by leading multidisciplinary scholars. Evidence-based chapters include psychological, sociological, and physiological dimensions of girls’ physical activity participation, as well as chapters on sports medicine and the influence of mass media of girls’ health and well-being. Because “girls” are not a singular monolithic group, chapters focus on girls’ intersectional identities and include invisible, erased, and underserved populations such as immigrant girls, girls of color, girls who identify as lesbian, transgender and queer/questioning, and girls with cognitive and physical impairments. The report ends with a Best Practices chapter and a Positive Model for Developing Physically Active Girls to guide thought, program development, interventions and research.

To read and download the full report, Executive Summary or the Positive Model click here.

Positive Model for Developing Physically Active Girls_Full Color_pic

 

Barriers Facing Women Coaches

swimswam #2The second piece I wrote for swimswam.com about the false narratives and barriers facing women coaches can be found here.

In the piece I write, “The lack of women coaches is not the problem, it is a reflection of a problem. That problem is a culture that does not value and support women.”

The first piece outlined 8 Reasons Why Women Coaches Matter. If you think women coaches don’t face barriers, please read the comments on this blog and the piece that started it all, which was about data on lack of women head swimming and diving coaches at the collegiate level.

 

“We want to hire the best!”: A narrative that impedes women sport coaches

In my research I have interviewed Athletic Directors (ADs) on their best practices in recruiting, hiring and retaining women coaches. [to read the full report, click here.] Nearly all of them stated they want to hire “the best” for an open position. The best person, the best fit, the best qualified, the best (i.e., a winner, successful, track record of success), the best of the best! ADs are competitive people, and rightly so! “The best” is part of their everyday language, and not being the best means your job may be on the line.

best-of-the-bestHowever, what is not readily apparent in “the best” narrative is the underlying gender bias and gender stereotypes that affect how leadership is valued, perceived, and evaluated.

Stereotypes and gender bias are inherent in constructing and reinforcing what a real leader ‘looks like’ and ‘does.’ For example, what it means and has meant historically “to coach”—being assertive and in control, aggressive, ambitious, confident, competitive, powerful, dominant, forceful, self-reliant and individualistic—are characteristics typically associated with men and masculinity. This identity of the ideal/best coach is reinforced by society and the media, where coaches are constructed and held up as heroes and the male coach is a symbol and ultimate expression of the idealized form of masculine character.

Therefore when ADs state they want “the best” coach, this statement automatically privileges and favors male coaches over women, whether intended or not. However, “the best” might also be a coded way ADs can talk about hiring women without
putting themselves or the institution at risk for gender-based discrimination litigation by male applicants.

Clearly, a complex set of conscious and unconscious inferences are contained within persistent and common “hire the best” narratives among college Athletics Directors. The pervasive “best” narrative illuminates the need for bias training and awareness that bias has a potential impact on the perception, recruitment, evaluation and hiring (and firing) of women coaches.

Why Women Sport Coaches Matter

I recently sat down the WCCO TV’s David McCoy to discuss the Women in College Coaching Report Card, false narratives about women coaches, and why women coaches matter. View our discussion here.  View my 5 part blog series on false narratives here.

You can read about my passion for gender and sport in this piece “A Champion for Coaches” or in this 2015 I  wrote for the CEHD 2020 Vision Blog, Why Women Matter in Sport Coaching.

WCCO 2018
Dr. LaVoi with David McCoy of WCCO/CBS

Part 5: “Women don’t want to move their families”: Changing the Narrative for Women Sport Coaches

Happy International Women’s Day 2018!

This is the fifth part of my Changing the Narrative for Women Sport Coaches blog series.

You can read I, II, III and IV.

istock__mom-coach-soccer_xsmallThis one will be brief! I often hear that “women don’t want to move their families” as a reason why there are fewer female head coaches. To my knowledge, and I will stand corrected, there is NO empirical data to support this assumption.

Are women less likely to move their families than men? Maybe. Maybe Not.

This is why it matters. When this narrative is repeated over and over, it becomes truth and then in turn it begins to affect how women are evaluated, perceived and interacted with in the recruiting and hiring process.

  • Will an AD spend as much time and effort recruiting a mother-coach if he/she believes the woman will not, or doesn’t want to, move her family?
  • Will an AD interact differently with a male candidate who is perceived to be more eager to move than a female candidate (because the “not moving” narrative is taken as fact)?
  • Does an AD not actively recruit ALL parent-coaches (mothers AND fathers), compared to coaches without children?

There are many questions, and very little data about this particular narrative. While data is collected, I hope that it will be put to rest until it is proven or refuted.

Part IV: “Women aren’t as interested in coaching as men.”

This marks the fourth blog in the Changing the Narrative about Women Sport Coaches series.  Brief review: In Part I and II of this series I laid out how women coaches are framed shapes the discussion, and the numerous “blame the women” narratives that exist. In Part III the “Women don’t apply” narrative was addressed. In this blog I will provide a counter to another common narrative: “Women aren’t as interested in coaching as men.”

34425801560_8ec242a70f_o
Colleen Powers, Head Softball Coach, St. Catherine University

Similar to the “women don’t apply” narrative, when fewer women (compared to men) apply for an open position, the fewer number of women provides proof that women aren’t as, or are less, interested in coaching than men. Here is another way to look at this narrative.

  1. As has been proven with sport participation, interest is driven by opportunity. When girls and women were provided opportunity to play sports after the passage of Title IX in 1972, they played. Before Title IX, one could have argued that females weren’t interested in sport because they didn’t play as much as boys. Females were interested and once given opportunity, we now we have record numbers of girls and women playing sports at all levels. Applied to women in sport coaching, currently women are impeded from and denied opportunity to coach compared to their male colleagues. Less than half of college female athletes (~40%) and very few males (~2-3%) are coached by women…that means that only 23% of all head college coaches are women (see data here). Men have a dual career pathway (more opportunity) to coach both males and females, while women do not. Women have less opportunity to coach. This is true at every level of sport.  Less opportunity = less interest.

  2.  “You can’t be what you can’t see.”


  3. It is simply not possible that as women participate in record numbers in sport, have passion for their sport, and become more experienced and more knowledgeable, that women simultaneously become less interested in coaching.

  4. Most coaches (male or female) don’t get a job by randomly applying. Coaches get recruited, tapped or encouraged to apply (i.e., they are ON the short list) by someone in their network, then he/she applies. If one isn’t encouraged to apply, then why would one waste his/her time applying AND run the risk of damaging relationships at the current workplace by signalling they are looking for a job elsewhere? In short, not applying does not mean not interested.  Not applying has more to do with being tapped for the short list and one’s informal and formal networks which I outline in Part III of this series.

  5. Really big picture: What do you mean by “interested?” Who gets to define “interest in” coaching? What criteria are being used to define “interest?”

?????