“Together we can make it better”: Collective action and governance in a girls’ ice hockey association

Abstract

This paper, drawing on collective action literature and situated within the women’s sport movement, offers a case study of a separate girls’ minor hockey association that formed in Ontario in the mid-1990s. The analysis explores the process of establishing a girls’ hockey association that is separate from the boys’ minor hockey umbrella. Two fundamental collective action themes emerged from the data. First, the data revealed the founders of the separate association acted according to both affective and rational motives. Second, the founders utilized different strategies, namely advocacy and social action, to form the association. These findings support an integrated perspective towards community change as it pertains to female hockey governance, and introduces a novel stream of inquiry into this area of female sport – one that connects collective action, governance, and organizational dynamics.

Keywords

Canada collective action governance ice hockey women’s sport

In Canada, women’s hockey has a long history, going back to the late 1880s, of tension, inconsistent governance, and of course remarkable periods of growth (see Adams, 2009; Avery and Stevens, 1997). Particularly throughout the last two decades, women’s hockey in Canada has experienced rapid expansion at all levels of the game. Yet, despite assertions that women’s hockey participation and recognition are expanding, several scholars suggest that women and girls still face many barriers (Avery and Stevens, 1997; Etue and Williams, 1996; Stevens, 2000, 2006). Across Canada, since the 1980s, female hockey governance structures have varied dramatically. At the municipal level, women’s and girls’ hockey tend to operate as part of either an integrated or partially-integrated governance model that combines boys’ and girls’ hockey. However, within the province of Ontario both partially integrated models, whereby girls’ hockey exists within a boys’ minor hockey association, and separate governance structures whereby girls’ hockey operates separately from a boys’ minor hockey association, exist at the local level. In Ontario, the provincial governing body for women’s hockey, the Ontario Women’s Hockey Association (OWHA), provides opportunities for the development of what Newman and White (2006) describe as womanspace within sport. The OWHA is the only provincial female hockey association in Canada that endorses and endeavors to maintain what they call a separatist philosophy. Over the last three decades, the association has successfully led lobbying efforts for the inclusion of women’s hockey in the Ontario Winter Games, the Canada Winter Games, a national championship, the world championships, and at the Winter Olympic Games. However, arguably, it is at the grassroots local community level where the association’s support and lobbying efforts have achieved its greatest successes because it is here where increasing numbers of separate girls’ hockey associations thrive.

Adams and Stevens (2007: 349) argue that a grassroots orientation to girls’ and women’s hockey governance is needed as “a community-based approach redefines the citizen as participant in, rather than a consumer of, social programmes”. They also suggested that democratic grassroots movements at the local level offer the most tangible points of access for initiating change. Collective community action at the grassroots level has led to governance structures that operate independently of the boys’ minor hockey model. Consequently, this paper, drawing on collective action literature, and situated within the women’s sport movement (Cahn, 1994; Hall, 1996; Harvey and Houle, 1994; Pelak, 2002, 2005), offers a case study (Stake, 1995, 2003) of one separate girls’ minor hockey association that formed in Ontario in the mid-1990s. Through this case study, the process of establishing a girls’ hockey association that is separate from the boys’ minor hockey umbrella was explored. Furthering the arguments put forward by Adams and Stevens (2007), it is argued, based upon the analysis of the case study as presented below, that collective actions of small groups of dedicated individuals can lead to governance structures that more adequately and directly meet the needs of female hockey players.

The OWHA and the RGHA: background and context

The OWHA provides opportunities for girls and women of all abilities to play hockey and, as Adams and Stevens (2007) suggest, its central concern is increasing members and attracting teams and leagues to participate under its organizational umbrella. By 2010, the OWHA had over 37,000 players registered, a growth of 12 teams and 480 players from the previous season (OWHA, 2010). The OWHA was established in 1975 at a time when sport was just finding a place on the broader feminist agenda in Canada (Hall, 2002). Since the 1970s, feminist activism in sport has been principally “liberal” with the central focus of ensuring women and girls equal access to sport and recreation through systematic structural change (Hall, 1996). In 1986, Sport Canada, the federal government department responsible for amateur sport, established The Sport Canada Policy on Women in Sport. Although the policy was a much needed initiative, there were limitations that impeded its effectiveness particularly in terms of establishing separate women’s sport governance bodies (Adams and Stevens, 2007; Hall, 1996, 2002; Ponic, 2000; Strachan and Tomlinson, 1994).

Established during a time when feminist sport leaders were taking up the concerns and inequalities in girls’ and women’s sport participation, the OWHA supported, promoted, and lobbied for the concerns of female hockey players. The initial vision of the organization’s leaders was for the OWHA to equal the Ontario Hockey Association (OHA), a predominantly male-focused entity, in strength and membership: an ambitious goal according to Adams and Stevens (2007: 352) given the “historical mythology of hockey in Canada as the rightful place of boys and men”. Over the last four decades, the OWHA has asserted, “female hockey is unique and should be directed by those who work within this side of the game” (OWHA, 2000: 2). The OWHA, although part of the Canadian hockey system and network, espouses a women-centered perspective and encourages and supports girls and women hockey leaders at the community level to separate from the boys’ minor hockey structure and form their own governing bodies.¹ In the 1990s, the executive board of the OWHA developed and distributed a practical guide, How to develop your own girls’ minor hockey association, to respond to inquiries about how to get a separate girls’ hockey association started in one’s community. The OWHA also encourages local girls’ hockey leaders attempting to establish a separate girls’ hockey association to draw upon the strategies in the Level the playing field: A handbook on how to achieve full and fair access for women and girls in Sport and Physical Activity, published by the Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation in the 1990s. Page one of the handbook encourages local level sport leaders “to become catalysts for change.”

This study is based on research conducted over a three-year period with the Riverside Girls’ Hockey Association (RGHA).² The RGHA, a volunteer organization with an executive and a board of directors, is located in a medium-sized city in the province of Ontario, Canada. The leagues in which the RGHA play are organized by the OWHA and include teams in all levels of girls’ hockey from ages four years and higher. Very little recorded history about the RGHA exists; however, some documents such as registration records, rules, regulations, by-laws, and meeting minutes as well as other publicly available sources such as news reports were collected and analyzed. Documentation, as identified by Patton (2002), constitutes a rich source of information not only because of what can be directly learned, but also because documents act as stimuli for paths of inquiry that can be pursued through interviewing.

As part of this project, interviews with nine key “early founders” who served a variety of roles within the RGHA such as volunteer President, Vice-President, and coach, were conducted. In the voluntary girls’ minor hockey association both board members and volunteer coaches typically manage the strategic and operational aspects of the association. Therefore, the participants were directly involved with, and therefore well informed of, the dynamics of the new association formation. The range of RGHA involvement of the interviewees was five to 14 years. There were eight male participants and one female,³ and each participant was a parent of at least one athlete in the association. Participants were asked general questions regarding the history of the RGHA such as timelines, registration, and governance structure. Detailed inquiry was also conducted to determine the dynamics of the separation from the boys’ minor hockey association with a specific focus upon the process of the separate girls’ hockey association formation and themes related to collective action. Given the case study approach, it is not suggested that the findings of this study are generalizable to other community girls’ hockey associations. Rather, this study was undertaken from a constructivist perspective (Guba and Lincoln, 2005; Misener and Doherty, 2009; Patton, 2002) that appreciates and incorporates multiple individual perspectives as a basis upon which to broaden our understanding of one Canadian female hockey governance structure.

Collective action and community change

Within the social and grassroots movements literature there has been a call to promote research that examines small-scale mechanisms through case study research on local movements and collective action (Fozooni, 2008; Goodwin and Jasper, 1999; Stolle-McAllister, 2007; Wilson and White, 2002). Bevington and Dixon (2005: 189) argued social movements research is in need of scholarship that prioritizes relevance to the participants of collective action and promotes a “social movement theory that provides ‘useable’ knowledge for those seeking social change”. Bridging the gap between theory and practice was also an important priority for Adams and Stevens (2007), who believed a social change perspective founded upon action is key to the creation of separate female hockey governance structures. Research of this nature reveals the value of capturing local collective action as a key component of change within community sport, or more specifically female hockey governance.

The analysis for this case study is framed according to two key aspects of community change and collective action. The first lens relates to motives for community change. It is important to consider the influence of what Heberle (1951) referred to as emotional-affectual motives for collective action. In many instances, initial community change efforts are triggered by an experience that generates an emotional response. McClurg Mueller (1992) suggested this trigger arises from a transfer of subjective individual meanings about an experience towards a shared collective identity. Second, Heberle (1951) identified a value-rational motive, which influences collective action through a deliberate and careful consideration of goals. McClurg Mueller suggested this action relates to organizational aspects of mobilizing action. Consequently, both of these motives will be important conceptual themes in this examination of new female hockey governance structures.

The second lens relates to the strategies for community change. Checkoway (1995) presented six strategies for community change that exemplify how people organize around issues of local concern. The strategies reflect various approaches and are presented in a manner that enables citizens to fit a strategy to the specific community change situation they face. Checkoway’s (1995) focus is to consider the strategies – mass mobilization, social action, citizen participation, public advocacy, popular education, and local services development – in terms of which one offers the greatest potential to empower one’s community. Within the area of Canadian sport policy, Rose (2007: 413) found community governance “mobilizes groups to exert a concerted voice for sport policy and affect the sport agenda”. Hence, a study of governance and women’s hockey within a community sport context provides an opportunity to more thoroughly explore issues related to collective action and community change. While women’s sport scholars have addressed broad issues of access (see for example Hall, 2002; Hargreaves, 1994) more knowledge is still needed about how collective action relates to the formation of female sport governance structures at the community level.

While a specific strategy or motive is useful for community change, the greatest opportunity for change results from a combination of strategies (Chekoway, 1995). In fact, there is tremendous support within the literature for an integrated approach to understanding collective action (Davis and Zald, 2005; Hobson, 2003; McAdam and Scott, 2005; Oberschall, 1993).The approach utilized for this analysis of the formation of a new female sport governance structure draws upon a similar integrated perspective to explore two general questions. First, what were the emotional responses that triggered the RGHA founders to form the association? Further, what strategy for formation did the RGHA founders implement? The need to answer each of these questions underpins this case study and justifies an integrated view involving both motives and strategies for collective action as an approach to understand the formation of a new female hockey governance structure.

Research findings: working together for change

The development of a separate governance structure for girls’ hockey involved a three stage progression from one community hockey association (initially created to manage boys’ minor hockey) to two distinct community hockey entities where one governed boys’ hockey and the other girls’ hockey.

Stage 1: pressure building (1974 to mid-1980s)

In the metropolitan area under investigation, girls’ hockey was introduced to the minor hockey program in 1974. Initially, with the support of their parents, a group of teenage women interested in playing hockey approached the Municipal Parks and Recreation Department and asked for access to the boys’ minor hockey association. They were granted access in the form of three teams: one in the beginner division, one in intermediate and one in senior. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, girls’ hockey was kept alive within the community by one or two key individuals who championed the sport for girls within the youth hockey structure. However, pressures between the girls’ and boys’ hockey groups built over time. Although the girls’ teams operated within the boys’ association, there was resistance from the boys’ hockey community, including the volunteer executives who managed the association, and parents of male players.

Mistreatment related to the unfair allocation of financial resources from girls’ registration fees, and the lack of ice time generated dissent and pressure for change. A sense of social (in)justice arose from the lack of representation, and therefore decision-making authority, afforded girls’ hockey leaders. The early founders were driven by a sense of unfairness and sought equitable hockey opportunities for their daughters. The following data reveal the importance of social justice among the early founders:

[T]here were a number of incidents, which caused parents and everybody in the girls to realize that the girls always seemed to get the short end of the stick with respect to ice time…[M]y opinion anyway with the girls, it seemed like they were treated like second class citizens. (P2)

I sort [of] thought that’s not exactly the spirit of democracy and what I want my daughters to see. I want them to have freedom of choice. (P5)

Overall, the participants reached a point where frustration and anger led to action. Inequities in ice allocations and disrespect for the female game generated a powerful desire for fairness and led to public advocacy.

Stage 2: partial governance (mid-1980s to mid-1990s)

By the early 1990s, the number of girls, and therefore number of teams within the house league non-contact leagues of the boys’ minor hockey program, had increased. Although some girls continued to play on boys’ teams at various levels, more players registered for the girls-only option. There were also deeply held beliefs that female hockey was distinct from male hockey. Two quotes from participants capture this sentiment:

I guess you have to know that girls’ hockey is different than boys’ hockey. Girls obviously are not going to play professional to any large degree so…So I think the values are different to some degree. (P2)

The fair play, fun, equal ice time sort of stuff. Again that’s the sort of thing I’m talking about…[S]ometimes they talk the talk in boys’ hockey but don’t walk the walk and certainly from an organizational standpoint here with the [RGHA] we’ve always advocated for that. (P3)

Fundamental values were summarized by Participant 7 who stated, “the girls approach the game differently, their ideas of the game are different, as they learn differently about the game.” This differentiation between the girls’ and boys’ games resulted in confrontations between members of the girls’ hockey community and members of the boys’ hockey community because values about the game, and therefore how to govern youth hockey, were incongruous. Unfortunately, the boys’ hockey leaders controlled the decisions within the association, which in turn meant they controlled the girls’ hockey experiences. The girls’ teams received less ice time than the boys’ teams, were assigned undesirable practice times, and were under-represented on the association’s executive board. At this stage, the girls’ program reflected a partial governance model; a girls’ house league with its own convenors and coaches that was managed by boys’ hockey leaders. Consequently, parents started to express frustration about the mistreatment of their daughters within the minor hockey umbrella.

Once the fundamental value difference was recognized and issues of justice, fairness and equity began to resonate among the girls’ hockey membership, an emotional bond built upon a shared struggle emerged. Action to establish a separate girls’ hockey structure did not arise until a threshold of commitment among parents was achieved. At this point, public advocacy extended beyond just the disadvantage of one’s own daughter to more broadly address the disadvantage of everyone’s daughter. Participant 6 suggested that her desire for collective action was driven by a need to help all girls who wanted to play hockey in the community because she “… felt that what we wanted to do was the right thing to do and it happened.” Participant 8 also identified with a shared struggle among parents, players, and coaches and the desire to take control to make change:

Well I think we felt that so many parents…were unhappy with the way things were going that we thought this was going to be a great…moment for us to finally take, you know take control and…to form things the way we wanted to do it and get some answers. (P8)

Ultimately, the affect of fundamental differences in values and a powerful sense of injustice generated the shift from individual concern to collective action. Advocacy extended beyond one’s personal interest, in this case the quality of a daughter’s hockey experience, to a broader collective interest for equitable opportunities for girls who wanted to play hockey in this community.

The early founders were determined to achieve a greater sense of equality in terms of access to ice time and resources for the female participants. They pressured municipal government leaders to provide better access to public ice facilities for the girls. Participant 1 commented:

I think it was out of frustration more in that while the girls were…playing on the boys’ teams they necessarily weren’t treated equal…And we went after them like crazy and it was about a three-year battle. And we now this year have equal ice.

The early founders developed a plan to seek ice time on a per player basis. Participant 4 referred to this as the “gender equality card” and stated:

It’s better now, but it took a lot of lobbying… We were able to prove to them that on a per player basis, the [Riverside Boys’ Hockey Association (RBHA)]⁴ was getting almost twice as much ice time per player as the girls were getting.

Working with public officials meant the early founders had to develop and implement a well-conceived plan. As Participant 4 indicated, “We were able to work through it, we were able to work with the town to get ice, we were able to establish ourselves as an association.” Currently, the RGHA has grown from forty-nine players in 1996 to almost one thousand registered players in 2010, and operates both house league and representative teams (teams that compete against teams from other cities).

Stage 3: organized and separate (mid-1990s to present)

The emotional tone of the early momentum that built a desire for public advocacy shifted towards the final momentum that built strategic collective action. The following quote from Participant 5 provides a vivid illustration of this shift:

We brought a business approach to it and said, ok, it’s great to have emotion, and all that stuff but let’s stick to the facts here… And let’s not get too much, “Oh well let’s decide, let’s decide, I need more”. Let’s determine what is we want, and why we want to make it better. And so we- I came up with this theme, it was “Together we can make it better”, and we sort of followed that as our rallying cry. (P5)

In March 1996, parents of female hockey players in the minor hockey program voted to form an independent girls’ hockey association. Necessary support and resources were obtained from both external sources such as advice from girls’ hockey leaders from the OWHA and other girls’ minor hockey associations, and internal sources, such as the expertise of parents. Members of the OWHA and other girls’ hockey association leaders helped the group develop and implement strategic action.

Many of the participants highlighted the role and support of other girls’ hockey associations and the OWHA, for example:

[The early founders] went to the [OWHA] executive to talk to them about the ability to break off. What should they be doing and would they have the [provincial association’s] support. And certainly the OWHA was 100% behind them, they understood all the issues, I guess having seen other organizations break away from the boys’ group. (P2)

The early founders were selective about the advice they accepted and how they integrated lessons learned by girls’ hockey leaders within other communities into their action plan. Participant 8 suggested, “we tried to take the best points from the boys system and apply to making a better girls association. So we’d look at other associations and say “what worked and what didn’t.” With the support of the OWHA, girls’ hockey leaders in other similar sized communities had successfully formed separate girls’ associations. Consequently, the early founders modeled their governance structure to establish the formal independent RGHA. Roles included a President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Secretary, Convenors, and later, a part-time employee to manage an association business office.

The skill sets of the involved parents provided an important pool of resources that enabled early leaders to form together and act for social change in their community. Early founders were tactical about the designation of duties. Participants 1 and 8 explained the assignment of roles according to expertise as follows:

We were somewhat vocal in bringing [the ice allocation policy] forward. We have a parent who works for [a multi-national consulting firm], as a consultant, and he has over the years been involved in many cities… building arenas, working with the towns on the financial consulting side. And so he is very very familiar with how these equal ice allocation arguments are fought in local municipalities, and so this individual was very very helpful in spearheading it and getting us through to see councilors to put the issue on the table…to in fact force the equal ice allocation policy into effect. (P1)

Well, the challenges that we were getting involved with here…specialized in certain areas. We needed um, we had mega constitution so we wanted to get a lawyer…a parent that was lawyer and we did have an accountant to be a treasurer and we needed someone experienced in ice scheduling and a fellow came forward – so we needed the people that had best interest at heart for the girls and also that were specializing in those certain areas. (P8)

The skill sets of the early founders strengthened the movement and enabled members to meet challenges that arose during the process. The strategic mobilization involved the creation of specialized roles, namely in areas such as law, finance, advocacy, and public facility policy, and the identification of members to serve the roles.

Discussion: understanding the process of the RGHA formation

Why did the community leaders, namely parents, want a separate female hockey governance structure and how did they achieve it? Two fundamental themes emerged from the data presented above. First, the public advocacy that initially drove the local sport leaders to form a separate girls’ hockey association was fuelled by emotion. Despite a traditional emphasis upon cognitive aspects of social movements research, a growing body of research recognizes the role of affect in mobilization (see Brown and Pickerill, 2009; Flam, 2005). Stanbridge and Kenney (2009: 473) suggest we must understand “how emotions play out in the process of collective action”, and Mueller (2003) explains that shared emotional interest leads to creative processes. Previous research also supports the heightened role of emotion within conflict where action is generated by feelings of injustice or a lack of social recognition (Hobson, 2003; Jasper, 1998). In the case of the RGHA, the influence of affect upon the desire to act was profound because it built a sense of belonging where individuals were drawn together through a shared desire to improve opportunities for not only her/his daughter, but the daughters of others in the community.

The findings of the RGHA case study indicated the early founders believed specific fundamental values distinguished female hockey from male hockey. As indicated from the data, the early founders believed the hockey they wanted their daughters to play was guided by a development ethos, as opposed to high performance ethos. This distinction, as well as others, is highlighted in the literature. For example, scholars identified differences between female and male hockey according to values and goals (Stevens, 2006), construction of community (Theberge, 1995) and identity (Adams, 2009; Stevens, 2000; Theberge, 1997).

These “points of articulation” (Gillan, 2008) generated like-mindedness and shared emotion among the early founders. As Commercio (2009) states, an injustice collective action frame must specify a specific target in order to generate the level of emotion required for mobilization. Sage (1999) also recognizes the importance of “framing work” by advocates to create an affective connection to a cause. In this case study, the boys’ minor hockey association became the target that galvanized the parents of girls who played hockey. The emotion of parents who wanted their daughters to have the opportunity to play hockey was based less upon existing individual identity and more upon an emerging collective identity. As such it could be said that the early founders of the separate RGHA involved a relationship based upon a common desire for social justice and equity.

Second, the collective activities of the group also relied upon logic. The data from this study indicates that the decision to separate was made in stage three of the progression. That is, while emotion drew people together, logic ensured their action was coordinated and planned. There comes a time when members must adopt a rational outlook in order to define and designate workload working to balance roles and responsibilities throughout the collective (Drury et al., 2005). Although a just cause may generate action, organizational support by a core of activists is needed. In this case study, collective activity coincided with an effort by the early founders to recruit additional members with particular expertise. In so doing, the early founders acquired resources and activated specific tactics. This finding is similar to two strategies outlined by Checkoway (1995) – public advocacy and social action. Public advocacy generates awareness about, and more importantly an affective response to, a social issue. Social action involves the creation and maintenance of mobilizing structures, or organization such as voluntary associations (McAdam and Scott, 2005; McCarthy, 1996). Snow et al. (2004: 6) referred to collective action as “people working together in some fashion…” and Oberschall (1993: 2) indicated that collective action involved “… the pursuit of a collective solution by pooling efforts and resources, and coordinating actions”. Strategies similar to advocacy and public action occurred in this case study where female hockey leaders lobbied city council for greater access to public facilities and gained a position to represent female hockey on the boys’ minor hockey association board of directors.

Once the movement to separate grew strong enough to secure the appropriate resources, namely ice time in community facilities and revenues from player registration fees, the RGHA finally formed. In these latter two stages of partial and full separation, both emotion and logic elements played a role in the governance structure formation. Initially, emotion generated momentum towards a common cause among the early founders. Later, the emotion sustained the movement by motivating early founders to face the challenges created by the boys’ minor hockey association, the municipal government, and parents of boys who played hockey in the community. Simultaneously, a logical, organized, and what some of the early founders referred to as a “business approach,” drove how early founders transitioned towards a separate hockey governance structure. Indeed, the notion of motive interplay within social action has been highlighted by various scholars for some time (see Gurr, 1968; Heberle, 1951; Langton, 1987). In this case study, the complementarity of emotional and logical elements demonstrated the dynamic nature of this type of change within female community sport. The emotion theme captured the subjective feelings of justice and equity that shaped the meaning many of the early founders of the girls’ minor hockey association shared while the logic theme reflected the strategies that early founders, and subsequent leaders, implemented during the formation process.

Hensmans (2003) argues it is crucial for a strategic social actor to participate in the legitimation of new institutional forms, such as organizations, that arise from collective action. The data from this study indicate the early founders were aware of the barriers and challenges placed upon them and their actions by established community sport governance actors, such as the municipal government and the boys’ minor hockey association. By acquiring new members through player registrations, accessing additional ice through gender equity arguments with public officials, and generating extra revenues through fundraising tournaments, the RGHA operated in a manner that conformed to taken-for-granted beliefs of how a community sport organization is managed. As a result of gained legitimacy, resistance from the existing boys’ hockey association weakened over time while support from municipal and corporate actors within the community strengthened over time.

Finally, although the data emulated two of Chekoway’s (1995) community change strategies highlighted earlier in the paper, the emotion-based public advocacy and the logic-based public action strategies, the most valuable finding demonstrated the value and interplay of both elements, as opposed to one, in the successful formation of the RGHA. This was evident when RGHA early founders were angry and frustrated about the injustices experienced by their daughters, and when they developed and implemented various tactics that enabled them to ultimately establish the RGHA.

Future research and conclusion

Future research related to female hockey governance at the community sport levels, and more broadly within provincial and national sport levels, could examine both the emergence and the perseverance of separate female hockey governance structures within the Canadian hockey system. This case study examined strategies related to the formation of a separate structure; however, as Mueller (2003) stated, there is also a need to examine the creation and maintenance of a newly established identity over time and space. The patriarchal high-performance emphasis of the Canadian hockey system presents a challenging environment for a girls’ minor hockey association (Adams and Stevens, 2007). Given this environment, it is important to further examine the success in the Ontario context where a majority of separate girls’ minor hockey associations in Canada exist. How are girls’ hockey leaders in Ontario able to overcome the significant antagonism – and can their success provide insight for leaders in other female community sports?

Understanding the types of collective action that emerge in a social context requires an understanding of how broader institutionalized political systems shape the form actions take (McAdam et al., 1996). What are the collective building blocks of small movements within a community that focus upon the creation of a separate girls’ hockey association? How are the mobilizing structures for female sport shaped by the broader political and cultural structure of the male-dominated hockey system, and the overall Canadian amateur sport system? As stated earlier in the paper and reinforced by Adams and Stevens (2007), the trend within Canadian amateur sport during the past three decades has been to amalgamate women’s and men’s amateur sport organizations at national, provincial and even local levels. However, the RGHA case study, and the dozens of other girls’ and women’s hockey associations in Ontario, suggests this trend is countered within intensely male-dominated community hockey – why?

McClurg Mueller’s (1992) call for an integrated social movement perspective provides some insight into the type of future research that could help answer these questions. A meaning construction approach would initially explore the ideology or consciousness reflected in the collective actions and public advocacy directed toward the creation of a separate governance structure for women and girls in hockey. Further, it could examine what enables and constrains the formation of such a collective identity as one part of meaning construction. Some insight on this issue may be drawn from Schwartz and Paul (1992), who discussed dynamics of social change according to a continuum between consensus movement and conflict movement ideal types. If this continuum is applied to the girls’ community hockey context, research could explore the experiences of girls’ hockey leaders according to what Schwartz and Paul (1992) refer to as migration between conflict and consensus.

Finally, as mentioned at the beginning of this paper, Adams and Stevens’ (2007) focus upon an action perspective of change and female hockey governance was a strong underpinning of this study. In this way, praxis is an important implication and can be explored from both scholarly and activist points of view. It is hoped that within academia, future research on women’s hockey will not only take up the call for additional inquiry into female hockey, but will frame this work within a critical, action-based perspective where the emphasis is upon governance as well as participation. Further, it is important to note that eight of the nine individuals within the early founders group were men. The finding that men were primary players within this feminist struggle is insightful and worthy of further research. Within the field, a key implication of this study is to provide encouragement, through evidence, that collective action can enable the formation of female hockey governance structures. This case study demonstrates practices employed by one group of individuals whose efforts achieved a successful outcome. The value of this work to potential female hockey activists is twofold – first, they may better understand the importance of governance and control when it comes to opportunities for girls and women in hockey in Canada, and second, the interplay of motives and strategies demonstrates there are various ways to form separate governance structures.

In conclusion, this case study of the RGHA demonstrated both affect and strategy played key roles in the transition of a girls’ hockey governance structure from an integrated to a separate model. Wilson (2007: 465) claimed, a “revolutionary moment” exists within sport sociology because current history affords unprecedented levels of activism. He further argued the need for more extensive research on the “various forms of activism that are taking place”. This case study responds to Wilson’s call by examining collective action and its connection to organizational dynamics. In addition, the research extends these concepts into a novel empirical setting – female community sport governance – to generate a better understanding of the formation of a separate community girls’ hockey association.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Adams

(2009) Organizing hockey for women: The ladies Ontario hockey association and the fight for legitimacy, 1922–1940. In: Wong

(ed.) Coast to Coast: Hockey in Canada to the Second World War. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press, pp.132–159.

Adams

Stevens

(2007) Change and grassroots movements: Re-conceptualizing women’s hockey governance in Canada. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing 2(4): 344–361.

Avery

Stevens

(1997) Too Many Men on the Ice: Women’s Hockey in North America. Victoria, BC, Canada: Polestar Publishers.

Bevington

Dixon

(2005) Movement-relevant theory: Rethinking social movement scholarship and activism. Social Movement Studies 4(3): 185–208.

Brown

Pickerill

(2009) Space for emotion in the spaces of activism. Emotion, Space and Society 2: 24–35.

Cahn

(1994) Coming on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth-Century Women’s Sport. Toronto, ON, Canada: The Free Press.

Checkoway

(1995) Six strategies of community change. Community Development Journal 30(1): 2–20.

Commercio

(2009) Emotion and blame in collective action: Russian voice in Kyrgyzstan and Latvia. Political Science Quarterly 124(3): 489–512.

Davis

Zald

(2005) Social change, social theory, and the convergence of movements and organizations. In: Davis

MacAdam

Richard

. (eds) Social Movements and Organization Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.335–350.

10.

Drury

Cocking

Beale

. (2005) The phenomenology of empowerment in collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology 44: 309–328.

11.

Etue

Williams

(1996) On the edge: women making hockey history. Toronto: Second Story Press.

12.

Flam

(2005) Emotions map: A research agenda. In: Flam

King

(eds) Emotions and Social Movements. New York: Routledge, pp.19–40.

13.

Fozooni

(2008) Iranian women and football. Cultural Studies 22(1): 114–133.

14.

Gillan

(2008) Understanding meaning in movements: A hermeneutic approach to frames and ideologies. Social Movement Studies 7(3): 247–263.

15.

Goodwin

Jasper

(1999) Trouble in paradigms. Sociological Forum 14(1): 107–125.

16.

Guba

Lincoln

(2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging influences. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp.191–215.

17.

Gurr

(1968) Psychological factors in civil strife. World Politics 20: 245–278.

18.

Hall

(1996) Feminism and Sporting Bodies: Essays on Theory and Practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

19.

Hall

(2002) The girl and the Game. Peterborough, ON, Canada: Broadview Press.

20.

Hargreaves

(1994) Sporting Females: Critical Issues in the History and Sociology of Women’s Sport. New York: Routledge.

21.

Harvey

Houle

(1994) Sport, world economy, global culture, and the new social movements. Sociology of Sport Journal 11(4): 337–355.

22.

Heberle

(1951) Social Movements: An Introduction to Political Sociology. New York: Appleton Century Crafts.

23.

Hensmans

(2003) Social movement organizations: A metaphor for strategic actors in institutional fields. Organization Studies 24(3): 355–381.

24.

Hobson

(2003) Introduction. In: Hobson

(ed.) Recognition Struggles and Social Movements: Contested Identities, Agency and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1–20.

25.

Jasper

(1998) The emotions of protest: Affective and reactive emotions in and around social movements. Sociology Forum 13(3): 397–424.

26.

Langton

(1987) Niche theory and social movements: A population ecology approach. Sociological Quarterly 28(1): 51–70.

27.

McAdam

Scott

(2005) Organizations and movements. In: Davis

(ed.) Social Movements and Organization Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.4–40.

28.

McAdam

McCarthy

Zald

(1996) Introduction: Opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes – toward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In: McAdam

McCarthy

Zald

(eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1–20.

29.

McCarthy

(1996) Constraints and opportunities in adopting, adapting and inventing. In: McAdam

McCarthy

Zald

(eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.141–151.

30.

McClurg Mueller

(1992) Building social movement theory. In: Morris

McClurg Mueller

(eds) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp.3–25.

31.

Misener

Doherty

(2009) A case study of organizational capacity in nonprofit community sport. Journal of Sport Management 23(4): 457–482.

32.

Mueller

(2003) “Recognition struggles” and process theories of social movements. In: Hobson

(ed.) Recognition Struggles and Social Movements: Contested Identities, Agency and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.274–291.

33.

Newman

White

(2006) Women, Politics, and Public Policy: The Political Struggles of Canadian Women. Toronto, ON, Canada: Oxford University Press.

34.

Oberschall

(1993) Social Movements: Ideologies, Interests and Identities. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

35.

Ontario Women’s Hockey Association (OWHA) (2000) 1999–2000 Executive Reports. Mississauga, ON, Canada: Ontario Women’s Hockey Association.

36.

Ontario Women’s Hockey Association (OWHA) (2010) 2009–2010 Executive Reports. Mississauga, ON, Canada: Ontario Women’s Hockey Association.

37.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

38.

Pelak

(2002) Women’s collective identity formation in sports: A case study of women’s ice hockey. Gender & Society 16(1): 93–114.

39.

Pelak

(2005) Athletes as agents of change: An examination of shifting race relations within women’s netball in post-apartheid South Africa. Sociology of Sport Journal 22(1): 59–77.

40.

Ponic

(2000) A herstory, a legacy: The Canadian amateur sport branch’s women’s program. Avante 6(2): 51–63.

41.

Rose

(2007) Sport and civic engagement: Community governance and sport policy process. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing 2(4): 412–425.

42.

Sage

(1999) Justice do it! The Nike transnational advocacy network: Organization, collective action, and outcomes. Sociology of Sport Journal 16: 206–235.

43.

Schwartz

Paul

(1992) Resource mobilization versus the mobilization of people: Why consensus movement cannot be instruments of social change. In: Morris

McClurg Mueller

(eds) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp.205–223.

44.

Snow

Soule

Kriesi

(2004) Mapping the terrain. In: Snow

Soule

Kriesi

(eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.3–16.

45.

Stake

(1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

46.

Stake

(2003) Case studies. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp.134–164.

47.

Stanbridge

Kenney

(2009) Emotions and the campaign for victims’ rights in Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 51(4): 473–509.

48.

Stevens

(2000) The declining sense of community in Canadian women’s hockey. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal 9(2): 123–140.

49.

Stevens

(2006) Women’s hockey in Canada: Going for gold. In: Whitson

Gruneau

(eds) Artificial Ice: Hockey, Commerce and Canadian Culture. Aurora, ON, Canada: Garamond Press, pp.85–100.

50.

Stolle-McAllister

(2007) Local social movements and Mesoamerican cultural resistance and adaptation. Social Movement Studies 6(2): 161–175.

51.

Strachan

Tomlinson

(1994) Gender Equity in Coaching. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Coaching Association of Canada.

52.

Theberge

(1995) Gender, sport, and the construction of community: A case study from women’s hockey. Sociology of Sport Journal 12(4): 389–402.

53.

Theberge

(1997) It’s part of the game: Physicality and the production of gender in women’s hockey. Gender & Society 11: 69–87.

54.

Wilson

(2007) New media, social movements, and global sport studies: A revolutionary moment and the sociology of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal 24: 457–477.

55.

Wilson

White

(2002) Revive the pride: Social process, political economy, and a fan-based grassroots movement. Sociology of Sport Journal 19: 119–148.