The Perceptions of Academically Underachieving, Gifted, Elite Male Athletes: A Grid and Group Interpretation

Abstract

This qualitative case study examines the perceptions of three elite collegiate athletes and compares their parallel journeys through the school system and their sports programs. Douglas’ (1982) theoretical framework is used to identify characteristics in each of the four social relations: fatalist, hierarchical, individualist, and egalitarian. Three research questions were developed to better understand the circumstances and motivation that produce students that underperformed in the classroom and excelled on the practice field. These questions are: how do academically underachieving, gifted, elite male athletes identify on the grid group map in terms of their experiences in the classroom and the practice field; how do academically underachieving, gifted, elite male athletes perceive an ideal culture within a classroom and practice field; and what are the perceived differences between what academically underachieving, gifted, elite male athletes are experiencing versus their imagined culture of an ideal situation? This study used Douglas’ (1982) grid and group topology as a map to analyze hundreds of pages of narratives and survey data. This four-phase study was completed October 2020 (in the year of Covid-19). Narrative data from three male participants consisted of 60 volgs, a focus group, 60 surveys, and multiple individual interviews. Criteria for acceptance into the study was being male, having a high school grade point average of less than 2.3, having a standardized test score in the top 20%, being actively recruited by an NCAA Division I team, and currently playing a sport in college. Three culturally diverse players, from a Midwest community college baseball team, participated in this study. Findings from the study indicated that over time, all three participants passed in-and-out through all of Douglas’ four social relations. In the school setting, lack of control, mistrust of the teacher, and overt teacher prejudices drew the participants into a fatalistic relation with the teacher and the school system. On the practice field, the hopelessness of the fatalist relation was mostly non-existent. The participants thrived in the individualistic and hierarchical relations, taking responsibility for their actions and coming together as a team for a collaborative purpose. Overall, the participants would like the school culture to mirror the athletic culture regarding choice and trust. One of their needs for both the classroom and the practice field was to have an open, fear-free space to learn from the teacher or coach, and also to learn from each other. One implication for a sports related practice includes a tool used to determine a coaches’ ability to be humble and to accurately assess the effectiveness of their own coaching skills; determine the degree with which they receive and reflect on criticism; and their ability to trust in the players’ agency to cultivate and make other players better. Another implication of the study is a “modern day” study table developed by and for student-athletes. Further implications in the classroom are for school leaders and teachers to use a form of Harris’ (2005) grid and group protocols and key strategies to understand which social relation their school culture identifies with and to reflect on how the fatalist social relation corrupts the system. Lastly, the need for local school districts to understand that gifted programming is an overall engagement tool, not an add-on but a needed component woven within the current curriculum. Leaders at all levels should promote funding from the local, state, and federal levels.