Recreational Sports Journal, 2012, 36, 127-139
© 2012 Nirsa Foundation
Official Journal of the NIRSA Foundation
www.RSJ-Journal.com
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Intramural Sportsmanship Rating
Systems: A Case Study on Participant
Knowledge and Perceived Effectiveness
Benjamin H. Carr, Jr., Lauren A. MacGillivray,
Julie Wallace Carr, and Larry L. Ham
This qualitative case study explored the manner by which team captains and intramural players were educated about the Sportsmanship Rating System (SRS) used
by their intramural sports program and their perceptions about the SRS. While some
form of an SRS is widely used by NIRSA members (Stier et al., 2008), virtually no
research has been conducted as to its effectiveness. The site was a medium sized,
public, four year institution in the mid-Atlantic region. A total of 31 participants
took part in the study. Data collection took place over a six-week time period and
included a) observation, b) document analysis, c) interviews, and d) focus groups.
The findings revealed that an SRS is mostly ineffective in positively modifying
sportsmanship behavior unless the intramural participants are properly educated
about the SRS and understand its scoring criteria.
Keywords: campus recreation, qualitative, recreational sports, college students
Anyone who has played or attended an intramural competition has likely
witnessed unsportsmanlike behavior. That behavior probably had a negative effect
on the players and/or spectators. According to Hall (1990), “whether in the form
of physical action or verbal expression, unsportsmanlike behavior most certainly
detracts from the structure of a positive recreational environment” (p. 8). Specifically with regards to collegiate intramurals, Manther, Matin, Tatum, and Chouti
(2010) concluded the game environment is positively or negatively affected by the
players’ sportsmanship behavior. It is further important to control bad sportsmanship, because sportsmanship “is a critical element in the retention of intramural
participants” (Vincent & Kearney, 2001, p. 34). Thus, there are significant reasons
why institutions must address sportsmanship in intramurals and must evaluate the
effectiveness of the systems they use to do so.
Sportsmanship
A thorough review of the literature reveals that there are a number of studies which
have specifically set out to define the elusive concept of sportsmanship. None,
The authors are with the Dept. of Sport and Recreation Management, James Madison University,
Harrisonburg, VA.
127
128 Carr et al.
however, have fashioned a definition which has become a pillar of sportsmanship
discussions, and certainly none created a universally accepted definition (Keating,
1964; Feezell, 1986; Rosenberg, 1993; Beller & Stoll, 1993; Vallerand, Deshaies,
Cuerrier, Briere, & Pelletier, 1997; Sessions, 2004; Lata, 2006; Abad, 2010; Mathner, Matin, Tatum, & Chouti, 2010).
It was not until 1964 that a serious attempt was made to even define sportsmanship as its own moral category (Keating, 1964). Arguably, Keating’s study was the
first to offer a framework to initiate a scholarly discussion about and understanding
of sportsmanship (Feezell, 1986). Before that time, a vast majority of the definitions
or expressions of sportsmanship were made by coaches, participants, politicians
and others in the public eye, and virtually all, regardless of origin, were inextricably woven with threads of morality and/or religion. Keating (1964) explained,
“Sportsmanship, long and inexplicably ignored by philosophers and theologians,
has always pretended to a certain moral relevancy, although its precise place among
the moral virtues has been uncertain” (p. 25).
Keating (1964) attempted to extricate sportsmanship from the tangled web of
personal morals, ethics, religious contexts and personal bias and then give it its
own moral identity within the context of sport. He concluded that the essence of
sportsmanship was defined by the principle:
Honorable victory is the goal of the athlete and, as a result, the code of the
athlete demands that nothing be done before, during, or after the contest to
cheapen or otherwise detract from such a victory. Fairness or fair play, the
pivotal virtue in athletics, emphasizes the need for an impartial and equal application of the rules if the victory is to signify, as it should, athletic excellence.
Modesty in victory and a quiet composure in defeat testify to an admirable
and extraordinary self-control and, in general, dignify and enhance the goal
of the athlete. (p. 35)
Since then, scholars have taken up the challenge to somehow define sportsmanship in its own context while concededly drawing from other disciplines. Sessions
(2004) used an “honor” epistemology to arrive at a definition of sportsmanship,
and concisely concluded “Honor in sport is sportsmanship” (p. 57). Vallerand et
al. (1997) attempted to create a multidimensional definition of sportsmanship
by “applying premises from social psychological theories and research” (p. 89),
and concluded that there were five components of sportsmanship. Feezell (1984)
reached back as far as Aristotle for guidance in asserting that “Sportsmanship is a
mean between excessive seriousness, which misunderstands the importance of the
play-spirit, and an excessive sense of playfulness, which might be called frivolity
and which misunderstands the importance of victory and achievement when play is
competitive” (p. 10); while Beller and Stoll (1993) even suggested that sportsmanship may no longer exist in practice.
While those comprise an extremely small sample of the attempts at defining
sportsmanship, they clearly illustrate the diversity of opinion and difficulty in
arriving at a consensus definition. And, as if that difficulty alone were not enough,
defining sportsmanship is further complicated when the concept of gamesmanship
is considered (Howe, 2004; Strand & Ziegler, 2010). Stephen Potter (1947) introduced the concept of gamesmanship into the English language, and since then, it
Sportsmanship Rating Systems 129
has been described as “a close relative to sportsmanship” (Strand & Ziegler, 2010,
p. 25), and distinguished from sportsmanship as
[the] decisive element in gamesmanship is the attempt to gain competitive
advantage either by an artful manipulation of the rules that does not actually
violate them or by the psychological manipulation or unsettling of the opponent
(or sometimes the officials), whether this be by intimidation, nondisclosure
of information, outright deception, or the first alternative (instrumental use of
the rules). (Howe, 2004, p. 213)
Many sport purists would argue, to the contrary, that such descriptions of gamesmanship are little more than transparent rationalizations by those who value gaining
an unfair advantage over an opponent or winning through dubious methods over
earning an advantage through physical and/or mental performance. So, not only
has sportsmanship shown itself to be elusive of definition, but it also must fight to
distinguish itself from the closely related concept of gamesmanship.
Therefore, this study neither attempts to create nor suggests a definition of
sportsmanship. To the contrary, the foregoing effort was taken to illuminate the
current absence of anything near a consensus as to a definition of sportsmanship,
and to also serve as notice of the importance that should be placed by an intramural
program on creating any type of definition of sportsmanship. Great care should be
taken to construct a definition or outline which can be understood by all participants and be subject to accurate and consistent grading within the sportsmanship
rating system.
Sportsmanship Rating System
The original concept of a sportsmanship rating system was developed at The Ohio
State University by Beau Rugg, Bruce Maurer, and John Fisher (Hall, 1990). Since
its development, numerous variations of the sportsmanship rating system have
sprouted in collegiate intramural programs throughout the United States, and are
being used to monitor and enforce sportsmanship (Vincent and Kearney, 2001).
The most prevalent conceptual system used is the Sportsmanship Rating System
(SRS), and Stier, Schneider, Kampf, Haines, and Gaskins (2008) reported that
over two-thirds of National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association (NIRSA)
institutional member schools have implemented some form of an SRS.
Although there are minor variations, most SRS share a number of common
traits. The vast majority require a game official or site manager to rate the sportsmanship of players and/or teams during an intramural. Virtually all use either a four
or five point Likert scale for rating and scoring (Hall, 1990; Vincent & Kearney,
2001). And, every SRS contains some type of consequence provision for receiving
bad ratings, for example, low sportsmanship scores negatively affect a player’s or
team’s eligibility for any playoffs (Vincent & Kearney, 2001).
In contrast to the significant similarities in the form of the SRS itself, institutions vary greatly in the methods used for educating players about that institution’s
SRS. A review of institutional websites discloses that some use a season-beginning
meeting with all participants. Some use only an informational website system.
Some use a meeting between the intramural coordinator and team captains. And,
of course, there are varieties of all of those.
130 Carr et al.
A thorough literature review indicates that although there have been attempts to
evaluate the effectiveness of an SRS, most, if not all focused only on team captains
(Hall, 1990) or statistics (Haines & Rothkopf, 1998). There is a need for research
concerning a) the systems used to educate participants about the SRS used by
an institution, b) the perceived effectiveness of that educating system, and c) the
perceived effectiveness of an SRS from the participants
Purpose
This case study was conducted to a) explore the system of educating team captains
and intramural players about the SRS used by one campus recreation center, b)
determine the level of knowledge of the SRS of the team captains and intramural
players (hereinafter players) who participated in this study, c) explore the perceptions of the team captains and players about the system used to educate them about
the SRS, and d) explore the perceptions of the team captains and players about
the effectiveness of the SRS. Importantly, this research does not attempt to define
sportsmanship.
Studies of this type are needed for four significant reasons. First, there is
a trending emphasis on improving sportsmanship in all levels of participation.
Second, programs that use an SRS must know whether it is effective and/or how
to improve its effectiveness. And finally, past SRS research has neither focused on
the systems of educating players about an SRS nor explored players’ perceptions
about an SRS. Finally, very few qualitative studies have been conducted in the
domain of campus recreation in general. For example, a search of the Recreational
Sports Journal revealed that only four qualitative studies on any topic have been
published from 1998 to date.
Method
The qualitative method of inquiry for this project is a case study approach (Stake,
1995). Qualitative techniques provide personal perspectives and reactions and give
broad and in-depth information about specific experiences (Giddan & Whitner,
1992; Stake, 2010). This approach was selected because the study focused on
participant experiences and perceptions. All procedures were approved by the
university’s Institutional Review Board.
Site and Participants
The intramural sports program used for the case study was housed in a medium
sized, public, four year institution in the mid-Atlantic region. Participants for the
study were purposely selected. Purposeful sampling in qualitative research is a
strategy employed to select subjects who have a common characteristic and can
provide unique information rich perspectives about the research topic(s). It is an
intentional selection process that is not random (Patton, 1990; Creswell, 1994;
Maxwell, 2005). In this particular case, study participants were selected based on
the type of involvement they had with the intramural program. The Coordinator
Sportsmanship Rating Systems 131
of Intramural Sports (CIS) agreed to participate through a request made in-person.
Intramural basketball players and team captains were recruited via e-mail at the
beginning of an intramural basketball season and also via in-person solicitation at
early-season games.
Data Collection and Triangulation
Data collection took place over a six-week period during the winter intramural
basketball season. Data were housed and later analyzed in Atlas.ti, a qualitative
software program. A triangulation approach was used to collect data. According to
Stake (1995), triangulation is a way of looking at the data to determine if what is
being observed and reported would have the same meaning under different circumstances. The various methods of data collection assist in neutralizing biases. In this
study, four different methods of data collection were used to support the findings and
reduce bias. They included a) observation, b) document analysis (Merriam, 1998),
c) interviews (Patton, 1990, 2001; Creswell, 1998), and d) focus groups (Edmunds,
1999). Interview and focus group questions were designed to explore respondents’
perceptions of the system of educating intramural players about the SRS, their
knowledge of the SRS and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the SRS.
Observation. An observation was conducted of the intramural basketball team
captains’ meeting held the week before the season started. The researcher took
field notes on the presentation as it pertained to the intramural sportsmanship
philosophy, policies and the SRS (Creswell, 2002). Subsequently, the notes
were processed in Atlas.ti along with additional researcher reflections about the
experience.
Document Analysis. A document summary form (Miles & Huberman, 1994)
was completed for each document reviewed to summarize and clarify the content. Documents included the SRS, the Power Point used by the CIS in the team
captains’ meeting, the university’s intramural sports policy manual and website.
Interviews and Focus Groups. Interviews were conducted with the CIS and eight
team captains. Focus groups were run in three different sessions and consisted of
22 total players. Interview and focus group questions were designed to explore
respondents’ perceptions of the system of educating intramural players about the
SRS, their knowledge of the SRS and their perceptions of the effectiveness of
the SRS. Examples of questions used to guide the focus groups with players and
interview sessions with team captains and the CIS are listed below:
Intramural Basketball Player Questions.
• What is the philosophy on sportsmanship that was communicated to you through
the intramural sports program?
• What are the intramural sports program’s policies regarding sportsmanship?
• How were/are you made aware of such policies?
• How are you as intramural participants made aware of the intramural sportsmanship rating system?
• Are there any other methods you are aware of to inform you of the SRS?
132 Carr et al.
• How would you describe your knowledge of the intramural sportsmanship
rating system?
• Do you think the intramural SRS has an effect on how you behave during
intramural competition?
• Do you feel adequately informed about the sportsmanship rating system?
• What do you think are some of the strengths and/or weaknesses of the sportsmanship rating system? How could it be improved?
Team Captain Questions.
• What is the philosophy on sportsmanship that was communicated to you through
the intramural sports program?
• In your opinion, what is the purpose of the presentation at the team captains’
meeting?
• What is your job or responsibilities in communicating sportsmanship policies
as a team captain?
• In your own words, please describe the sportsmanship rating system.
• Are there any other methods you are aware of to inform you of the SRS?
• Do you feel adequately informed about the sportsmanship rating system?
• Do you think the intramural SRS has an effect on how you behave during
intramural competition?
• What do you think are some of the strengths and/or weaknesses of the sportsmanship rating system? How could it be improved?
CIS Questions.
• What is the sportsmanship philosophy of the Intramural Sports Program?
• What is the intent of the presentation at the team captains’ meeting?
• What are the policies of the intramural sports program regarding sportsmanship?
• Are there any other ways of informing participants about sportsmanship policies besides the presentation at the team captains’ meeting?
• Do you feel as though the sportsmanship policies/sportsmanship rating system
are effective? How?
Trustworthiness
“How do we know that the qualitative study is believable, accurate and right?”
(Creswell, 1998, p. 193). Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed four terms to assist
in answering Creswell’s question: credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability.
Credibility is the equivalent to the conventional research term known as internal validity (Shenton, 2004). It answers the following questions: “Do the findings
make sense? Are they credible to the people we study and the readers? Do we have
an authentic portrait of what we are looking at?” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.
278). Credibility in this study was achieved through a pilot study, member checks
(study participant review of interview and focus groups reports) and peer review.
Sportsmanship Rating Systems 133
Transferability is the equivalent to the conventional research term known as
external validity (Shenton, 2004). According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), the
qualitative researcher’s job is not to provide the degree to which something is
transferable, but rather to provide the information that will allow the reader to
make judgments about potential application. This was achieved through thick, rich
description of the interview and focus group data.
Dependability is the equivalent to the conventional research term known as
reliability (Shenton, 2004). In this study, all interview and field notes, interview
tapes and transcripts were preserved and housed along with the data analysis records
should future review or auditing be necessary.
Confirmability is the equivalent to the conventional research term known as
objectivity (Shenton, 2004). It can be framed as neutrality and reasonable freedom from unacknowledged researcher bias (Miles & Huberman, 1994). A written
clarification of researcher bias was presented at the time of the proposal of this
study, and member checks and peer reviews were implemented to enhance the
confirmability of this study.
Finally, Creswell (1998) suggested that researchers engage in at least two
procedures to ensure trustworthiness in any given study. The researchers used
more than two procedures for this study, namely prolonged engagement, persistent
observation, triangulation, thick and rich description, peer review, clarification of
researcher bias, and member checks (Stake, 1995; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Results
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this study was conducted by employing tactics from Merriam
(1998), Stake (1995), and Miles and Huberman (1994). Data analysis is conducted
simultaneous with data collection in qualitative research (Merriam, 1998; Miles &
Huberman, 1994). All interviews, focus groups, documents, and field notes from
observations were given designations of “first level coding” (Merriam, 1998, p.
165), notations used to organize the data. For example, each interview, observation,
and focus group was coded with the following first-level code: a participant role
title and number (i.e., team captain 1), and date of data collection. The researcher
also kept notes capturing personal reflections, hunches, tentative themes, ideas, and
things to pursue in the subsequent phases of data collection and analysis.
The data files from the team captain meeting observation and the various
sources from the document analysis were read over several times to make sense of
the information presented. Each interview and focus group transcript file was also
reviewed, along with its audiotape to ensure that the study participant statements
were represented accurately.
The coding process was then started using Atlas.ti. The interviews were coded
first, followed by the focus groups, and observations, and finally the items collected
in document analysis were analyzed. As the transcripts were read, units of data began
to emerge. A unit of data are defined as “any meaningful (or potentially meaningful) segment of data; it can be as small as a word a participant uses to describe
a feeling or phenomenon or as large as several pages of field notes describing a
134 Carr et al.
particular incident” (Merriam, 1998, p. 179). The units of data were highlighted
and then coded. Codes were developed to organize and analyze the units of data.
As clusters of similar information emerged from this process, the researchers then
used the constant comparative method (Merriam, 1998) to identify reoccurring
patterns. These patterns were then categorized into themes. The themes of each
data source were compared, and overarching themes were identified. Peer reviews
(Creswell, 1998) of the coding were then conducted to ensure the accuracy of the
coding process.
Overarching Themes
The three overarching themes that emerged after comparing the five data sources
were
• The ineffectiveness of the system of educating team captains and players about
the SRS
• The lack of knowledge of team captains and players about the SRS
• The questionable impact of the SRS.
The study participants’ quotations provided herein are not corrected for grammar,
but appear as transcribed by the researchers from the interview and focus group
tapes.
The Ineffectiveness of the System of Educating Team Captains and Players
About the SRS. The ineffectiveness of the system of educating team captains
and players about the SRS was a recurring theme throughout the team captains’
interviews, focus group responses, and observation of the team captains’ meeting.
The CIS stated the goals of the team captains’ meeting are to explain the rules of
the specific sport, intramural policies, including the SRS, and the consequences
of poor sportsmanship.
A majority of the team captains stated that they understood that one of their
responsibilities was to relay the information about the SRS to teammates.
My responsibility is to explain to my team all of the policies that they have,
that they go about, but for the most part I don’t really, when I go through and
I tell my team, you know what the policies and sportsmanship are.
It’s just important for me to make sure that I tell them exactly what I was told
at the meeting so they understand the sportsmanship rating and that if one
person screws up on the team then it’s a reflection of everybody.
Further, the players stated that the primary source of information about the SRS
was the team captain. One intramural player stated “from a participant’s standpoint
the only way you find out is through your captain.” Another intramural player echoed
with “there is no way to relay that to us, it’s the captain’s responsibility and if they
don’t do it, we’re kinda [sic] screwed.”
However, communication between the team captains to their teammates about
the SRS typically only occurred at or during games. As one team captain stated,
“before the game I would remind them, but other than that I don’t really go home
Sportsmanship Rating Systems 135
and email them or type them up or anything like that, just a couple things here
and there.”
Three findings derived from the foregoing: 1) the team captains’ meeting is the
virtually the only method of attempting to ultimately educate intramural players
about the SRS, 2) the team captains are expected to convey SRS information to
team members, and 3) the ultimate conveyance of SRS information to intramural
players was seldom occurring as expected.
A majority of players placed the blame for the team captain’s failure to convey
the SRS information on the absence of either an incentive to do so or consequence
for not doing so.
I would say that you, rely heavily, I don’t think that the communication with
team captains is that great and I think rarely are you gonna [sic] have the
captain really emphasize on their team just because there’s nothing, there’s
no consequence for them for not relaying it to their team.
I think it’s put squarely on the captain’s shoulders, but with no consequence
for not relaying that message. And the fact that no one wants in an intramural
game, wants to walk up to their team and be like “alright guys, we have to
have a serious talk right now” it’s just not gonna [sic] happen.
Yeah, there’s not a consequence for not doing it, no one wants to do it, and
therefore it’s not gonna [sic] get done and it’s just whatever you’ve heard
through the grapevine or once you’ve been punished, then finding out what
is really wrong.
The Lack of Team Captains’ and Players’ Knowledge About the SRS. The lack
of team captains’ and players’ knowledge about the SRS was another overarching
theme that emerged through the interviews with team captains, focus groups and
document analysis. A discovery during document analysis of the site’s intramural
sports website revealed that SRS information and policies were not available to
intramural players, and were not referenced in the intramural basketball rules
found at that website.
Several players conceded that they were not even aware that the SRS existed.
One player who had participated in intramural sports for years stated that it was not
until “this year” that he/she realized teams received sportsmanship ratings. Several
other illustrative comments by the players were:
I had never really heard of it until this year to be honest. . . . I really didn’t.
I’ve played on so many different intramural teams, different sports and like I
said, well maybe it just wasn’t an issue with the teams I was on.
I don’t even know if I was aware of the rating system until several teams into
different sports and then I was like, oh they circle a number or something
after the game.
Further, none of the team captains or players understood or could explain the
criteria used to grade or score sportsmanship behaviors, and that includes those
who may have been aware of the SRS existed.
136 Carr et al.
I still couldn’t tell you the reason why I get a 3.4 rather than a 4.0 in one game,
or I got a 3.2, or a 3 point I couldn’t pinpoint exactly what it is.
I don’t know the specifics. I think, the refs or the officials around there just come
up with a rating for each game for each team, based on how they behave during
the game, how respectful they are. I don’t really know the specifics though.
I know there’s a rating system and you get a certain score, but I don’t know if
it’s just totally based on the referees judgment or if there’s specific guidelines
that they follow to give out certain numbers.
The weakness is again, going back to how varied the scores are, they go up
and down the board. I hardly ever see in between 2.0 and 2.9s ever given. You
always see between 3.0 and 4.0 and don’t know why, what makes a 3.5 and
what makes a 4.0 exactly.
The Questionable Impact of the SRS. The questionable impact of the SRS was
another overarching theme that appeared upon analysis of the interview with
the CIS, the interviews with team captains, and the responses from the focus
groups. The CIS opined that the playoff penalty in the SRS was the main factor
impacting game sportsmanship behavior. The following comments by the players
reinforced his opinion:
When competition comes into play and gets to be very competitive, people
generally lose out on the whole sportsmanship rating. And it’s second, it’s in
the back of their mind, but obviously, priority takes what they’re thinking at
the moment. During regular season it definitely plays a huge part because you
want to get into the playoffs. But once you get to the playoffs I think it’s all,
it doesn’t really matter because people are like, it’s like if we lose, who cares,
we’re out. And you know, they’re gonna [sic] want to talk to the refs.
Yeah, I mean it definitely makes you wanna [sic] be more respectful during
the games and make the playoffs. Our team was in jeopardy for a while, we
were just under a 3.0, so we made sure the last couple games we were good.
Finally, comments by several of the players who were aware of the SRS and its
consequences suggested that during highly emotional and competitive situations,
it is difficult, if not impossible, to rationally consider the SRS. Even the current
playoff penalty may not be enough of a deterrent for those individuals. For example,
one player participant stated:
I think unless a team is in trouble to not make it to playoffs, like if they’re ratings have been getting low or if after the first game all of sudden they get a low
rating and it’s like, oh we gotta [sic] be careful, then maybe. But other I think
most people are gonna [sic], it’s kinda [sic] like controlling your emotions,
you know people have a hard time controlling their emotions, and when you
get out on the court or field that’s one place where it’s extremely hard. And
so I don’t think a rating is gonna [sic] change that, unless like I said you’re
already kind of in trouble. Then you might be a little more conscious of it.
Sportsmanship Rating Systems 137
Conclusions
This case study provides a unique snapshot of a widely used tool in intramural
sports, the SRS. The findings from the study strongly suggest that although the
SRS can be a viable tool, its effectiveness is almost entirely dependent upon a) a
successful method of educating intramural players about the SRS, b) an articulable
understanding of the SRS and its scoring criteria, and c) the existence of adequate
punitive provisions for violations (e.g., the playoff penalty).
The findings further suggest in specific a) that the utilization of a team captains’
meeting as the only method of attempting to educate intramural players about the
SRS and its scoring criteria is systemically and inherently flawed, thus making
it ineffective; b) even if team captains do begin advising of team members about
the SRS, its provisions are of such vagueness that intramural players would not
understand how they are being scored on sportsmanship behavior; and c) providing
team captains with incentive to convey, or consequence for not conveying, SRS
information to teammates would make the SRS far more effective. Additional findings suggested that a) team captains typically communicated sportsmanship issues
to teammates only after issues arose during games, b) those teams who were aware
of the SRS might only try to be “good enough” to not incur the playoff penalty, c) a
team which was likely to lose in a playoff game had little incentive under the SRS to
exhibit good sportsmanship, and d) the SRS appeared to only alter behavior during
a game, but did not appear to affect the overall culture surrounding intramurals.
Recommendations
SRS Revisions
To address the issues with the SRS discovered in this study, the following should
be considered:
1.The CIS should develop an articulable and easily applied sportsmanship scoring rubric with assistance and input from intramural officials, site managers,
team captains and intramural players
2. The team captains’ meeting should include intramural officials and site managers and the CIS should facilitate discussion of the SRS and its scoring rubric
3.The intramural sports webpage and intramural facilities should contain an
obviously posted copy of the SRS. The website should also contain an FAQ
page
4.The team captains should be provided with a hard and electronic copy of the
SRS, and before a team can compete, the team captain must sign and submit
a form attesting that a copy of the SRS has been provided to his/her teammates and that he/she has communicated the basic information from the team
captains’ meeting to the teammates. This addresses the lack of team captain
accountability for communicating with teammates about the SRS, and creates
a peer discipline type of system
5. The lead official, before the start of the first game for each team, should briefly
meet with the site manager and the entire team to discuss the SRS and the
scoring rubric
138 Carr et al.
6.The SRS should be amended to add additional incentives/punishment for
compliance with and/or awareness of the SRS. The following are suggestions:
a.Require each intramural player to pay a “sportsmanship fee” of, for example
$5.00, and if the team fails to achieve a set score by the end of the season,
each player on the team would forfeit the fee; that fee could be used to
provide awards or incentives for other teams. If the score is achieved, the
fee would be returned or credited to a future season
b.Tie the penalty provision to something other than intramural participation,
for example, have violators perform appropriate community service hours
c.Create a reward/incentive for achieving high sportsmanship scores instead of
focusing only on punishment. Examples are to giving away t-shirts, providing a pizza party, giving coupons or providing university recognition.
Future Research
The findings suggest a need for a deeper understanding of the connection between
the SRS and sportsmanship in general, especially whether the SRS merely alters
behavior temporarily during a contest or helps to change the sportsmanship personality of the intramural participants. More specifically, there is also a need for
research concerning the creation of the criteria and/or rubric used by an SRS, the
effect of a punishment system versus a reward system, and the impact of additional
interventions throughout a season as opposed to only providing the information at
the beginning of a season.
Summary
In summary, this study focused on the manner in which team captains and intramural players were educated about the SRS and their perceptions about the SRS.
While the SRS is widely used by NIRSA members (Stier et al., 2008), virtually no
research has been conducted as to its effectiveness. This study made it clear that the
mere existence of an SRS is not enough. The real value of an SRS will be directly
related to the development of understandable scoring criteria and the method(s)
used to ensure that all intramural participants know about and understand the SRS.
References
Abad, D. (2010). Sportsmanship. Sport. Ethics and Philosophy, 4(1), 27–41.
doi:10.1080/17511320903365227
Beller, J., & Stoll, S. (1993). Sportsmanship: an antiquated concept? Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance, 64, 74–79.
Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Edmunds, H. (1999). The focus groups research handbook. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group, Inc.
Sportsmanship Rating Systems 139
Feezell, R. (1986). Sportsmanship. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, Xm, 1-13.
Giddan, N.S., & Whitner, P.A. (1992). Personal essay: A qualitative evaluation technique.
Journal of College Student Development, 33(3), 277–279.
Haines, D., & Rothkopf, L. (1998). Does a relationship exist between sportsmanship and
team injuries? NIRSA Journal, 3(22), 3–5.
Hall, D. (1990). Encouraging good sportsmanship: A behavior modification tool approved
by East Carolina university intramural participants. Journal of the National IntramuralRecreational Sports Association, 15, 8–10.
Howe, L. (2004). Gamesmanship. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 31, 212–225. doi:10
.1080/00948705.2004.9714661
Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 1964.Keating, J. (1964). Sportsmanship as a moral category.
Ethics (75)1, 25–35. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2379145
Keating, J. (1964). Sportsmanship as a moral category. Ethics (75)1, 25–35. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2379145
Lata, J. (2006). An analysis of goal achievement orientation and sport morality levels of
division I-A non-revenue collegiate athletes. The Florida State University). ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses, 141 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview
/305331222?accountid=11667
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Manther, R., Matin, L., Tatum, S., & Chouti, D. (2010). The effects of a sportsmanship education program on the behavior of college intramural sports participants. Recreational
Sports Journal, 34(2), 119–128.
Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Patton, M.Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Potter, S. (1947). The theory & practice of gamesmanship: Or, the art of winning games
without actually cheating. New York: H. Holt.
Rosenberg, D. (1993). Sportsmanship reconsidered. International Journal of Physical
Education, 302, 15–23.
Sessions, W. (2004). Sportsmanship as honor. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 31, 47–59.
Shenton, A.K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22, 63–75.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R.E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: Guilford
Press.
Stier, W.F., Schneider, R.C., Kampf, S., Haines, S., & Gaskins, B. (2008). Selected risk
management policies, practices, and procedures for intramural activities at NIRSA
institutions. Recreational Sports Journal, 32(1), 28–44.
Strand, B., & Ziegler, G. (2010). Gamesmanship of high school athletes. Journal of Youth
Sports, 1(5), 25–26.
Vallerand, R., Deshaies, P., Cuerrier, J., Briere. N., Pelletier, E. (1997). Toward a multidimensional definition of sportsmanship. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8(1), 89–101
10.1080/10413209608406310. doi:10.1080/10413209608406310
Vincent, M., & Kearney, J. (2001). Monitoring and promoting good sportsmanship as an
essential element of intramural sports. Recreational Sports Journal, 25(1), 41–43.