For the study we report here we used the theoretical framework of organizational justice to examine academic administrator’s perceptions of resource distribution decisions. We asked deans, school directors, and department chairs in one midwestern state about their perceptions of the fairness and likelihood of use of various distribution principles in scenarios involving distributions of compensation to faculty and resources to schools/departments. Differences based on Carnegie classification and current position were examined. Overall, we found that participants perceived compensating faculty members and allocating resources to departments based on the quality of teaching and impact on students was most fair, but they believed factors such as research productivity and funding secured were more likely to be used. While there were no differences based on current position, there were differences based on Carnegie classification with the research universities indicating greater preference for and likelihood of using research principles and non-research institutions indicating greater likelihood of using equality.
This article examines the role that systematic reviews can play in better understanding the status of knowledge in sport-related disciplines. The rationale for and procedures used in conducting various types of reviews will be discussed. Advantages and disadvantages of each approach will be presented and examples of reviews from the contemporary sport-related literature are provided throughout the article.