DIY Sport Leadership Development Academies & Institutes: An Investigation of NCAA Division I Athletic Departments
Mike Voight, Ph.D.
Central Connecticut State University
PEHP Kaiser Gym 1804
New Britain, CT 06050
Ann Hickey, Ph.D.
Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to the first author at email@example.com.
DIY Sport Leadership Development Academies & Institutes:
An Investigation of NCAA Division I Athletic Departments
Over the past decade, leadership development (LD) has been a popular pursuit in collegiate athletics. In 2004, the first leadership development program, or academy, in collegiate athletics was the Carolina Leadership Academy (goheels.com). Even the governing body, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), has instituted formal LD programming for student-athletes, coaches, and administrators (NCAA, 2016). At individual universities, there has been an increase in the adoption of leadership development (LD) initiatives across NCAA Division I athletic departments. The general purpose of this investigation was to search for then analyze NCAA Division I athletic departments who have implemented “in-house” DIY LD programs and academies. A content analysis of the departmental websites was conducted (similar to the methodology employed by Hayden, Kornspan, Bruback, Parent, & Rodgers, 2013), to gain a frequency of the number of LD programs offered, the names of the LD initiatives, the nature of the facilitator positions, the mission and particular programming, and uniqueness’s of each program. A total of sixty-two LD academies were revealed, which consists of a range of program types, including monthly workshops and/or guest speakers for selected student-athletes, to programs for different classes (e.g., freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors), to programs specific to team captains, even fully integrated leadership processes which includes courses, mentoring, service projects, and global citizenship challenges. Future directions in leadership academy research include a more thorough review of programming, qualitative analysis of experiences and curricula, and a greater emphasis on evaluating the effectiveness of the LD initiatives.
Running Head: DIY DIVISION I LD ACADEMIES 3