Submission and Acceptance
Although, standard abstract submission guidelines and deadlines apply (see submission guidelines), individual Workshop convenors may require authors to submit a Short Paper. Automatically, such submissions will be considered for the EASM Best Conference Paper Award 2018 (see awards).
We plan to run all Workshops in parallel at an exclusive time during the conference. Hence, the number of contributions per Workshop might be limited. In case of an overflow, the Scientific Committee will move some submissions into most suitable general conference tracks and sessions (after discussion with Workshop convenors and respective authors).
Please note that we encourage Workshop formats to differ from the ‘standard’ sessions. Hence, convenors will contact presenters before the conference to inform them about the structure and flow of their Workshop in order to ensure a high-level Workshop experience for all participants.
For further details about the topics and envisioned content of individual workshops, please direct your questions to respective Workshop lead convenors.
- Workshop 1 – The progress of ice hockey in light of economic and political influences
- Workshop 2 –Developing disability sport: pathways from participation to excellence
- Workshop 3 – Unpacking the challenges of (public) management of ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities
- Workshop 4 – Organisational innovation in sport for development and peace
- Workshop 5 – Labour markets for sports managers in Europe: cases of international career paths
- Workshop 6 – New age of sport management education in Europe
- Workshop 7 – CSR paradoxes in sport management
- Workshop 8 – Sport entrepreneurship: analysing sport industry and consumer convergence processes
- Workshop 9 – ESMQ 2020 Special Issue Workshop: Exploring new routes within brand research in sport management
- Workshop 10 – Bern 2017 & Malmö 2018 Special Theme Workshop: Social integration in and through organised sport
- Workshop 11 – Play the Game Special Workshop: Good governance and tools for change in sport
Workshop 1 – The progress of ice hockey in light of economic and political influences
Rationale and Aim
Ice hockey has played an imperative role in the progress of sport in general and has formed citizens’ common conception of sport in many countries. In addition, ice hockey has worked as a vehicle for socialization, integration and democracy. Still, the practice as well as the development of ice hockey has, on top, challenged different sport models by being one of the supreme supporters of commercialization processes in sport. Thus, ice hockey stands as a vital ‘drive’ for the commercialization, ‘eventification’ and Americanization of sport.
Also, the technical hockey of the former CCCP and of current Russia has, during different historical periods, had a noteworthy influence. European hockey, for instance, is placed culturally, as well as politically, between the two opposites of vital political forces and the markets.
In addition to the development of internal leagues, ice hockey in Europe has worked as talent producers for NHL and as a market for senior migration to KHL. Thus, the drain of talented players in the leagues is a problem in the (commercial and professional) development of the leagues. Consequently, the ‘star quality’ has been curbed and has therefore to be balanced in a commercial vision. As a result, the leagues are ‘compensated’ – or more correctly, superseded – by second-hand foreign players. In this respect, the leagues become ‘show rooms’ for hopes and returns to NHL.
In recent days, the expansion ideology of KHL has become a psychological and real threat to the leagues, as a radical supplement to the senior migration of players. Several club’s transfer to KHL is, consequently, both an interesting and a challenging example.
According to this rationale and context, we call for contributions that deals with:
- The European sport models in transition, in relation to ice hockey
- European influences on NHL
- NHL and Americanization of society
- CCCP hockey and its current romanticism, beyond commercialization
- The ‘iron curtain’ and global politics, and its relation to hockey
- KHL and geographical and political expansions
- Migration and cultural diversity and paradoxes
- The migration and the market of ‘sport stars’
- Hockey as an imperative culture and the ‘eventification’ of sport
The Workshop welcomes all contribution that deal with the progress of ice hockey, which faces the changes, as well as the opportunities and challenges due to economic and political influences.
Selected Short Papers will be presented, with additional comments and questions to the author(s). This is followed by an open discussion and advices for the future development of the paper.
Short Paper required (see awards).
Journal Special Issue
The Workshop is part of the development of the Sport in Society special issue “The progress of European ice hockey in the shadow of NHL and KHL” (published end of 2019): see call for paper here
Workshop 2 –Developing disability sport: pathways from participation to excellence
Rationale and Aim
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities defines persons with disabilities as “those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others” (2006, p. 4). It is well documented that people with disabilities can gain significant social, psychological and health benefits from participating in sport.
However, sport participation rates for people with disabilities are low when compared to the general population. Approximately 60 percent of people aged 15 and over with disabilities in the European Union reported that their disability restricted their participation in leisure, including sporting activities (Eurostat, 2012). This high percentage highlights the need for sport management research to further develop disability sport.
Disability sport, also known as parasport, encompasses sport practiced by people with disabilities at different levels of sport development. Shapiro and Pitts (2014) concluded that “the literature of sport management is falling short in providing literature representative of people with disabilities” (p. 669), which has been echoed by Misener and Darcy (2014) who “challenge researchers to think beyond disability as a context in their research” (p. 6). To further develop disability sport from participation to excellence, it is important to fill the current knowledge gap and investigate how sport policies can be shaped to the specific parasport context (Dehghansai, Lemez, Wattie, & Baker, 2017; Hutzler, Barda, Mintz, & Hayosh, 2016).
In addition to the lack of research and understanding of a parasport system, the movement altogether faces supplementary challenges including: massive variation of integration within mainstream sports, a general lack of disability-specific knowledge (e.g. inclusion strategies in schools, recruiting and developing disability athletes), limited coaching expertise and coach education pathways, higher equipment cost, and relatively low levels of awareness and recognition in society (Doll-Tepper & Radtke, 2014; Misener & Darcy, 2014; Thomas & Guett, 2014).
The purpose of this workshop is to bring together researchers to further develop the field of disability sport, by examining factors that can influence the development of para-athlete pathways from participation to excellence, taking into account the broad range of impairment-specific factors that influence sport development among para-athletes. Theoretical, empirical, and methodological submissions are welcomed.
Overall, the Workshop on developing disability sport aims to:
• Review the current state of knowledge in relation to the field of disability sport
• Identify a future research agenda for para-athlete pathways in sport and the development of elite parasport policies
• Facilitate a unique networking opportunity between scholars and students with an interest in the field of disability sport
The Workshop will be organized by including presentations followed by rounds of discussions. Presenters will be asked to stay within the Workshop for the entire duration of the Workshop as the Workshop will end with a concluding discussion (including convenors, presenters and members of the audience) on the state of the art of disability sport research and the development of a future research agenda.
Inge Derom (lead), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, email@example.com
Jacqueline Patatas, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, firstname.lastname@example.org
Laura Misener, Western University, email@example.com
David Legg, Mount Royal University, firstname.lastname@example.org
Veerle De Bosscher, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, email@example.com
Workshop 3 – Unpacking the challenges of (public) management of ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities
Rationale and Aim
In many countries, ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities are one of the main public means of engaging in sport and physical activity. ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities are typically smaller than the larger venues in which large spectator sports play their matches. They are catered for by local governments as local government typically are involved in establishing, operating and conducting (public) management of ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities.
In this Workshop, we will focus on:
- the particular situation around the challenges of establishing, operating and conducting (public) management of ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities;
- assessing the challenges in relation to these areas with a particular interest into how they might influence the outcome of ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities;
- on the function of ‘Sport for all’-facilities with the aim of unpacking different aspects of the challenges of establishing, operating and conducting (public) management of sports facilities.
Compared to other welfare areas (for example schools), the challenges of establishing, operating and conducting (public) management of ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities have so far not attracted much scholarly attention. This is surprising when taking into considerations the amount of money from local governments spent on ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities and these are ascribed in securing increased participation in sport. In many countries, ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities receive significant subsidies from the public sector and a high number of these facilities has been thought of as a necessity in securing high levels of sport participation in the population. Therefore, focus from scholars and stakeholders has been on the number of sports facilities rather than how they function. It is highly relevant for both researchers, practitioners and stakeholders to take a more in depth look at the function, policies and processes of ‘Sport-for-all’- facilities.
The workshop has a particular interest in the outcome of differences in policies, processes and (public) managerial principles. Which actors play an important role and how do these influence the outcome of policies and processes? What are the consequences of different types of policies and processes and different types of (public) management? What might explain differences in outcome measurements (such as utilization and user satisfaction)? Does it matter for participation how much local governments spend on establishing and operating ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities? Do differences in (public) management result in differences in the performance of ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities? What are the consequences of different levels of coverage of ‘Sport-for-all’- facilities for participation in general and specifically for the sports clubs’ possibilities of attracting members?
We encourage all contributors who are interested in the consequences of differences in policies, processes and (public) management of ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities to come to the workshop to share, learn and discuss the different topics related to this theme.
We would like the Workshop to be a presentation of Short Papers with the aim of creating a joint overview of the different research taking place in establishing, organizing and conducting (public) management of sports facilities. This should lead to a symposium/discussion on possible directions for future research and to access common grounds for joint research projects.
The number of papers with a relevance for the topics mentioned above being presented at international sport management conferences has so far been low. However, there is an increasing interest in the field and the aim of the workshop is to create a unique future forum at EASM conferences where scholars with an interest in the processes around establishing, operating and conducting (public) management of ‘Sport-for-all’-facilities can meet, share ideas and create the links necessary to collaborate in the field. Based on the papers presented, we intend to contact relevant journals and ask them about the possibilities of making a special issue.
Short Paper required (see awards).
Bjarne Ibsen (lead), University of Southern Denmark, firstname.lastname@example.org
Evald Bundgaard Iversen, University of Southern Denmark, email@example.com
Jens Høyer-Kruse, University of Southern Denmark, firstname.lastname@example.org
Peter Forsberg, Danish Institute for Sports Studies, email@example.com
Workshop 4 – Organisational innovation in sport for development and peace
Rationale and Aim
The aim of this workshop is to continue the recent scholarly attention to organisational innovation in Sport for Development and Peace (SDP). Specifically, we encourage qualitative and quantitative empirical studies identifying how and when SDP organisations may develop innovative solutions for fulfilling their social change-focused missions.
For the purpose of this workshop, innovation is defined as the implementation of new ways of addressing a problem to promote social change (Shier & Handy, 2016). Thus, emphasis is placed on examining innovation within the unique context of SDP, with grassroots efforts aimed at contributing to the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals through sport. The field of SDP has evolved considerably over the years and programmes are now found in more than 120 countries (Svensson & Woods, 2017). The contexts where the initiatives are implemented present a range of environmental challenges for SDP practitioners. At the same time, capacity levels remain relatively low among SDP organisations. The recent closing of the UN Office on Sport for Development and Peace coupled with the increased involvement of stakeholders from across different sectors in SDP efforts place additional pressure on SDP practitioners to come up with innovative solutions.
Scholarly attention to managerial aspects of SDP has increased noticeably during recent years (Schulenkorf, 2017). There has been some limited scholarly work examining the concept of social entrepreneurship (Cohen & Welty Peachey, 2015; Hayhurst, 2014), the use of social media for organisational communication (Hambrick & Svensson, 2015), the role of alternative sports (Thorpe & Rhinehart, 2013), and the use of non-traditional programme models (Cohen & Balloui, 2016). Even so, few prior studies have directly examined the nature of organisational innovation in SDP. The specific benefits and challenges of innovation and the conditions for when organisational innovation may be developed in SDP remains to be determined. Therefore, we encourage contributors to examine innovation and SDP from different perspectives.
Potential topics include (but are not limited to):
- Design thinking for social innovation in SDP programme models
- The impact of new organisational forms on programme participants
- Open-source solutions as means for improved collective impact
- Challenges and opportunities for implementing pilot programmes of innovative ideas
- The types of organisational innovations found in SDP practice
- The process of developing and implementing non-traditional sports and SDP models
- Critical examination of potential risks for SDP programme participants
- The role of coopetition in SDP as a means for increased innovation
- The impact of third-party ‘facilitators’ or network entities on innovation in SDP
The Workshop will combine presentations of Short Papers and a small symposium to stimulate dialogue about organisational innovation in SDP. Based on the positive feedback from last year’s Workshop, presenters will be asked to share their work in 20 x 20 Pecha Kucha presentations. Additional details will be provided to presenters to help them prepare for this non-traditional presentation format. The convenors will open the Workshop with an overview of the current state of the field and will subsequently facilitate interactive discussions among participants. The convenors will conclude the Workshop by identifying key takeaways and areas requiring future follow up actions.
Short Paper required (see awards).
Journal Special Issue
The Workshop is part of the development of the Managing Sport and Leisure special issue “Organizational innovation in sport for development and peace” (submission deadline 15th September 2018): see call for paper here
Workshop 5 – Labour markets for sports managers in Europe: cases of international career paths
Rationale and Aim
Sport organisations are managed by people who have to deal with increasing challenges and formal requirements. They are interested in sports to make communities and society more solidary, to make sport-for-all more enjoyable, competitive, successful and effective. First there have been the athletes who desired to do sports and organised it by themselves. However, their interest is only the competition, not the organisation. They are having different representative tasks anyway on different levels (club, university, national, Olympic). There are organisations behind them at all those different levels with the aim to improve the situation of the talented athletes. Without questions, the coaches are very important for the success of the athletes, nevertheless managers are also a significant contributor for the success of the organisation – and the athletes.
This triangle athletes-coaches-managers is a coalition on a direct and indirect level. Indirect because the managing staff does not have direct contact to the athletes at all point within their career development. The relationship between the athletes and coaches is much stronger. Managers work for their improvements in the offices without meeting each of the athletes or coaches on a day-to-day basis. But all three groups work for the individual and organisational success and – indirectly – for the success of each other. The more successful an athlete is, the more famous he or she will become and could work together with the best coaches. The managers then will be able to promote them better and are able to make more money. These financial resources are spent for further improvement and services for the athletes (including talented young ones), payment of the coaches and managers.
These relationships are not new, but there are only few (inter)national studies and knowledge about the managers behind on an individual level. Within the sport development it was reasonable that first the athletes were researched from a sports science perspective. Additionally, there is a much literature on coaches and their success strategies with athletes. Now, scholars should focus on the third group – the sport managers as well.
Athletes and coaches are members in non-profit sports organisations, so the managers have to join there. There are also many companies that offer sports on competitive levels. Both organisational groups want to achieve success with their athletes, but the for-profit sports companies are looking for profits first. Hence, the type of the sport organisation is important and sport managers have to choose where they want to work for. The developments of this professionalization differ among Europe as well as among sports disciplines.
Therefore, the idea of discussing the state of sports managers’ research in Europe is going behind the athletes and coaches on the individual sport manager level and look where they are born, what their education is look like and how their different (inter)national work stations influence their career paths. The internationalisation of sports is well known, especially for athletes and coaches. But how are sport managers moving across positions and countries within their career?
After the presentations of Short Papers and impact cases, the authors want to focus on sports managers labour markets policy and academic progress by discussing European-wide studies and different national environments within the workshop. This can be done by a panel from the contributors and in discussion with other participants in the Workshop from a mix of countries.
Gerhard Trosien (lead), accadis University of Applied Sciences, firstname.lastname@example.org
Karolina Nessel, Jagiellonian University, email@example.com
Sanela Skoric, University of Zagreb, firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanos Kriemadis, University of Peloponnese, email@example.com
Mikel Urdangarin, Estadio Fundacion Vital, firstname.lastname@example.org
Workshop 6 – New age of sport management education in Europe
Rationale and Aim
The aim of the workshop is to create an awareness amongst the carriers of the European sport management educations and to establish a new agenda in the future. We are especially interested in the connection between the sport management labour market demand and the sport management curriculum contents. We aim to create a shared background and advance concrete steps for developing sport management study programs in Europe with individual focus on national characteristics. Submissions based on latest practices and experiences from all over the world is much welcomed, too.
This Workshop is inspired by a project addressing the issue of improving relevance of sport management education in nine countries across Europe to improve the match between obtained skills through sports education and demand in the labour market: Denmark, Finland, Czech Republic, Norway, Germany, France, Spain, Greece and Lithuania. The aim of this project is to achieve better match between sport education institutions and enterprises employing graduates of sport Management studies.
Main objectives are:
- To develop and adapt a labour market driven new sports management curriculum that is designed to improve the match between sport education institutions and demand in labour market.
- To include the sport business professionals in the development process of the new sport curriculum.
- The adaption of innovative practices such as combination of “Sport Business Intelligence” and “Performance-Importance Matrix (PIME)” or effective curriculum development and best practices between European universities.
During the project, we have used a method of quality improvements helping to foresee the future by combining data of existing competences and the competences required in the future, will be used for curriculum development for the first time ever. The investigation is the follow up on the AEHESIS-project (Aligning a European Higher Education Structure in Sport Science) in 2003-2007.
We invite scholars and professionals who are working with sport management curriculum development processes and/or who are interested in sport management curriculum development to present their papers related to this topic and participate in this workshop.
The Workshop will embrace different formats: presentation project insights and first results; presentation/moderated discussion with a representative the EU labour market committee and a sport business representative; presentation/discussion of latest research, practices and experiences based on conference submissions.
Workshop 7 – CSR paradoxes in sport management
Rationale and Aim
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has received significant scholarly and practical attention in the past decade (Paramio-Salcines, Babiak & Walters 2013). Clearly, the application of CSR practices and principles within the sport industry has been observed in various organisational types such as clubs, leagues and federations at local, regional, national and international levels (Kent, 2016; Trendafilova et al., 2017). Research in the sport management disciplines have begun to uncover the multidimensional nature of CSR among sport organisations (Breitbarth et al., 2015). We now have a relatively advanced understanding of major aspects of the phenomenon, such as motives (Babiak & Wolfe, 2009), content (Walker & Parent, 2010), implementation (Anagnostopoulos & Shilbury, 2013; Kolyperas et al., 2015) and outcomes (Inoue et al., 2011).
While research into CSR and sport has grown over the past decade, we encourage contributions to further examine the paradoxes around CSR practice and theory. Despite the complex conceptualisation and operationalisation of CSR, scarce studies in the sport-related literature have critically addressed the complexities inherent within the concept (Levermore, 2013; Guillianoti, 2015). We understand a paradox to be something that despite acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that is logically unacceptable. At this stage, the convenors suggest three paradoxes and expect additional paradoxes to emerge from the participants’ abstracts and from the workshop discussions themselves.
The Responsibility Paradox: The responsibility paradox draws on game theory to represent the overall responsibility of an organisation as a zero-sum game. Simplistically, socially positive actions act as responsibility ‘gains’, whilst socially detrimental activities act as ‘losses’. A responsible organisation has a net-positive benefit on society, whilst recognising that some actions may not always be in societies best interests. Building on Campbell’s (2007) work, this view articulates that organisations should do no harm to their stakeholders and rectify any harm at the first opportunity. A paradoxical relationship arises in our current understanding of CSR on the basis that social responsibility as presently articulated (e.g., community engagement, pro-environmental behaviour, philanthropy), is not the inverse of social irresponsibility (e.g., corruption, drug use, poor governance). Submissions within this paradox may look to expand their submissions from traditional CSR discourses to include aspects of governance, fiduciary responsibility, human rights, labour practices etc., that are implicit to the organisation acting in a socially responsible manner (Matten and Moon, 2008; Global Reporting Initiative, 2016).
The Decoupling Paradox: Recent research has examined how organisations implement CSR into organisational structures and procedures (e.g., Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013; Heinze et al., 2014; Kolyperas et al., 2015; Maon et al., 2010). A central issue in the CSR engagement debate is decoupling behaviour between talking CSR and walking CSR (Wickert et al., 2016). CSR talk encompasses the external communication channels deployed by organisations. By contrast, CSR walk encompasses the implementation of strategies, structures and procedures within and across the organisation. Presently, sport-related research has insufficiently addressed this gap or mismatch between CSR talk and CSR walk. Yet, studies have shown that the two components of CSR engagement have a tendency to be incongruent and influenced by firm size (Wickert et al., 2016). Such inconsistency of CSR engagement may lead to what Baumann-Pauly and colleagues (2013) call the large firm implementation gap in which large firms tend to focus on communicating CSR symbolically but do less to implement it into their core structures and procedures. By contrast small firms may be less active in communicating CSR activities and place more emphasis on implementing them. Submissions under this paradox may look at this inconsistency (also labelled greenwashing or social washing) in the sport setting.
The Measurement Paradox: The final paradox we see as central to a research field reaching adolescence is the issue of measurement. A number of paradoxical relationships exist, some of which are extensions to the relationships outlined above (e.g. how do you measure the opportunity cost of avoiding harm, what are the implications of measuring intangible perceptions vs tangible outcomes of (ir)responsible organisational action). The central measurement paradox which we wish to focus on is the difference in measurement between organisational and stakeholder outcomes. Logically, benefits should accrue to the organisation, its stakeholders and in some instances, be balanced or shared between these groups (Porter and Kramer, 2011). A paradox arises in the weight and frequency of measures used to identify organisational outcomes (e.g., awareness, attitudes, purchase intent, consumption behaviour) comparted to stakeholder/community benefits (e.g., education, employment, social capital, well-being, participation etc.). If the stated goals are ‘altruistic’, then organisational benefits would seem to be a secondary factor and the primary rationale of any programme would be long-term social benefit. This does not seem to be the case at present.
Hence, notable sub-themes of the Workshop are:
- Social responsibilities and social irresponsibilities
- CSR evaluation and measurement
- CSR implementation gaps
- Sport and social innovations
- Non-profit sport organisations and for-profit sport organisations
- Countries/continents comparative perspectives (e.g. North American and European)
The aim of this Workshop is to expand and build on the momentum generated via the publication of the ESMQ special issue ‘Social Responsibility and the European Sport Context’ (to be published 19.1) by investigating the current challenges and opportunities in CSR sport research. As part of the continuing maturation of the field, this workshop welcomes papers that demonstrate strong practical and/or theoretical relevance in expanding the social responsibility in sport discourse. Theoretically, diverse epistemological stances, various strands of organizational and management theory and innovative methodological approaches are welcomed. At the practical end of the continuum, demonstrable real-world problems, contradictions, trade-offs and paradoxes, with proposed solutions are also welcomed.
Presentations and knowledge sharing will occur in two ways:
- A series of ‘lightening talks’ on the first morning by all accepted presentations. Each researcher will have 5 minutes and maximum of 5 slides to present a ‘burning question’, ‘big idea’ or ‘paradox’. This does not need to be the same as your accepted presentation. The idea is to set the platform for discussion and collaboration throughout the workshop on the first morning.
- Academic presentations. Presenters are asked to include three questions for the audience in order to stimulate discussion at the end of their presentation.
- The conveners consider to invite guest speakers from sport industry or governmental agencies in order to provide opportunities to blend research and practice.
Géraldine Zeimers, Université catholique de Louvain / Ghent University, email@example.com
Jonathan Robertson, Deakin University, firstname.lastname@example.org
Tim Breitbarth, Bournemouth University, email@example.com
Workshop 8 – Sport entrepreneurship: analysing sport industry and consumer convergence processes
Rationale and Aim
Strategic sport management has been highlighting the concept of comparative advantage. More specifically, the concept of entrepreneurship has been embraced as an opportunity-oriented concept. For sport entrepreneurs, opportunities are valuable chances for incubating start-ups, and sport industrial convergence products or services can become main items for developing start-ups. In particular, this Workshop is interested in convergence processes that lead to or generate sport products or services. In addition, it is necessary to analyse customer behaviours buying those products or services because there is a possibility to be different customers’ characteristics or utilizing environments comparing conventional or traditional customers who have been captured in management studies thus far.
During the Workshop, participants such as sport entrepreneurs and researchers can share ideas throughout a discussion on current challenges and customer responses toward their convergence products or services. Practically, this activity provides integrating discussions between theory and practice. Practitioner can present their practical experiences about sport industrial convergence steps and customer responses, and researchers can propose alchemical basements for solving problems as crucial solutions. Specifically, Startup Studio co-founders will be invited for sharing diverse types of start-up incubating experience. From the discussion, participants are possible to get ideas to solve problems in the practitioner side and new research ideas in the researcher side.
A mix of two concepts: the presentation of research/impact cases followed by round table discussion.
Short Paper recommended (see awards), Abstract-only possible (see submission guidelines).
Kisung Dennis Kwon (lead), Seoul National University, firstname.lastname@example.org
Jeehyun Kang, Seoul National University, email@example.com
Daichi Oshimi, Waseda University, firstname.lastname@example.org
Workshop 9 – ESMQ 2020 Special Issue Workshop: Exploring new routes within brand research in sport management
Rationale and Aim
In 2001, Gladden and colleagues predicted that 2000 to 2010 would be the decade in which team managers started to focus on strategic brand management (Gladden, Irwin, & Sutton, 2001). A few years later, brand development and management are even considered key aspects for the evolution of the sports market (Bouchet, Hillairet, & Bodet, 2013). However, there is still more to come: Increasing commercialization, digitalization, professionalization and strategic management in sport lead to novel conditions and new routes within brand research in sport management (e.g., Bauer, Sauer, & Schmitt, 2005; Couvelaere & Richelieu, 2005; Gladden & Funk, 2002; Grant, Heere, & Dickson, 2011; Kunkel, Doyle, & Funk, 2014; Watkins & Lewis, 2014).
Recent sport management research analyses the effects of brand strategies on customers’ attitudes and behaviours, e.g. the effects of team brand associations and personalities on team identification and loyalty (Giroux, Pons, & Maltese, 2017; Kunkel, Funk, & Lock, 2017; Stadler Blank, Königstorfer, & Baumgartner, 2017). Further research investigates fit between team and sponsor brands (Angell, Gorton, Bottomley, & White, 2016; Woisetschläger, Backhaus, & Cornwell, 2017) or the influence of social responsibility activities on sponsor brands (Flöter, Benkenstein, & Uhrich, 2016). Another research area focuses on sport brand communities’ relevance for team loyalty (Katz, Ward, & Heere, 2017; Popp, Wilson, Horbel, & Woratschek, 2016; Popp & Woratschek, 2016). Moreover, sport management research examines strategic perspectives of personal or athlete brands (Sato, Ko, Park, & Tao, 2015; Walsh & Williams, 2017). Research about sport brand communities and athlete brands are often linked with social media research (Geurin & Burch, 2016), which also considers effects of social media interaction on sport brand associations (Parganas, Anagnostopoulos, & Chadwick, 2017) or customer engagement strategies through user-generated content and branding (Geurin & Burch, 2017).
Sport brand management is a global and up-to-date research topic. However, little research focuses on future aspects of brand research in sport management. Meanwhile, sport managers face unprecedented challenges between brand heritage and brand innovation. For example, fans do not agree any more with their clubs’ or associations’ focus on brand development. A group of Manchester United fans stopped following their club because they refused to accept the acquisition of an external investor. They formed their own club FC United of Manchester starting from the 10th English football league and currently, after several promotions, playing in its own stadium at a semi-professional level (Conn, 2015). This example of a fan-generated new brand in combination with recent trends (e.g., globalization, commercialization and digitalization) shows that it is time for exploring new routes within brand research in sport management.
Therefore, the aim of the Workshop is to offer an exchange platform for innovative research topics. Submissions that discuss “new routes within brand research in sport management: facing challenges between heritage and innovation” and focus on any of the following topics are particularly welcome, but are not necessarily limited to:
- Psychological brand ownership
- Sport brand co-creation
- Brand experience
- Strategic brand management
- Brand alliances / sponsorships
- Athlete brand management
The Workshop shall provide a forum to develop new research questions and establish a continuing research debate. Moreover, it shall generate innovative research papers for submission to the ESMQ Special Issue 2020 ““New routes within brand research in sport management: facing challenges between heritage and innovation” and a subsequent Workshop during the 2019 European Sport Management Conference.
Workshop participants are asked to submit a Short Paper in order to receive early comments on their submission. In addition, we want to encourage participants to interact and discuss in a true workshop environment.
To reach this, we will embrace two approaches: First, each author explains his/her research interest in the Workshop topic and delivers a scientific presentation based on the short paper (approx. 15 minutes per participant); second, the Workshop conveners moderate a panel discussion in which all Workshop participants are asked to comment on the presented research fields in order to identify relevant future topics, especially relating to the ESMQ Special Issue 2020.
The conveners close the Workshop with a wrap-up of the discussed topics and encourage participants to continue with their research for a potential special issue submission.
Short Paper required (see awards).
Workshop 10 – Bern 2017 & Malmö 2018 Special Theme Workshop: Social integration in and through organised sport
Rationale and Aim
Organised sport plays an important role in public debates about promoting social integration. Particularly sports clubs are expected to provide valuable contributions for integrating specific target groups (e.g. migrants, refugees, people with disabilities) in an organisational context as well as in broader society – to increase public welfare. In most European countries, there are initiatives of sport policy and cooperation between sport organisations that aim at enhancing social integration in and through sport of different population groups.
A growing body of international evidence has focused on the inclusion potential and social benefits which may rise from participation in organised sport (e.g. see current findings form the ERSAMUS+ Project “SIVSCE – Social Inclusion and Volunteering in Sports Clubs in Europe” with ten participating European countries). However, universal expectations concerning the social integration achieved by sport clubs should not be overestimated, pointing to social closure practices such as discrimination, prejudices and conflicts. Therefore, social integration is not effected automatically and is rather strongly reliant on preconditions of specific initiatives.
In this context, the question arises if specific sport activities or the integration in regular sport groups is more useful for a successful integration? Besides this general debate the Workshop aims to stimulate the discussion about the following questions:
- Which programmes, initiatives and measures for social integration of specific target groups are developed and implemented in sport organisations?
- What are promoting as well as hindering factors for a successful implementation and creation of inclusive sports services?
- How do processes of organisational development/change according intercultural opening or concepts of diversity management in sport organisations look like?
- In how far can the initiatives and measures make a contribution to social integration? In this context, social integration is conceptualised in a multidimensional way (e.g. structural, socio-cultural, socio-affective integration).
- What about the consequences of having specific programmes for the integration of target groups for other members and the organisational culture (e.g. of a sport club)?
- The Workshop will give a platform to present current theoretical and methodological approaches as well as innovative practical concepts (good practice) of social integration in and through sport organisations. The main focus will be on sports clubs, however contributions on social integration in other organisational settings are also welcome. There will be a special interest in empirical studies that analyse factors of social integration in organised sport and evaluate specific programmes or initiatives.
In the first part of the Workshop current concepts and research on social integration in organised sport will be presented (short presentations). We intend that all contributors can/have to submit a short (working) paper.
In the second part, there will be discussions (organised in smaller groups) on the following topics:
- Future research perspectives in the field
- Development of theoretical and methodological concepts
- Practical implications from current research for creating of inclusive sport services
- Development of innovative programmes and initiatives, supportive measures or advisory concepts to promote social integration in and through sport
- Comparison of concepts for different target groups (e.g. migrants, people with disabilities) in different organisational settings
Siegfried Nagel (lead), University of Bern, email@example.com
Torsten Schlesinger, Chemnitz University of Technology, firstname.lastname@example.org
Johan R Norberg, Malmö University, email@example.com
Workshop 11 – Play the Game Special Workshop: Good governance and tools for change in sport
Rationale and Aim
Good governance has climbed to the top of the international sports agenda in recent years. Corruption and mismanagement scandals in international sports organisations have urged public actors and the sports movement to increase their efforts for better sports governance. While few sports federations would deny the importance of good governance, the reality is challenging; good governance can be seen as difficult to define, measure, and implement – and some sports leaders may be unable or unwilling to make real change.
Good governance should be regarded not as an end in itself but, rather, as a means to an end. It enhances an organisation’s legitimacy, effectiveness, and resistance to unethical practices. It enables sport federations to build trust with the outside world: Governments, stakeholders, and potential commercial partners. This, in turn, may enhance the often-disputed autonomy of sports organisations.
With support from Erasmus+, Play the Game is currently running the “National Sports Governance Observer” project together with researchers and practitioners in ten countries. The European Association for Sport Management is an associated partner of the project which gathers and compares data on sports governance at the national level. It builds on experiences from using the “Sports Governance Observer” tool on the 35 international Olympic federations.
The Workshop aims at discussing the value and relevance of the key dimensions of good governance: transparency, democratic processes, internal accountability and control, and societal responsibility. We invite to an exchange of experiences between researchers and practitioners that work with sports governance on a daily basis. Case stories on best and worst practices will be on the agenda. And together we will try to establish the current situation on the ground in sports governance, and to identify steps that need to be taken to ensure further development.
Most likely, current developments in international sports politics in 2018 will also influence the content, for instance events derived from the Winter Olympics or the FIFA World Cup.
The Workshop will offer a mix of presentations from researchers attached to the ‘National Sports Governance Observer’ project in Europe and beyond, invited keynotes from sports organisations, media or the sports industry, as well as contributions from conference participants based on short paper submission.
It is envisioned that one half is reserved for presenting the preliminary main results and experiences from the ‘National Sports Governance Observer’ with 5-7 minutes interventions from the respective countries, and an overall project presentation by the scientific coordinator. The other half will feature a mix of keynotes/presentations and panels/round tables.
Short Paper required (see awards).