Search

This article analyses the explanations organizational members used to make sense of the meanings and practices of gender equity. Studying gender equity as an organizational value provided a way of understanding how gender inequity is perpetuated and embedded in the culture of an organization. This study was informed by post-structuralist feminist theory as it provided a lens for understanding and critiquing the local meanings and production of gendered knowledge, and encouraged discussion of transforming meanings and practices. This study was situated in a Canadian university athletic department in which gender equity was an espoused organizational value, but gender inequities were evident. Data were collected from in-depth interviews with administrators, coaches and athletes, observations of practices and competitions, and the analysis of relevant documents. These data were coded and categorized using Atlas.ti. Respondents' explanations for the gap between what was espoused and what was enacted centred on two dominant, but contradictory, themes: a denial of gender inequities and a rationalization of gender inequities. These themes suggested respondents often understood inequities as expected, natural, or normal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gender equity has become an organisational value in Canadian university athletic departments in recent years. Yet, there is evidence of gender inequities in those departments. This suggests that this value is espoused but not enacted in practice. The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between gender equity and other organisational values (performance excellence and revenue generation) in one Canadian university athletic department in order to highlight underlying assumptions that serve to perpetuate inequities. Case studies of four sport programmes (basketball, ice hockey, rugby and swimming) were conducted and involved the collection of relevant documents, observations of practices and competitions and interviews with key stakeholders. The analysis of the data revealed that performance excellence and revenue generation often took precedence over gender equity in the department. As a result, the prioritisation of these values perpetuated gender inequities for athletes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]