Diversity and inclusion management in sport organizations: an integrative literature review

ABSTRACT

Research question

Diversity and inclusion management (DIM) is central to organizational science and studies of sport’s contribution to diversity and inclusion in society are plentiful, e.g. through the “sport for development” field. But what is the status of existing research about DIM within sport organizations?

Research methods

This paper draws upon an integrative literature review of DIM in sport organizations (n = 124). Data consist of articles gathered from Web of Science and the databases of Human Kinetics, Elsevier, Taylor and Francis and SAGE.

Results and Findings

The analysis generated five categories of findings: a lack of focus on the management part of DIM; the use of “organizational culture” as an all-embracing concept; an instrumental approach to “diversity” in particular; the key role of education in improving future DIM practices in sport; and an Anglo-Saxon bias.

Implications

This article advances the idea of a relational management of “diversity” and “inclusion” in sport organizations for integrative purposes. It is proposed to examine this relational management through a social-scientific approach to three research gaps, which are key to future empirical research on DIM challenges in sport organizations.

KEYWORDS:

• Organizational integration
• organizational sociology
• emerging properties
• sport management

Introduction

Since the 1990s, diversity and inclusion management (DIM) has become widespread, a popular way to increase organizational performance and to create an enjoyable working environment where everybody could feel they belonged (Hearn & Louvrier, 2016; Janssens & Zanoni, 2021). If we accept Ricco’s definition of DIM as “an organizational approach aimed at achieving better organizational results by creating a non-discriminatory, equitable and inclusive work environment” (Ricco, 2016, p. 335), it becomes clear that “diversity” and “inclusion” refer to different aspects of organizational life. “Diversity” is relatively easy to quantify, measure and improve, for example, in terms of the percentage of female members of a board, while “inclusion” points to the more relational, informal and human-centric qualities of a workplace. These qualities involve fair treatment, trust and belonging (Winters, 2014).

Despite such differences, these concepts are often used interchangeably and without sufficient operational precision in a management setting – for example, is “diversity” a means to inclusion or an end in itself (Shore et al., 2018)? – which affects their usefulness as guidelines to empirical studies (Adamson et al., 2021; Köllen, 2021). In terms of its diversity aims, an organization’s gender equality targets can be reached on paper, but female leaders may still be excluded from the informal parts of organizational culture (Klettner et al., 2016). Research has revealed that this discrepancy also exists within sport organizations (Dashper & Fletcher, 2013; Evans & Pfister, 2021; Gardner et al., 2022; McDowell et al., 2022; Piggott & Pike, 2020).

Yet focusing on “diversity” or “inclusion” separately ignores the mutual relation affecting the organization as a whole. It therefore becomes relevant to analyze them as mechanisms of “organizational integration”. Following Ricciardi et al. (2018), this can be defined as the extent to which distinct and interdependent organizational components (for example, units, functions, mechanisms or roles) adequately respond and/or adapt to each other while pursuing common organizational goals (p. 93). Even though sport as a contributor to diversity and inclusion in society is well documented in the sport-for-development field (Collison et al., 2017), diversity and inclusion management in the context of organizational integration is often addressed indirectly in sport studies, judging from reviews of sport journals (Dart, 2014; French & Cardinal, 2021). Management and organization studies (MOS), a business school-oriented field (Augier et al., 2005; Weatherbee, 2012) and to some degree the disciplinary home of DIM research (Köllen, 2021; Ricco, 2016), is similarly thin on sport studies (see Lawley, 2020; Ryan & Dickson, 2018; Wolfe et al., 2005, for notable exceptions).

To improve DIM research in general, the objective of this article is therefore to bridge MOS and sport studies by using the review findings to explore mutual ground in analyzing organizational integration. On that basis, the article identifies key gaps for future research on DIM in sport to fill. The remainder of this article is thus as follows. In the next two sections, the theoretical context and conceptual presentation of “organizational integration”, “diversity” and “inclusion” is introduced. Then, the article turns to the materials and methods used: an integrative literature review (Snyder, 2019) of 124 publications included in Web of Science and in the databases of Human Kinetics, Elsevier, Taylor and Francis and SAGE. After presenting five categories of findings based on the identifiable relations between core topics in the data, a discussion follows, which outlines three broader research gaps. Filling these gaps are identified as key to further studies of DIM and organizational integration in sport.

Theoretical context: organizational integration

Between 1945 and 2000, the MOS field evolved into “a quasi-discipline of its own (…) with a standardized set of ancestors, a stylized history” (Augier et al., 2005, p. 85). Along the way, the MOS field has “matured and developed its own unique canon, separate from the social sciences and centred in the business school” (Weatherbee, 2012, p. 213). By contrast, this article argues that explorations of the relation between diversity and inclusion in a management context would benefit from a social-scientific perspective on organizational integration. Whereas the MOS field looks at organizational integration to improve efficiency and performance (Barki & Pinsonneault, 2005; Castañer & Ketokivi, 2018), the starting point here is that any social unit requires (at least) two types of integration to exist, social and system. While social integration refers to “the orderly or conflictual relationships between the actors”, system integration focuses on the compatible or incompatible/contradictory relationships between “the parts of the system” (Lockwood, 1964; Mouzelis, 1997, p. 111). The level of social integration depends on how the actors conceive the difference in question and how they behave in relation to each other. Informal norms and values influence people’s ability and desire to either accept the status quo or strive for change. The level of system integration, conversely, depends on how deeply the structural parts that facilitate cooperation within the organization are institutionalized.

These types of integration in sociological theory are not mutually exclusive, rather the opposite: they are both constraining and enabling for individuals and groups at the same time (Mouzelis, 1997; Sewell, 1992). Furthermore, “system” is not static and “social” is not in constant flux. Instead, there is an intertwined process where managerial intervention is the key resource to achieve a predictable compatibility between the two (Perkmann, 1998). To consider inclusion and diversity management as a possible way to handle the interplay between social and system integration, it is thus relevant to explore an organization’s emerging properties. In contrast to emergentist theories in biology and computer science, where the focus is on chemistry or technology, a social-scientific view explores the social reasons why an organization’s whole is more than the sum of its parts (Le Boutillier, 2013). For example, Archer (1996) uses the productivity of Adam Smith’s pin-makers as an example of a power “emergent from their division of labour (relations of production) and not reducible to personal qualities like increased dexterity which did not account for the hundredfold increase in output (mass production), i.e. the relational effect” (Archer, 1996, p. 686, italics original). Performance in these roles, therefore, is not just an expression of individual behaviour but also operationalization of an organizational structure (Eldar-Vass, 2007).

For organizations with active DIM efforts, “normative types of relations that refer to the rules of behaviour that pertain to social positions in social organisations” (Le Boutillier, 2013, p. 211) are crucial for integrative purposes. The reason is that these relations, e.g. embedded in inclusion practices, stimulate “reflexive emergence” among agents and their structures, which according to Goldspink and Kay (2010):

… results in a unique feedback path between the emergent structure and the individual agents – each agent being an observer of the structure he/she contributes to producing and the process of observation contributes to what emerges. (Goldspink & Kay, 2010, p. 61)

DIM practices may influence this feedback path for integrative purposes differently. An example is the “social rules” of an organization’s DIM efforts (Klarsfeld et al., 2012), which mix coercion (following the law) and voluntarism (meeting societal expectations). A leader may create DIM strategies based on these rules to strengthen organizational culture and clarify the moral purpose of the organization, but the operationalization of these rules is dependent on variables such as size, national culture, line of business, DIM topic (gender, employees with special needs, etc.) and “organizational maturity” (Wieczorek-Szymańska, 2017). Hence, an integrative approach is warranted because it may – as exemplified by the integrative review of DIM research in sport – rectify the issues of conceptual partition. To elaborate this line of thought further, the following two sections use literature from the MOS field to discuss what diversity and inclusion connote within organizations.

Perspectives on the concept of diversity

“Diversity” got its breakthrough as a public concept in the Western world with the American civil rights movement and civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Vertovec (2012, p. 289) claims this movement “was instrumental in establishing, in public discourse as well as in government policy, the framing notion of disadvantaged minorities”. The key mechanism to redress the educational, career and life opportunities for minorities, especially Black Americans, was Affirmative Action (AA). Behind this mechanism lay the idea of “statistical proportionality”, which put simply, was about comparing the numbers of members of designated groups with the distribution of human diversity across society (Vertovec, 2012, p. 290). Two decades later, the scaling back of governmental responsibilities in the US made way for developing the business case for diversity with a new-found emphasis on women (Herring, 2009).

Since then, six facets of diversity have come to define the debate: (1) Redistribution (akin to Affirmative Action); (2) Recognition (fostering dignity and respect for minority cultures); (3) Representation (shaping institutions so that they mirror society); (4) Provision (educational awareness of “needs-led diversity”); (5) Competition (the business case for diversity); and finally, (6) Organization (diversity management policies and practices) (Vertovec, 2012). Yet issues quickly arose. Anthropologists discussed the relation between diversity and difference (Eriksen, 2006), economists disagreed about the strength of the causal relation between diversity and growth (Peck, 2005), and sociologists questioned the true content of “the post-civil rights mantra of equality” (Embrick, 2011, p. 541). Those who favoured pluralism as a moral right and saw business opportunities in strategizing diversity policies as part of the organizational identity had nevertheless wind in their sails (Herring, 2009).

Eventually, in organization studies, diversity was increasingly acknowledged as a context-dependent concept (Yadav & Lenka, 2020). Until the early 2000s, “affirmative action” after the US model did not exist in France for ethnic and racial minorities (Bender et al., 2010, p. 85). However, this “colour-blind” approach was supplemented by the French government in 2004 when it encouraged international businesses to introduce a “Diversity Charter” (Charte de la diversité). Four years later, a “Diversity Label” was announced, which is a public award granted to prevent discrimination and promote diversity (Bereni et al., 2020, p. 1943). At the same time, empirical studies of the implementation of the Diversity Charter demonstrated that “diversity” had become a catch-all approach to handle complex social processes, in which diversity was often synonymous with ethnicity and social conditions undermined by neoliberal discourse (Djabi-Saïdani & Pérugien, 2019; Sénac, 2015).

Perspectives on the concept of inclusion

Inclusion research in MOS studies grew out of diversity management debates (Roberson, 2006; 2019; Winters, 2014). For that reason, these concepts naturally overlap. Inclusion, in comparison with diversity, however, seems to have been less politicized throughout its modern conceptual history. Inclusion came into vogue in the 1990s and in 2015, Mor Barak (2015, p. 87) claimed that “the research into inclusion is relatively new”. Partly as a response to the need for a nuanced typology of organizational characteristics (Cox, 1991; Thomas & Ely, 1996), partly as a reaction to the functionalist underpinnings of diversity studies (Fredette et al., 2016), inclusion became a relevant concept for those advocating the hidden value of nurturing the interaction dynamics in the workplace.

To underline this argument, one of the first in this context to empirically address the relation between diversity and inclusion was Roberson (2006, p. 212) who focused on “a new rhetoric in the field of diversity, which replaces the term diversity with the term inclusion”. Drawing upon Mor Barak and Cherin (1998), Roberson’s point of departure is to see inclusion as “the degree to which individuals feel a part of critical organizational processes” (Roberson, 2006, p. 215). Resembling this view, but using a different theoretical perspective, are Shore et al. (2011) who found that inclusion differs from formal representation and recognition procedures related to diversity by exploring instead to what degree “an employee perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the work group through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness” (p. 1265). Conversely, Mor Barak et al. (2016) underline that:

diversity management efforts, particularly those designed to create an organizational climate for inclusion, could be influential in promoting positive outcomes of diversity such as job satisfaction, creativity, and retention while concurrently reducing negative consequences such as mistrust and miscommunication. (Mor Barak et al., 2016, p. 306, italics added)

It is thus necessary to consider multiple views on the conceptual overlaps and differences between diversity and inclusion when doing a literature review, but even more so when it comes to operationalizing their intertwined relation to social integration in an organization.

The relation between diversity and inclusion from an organizational integration perspective

Existing literature treats diversity and inclusion as two sides of the same coin, although not necessarily in the context of organizational integration. O’Donovan (2017, p. 20) sees inclusion as “Diversity 2.0” and argue that “the advantages associated with diversity are more likely to be realised under a culture of inclusion”. Moreover, Fredette et al. (2016, p. 46) underline that “functional and social inclusion frequently interact alone and with diversity in their influence on board effectiveness, cohesion, and commitment” (italics added). At the same time, in terms of organizational integration, recognition of the emergent properties transitioned from lower-level entities (individuals or smaller groups) to higher levels (sections or even the entire organization) either comes as a result of, or despite, management activities in a specific context (Nielsen & Dane-Nielsen, 2010). Managing diversity is thus not the same as enhancing system integration, nor is social integration necessarily a result of managing inclusion; neither can we equate social and system integration with agency and structure, respectively (Eldar-Vass, 2007; Perkmann, 1998). As a result, the inadequate treatment of diversity and inclusion in relation to organizational integration in the MOS field, suggests the use of DIM studies in sport as one way to explore this proposition. To that end, the article now turns to the data and methods used.

Data and methods

This article is based on an integrative literature review, which aims to “synthesize the literature on a research topic in a way that enables new theoretical frameworks and perspectives to emerge” (Snyder, 2019, p. 335). In contrast to the 15–16 other types of literature review (Grant & Booth, 2009; Snyder, 2019), such as descriptive, scoping or systematic, the critical underpinning of the integrative approach fits with the overall aim of the article. Compared with other literature review types, the integrative one requires “a more creative collection of data, as the purpose is usually not to cover all articles ever published on the topic but rather to combine perspectives and insights from different fields or research traditions” (Snyder, 2019, p. 336).

The present review is based on 124 peer-reviewed journal articles written between 1970 and 2022 generated by keyword searches in Web of Science (combinations of SPORT, DIVERSITY, INCLUSION, MANAGEMENT) and in the databases of publication houses Human Kinetics, Elsevier, Taylor and Francis and SAGE (Table 1). Web of Science was included because of its all-encompassing collection of journals, whereas the latter four were explored due to their collection of top-ranked sport-related journals. The emergence of “diversity” as a public term in the 1960s, as discussed above, dictated the selection of the time period used. The flow of this process is described in Figure 1.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Table 1. Review sample (approx. here).

Year of publication	Reference	Country focus	Article type	Core topic
1991	Espinosa, C. (1991). Toward Greater Multicultural Diversity: Change and Challenge for Intramural-Recreational Sports. Recreational Sports Journal, 15(2), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1123/nirsa.15.2.20	US	Qualitative	Minorities
1997	Hughson, J. (1997). Football, folk dancing and fascism: diversity and difference in multicultural Australia. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 33(2), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/144078339703300203	Australia	Qualitative	Ethnicity
1998	Doherty, A.J. (1998). Managing Our Human Resources: A Review of Organisational Behaviour in Sport. Sport Management Review, 1(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3523(98)70097-X	N/A	Qualitative	Organization
1999	Fink, J.S. & Pastore, D.L. (1999). Diversity in Sport? Utilizing the Business Literature to Devise a Comprehensive Framework of Diversity Initiatives. Quest, 51(4), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1999.10491688	US	Qualitative	Diversity
1999	Doherty, A. J., & Chelladurai, P. (1999). Managing Cultural Diversity in Sport Organizations: A Theoretical Perspective, Journal of Sport Management, 13(4), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.13.4.280	N/A	Theoretical	Diversity
2000	DePauw, K. P., & Doll-Tepper, G. (2000). Toward Progressive Inclusion and Acceptance: Myth or Reality? The Inclusion Debate and Bandwagon Discourse. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17(2), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.17.2.135	US	Conceptual	Inclusion
2001	Danylchuk, K. E., & MacLean, J. (2001). Intercollegiate Athletics in Canadian Universities: Perspectives on the Future. Journal of Sport Management, 15(4), 364. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.15.4.364	Canada	Conceptual	Culture
2001	Fink, J. S., Pastore, D. L., & Riemer, H. A. (2001). Do Differences Make a Difference? Managing Diversity in Division IA Intercollegiate Athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15(1), 10–50. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.15.1.10	US	Quantitative	Diversity
2001	Promis, D., Erevelles, N., & Matthews, J. (2001). Reconceptualizing Inclusion: The Politics of University Sports and Recreation Programs for Students with Mobility Impairments. Sociology of Sport Journal, 18(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.18.1.37	US	Qualitative	Mobility impairments
2001	Taylor, T. (2001). Gender and cultural diversity in sport organisations. World Leisure Journal, 43(3), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/04419057.2001.9674236	Australia	Qualitative	Gender
2003	Fink, J.S., Pastore, D.L. & Riemer, H.A. (2003). Managing Employee Diversity: Perceived Practices and Organisational Outcomes in NCAA Division III Athletic Departments. Sport Management Review, 6(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3523(03)70057-6	US	Qualitative	Diversity
2003	Taylor, T. (2003). Diversity Management in a Multi-cultural Society: An Exploratory Study of Cultural Diversity and Team Sport in Australia. Annals of Leisure Research, 6(2), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2003.10600918	Australia	Qualitative	Gender
2004	Hughes, G. (2004). Managing Black Guys: Representation, Corporate Culture, and the NBA. Sociology of Sport Journal, 21(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.21.2.163	US	Qualitative	Race
2005	Elling, A., & Claringbould, I. (2005). Mechanisms of Inclusion and Exclusion in the Dutch Sports Landscape: Who Can and Wants to Belong?, Sociology of Sport Journal, 22(4), 498–515. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.22.4.498	The Netherlands	Quantitative	Class
2005	Wolfe, R. A., Weick, K. E., Usher, J. M., Terborg, J. R., Poppo, L., Murrell, A. J., Dukerich, J. M., Core, D. C., Dickson, K. E., & Jourdan, J. S. (2005). Sport and Organizational Studies: Exploring Synergy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(2), 182–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492605275245	US	Meta	Diversity
2006	Gill, D. L., Morrow, R. G., Collins, K. E., Lucey, A. B., & Schultz, A. M. (2006). Attitudes and Sexual Prejudice in Sport and Physical Activity. Journal of Sport Management, 20(4), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.20.4.554	US	Quantitative	Sexuality
2006	Spracklen, K., Hylton, K., & Long, J. (2006). Managing and Monitoring Equality and Diversity in UK Sport: An Evaluation of the Sporting Equals Racial Equality Standard and Its Impact on Organizational Change. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 30(3), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723506290083	UK	Qualitative	Racial discrimination
2006	Shaw, S., & Frisby, W. (2006). Can Gender Equity Be More Equitable?: Promoting an Alternative Frame for Sport Management Research, Education, and Practice. Journal of Sport Management, 20(4), 483–509. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.20.4.483	N/A	Theoretical	Gender
2006	Skille, E. Å., & Waddington, I. (2006). Alternative sport programmes and social inclusion in Norway. European Physical Education Review, 12(3), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X06069273	Norway	Qualitative and quantitative	Class
2007	Oliver, P. (2007). Sport and the Law: Racism and Cultural Diversity in Australian Sport. Alternative Law Journal, 32(2), 116–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X0703200215	Australia	Qualitative	Race
2007	Vianden, J., & Gregg, E. A. (2017). What’s My Responsibility? Undergraduate Heterosexual White Men in Sport Management Discuss Increasing Diversity in Sport, Sport Management Education Journal, 11(2), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2015-0023	US	Qualitative	Gender and racial discrimination
2008	Cunningham, G.B. (2008). Creating and Sustaining Gender Diversity in Sport Organizations. Sex Roles, 58, 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9312-3	US	Conceptual	Gender
2009	Humberstone, B. (2009). Sport management, gender and the “bigger picture”: Challenging changes in Higher Education – A partial auto/ethnographical account. Sport Management Review, 12(4), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2009.03.004	UK	Qualitative	Gender
2009	Cunningham, G. B. (2009). Understanding the Diversity-Related Change Process: A Field Study. Journal of Sport Management, 23(4), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.23.4.407	US	Qualitative	Diversity
2010	Doherty, A., Fink, J.S., Inglis, S. & Pastore, D. (2010). Understanding a culture of diversity through frameworks of power and change. Sport Management Review, 13(4), 368–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2010.01.006	US	Qualitative	Diversity
2010	Bernache-Assollant, I., Laurin, R., Bouchet, P., Bodet, G., & Lacassagne, M.-F. (2010). Refining the relationship between ingroup identification and identity management strategies in the sport context: The moderating role of gender and the mediating role of negative mood. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 639–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210369680	France	Qualitative and quantitative	Gender
2010	Darnell, S. C. (2010). Sport, Race, and Bio-Politics: Encounters With Difference in “Sport for Development and Peace” Internships. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 34(4), 396–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723510383141	Canada	Qualitative	Gender and race
2010	Hanlon, C., Morris, T. & Nabbs, S. (2010). Establishing a successful physical activity program to recruit and retain women. Sport Management Review, 13(3), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2009.10.003	Australia	Qualitative	Women
2010	Adair, D., Taylor, T. & Darcy, S. (2010). Managing ethnocultural and “racial” diversity in sport: Obstacles and opportunities. Sport Management Review, 13(4), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2010.06.002	N/A	Conceptual	Race
2010	Palmer, F.R. & Masters, T.M. (2010). Māori feminism and sport leadership: Exploring Māori women’s experiences. Sport Management Review, 13(4), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2010.06.001.	New Zealand	Qualitative	Women
2010	Pope, S.B. (2010). Embracing Cultural Contexts and Critical Reflexivity: (Re)presenting the Global Sports Industry in Research and Practice. European Sport Management Quarterly, 10(4), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2010.502747	US	Qualitative	Culture
2011	Cunningham, G.B. & Melton, E.N. (2011). The Benefits of Sexual Orientation Diversity in Sport Organizations. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(5), 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.563664	US	Conceptual	Diversity
2011	Bradbury, S. (2011). From racial exclusions to new inclusions: Black and minority ethnic participation in football clubs in the East Midlands of England. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 46(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690210371562	UK	Qualitative	Ethnicity
2011	Kelly, L. (2011). “Social inclusion” through sports-based interventions? Critical Social Policy, 31(1), 126–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018310385442	England and Wales	Qualitative	Youth
2011	Cunningham, G.B. (2011) The LGBT advantage: Examining the relationship among sexual orientation diversity, diversity strategy, and performance. Sport Management Review, 14(4), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2010.11.003	US	Quantitative	LGBT
2011	Smith, E., & Hattery, A. (2011). Race Relations Theories: Implications for Sport Management, Journal of Sport Management, 25(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.25.2.107	US	Qualitative	Race
2011	Cunningham, G.B. (2011). Creative Work Environments in Sport Organizations: The Influence of Sexual Orientation Diversity and Commitment to Diversity. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(8), 1041–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.598413	US	Quantitative	Sexuality
2012	Yiamouyiannis, A., & Osborne, B. (2012). Addressing Gender Inequities in Collegiate Sport: Examining Female Leadership Representation Within NCAA Sport Governance. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012449340	US	Qualitative	Gender
2012	Singer, J.N. & Cunningham, G.B. (2012). A case study of the diversity culture of an American university athletic department: perceptions of senior level administrators. Sport, Education and Society, 17(5), 647–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.552572	US	Qualitative	Diversity
2012	Dashper, K. (2012). “Dressage Is Full of Queens!” Masculinity, Sexuality and Equestrian Sport. Sociology, 46(6), 1109–1124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038512437898	UK	Qualitative	Gender
2013	Slobbe, M. V., Vermeulen, J. & Koster, M. (2013). The making of an ethnically diverse management: contested cultural meanings in a Dutch amateur football club. Sport in Society, 16(10), 1360–1374. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2013.821257	The Netherlands	Qualitative	Ethnicity
2013	Dortants, M., & Knoppers, A. (2013). Regulation of diversity through discipline: Practices of inclusion and exclusion in boxing. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 48(5), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690212445279	The Netherlands	Qualitative	Women
2013	Keith, N. R., & Russell, J. A. (2013). Creating a Climate of Organizational Diversity: Models of Best Practice. Kinesiology Review, 2(3), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1123/krj.2.3.190	US	Meta	Diversity
2013	Dinold, M., Diketmüller, R., Grix, J. & Phillpots, L. (2013). Managing diversity and European policy: Towards a typology for sport pedagogy. European Journal of Sport Science, 13(6), 689–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2013.770925	N/A	Qualitative	Disability
2014	Spaaij, R., Farquharson, K., Magee, J., Jeanes, R., Lusher, D., & Gorman, S. (2014). A Fair Game for All? How Community Sports Clubs in Australia Deal With Diversity. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 38(4), 346–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723513515888	Australia	Qualitative	Diversity
2014	Hammond, A. M., Young, J. A., & Konjarski, L. (2014). Attitudes of Australian Swimming Coaches towards Inclusion of Swimmers with an Intellectual Disability: An Exploratory Analysis. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(6), 1425–1436. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.9.6.1425	Australia	Quantitative	Disability
2014	Cohen, A., Melton, E. N., & Peachey, J. W. (2014). Investigating a Coed Sport’s Ability to Encourage Inclusion and Equality. Journal of Sport Management, 28(2), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2013-0329	US	Qualitative and quantitative	Gender
2014	Darcy, S., Maxwell, H., Edwards, M., Onyx, J. & Sherker, S. (2014). More than a sport and volunteer organisation: Investigating social capital development in a sporting organisation. Sport Management Review, 17(4), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2014.01.003	Australia	Qualitative	Volunteers
2014	Palmer, C. (2014). Sport and alcohol – who’s missing? New directions for a sociology of sport-related drinking. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 49(3–4), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690213480353	UK	Conceptual	Inclusion
2014	Kitchin, P.J & Howe, D. (2014). The mainstreaming of disability cricket in England and Wales: Integration “One Game” at a time. Sport Management Review, 17(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.05.003	England and Wales	Qualitative	Disability
2015	Cherney, J. L., Lindemann, K., & Hardin, M. (2015). Research in Communication, Disability, and Sport. Communication & Sport, 3(1), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479513514847	N/A	Meta	Disability
2015	Jarvis, N. (2015). The inclusive masculinities of heterosexual men within UK gay sport clubs. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(3), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690213482481	UK	Qualitative	Gender
2015	Leberman, S. & Shaw, S. (2015). “Let’s be honest most people in the sporting industry are still males”: the importance of socio-cultural context for female graduates. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 67(3), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2015.1057212	New Zealand	Qualitative and quantitative	Culture
2015	Bury, J. (2015). Non-performing inclusion: A critique of the English Football Association’s Action Plan on homophobia in football. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690213479789	UK	Qualitative	Gender
2015	Black, A., Costello, R., Craft, A., & Katene, W. (2015). “It’s all about developing the whole child”: An examination of the “legacy” benefits of Youth Sport Trust’s school-based inclusion initiatives. European Physical Education Review, 21(3), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X15584089	UK	Qualitative	Youth
2015	Fisher, L.A. & Roper, E.A. (2015). Swimming Upstream: Former Diversity Committee Chairs’ Perceptions of the Association for Applied Sport Psychology’s Commitment to Organizational Diversity. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 27(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2014.940090	US	Qualitative	Diversity
2015	Rich, K. A., & Giles, A. R. (2015). Managing Diversity to Provide Culturally Safe Sport Programming: A Case Study of the Canadian Red Cross’s Swim Program, Journal of Sport Management, 29(3), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2013-0160	Canada	Qualitative	Diversity
2016	Picariello, M., & Angelle, P. (2016). A Woman? Really? Issues of Diversity in Hiring Decisions, Case Studies in Sport Management, 5(1), 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1123/cssm.2015-0021	US	Qualitative	Gender
2016	Dortants, M. & Knoppers, A. (2016). The organization of diversity in a boxing club: Governmentality and entangled rationalities. Culture and Organization, 22(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2016.1157804	The Netherlands	Qualitative	Gender
2016	Adriaanse, J. A., & Claringbould, I. (2016). Gender equality in sport leadership: From the Brighton Declaration to the Sydney Scoreboard. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 51(5), 547–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690214548493	N/A	Qualitative	Gender
2016	Fielding-Lloyd, B., & Mean, L. (2016). Women Training to Coach a Men’s Sport: Managing Gendered Identities and Masculinist Discourses. Communication & Sport, 4(4), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479515588720	UK	Qualitative	Gender
2016	Bernhard, L. M. (2016). Between the Lines: Diversity and NCAA Division I Athletic Department Mission Statements. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 10(2), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19357397.2016.1218645	US	Qualitative	Diversity
2017	Young, T., Sibson, R. & Maguire, A. (2017). Educating managers for equity and social justice: Integrating Indigenous knowledges and perspectives in Australian sport, recreation and event management curricula, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 21, Part B, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2017.08.005	Australia	Qualitative	Indigenous people
2017	McCormack, K. M. (2017). Inclusion and Identity in the Mountain Biking Community: Can Subcultural Identity and Inclusivity Coexist?,Sociology of Sport Journal, 34(4), 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2016-0160	US	Qualitative	Identity
2017	van Amsterdam, N., Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2017). Bodies Matter: Professional Bodies and Embodiment in Institutional Sport Contexts. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 41(4), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723517708904	N/A	Meta	Body
2017	Pitts, B.G., & Shapiro, D.R. (2017). People with disabilities and sport: An exploration of topic inclusion in sport management. Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport & Tourism Education, 21, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2017.06.003	US	Quantitative	Disability
2018	Ryan, I., & Dickson, G. (2018). The invisible norm: An exploration of the intersections of sport, gender and leadership. Leadership, 14(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715016674864	New Zealand	Qualitative	Gender
2018	Hancock, M. G., Darvin, L., & Walker, N. A. (2018). Beyond the Glass Ceiling: Sport Management Students’ Perceptions of the Leadership Labyrinth. Sport Management Education Journal, 12(2), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2017-0039	US	Qualitative	Women
2018	Jeanes, R., Spaaij, R., Magee, J., Farquharson, K., Gorman, S. & Lusher, D. (2018). “Yes we are inclusive”: Examining provision for young people with disabilities in community sport clubs. Sport Management Review, 21(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.04.001	Australia	Qualitative	Disability
2018	Spaaij, R., Magee, J., Farquharson, K., Gorman, S., Jeanes, R., Lusher, D., & Storr, R. (2018). Diversity work in community sport organizations: Commitment, resistance and institutional change. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 53(3), 278–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690216654296	Australia	Qualitative	Diversity
2019	Adriaanse, J. A. (2019). The influence of gendered emotional relations on gender equality in sport governance. Journal of Sociology, 55(3), 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319842665	Australia	Qualitative	Gender
2019	Stronach, M., Maxwell, H. & Pearce, S. (2019). Indigenous Australian women promoting health through sport. Sport Management Review, 22(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.04.007	Australia	Qualitative	Indigenous people
2019	Tjønndal, A. (2019). “I don’t think they realise how good we are”: Innovation, inclusion and exclusion in women’s Olympic boxing. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 54(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690217715642	Norway	Qualitative	Women
2019	Shaw, S (2019). The chaos of inclusion? Examining anti-homophobia policy development in New Zealand sport. Sport Management Review, 22(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.04.001	New Zealand	Qualitative	Sexuality
2019	Waardenburg, M., Visschers, M., Deelen, I., & van Liempt, I. (2019). Sport in liminal spaces: The meaning of sport activities for refugees living in a reception centre. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 54(8), 938–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690218768200	The Netherlands	Qualitative	Refugees
2019	Lorenzo, T., McKinney, V., Bam, A., Sigenu, V., & Sompeta, S. (2019). Mapping participation of disabled youth in sport and other free-time activities to facilitate their livelihoods development. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 82(2), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022618817281	South Africa	Qualitative	Disability
2019	Kappelides, P. & Spoor, J. (2019). Managing sport volunteers with a disability: Human resource management implications. Sport Management Review, 22(5), 694–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.10.004	Australia	Qualitative	Volunteers with disabilities
2019	Forsyth, J.J., Jones, J., Duval, L. & Bambridge, A. (2019). Opportunities and barriers that females face for study and employment in sport. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 24, 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.01.005	UK	Qualitative	Women
2019	Lee, W., & Cunningham, G.B. (2019). Moving Toward Understanding Social Justice in Sport Organizations: A Study of Engagement in Social Justice Advocacy in Sport Organizations. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 43(3), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723519832469	US and New Zealand	Qualitative	Social justice
2019	Lee, W. & Cunningham, G.B. (2019). Group diversity’s influence on sport teams and organizations: a meta-analytic examination and identification of key moderators. European Sport Management Quarterly, 19(2), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2018.1478440	N/A	Meta	Diversity
2019	Tafuri, D., Davide, D. & Rosa, R. (2019). Promoting a Positive Approach to Diversity in Sport: A Proposal for a Theoretical Model. Acta Medica Mediterranea, 35, 3017–3020. https://doi.org/10.19193/0393-6384_2019_6_473	N/A	Theoretical	Diversity
2019	May, T., Sivaratnam, C., Williams, K., McGillivray, J., Whitehouse, A., & Rinehart, N. J. (2019). “Everyone gets a kick”: Coach characteristics and approaches to inclusion in an Australian Rules Football program for children. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 14(5), 607–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954119870294	Australia	Qualitative	Children
2020	Anderson, A. R., Knee, E., & Ramos, W. D. (2020). “I’m Not an Expert, But … ”: Perspectives on Aquatic Management for LGBTQ Participants. Recreational Sports Journal, 44(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558866120909449	US	Qualitative	LGBTQ
2020	Godfrey, M., Kim, J. Eluère, M. & Eys, M. (2020). Diversity in cultural diversity research: a scoping review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(1), 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2019.1616316	N/A	Meta	Diversity
2020	Banu-Lawrence, M., Frawley, S., & Hoeber, L. (2020). Women and Leadership Development in Australian Sport Organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 34(6), 568–578. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2020-0039	Australia	Qualitative	Women
2020	Dowling, F. (2020). A critical discourse analysis of a local enactment of sport for integration policy: Helping young refugees or self-help for voluntary sports clubs? International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 55(8), 1152–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690219874437	Norway	Qualitative	Refugees
2020	Hartmann-Tews, I., Bartsch, F., Wagner, I. & Rulofs, B. (2020). Managing prevention of sexual violence and the role of commissioners in national sport federations in Germany. Sport Management Review, 23(1), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.09.006	Germany	Qualitative and quantitative	Women
2020	Piggott, L. V., & Pike, E. C. (2020). “CEO equals man”: Gender and informal organisational practices in English sport governance. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 55(7), 1009–1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690219865980	UK	Qualitative	Gender
2020	Vito, G., Sorrentini, A. & Tafuri, D. (2020). Managerial Strategies for Diversity Through Sport, Acta Medica Mediterranea, 36(1), 391–394. https://doi.org/10.19193/0393-6384_2020_1_60	Italy and US	Qualitative	Diversity
2020	Wicker, P., Feiler, S. & Breuer, C. (2020). Board gender diversity, critical masses, and organizational problems of non-profit sport clubs. European Sport Management Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2020.1777453	Germany	Quantitative	Gender
2020	Sorrentini, A., Ascione, A. & Palma, D.D. (2020). The values of sport for the management of diversity. Acta Medica Mediterranea, 36(1), 409–412. https://doi.org/10.19193/0393-6384_2020_1_63	N/A	Meta	Diversity
2020	Spaaij, R., Knoppers, A. & Jeanes, R. (2020). “We want more diversity but … ”: Resisting diversity in recreational sports clubs. Sport Management Review, 23(3), 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.05.007	Australia	Qualitative	Diversity
2020	Kluch, Y., & Wilson, A. S. (2020). #NCAAInclusion: Using Social Media to Engage NCAA Student-Athletes in Strategic Efforts to Promote Diversity and Inclusion. Case Studies in Sport Management, 9(S1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1123/cssm.2019-0027	UK	Quantitative	Diversity and inclusion
2020	Phipps, C. (2020). “We Already Do Enough Around Equality and Diversity”: Action Taken by Student Union Officers to Promote LGBT+ Inclusion in University Sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 37(4), 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2019-0119	US	Qualitative	LGBT+
2020	Wicker, P. & Kerwin, S. (2020). Women representation in the boardroom of Canadian sport governing bodies: structural and financial characteristics of three organizational clusters. Managing Sport and Leisure. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2020.1825987	Canada	Qualitative	Women
2020	Swanson, S., Billsberry, J., Kent, A., Skinner, J., & Mueller, J. (2020). Leader prototypicality in sport: The implicit leadership theories of women and men entering sport management careers. Sport Management Review, 23(4), 640–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.08.002	US	Quantitative	Gender
2020	Ahmad, N., Thorpe, H., Richards, J. & Marfell, A. (2020). Building cultural diversity in sport: a critical dialogue with Muslim women and sports facilitators. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 12(4), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2020.1827006	New Zealand	Qualitative	Gender
2020	Gaston, L., Blundell, M. & Fletcher, T. (2020). Gender diversity in sport leadership: an investigation of United States of America National Governing Bodies of Sport. Managing Sport and Leisure, 25(6), 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2020.1719189	US	Qualitative and quantitative	Gender
2020	Patatas, J.M., De Bosscher, V., Derom, I., & De Rycke, J. (2020). Managing parasport: An investigation of sport policy factors and stakeholders influencing para-athletes’ career pathways. Sport Management Review, 23(5), 937–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.12.004	Brazil	Qualitative	Para-athletes
2021	Sauder, M.H., Deluca, J.R., Mudrick, M., & Taylor, E.A. (2021). Conceptualization of diversity and inclusion: Tensions and contradictions in the sport management classroom. Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport & Tourism Education, 29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100325	US	Qualitative	Diversity and inclusion
2021	Whitinui, P. (2021). Decolonizing Sports Sociology is a “Verb not a Noun”: Indigenizing Our Way to Reconciliation and Inclusion in the twenty-first Century? Alan Ingham Memorial Lecture, Sociology of Sport Journal, 38(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2020-0148	US	Conceptual	Inclusion
2021	Storr, R., Jeanes, R., Spaaij, R. & Farquharson, K. (2021). “That’s where the dollars are”: understanding why community sports volunteers engage with intellectual disability as a form of diversity. Managing Sport and Leisure, 26(3), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2020.1730226	Australia	Qualitative	Disability
2021	Laurendeau, J., Higham, T., & Peers, D. (2021). Mountain Equipment Co-Op, “Diversity Work,” and the “Inclusive” Politics of Erasure. Sociology of Sport Journal, 38(2), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2020-0031	Canada	Qualitative	Diversity and inclusion
2021	Knoppers, A., Spaaij, R. & Claringbould, I. (2021). Discursive resistance to gender diversity in sport governance: sport as a unique field? International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 13(3), 517–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2021.1915848	The Netherlands + two anonymized countries	Qualitative	Gender
2021	Kochanek, J., Davis, M., Erickson, K. & Ferguson, D. (2021). More than “just a driver”: A study of professional women racecar drivers’ agency in motorsport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101838	US	Qualitative	Women
2021	Shaw, S. & Cunningham, G.B. (2021) The rainbow connection: a scoping review and introduction of a scholarly exchange on LGBTQ+ experiences in sport management. Sport Management Review, 24(3), 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/14413523.2021.1880746	N/A	Meta	LGBTQ+
2021	McLeod, J., Star, S. & Shilbury, D. (2021). Board composition in national sport federations: a cross-country comparative analysis of diversity and board size. Managing Sport and Leisure. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2021.197064	Australia, India, South Africa, the UK and the USA	Qualitative	Occupational background
2021	Parry, K. D., Storr, R., Kavanagh, E. J., & Anderson, E. (2021). Conceptualising organisational cultural lag: Marriage equality and Australian sport. Journal of Sociology, 57(4), 986–1008. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783321991653	Australia	Qualitative and quantitative	Equality
2021	French, M. T., & Cardinal, B. J. (2021). Content Analysis of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in the Recreational Sports Journal, 2005–2019. Recreational Sports Journal, 45(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558866121998382	Ireland	Meta	Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
2021	Kluch, Y., & Rentner, T. L. (2022). “As Falcons, We Are One Team!” Launching a Grassroots Institutional Change Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion Through Sport at an NCAA Division I Institution. Sport Management Education Journal (published online ahead of print 2022). https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2020-0050	US	Qualitative	Diversity and Inclusion
2021	Knoppers, A., McLachlan, F., Spaaij, R., & Smits, F. (2021). Subtexts of Research on Diversity in Sport Organizations: Queering Intersectional Perspectives. Journal of Sport Management (published online ahead of print 2021). https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2021-0266	US	Qualitative	Women and minorities
2021	Romano, E. K., Rich, K. A., & Quesnel, D. (2021). Leveraging Sports Events for LGBTQ2+ Inclusion: Supporting Innovation in Organizational Culture and Practices. Case Studies in Sport Management, 10(1), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1123/cssm.2021-0012	US	Qualitative	Inclusion
2021	Buser, M., Zwahlen, J. A., Schlesinger, T., & Nagel, S. (2021). Social integration of people with a migration background in Swiss sport clubs: A cross-level analysis. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 57(4), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902211022921	Switzerland	Quantitative	Migrants
2021	Patchett, E. M., Oja, B. D., & Morse, A. L. (2021). Conceptual Frameworks for Evaluating Diversity and Inclusion in Collegiate Recreation. Recreational Sports Journal, 45(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/15588661211033253	Ireland	Conceptual	Diversity and inclusion
2021	Anderson, A. R., Knee, E., & Ramos, W. D. (2021). Impact of an LGBTQ Campus Recreation Student Employee Training Initiative on Professional Competencies. Recreational Sports Journal, 45(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/15588661211010185	US	Quantitative	LGBTQ
2021	Oakes, L. R., Nichols, T. R., Schleien, S. J., Strack, R. W., & Milroy, J. J. (2021). Exploring Inclusion of College Students With IDD in Campus Recreation Through the Lens of Recreation Departments’ Organizational Level Stakeholders. Recreational Sports Journal, 45(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558866120982594	US	Qualitative	Disability
2021	Storr, R. (2021). “The poor cousin of inclusion”: Australian Sporting Organisations and LGBT+ diversity and inclusion. Sport Management Review, 24(3), 410–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.05.001	Australia	Qualitative	LGBT+
2021	Legg, E. & Karner, E. (2021). Development of a model of diversity, equity and inclusion for sport volunteers: an examination of the experiences of diverse volunteers for a national sport governing body. Sport, Education and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1907325	US	Qualitative	Volunteers and diversity
2021	DeLuca, J. R., Mudrick, M., Hayes Sauder, M., & Taylor, E. A. (2021). Understanding Student Perceptions of Diversity and Inclusion, Sport Management Education Journal (published online ahead of print 2021). https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2020-0023	US	Qualitative and quantitative	Diversity and inclusion
2022	Keung, S. & Enari, D. (2022). The Professional Athlete Career Lifespan: Through an Indigenous Lens. International Journal of Sociology and Leisure, 5, 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41978-022-00122-w	Samoa/US/New Zealand	Qualitative	Indigenous people
2022	Ricatti, F., Dutto, M., & del Bono, A. (2022). Sport, social inclusion and the logic of assimilation in Prato (Italy). International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 57(1), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690221992627	Italy	Qualitative	Migrants
2022	Storr, R., Jeanes, R., & Rossi, T. (2022). Are we there yet? (Illusions of) Inclusion in sport for LGBT+ communities in Australia. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 57(1), 92–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902211014037	Australia	Conceptual	LGBT+
2022	Erikainen, S., Vincent, B., & Hopkins, A. (2022). Specific Detriment: Barriers and Opportunities for Non-Binary Inclusive Sports in Scotland. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 46(1), 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723520962937	Scotland	Qualitative	Gender
2022	Beattie, M.A., & Lower-Hoppe, L.M. (2022). The Marshall Plan: How diversity and inclusion transformed the Dallas Mavericks’ organizational culture. Sport Management Education Journal, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2020-0043	US	Qualitative	Gender

Three challenges occurred along the way. First, words like “diversity”, “inclusion” and “management” are used by scholars in a variety of ways. Examples of excluded studies are those concerning community inclusion, trophic diversity in a study of sport fishing, or articles using “inclusion” as part of their statistical rationale. Focusing on English-language journals only also affects the sample as the topics are discussed in Scandinavian, French and German publications. Second, the search engines of the different data sources have different sensibilities, both to the search terms and to the combination of words. For example, when using the search engine of Human Kinetics, 14 hits appeared on diversity AND inclusion. By contrast, the search generated 45 hits on “diversity”, and 67 hits on “inclusion”. Only five articles appeared when searching for diversity management and inclusion management. Sorting out the material hence led the final sample in Table 2.

Table 2. Sample characteristics.

Source	Notable journals	Sample of articles
Human Kinetics	Sociology of Sport Journal, Journal of Sport Management, Sport Management Education Journal	22
Elsevier	Sport Management Review, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, Psychology of Sport and Exercise,	21
Taylor & Francis	European Sport Management Quarterly, Sport, Education and Society, Managing Sport and Leisure	23
SAGE	International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Recreational Sports Journal	42
Web of Science	Sociology of Sport Journal, Journal of Sport Management	16
SUM		124

The majority of this sample was published towards the latter end of the selected time-frame between 1991 (the first “hit” in the database) and 2022 (the data gathering ended on February 1). There are small variations in the annual number of publications on these topics until there was a jump from 2019 onwards, indicating a recently rising interest in the topic. Furthermore, the publication of articles in different journals (Table 2) also indicates that diversity and inclusion management is a topic that are relevant to many fields of sport research.

The generation of analytical patterns was done by a reading of the articles with the aim of scoping their use of diversity and inclusion. Frequency measures were deemed too categorical and replaced with sense-making techniques of the data (Kuckartz, 2019). More specifically, this analysis was four-staged according to Kluge’s (2000) model. Stage 1, relevant dimensions of analysis, was defined beforehand due to the theory-based assumption that the interchangeable use of diversity and inclusion in relation to management affected organizational integration. In stage 2, drawing upon the understanding of concepts as combinations of attributes, the search concentrated on articles with relevance for “diversity and inclusion management” on the basis of Weber’s term Kausaladaequanz, or the existence of empirical regularities and correlations (Kluge, 2000). In stage 3, meaningful connections, or with Weber’s term, Sinnadequanz (Chiuppesi, 2009), between diversity, inclusion and management were grouped into five categories of findings. In stage 4, which is represented by the Discussion section below, this convergence between empirical regularities and meaningful connections and what was missing in this picture was specified as three research gaps.

Results: five categories of findings

The findings were grouped into five, drawing upon patterns of relations in the data identified inductively by the author. The first finding is that few studies focus on DIM as defined at the beginning of this article. However, it surfaces in various combinations and under different names. The qualitative coding revealed that the four most pronounced management aspects of organizational integration were related to “governance”, “structure”, “leadership” and “culture”. Some examples are listed in Table 3, which is made in reference to the definition of DIM from the introduction to this article.

Table 3. DIM research in sport – a few examples.

Topics
Governance	Structure	Leadership	Culture
McLeod, J., Star, S. & Shilbury, D. (2021). Board composition in national sport federations: a cross-country comparative analysis of diversity and board size, Managing Sport and Leisure. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2021.197064	Wicker, P. & Kerwin, S. (2020). Women representation in the boardroom of Canadian sport governing bodies: structural and financial characteristics of three organizational clusters. Managing Sport and Leisure. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2020.1825987	Banu-Lawrence, M., Frawley, S., & Hoeber, L. (2020). Women and Leadership Development in Australian Sport Organizations, Journal of Sport Management, 34(6), 568–578. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2020-0039	Doherty, A., Fink, J., Inglis, S. & Pastore, D. (2010). Understanding a culture of diversity through frameworks of power and change. Sport Management Review, 13(4), 368–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2010.01.006

A topic which cuts across these four categories is the role of boards related to recruitment, work practice, work environment and member composition. In the DIM literature in the MOS field, boards symbolize functional, cultural and personal expressions of how companies seek economic benefits (higher performance and better decisions) and push societal reform (women leaders as role models and breaking stereotypes) (Seierstad, 2016). Similarly, in this dataset, boards are described as tools to promote diversity in particular and yet they embody “invisible norms” (Ryan & Dickson, 2018), and “informal practices” (Piggott & Pike, 2020). Whereas most of the board studies in sport focus on gender diversity, they simultaneously treat the notion of inclusion as an implicit part of discussion. An example from the sample is Knoppers, Spaaij and Claringbould’s (2021) study where four types of discursive resistance were identified: meritocracy (competence should be prioritized), neoliberalism (market demands rules), structure (that’s how the organization works), and selectiveness (gender is but one aspect of diversity). Even with quotas, the inclusion of women on boards would be highly challenging because of the “organizational habitus” of national and international sport boards. A term drawing upon the sociology of Bourdieu, this means that for historical and cultural reasons, the board of an organization “produces a form of resistance that is (unconsciously) collectively produced rather than primarily being an act by individual board members” (Knoppers, Spaaij & Claringbould, 2021, p. 527). As a result, it demonstrates – without saying so explicitly – that improving gender equality numerically does not necessarily lead to more inclusive cultures.

The second finding is that “organizational culture” is used as a proxy for DIM. One example from the sample is Doherty and Chelladurai (1999, p. 280) who write that “the potentially constructive or destructive impact of cultural diversity is a function of the management of that diversity, which is ultimately a reflection of organizational culture, or ‘how things are done around here’.” Linking this to gender diversity and inclusion, Cunningham (2008, p. 137) argues that “there are informal processes and taken-for-granted norms, values, and assumptions that are perpetuated over time. Thus, the gendered nature of sport organizations is continually reinforced.” To address this taken-for-granted-ness in organizational culture, we need to get away from the distinction between culture as something an organization has and the organization as a culture. While some MOS scholars have argued that this is not an either-or question (Ogbonna, 1992), this study reveals that considering “culture” as a verb could help its being addressed more profoundly in DIM research. One example from sport exposing this issue is a study of BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and People of Color] and LGBTQI+ volunteers and diversity in the US. According to the authors:

many participants felt that DEI [Diversity, Equity and Inclusion] was not an embedded part of the culture. Though many noted that DEI had been a stated priority of the organization in recent years, they also reported that this value had not permeated all levels of the organization. (Legg & Karner, 2021, p. 976)

Simultaneously, they argue that their findings “suggest that volunteers experienced inclusion, or lack thereof, across four layered systems – personal, interpersonal, organizational and community” (Legg & Karner, 2021, p. 966). Each of these systems, however, is related to the organization as a whole, not least since the study is based on Bronfenbrenner’s socio-ecological theory where different systems are interactively nested with each other (Neal & Neal, 2013). As the layer named “organizational” in this connection also discusses culture, there is a web of DIM relations within an organization which the study’s conceptual model does not account for.

The third finding is that the DIM literature is predominantly characterized by a view of diversity management as a more or less objective tool to reach given goals. One example is given by Cunningham and Melton (2011, p. 647) who posit that sexual orientation diversity contributes positively “to organizational effectiveness through three mechanisms: enhanced decision-making capabilities, improved marketplace understanding, and goodwill associated with engaging in socially responsible practices”. An even more specific example is Yiamouyiannis and Osborne’s (2012) study of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Acknowledging the “broader issues related to the policy development process, as well as procedures and practices that serve to either support or impede women’s involvement” (p. 11), the authors also highlight that the NCAA raises its percentage of female leadership representation in line with female athlete presence (43%) to meet “its obligation to foster an inclusive culture and promote career opportunities” (Yiamouyiannis & Osborne, 2012, p. 2). However, whereas these findings resemble studies from the MOS field where DIM’s function is to serve business purposes (Scott-Baumann et al., 2019; Sénac, 2015), several other articles from the review sample discuss how an instrumental view can backfire if diversity is treated as a strategic element instead of an anthropological concern. Knoppers et al. (2021, p. 1) argue that “an uncritical use of the concept of diversity, the invisibility of practices sustaining gender binaries and heteronormativity and the intersection of heteronormativity and White normativity, contribute to sustaining the status quo in sport organizations.” What makes the latter authors’ argument especially compelling is their data source: a subtextual analysis of 32 articles published in leading sport management journals. This kind of conceptual fuzziness can be problematic as it may widen, rather than reduce, the divide between rhetoric and reality in DIM efforts. A similar conclusion is found in Long et al.’s (2005) case study of a governmental standard of best racial equality practice for sports organizations in the UK. In this framework, ethnic minorities are singled out as the “group” to be included in sport organizations through “ethnic monitoring”, normally audits of participants and paid staff members (Long et al., 2005, p. 48). Yet, while 62% of those engaged in the standard undertake ethnic monitoring of some kind, the low quality of this monitoring makes the entire process worthless, say the researchers, and they conclude: “It is possible for procedures to be superficially accommodated without there being any necessary organic change” (Long et al., 2005, p. 54).

The fourth finding is that education seems to be key to improving future DIM practices in sport. While these articles don’t necessarily examine DIM practices from within, they use much of the existing DIM literature to identify future requirements for sport managers. By focusing on what is missing from the field, these articles demonstrate a commitment to specify the terms in a managerial context. Especially in an Anglo-Saxon context, the current situation and episodes of malpractice demand more effort to make things change. Two strands are particularly debated: awareness of the complexity of the topic and pedagogical frameworks. An example of the former is Sauder et al. (2021) who investigated how sport management students conceptualized diversity and inclusion with the aim of generating a more holistic perspective on the topic. It turned out that the difference between the concepts were formulated rather well by the informants (undergraduate sport management students) but predominantly attributed to race, ethnicity and gender rather than, for example, age, socio-economic status and disability. Their solution to better sport management education in the name of diversity and inclusion is a focus on three elements of “cultural competence”: awareness, knowledge and skills (Sauder et al., 2021, p. 8). An example of the latter strand is Leberman and Shaw (2015). The conclusion of their study of female sport management graduates in New Zealand is that “there is a need to redesign existing curricula, and fundamentally change the pedagogy, by focusing more on the development of process skills, rather than on information gathering skills” (Leberman & Shaw, 2015, p. 363). The reason is twofold: first, students learn more about planning and organization than relation building and stakeholder management. Second, these skills learned, are derived from a socio-cultural context where employability and career adaptability are gendered to female sport management graduates’ disadvantage.

The fifth finding is DIM studies in sport, similar to those in the MOS field (Augier et al., 2005), suffer from an Anglo-Saxon bias which may reduce the transferability of their findings (Farndale et al., 2015; Ongori & Angolla, 2007; Theodorakopoulos & Budhwar, 2015), at least empirically. In total, 96 out of 124 articles – or 77.4% – belong to the Anglo-Saxon sphere. Whereas some bias was expected due to the English-based sample, it may nevertheless have practical and theoretical consequences for the study of DIM in other areas. Consider the abovementioned study by Long et al.’s (2005) of how funding for sport was linked to ethnic monitoring in organizations. French law would make it difficult to adopt the same practice in French sport organizations. What is more, if it had been done, it would have to consider French quota laws, a study of which demonstrated that the Americanized HR view on diversity as business tool veiled the complexity that it was meant to unpack and utilize (Bereni et al., 2020, pp. 1955–1956).

Discussion: three research gaps

Seen as a whole, the findings from the literature review reveal three research gaps. First, conceptualizations of diversity and inclusion need to be more precise when used to develop an organizational integration of people and parts. However, sport studies can contribute to refinements in DIM research and enrich the conceptual debate within the MOS field. Apart from viewing the sport organization’s whole as an integrated entity whose emergent properties depend on DIM actions, it is important to treat various types of diversity differently in relation to context and situation. Much of the reviewed literature concentrates on gender diversity and female representation on boards, whereas focusing on that alone would not necessarily be sufficient to understand how to improve organizational integration. Other diversity items such as ethnicity, identity, disabilities, behavioural types or cultural preference should also be considered, either through intersectionality theories or nuances of diversity categories (Hearn & Louvrier, 2016). In the introduction to a special issue of Sport Management Review, the authors exemplify this claim by underlining that “Indigenous Australians have links to one or more ancestral tribes with distinctive languages and customs; they are, therefore, ethnically divergent despite being typecast in popular thought as homogeneous – whether in terms of ‘race’ or Aboriginality” (Adair et al., 2010, p. 2). Since it can be argued that many sport organizations in various countries consist of “diversities” (Tiesler et al., 2021), this pluralism will in studies affect the leeway in managing e.g. organizational culture as a “tool” to improve employees’ sense of inclusion and how the organization performs on diversity measures.

Second, prior research demonstrates the necessity of coupling inclusion and diversity to manage sport organizations in concurrence with their values and societal expectations. If we see organizational culture (cf. the second finding in the Findings section) as coordinating the sociality of DIM, sport studies consider the social science perspectives more broadly than the MOS field, which, apart from a handful of examples with Tatli’s (2011, 2017) use of theories by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, only applies these perspectives of diversity and inclusion to a limited degree. For example, Mor Barak argues that “workforce diversity is not about anthropological differences among individuals that make them special or unique; diversity is about belonging to groups that are different than whatever is considered mainstream in society” (2015, p. 85). This position, however, misses the social inclusion/exclusion dynamics within groups and organizations that has been debated in the social sciences for decades, notably with explorations of integrative mechanisms like rituals, norms, in-group solidarism and initiation rites (Lamont & Molnàr, 2002; Mortensen, 1999; Ross, 1975). Related to sport, Evans and Pfister (2021, p. 317) claim in their meta-study that, despite political initiatives towards gender equality in Scandinavian sport organizations, inequality remains due to “patriarchal language, gendered stereotypes and person-profiling (…) resulting in specific emotional and practical challenges for women in sports leadership positions” (see also Pfister & Radtke, 2006, for similar findings in German sport). A way to address this issue in an educational setting, as discussed above, could be to ask students to explore the norms of inclusion and diversity initiatives in the context of organizational integration. Knowledge about this dynamic is likely to stimulate “reflexive emergence” (Goldspink & Kay, 2010) and make the emerging properties of a sport organization more easily available for, for example, managers who wish to include LGBTQ strategies to develop organizational culture (Lawley, 2020; Romano et al., 2021).

Third, it is relevant to use a social-scientific approach to treat DIM as a means to an end, but necessary to avoid instrumentalization of it by combining strategic (diversity) and cultural (inclusion) concerns in the search for organizational integration. In the context of organizational integration, this furthermore means considering both the internalist and externalist expectations of proper DIM actions to sport as an institution in society (Perkmann, 1998). For example, Beattie and Lower-Hoppe (2022), one of few studies explicitly linking diversity, inclusion and organizational culture, analyzed the transformation of Dallas Mavericks after the new CEO used organizational integration – although not named as such – as a lead motive to transform the club towards a more diverse and inclusive organization. In other words, the new CEO could not have achieved similar results in terms of organizational change if more access for the workforce to both formal and informal arenas were not enabled. The study of Dallas Mavericks thus exemplifies the necessity of harmonizing social and system integration to enhance organizational integration. Following Perkmann (1998), an arena for doing so is “sites of agency”, where systemic incompatibilities can be addressed by managers, but only under certain circumstances. Yiamouyiannis and Osborne (2012), for example, claim that: “Unless the power structure of the organization is committed to appropriate gender representation, there is little hope for achieving gender equity within intercollegiate athletics” (p. 11). For DIM studies, this is relevant as systemic incompatibilities are dysfunctional interactions between parts of a system (Perkmann, 1998, p. 495), for example, between inclusion and diversity initiatives as exemplified above with Evans and Pfister (2021), which can only by rectified if perceived as dysfunctional by social actors (Perkmann, 1998). This, in turn, requires an organizational culture that is inclusive enough to allow such perceptions to surface and be dealt with. A broader outlook than that represented by the MOS field thus enables sport researchers to combine the multiple dimensions of both diversity and inclusion in novel ways theoretically and methodologically.

Conclusion

This article has conducted an integrative literature review (N = 124) to address the status of diversity and inclusion management (DIM) within sport organizations. The results showed that the field, overall, focuses on diversity rather than inclusion, is quite instrumental by orientation, has an Anglo-Saxon bias, problematizes the educational aspect of DIM, and shows few traces of the thinking and developments prevalent in the diversity and inclusion management field as defined at the beginning of this article. Conceptually, it therefore corresponds to some degree with the MOS field, which can be claimed to be the home of DIM research, in its treatment of “diversity” and “inclusion” in context of organizational integration. At the same time, the findings from the review reveal an empirical insight into topics relating to diversity, inclusion and the relation between them in a sport management context – for example through organizational culture – that, to a greater extent than the MOS field at present, should ignite more theoretical interest and concern for conceptual clarity with regards to organizational integration.

Researchers with an interest in this field should also consider the limitations of this review. First, the categorizations of this article are open to debate. Neither “the MOS field”, “DIM research”, nor the review sample gathered to represent “sport studies”, are well-defined entities. It should also be noted that several of the studies on organizational integration disagree with each other on aspects of emergent properties (see for example, Le Boutillier, 2013, for a critique of Eldar-Vass, 2007), which allows for new debates on the intermingling of structures, cultures and people in an organizational context. Second, due to the diversity of review methods, there are alternative ways to identify data and make analytical choices when sorting the literature review findings. Third, since the data gathering stopped in 2022 new research in sport, diversity and inclusion has been published, which sheds light on this article’s topic (see e.g. Turconi et al., 2022).

Despite these shortcomings, this article has used a combination of theories on organizational integration and an integrative literature review to identify three research gaps which should be filled to bridge MOS and DIM research in sport further. These gaps emerged from the review findings, which showed that while sport organizations acknowledge their role in society when it comes to promoting diversity and inclusion, there is a lot left to study regarding DIM efforts and conceptual clarity and operationalization within sport organizations. Following the discussion, the conclusion is that these gaps are most likely to be filled by a social-scientific, rather than a merely MOS-driven, approach to DIM. The reason is that the former addresses socio-cultural complexity in the name of organizational integration in a way that MOS research does not. This approach is crucial to consider because of the historical, contextual and situational characteristics of DIM in sport. A conceptually integrative outlook and theoretical underpinning connected to organizational integration as presented in this article, therefore widens the research opportunities related to DIM conceptualizations and practices.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).