Abstract
To properly manage college student-athlete dissent, stakeholders (e.g., coaches, teammates, administration, athletic trainers, etc.) must first recognize the situations that cause athletes to dissent. Although athletic dissent is not a new concept, to date, it has only been examined at the high school level. To fill this gap, this study begins to explore this issue at the college level by examining the triggering agents that cause college student-athletes to communicate dissent. Participants (N = 72) from 11 different sports were asked to complete multiple narratives in response to open ended questions after reflecting on a time where they communicated dissent. Results of a thematic analysis indicate that there are eight triggering agents of dissent, demonstrating distinct differences between high school and college student-athlete dissent due to various contextual factors. These findings highlight the needs and desires of college student-athletes which can help coaches, administration, and other stakeholders to promote positive college student-athlete experiences.
The management of athletes is particularly important for the various college sport stakeholders (e.g., coaches, teammates, administration, athletic trainers, etc.) who work to maintain athlete motivation and overall performance. To understand what it takes to create a positive experience for an athlete, sport scholars have primarily focused their research on the coach-athlete relationship, examining facets such as coaching effectiveness (Côté & Gilbert, 2009), confirming messages from coaches (Cranmer & Brann, 2015; Cranmer et al., 2017), and athlete motivation (Mazer et al., 2013). Researchers have primarily focused on how these processes relate to athlete satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Côté & Gilbert, 2009; Cranmer et al., 2017; Cranmer & Sollitto, 2015; Davis et al., 2019). However, the amount of research on athlete satisfaction far surpasses that which has focused on athlete dissatisfaction and its importance in athletics. Only more recently have researchers explored athletes’ dissatisfaction and its relationship to dissent; specifically, scholars have examined the triggering agents and negative ramifications of dissent (Cranmer et al., 2018), as well as upward and lateral dissent of high school athletes (Cranmer & Buckner, 2017). To mitigate dissent, scholars should first attempt to explore the myriad of situations and triggering events that cause athletes to communicate dissent. While scholars have explored this phenomenon at the high school level, they have not yet explored how this process occurs among college student-athletes.
Indeed, researchers have acknowledged that dissent at the college level likely occurs differently than at the high school level (Cranmer et al., 2018). These differences may be due to the high levels of physical labor college athletes invest in their experience, as well as the emotional labor that occurs within their exchanges with other stakeholders (e.g., coaches, athletic trainers, teammates) (Romo, 2017). Similar to all college students, college student-athletes experience a wide range of challenges moving from the high school to college level (Cranmer et al., 2018; Gayles & Baker, 2015). Due to the importance of contextual factors when examining communicative phenomenons (Johnson et al., 2017), the purpose of this article is to identify the trigger agents that lead college-student athletes to communicate dissent. To do so, we will review dissent literature from across a variety of fields and contexts. Following that we will provide an explication of our methodology and then present the results.
Review of Literature
Redding (1985) first defined dissent as the communication of disagreement with authority. As a communicative process, dissent has been explored in distinct ways by various scholars with respect to their areas of interest related to communication scholarship. Organizational dissent research often focuses on who the employee communicates dissent to (Garner, 2009; Kassing, 1997). Scholars from other contexts, such as instructional communication, have centered their investigations on the types of messages used by students to dissent (Goodboy, 2011). Finally, scholars of athlete dissent have more recently explored both the causes and direction of dissent (e.g., Cranmer & Buckner, 2017; Kassing & Anderson, 2014); thus representing a blend of previous dissent communication research. Given that Cranmer and colleagues have utilized concepts of both organizational and instructional dissent, it is germane to the current study to briefly review those two literature bases.
Organizational Dissent
Organizational dissent has been defined as one or more subordinates within an organization who verbally expresses their disagreements, concerns, or contradictory opinions (Kassing, 1997, 1998; Kassing & DiCioccio, 2004). Employees may communicate dissent in three different ways: upward dissent, lateral dissent, and displaced dissent. If an employee communicates their frustrations directly to the leaders within the organization (supervisors and management), they are engaging in upward dissent (Kassing, 2009, 2011). Unfortunately, employees may not feel comfortable going to upper management, which may lead them to dissent to their coworkers, a process Kassing (1997, 1998) labeled lateral dissent. Finally, when individuals move outside of the organization to communicate with friends and family, employees engage in displaced dissent (Kassing, 2009; Payne, 2007). Previous research has found employees who go outside of the organization to friends and family to communicate displaced dissent are often less experienced and have not learned the organizational norms yet (Kassing & Dicioccio, 2004). While organizational dissent focuses on the direction or recipient of dissent, instructional communication focuses more on the reason for dissent (Goodboy, 2011).
Instructional Dissent
Goodboy (2011) defined instructional dissent as the communication of contradictory opinions by students to others such as instructors, students, friends, and family. These acts are categorized into three forms of dissent: expressive dissent, rhetorical dissent, and vengeful dissent (Goodboy, 2011). Communication to others to feel better about certain situations is an act of expressive dissent (Goodboy, 2011). Rhetorical dissent is viewed as an act of persuasion and is commonly communicated in a respectful manner by approaching the instructor or individual in power and discussing a way to correct the wrongdoings directly (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2013; LaBelle et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2015). Finally, when students attempt to directly damage an instructor’s reputation (e.g., LaBelle & Martin, 2014; Martin et al., 2015), an instructor’s credibility (e.g., Bolkan & Goodboy, 2013), or to otherwise cause the instructor harm (e.g., Buckner & Frisby, 2015) they are engaging in vengeful dissent. Scholars have established that students dissent for a variety of reasons such as unfair testing, grading, misbehaviors, lack of feedback, or classroom policies (Goodboy, 2011; LaBelle et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2015).
Athlete Dissent
Citing the organizational nature of teams and athletics, as well as the instructional nature of being coached, Cranmer and colleagues, as well as others, have utilized these literature bases to explore how athletes dissent about their experiences (Cranmer & Buckner, 2017; Cranmer et al., 2018; Kassing & Anderson, 2014). Like unhappy individuals within an organization and students within the classroom, athletes experience disagreements, dissatisfaction, and contradictory opinions (Kassing & Anderson, 2014). For example, high school athletes will engage in dissent with both their coaches and teammates as an expression of both upward and lateral dissent (Kassing & Anderson, 2014). They will use upward dissent when they have a strong relationship with their coach(es), whereas if that relationship is underdeveloped, they will turn to their teammates instead (Cranmer & Buckner, 2017). Ultimately, these scholars have arrived at a distinct conceptualization of athlete dissent that occurs based on policies, procedures, and practice (Cranmer et al., 2018).
Specifically, Cranmer et al. (2018) found four distinct types of triggering agents for dissent among high school athletes: performance, power and influence, logistics, and climate and culture. Performance included dissent that stemmed from anyone who hindered the success of the team such as seniors playing over underclassmen due to their seniority, training methods, or circumstances that put athletes at risk for injury. Power and influence encompassed inequitable politics or team dynamics (e.g., favoritism, abuse or neglect of power, and influence). Logistics included the requirements athletes must make to be a member of the team (e.g., financial, social, and academic costs, and appearance). Finally, high school athletes dissented because of the environment created when coaches or teammates would communicate inappropriately (i.e., yelling), or if athletes felt the inability to voice their opinions, a type of dissent triggered by climate and culture.
Cranmer et al. (2018) also sought to understand high school-student athletes’ goals for dissenting. Using Garner’s (2009) Dissent Message Scale, Cranmer et al. (2018) assessed the types of messages high school athletes communicated, identifying that participants often dissented to present a solution or a direct-factual appeal to the situation. Participants in Cranmer et al.’s (2018) study reflected on all 11 dimensions of the Dissent Message Scale (i.e., solution presentation, pressure, coalitions, direct-factual appeals, venting, circumvention, exchange, inspiration, humor, repetition, ingratiation). This indicates that athletes at the high school level dissent in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons. However, as Cranmer et al. (2018) noted, because of contextual factors associated with collegiate athletics, dissent among college athletes may occur differently.
Simply put, with 7% of high school students going on to play college athletics and less than 2% of high school athletes going on to a Division I program (i.e., highest collegiate level), there are likely differences that arise that inevitably prevent all athletes who play sports at the high school level to continue playing in college (Scholarship Stats, 2020). Perhaps the simplest example of these differences is the openness of participation; high school athletics programs range from recreational to elite levels, commonly on one team. This means that for some high schools, anyone who wants to participate can. Whereas in college, often a competitive and elite level, more rigorous selection methods are utilized to form teams (Gleddie et al., 2019). Further, while competing in college, athletes create stronger relationships with their teammates as they train year-round instead of seasonally, receive more specialized training and coaching, and often have full time staff (e.g., academic advisors, athletic trainers) supporting them (Granquist et al., 2014). Moreover, college athletes must abide by codes that are governed by both their university, the governing organization (i.e., National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA), and by their specific team rules, all while managing relationships with a wide variety of individuals (e.g., coaches, teammates, instructors) and striving to accomplish their own goals at a level that high school students do not (Romo, 2017). Due to the inherent differences between the two levels, it is important to examine each separately. Thus, we propose the following research question: What triggering agents cause college student-athletes to communicate dissent?
Method
Sample
Participants included 72 current and former student-athletes from 11 different sports. The average age of the participants was 26.4 (SD = 6.10; range = 18–51) with two non-reports. The sample was comprised of 45 females (62.5%), 26 males (36.1%), and 1 non-report (1.4%). The college athletic status included 15 current student-athletes (20.8%) and 57 former student-athletes (79.2%) who were no longer college students. 1 Participants who were retired from college athletics identified how long ago they were a college athlete. On average this was M = 4.28 years ago (SD = 5.17). Fifteen participants reported that they are or were 1st-year students (20.8%), 17 sophomores (23.6%), 22 juniors (30.6%), 13 seniors (18.1%), 5 nonreports (6.9%), and seven added on that they were a redshirt (an athlete who spends a year not participating in official athletic events, continues to train with the team, and does not lose a year of eligibility) at the time (9.7%) the dissent occurred. The majority of the sample identified as white/Caucasian (n = 29; 54.2%); 12 Hispanic/Latino (16.7%); nine Black/African American (12.5%); nine Mixed (12.5%); one Asian (1.4%); one Pacific Islander (1.4%); and one other (1.4%). Moreover, 56 participants reported that they were on scholarship (77.8%). Participants were not compensated for their participation. Further demographics can be found in Table 1.
Demographics.
Procedure
After receiving IRB approval, participants were recruited online using network sampling (from the first author’s personal network; e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) where a script outlined the general purpose of the study, participant rights, and inclusion criteria (i.e., participants must be or have been college student-athletes and of 18 years or older). Participants were then directed to a Qualtrics.com link which provided them with a detailed cover letter outlining their rights as a research participant, asked for consent to participate, and provided the survey. Previous scholars have conducted meaningful analysis of dissent by soliciting written narrative accounts, making it reasonable that these methods would be appropriate (Cranmer et al., 2018; Goodboy, 2011; Kassing, 2009). Adapted from Goodboy’s (2011) and Cranmer et al.’s (2018) prompts, participants were asked to complete an open-ended questionnaire wherein they provided written narratives to analyze and understand their dissent episodes. Participants were given the following directions: Student-athletes sometimes express their disagreements, difference of opinion, or concerns when something happens to them. That is, when student-athletes do not agree with something that happened they tend to communicate (i.e., dissent) to other people instead of keeping their negative feelings inside. Please give a detailed example of a time when you expressed your disagreement, differing opinion, or concern for something that happened to you as a student-athlete that resulted in you complaining to someone else about the incident. Please reflect on your career as a student-athlete and use the space provided below to answer the following open-ended questions.
Analysis
Thematic analysis was used to allow themes to emerge from the data, rather than outside schema, to generate an understanding of athlete dissent at the college level (Tracy, 2013). This ontological and epistemological perspective is in line with Charmaz (2008). Using an emic approach, the current study allowed meaning to emerge from the stories and lived experiences of the participants. Specifically, the narratives were broken down to be closely examined and compared for similarities and differences (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) and coded for repeated words or phrases, meaning beyond word choice, and forcefulness (i.e., writing style choices, italics, bold, punctuation, and capitalization; Owen, 1984). Once all narratives were coded, emergent categories were assigned and constantly compared to be as concise as possible when reporting themes (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). Themes consist of recurrent and prominent ideas within the data that are important to the description of this phenomenon and the research question.
After approximately 50 responses, theoretical saturation was determined as no new data emerged from participants’ responses (Tracy, 2013). However, to ensure that saturation was reached, we continued to collect data, a method used by scholars seeking to generate a robust dataset (e.g., Johnson & LaBelle, 2017). In total, 99 unique pieces of data were offered across the dataset. Following data collection and open coding, an initial codebook was developed (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The codebook explicated emergent themes from the data set and provided exemplary responses of each theme.
Two blind coders were trained on the codebook and used to establish intercoder reliability. After receiving training, each coder was given 30% (n = 30) of the responses. In line with Krippendorff’s (2004) assumptions that individuals should observe similar meaning within the data set of .80 or higher to achieve reliability, intercoder reliability was deemed appropriate. The codebook yielded a reliable Krippendorff α value (α = .83 [95% CI: .75, .91]) and was used to code the remainder of the dataset (Hayes & Krippendorf, 2007); no notable pattern of disagreement emerged in the coincidence matrix.
Results
The goal of this study was to identify the triggering agents of college student-athlete dissent. Thematic analysis identified eight categories of dissent triggering events. The most common triggering agent for college student-athletes was inequity. Inequity (n = 19) is the perception of an uneven distribution of goods, attention, rewards, praise, or punishment. Participants described inequity at both the team and institutional levels expressing that coaches were “not giving respect to everyone on the field” (69), or that there was an unequal distribution of punishments as “other teammates that were late all through the week didn’t face their punishment” (71). Inequity can also be identified as the uneven distribution of resources, rewards, or goods at an institutional level such as, “…other sports teams also had success but seemed to be rewarded with rings and other items…our team didn’t get any of these rewards” (1), or how “….most D1 [Division I] colleges prioritize football and male athletes leading many females to feel forgotten about” (12). Collectively, inequity emerged as the most common theme of college student-athlete dissent.
The second theme regarded their health (n = 16). Triggers stemmed from inadequate healthcare, lack of prevention, and unheard opinions. For example, a football player reported, “We were made to workout in the weight room with all the lights off and strobe lights flashing. Multiple people ended up with turned ankles” (5). Triggers also included disagreement with decisions on return to play, “I often complained about team doctors/athletic trainers not clearing me to play when I felt capable of competing” (12), equipment, “My doctor wanted me to use a brace that was not helping…telling me that I would ruin his success rate” (18), the recovery process “…I really disagreed with the recovery process…my trainer was wrong” (66), and a lack of resources, “the lack of support for student-athletes mental health” (12). Alongside health issues, triggers regarding expectations put on student-athletes also emerged.
Expectations (n = 16) triggered dissent when the student-athlete did not agree with or did not know what was going to be asked of them. Overall, participants reported on three forms of expectations: procedural, athletic, and functional expectations. Procedural expectations included the rules and regulations set in place for athletes regarding what they could and could not do. For example, a baseball player stated he communicated dissent because he had “to go to study hall when [he] was a good student” (24) and a soccer player expressed that she was not allowed to wear other university memorabilia, “I was in a sweatshirt from Stanford [pseudonym], who wasn’t even in our conference, and I had to take it off before having a meeting with the coach, he was pretty angry that I was even wearing it” (10). Athletic expectations included instances when student-athletes felt that they were being asked to perform above their ability regarding “unreasonable fitness standards” (36) or in a new position, I consistently argued with my coach on him wanting to play me as a defender. I never played the position before and he wanted me to be a DI defender…in my first game as a defender I was running back to try and stop a cross from going in, but instead I accidentally headed the ball in our own goal. I was immediately pulled out of the game and was benched the entire season. (6)
This fourth category, role failure (n = 14), refers to situations in which a coach or teammate fails to fulfill the responsibilities of their role. Role failure is distinctly different from expectations as it asserts that the participant perceives the individual is aware of their role and chooses to perform inadequately. Participants reported on one of two categories: coach and teammate. Coach failure references a coach’s action or failure to act, “it was very disappointing that the coaching did not reprimand her” (32), as well as the apparent lack of communication from coaches, My coaches did not express to me that they were intending to redshirt me that year. So I was practicing and working my hardest, performing well in practice and still not getting playing time…I disagreed with the method of not telling me that I was going to redshirt. (22)
Misbehavior (n = 14) includes behaviors where a punishment can be enforced by a coach, the institution, or by a college sport affiliation such as the NCAA. Misbehaviors are different from punishments as they are actions that result in punishment. These triggering agents had to go against an agreed upon standard (e.g., team policy, school conduct code, etc.) to elicit dissent. Misbehaviors also consisted of two categories: coach and teammate. Coaching misbehaviors included instances such as, “The coaching staff for my soccer team was very unprofessional…were verbally abusive to many players” (7), said “demeaning and inappropriate things” (59), or when one athlete explained that the coach “threw the keys at my shin” (8). This category also included dishonesty such as when coaches lie. For example, this occurred when a coach stretched the practice timeframe, With the new time legislation (TMP) that was implemented, coaches had to be very specific about how and when they log our activity hours. This was supposed to give us a better idea of when we would be working and when we’d [sic] be free, but our coach simply logged a huge time block in order to be compliant and then he’d tell us last second what time we’d be actually working. This led to more frustration and confusion than before the legislation was in place. This was frustrating because he was using loopholes in the system instead of using the time plan for its intended purpose. (50)
Infighting (n = 9) is a conflict within the team either between coaches or teammates that hindered the team. For example, “The head coach and assistant coach would frequently argue and talk badly about each other…this was detrimental to the team dynamic and turned players against each other as well” (7). Another participant stated she expressed dissent after a game when conversations and “emotions off the field carried onto the field” (54). It is important to note that the situations were described to only be communicative acts between the two individuals with no further action or interaction regarding the issue. This theme is distinctly different from misbehaviors because it reflects the verbal conflict within the team and does not include what the conflict was about or what it led to.
The seventh category of punishment (n = 6) reflects statements that address a penalty or retribution for a mistake or offense. It is noteworthy that the activity itself did not actually have to be a form of punishment, but if the student-athletes perceived it to be punishment then it was coded here. Punishment is distinctly different from inequity because although punishment may be unequally distributed, participants focused on the punishment itself and not the inequity. This may include the “coach calling a 5 am punishment practice” (21), “being punished by doing fitness without explaining the purpose of it other than, punishment” (42), or simply an act that “felt like punishment” (44).
The eighth trigger for dissent occurred when student-athletes' academic identity was hindered. This trigger, education (n = 5), represents situations where participants reported that the student component of being a student-athlete was ignored. Some participants explained that they were told that they had to miss a class they needed for their major, For me, the biggest obstacle was class labs and practice times. They always seemed to overlap. I went to my coach and discussed my schedule…[they] told me I “needed to commit to my team” and “be the leader we have asked you to be, by being at every practice, the whole practice.” (33) I’ve had a lot of disagreements with my coach, one of the disagreements was I don’t agree with the way she sees student athletes. She doesn’t care about the student aspect, she only cares about the athletic part. She wouldn’t let me go to a mandatory class at 8:30, when our actual match is at 1:30, due to her lack of understanding, I was not able to major in what I actually want. (68)
Discussion
Building on the previous athletic dissent scholarship, the purpose of this study was to identify the triggering agents that cause college student-athletes to communicate dissent. Using qualitative research methods, we observed eight different triggering agents. Although college student-athletes are led to dissent for an array of reasons, perhaps the most alarming observations were stories that discussed inequalities, health, roles, and education. Overall, the triggering agents observed in this study both support previous athletic dissent research and further the literature by extending it to college student-athletes while highlighting major similarities and differences between the two levels (Cranmer & Buckner, 2017; Cranmer et al., 2018; Kassing & Anderson, 2014).
Consistent with previous literature, college student-athletes are also compelled to dissent due to inequities (e.g., favoritism towards an individual or group over another) in the same way former high school student-athletes are. However, this result highlights a specific contextual difference. High school athletes dissented when the central goal of winning was impeded (Cranmer et al., 2018) whereas college student-athletes focused on individual playing time regardless of team success. This result indicates that college student-athletes are unfamiliar with inequities as they enter college, as many were—one of, if not the best—player on their previous teams with a background of playing time and accolades. Therefore, when they are not receiving the same attention (i.e., playing time or awards) they are used to, they are triggered to dissent. Simply put, dealing with inequities is often unfamiliar territory for college student-athletes. This is also the case regarding their health and ability to play.
Issues of health differentiate the high school and college level by revealing the increased number of personnel that college student-athletes interact with. These situations include personnel who deal with injury prevention, maintenance, and clearance to return to play after an injury as stakeholders make return to play decisions for the athletes. At the high school level, players and their parents have a larger say in injury prevention and recovery, whereas in college, doctors and coaches often make these decisions. This finding adds to previous literature that highlights the uncertainty and inevitability of being injured at the college level (Romo, Davis, & Fea, 2014) by illuminating the fact that athletes do not have a voice in their recovery process. Seen more as commodities and investments instead of student-athletes (Van Rheenen & Atwood, 2014), the inability to make their own decisions regarding their health is a concerning triggering agent of dissent. Moreover, since hierarchal structures exist within college sports (Potrac et al., 2007), college athletes desire that coaches enact their role and create change when necessary.
This theme was more salient than in Cranmer et al. (2018), as college student-athletes held their coaches accountable for their decisions pertaining to daily tasks, the distribution of punishments, and their communication regarding decisions made. This prevalence may be attributed to the more distinct role coaches take in the lives of college student-athletes. Similarly, teammates were also held accountable because of the dependence they have on one another (Cranmer et al., 2018). A potential explanation for this is that athletes are conditioned to look after one another, as high school coaches are known to tell their athletes “to be accountable and responsible to their team and teammates,” (Kassing & Pappas, 2007, p. 542). This finding gives insight into the fact that although college student-athletes are focused on their individual success and performance, they also care about the well-being of their teammates. Dissent regarding teammate accountability should be encouraged as long as it is constructive and beneficial to the culture and climate of the program.
Lastly, and perhaps most troubling, is the notion that some student-athletes are not able to pursue their desired major due to their sports schedule. This is particularly shocking given the considerable focus and efforts of organizations such as the NCAA to refer to athletes as student-athletes. Although education was the least common theme, some would argue that it is one of the most important aspects of being a college student-athlete (Rishe, 2003, Romo et al., 2015). This theme may not have been as prominent for two reasons. First, student-athletes may not perceive educational factors to be an issue as a student-athlete. Second, the student part of being a student-athlete is not salient enough in their identity to trigger student-athletes to recall educational situations. Since student-athletes’ lives are comprised of a multitude of experiences, one identity for student-athletes should be that of a student and the educational factors it encompasses (Romo et al., 2015). Participants who dissented due to educational factors illustrated that their coaches emphasized the athlete identity over the student identity. This finding parallels and supports an issue highlighted by Romo et al. (2015) who discussed both coaches and academic advisors pushing easy and specific majors on student-athletes, often not letting them choose for themselves, thus hindering their academic pursuits. The issue invokes a larger problem within college athletics, that of the conflict of identity between the student and the athlete, and the question of which should hold more value.
Practical Implications
Practically, the results of this research support previous notions of athletic dissent and add to the literature by identifying the triggering agents of college student-athlete dissent. It is our hope that these findings also give voice to college student-athletes, as their experience is often underrepresented in Sport Communication literature. Although dissent is inevitable, identifying triggering agents represents a first step in supporting college student-athletes through these moments. Specifically, this study gives scholars a foundation to begin developing training sessions for stakeholders to teach them the importance of implementing conversations that effectively explain decisions which involve their athletes, a facet that is currently missing in college athletics.
Coaches who implement these aforementioned conversations with student-athletes may yield more satisfying and successful experiences for their athletes and teams. This study may also help coaches mitigate the negative consequences of dissent by addressing these issues before the dissenting act occurs. Specifically, when coaches encourage these types of conversations, athletes feel more comfortable going to individuals who can make actual change (e.g., upward dissent; Cranmer & Buckner, 2017).
Moreover, this study provides valuable insight to athletic trainers. It suggests that their decisions regarding the health of the athletes are not being communicated in an effective way. Thus, our study reveals how athletic trainers can improve the care they provide (e.g., recovery plans; Nixon, 1994). For example, athletic trainers can use the findings from this study to not only make sure they provide adequate care, but that the athlete is apprised of that care and supportive of the decisions regarding their care. Such conversations could have far reaching effects for the athletes and their recovery.
Training could also be created to teach student-athletes how to have difficult conversations with their coaches regarding issues like playing time. Such training may also assist with conversations relating to coursework and other triggering agents, by helping students to advocate not only for the athletic part of their identity, but also for the student component. This improvement would support the student aspect of being a student-athlete and may increase college student-athlete satisfaction and motivation, possibly leading to higher levels of retention and lower attrition (Rishe, 2003).
Limitations and Future Directions
This project, like all research, is not without limitations. First, the demographics may be considered as potentially problematic, as the majority of participants are from interdependent teams (team sports; Cranmer & Myers, 2015). Future research can build upon this by distinguishing the differences between interdependent and independent (single person sports; Cranmer & Myers, 2015). Moreover, most of the participants were soccer players which may have impacted the findings, a byproduct of network sampling. Another limitation of this study is that of recall bias. However, it is common in dissent research to have participants recall a time where they expressed dissent (Cranmer & Buckner, 2017; Cranmer et al., 2018; Kassing & Anderson, 2014) due to the salience of these events in their athletic careers. The ability to recall such an event illustrates the weight of these events on the athlete’s career. Last, written narratives are a limitation of this study as they do not allow for probing to uncover nuances. Future research should explore athletic dissent in dyads between the dissenter and the individual who triggered the dissent immediately after the event occurs, using interviewing techniques. Doing so will also illuminate how dissent may be meaningfully shaped by the individual who triggers dissent. Moving forward, to complete this line of research, studies should examine who college student-athletes dissent to and what they hope to achieve by dissenting. This would allow for further understanding regarding how the context of dissent and relational aspects may impact dissenting messages.
Conclusion
The findings indicate that college student-athletes’ dissent is similar to, yet distinctly different from that found in previous literature examining dissent at the high school level. Although there is some overlap, it is important to address the fact that college student-athletes are under more pressure, have more responsibilities, and compete at a higher level. This study is an initial step in providing a framework so coaches, stakeholders, and teammates can better understand college athletes. With greater understanding of college student-athletes comes the ability to develop a healthier environment for all involved.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
