Background/Purpose:
The influence of social media in the lives of students, including the student-athlete subpopulation is massive and has sparked the creation of policies to police activity. Research examining social media policies has focused specifically on the Division I perspective (Sanderson, 2011). Division III athletes also utilize the communication tool and therefore exploration regarding social media policies at the Division III level is warranted.
Research pertaining to student-athletes and social media is limited. A total of four academic studies have analyzed concerns regarding student-athletes and social media (Butts, 2008; Browning & Sanderson, 2012; Havard, C. T., Eddy, T., Reams, L., Stewart, R. L., & Ahmad, T., 2012, Snyder, 2014). Additional research pertaining to legal issues related to social media policies has been addressed by the following (Epstein, T. L., 2011; Hopkins, J., Hopkins, K., & Whelton, 2013; Parkinson, 2011). Sanderson (2011) offers the only study that explores the content within athletic department social media policies. Sanderson’s study called for further investigation of social media policies at each division level.
Method:
A list of Division III conferences (N=45) and member schools (N = 449) was obtained from the NCAA Website (NCAA, 2013). The athletic department web site for each school was then visited to obtain the student-athlete handbook (N= 97).
A textual analysis was conducted (Potter, 1996, Paek & Shar, 2003). Each policy was read and social media policy elements were noted and grouped to answer the research questions.
Analysis/Results:
Of the policies that were analyzed, 32 institutions had implemented a policy that allowed monitoring of student-athletes profiles. The remaining 65 institutions did not specifically mention any monitoring or banning policy however; they did provide guidelines to the student-athletes regarding appropriate behavior. No institution had a written policy that banned student-athletes from using social media, although one institution highly discourages them from utilizing the 21st century communication. Analysis revealed the following content restrictions/advice: personal contact information (n= 77), inappropriate pictures (n = 83), inappropriate comments (n = 65), offensive language (n = 65). The policies mentioned these specific social media sites: Facebook (n =94), Myspace (47), Twitter (76), Youtube (31).
Conclusions:
Social media and intercollegiate athletics will continue to develop their relationship. It is suggested that many policies be revisited to emphasize and include the positives of social media. Additionally, the researcher advises the athletic departments to monitor social media policy trends within state and federal legislation.