Board roles in Scottish football: an integrative stewardship-resource dependency theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research question: This study investigates how boards of directors perceive their roles in Scottish football clubs. With previous studies focusing on amateur and non-profit sport organisations (primarily in Canada, Australia and New Zealand), this research answers the call for more research into board roles and in other sport contexts.Research methods: A qualitative design is adopted and 24 directors of Scottish football clubs are interviewed. Football club directors are a difficult to access population and this research represents a rare opportunity to understand the perspectives of key sport governance informants. Template analysis is employed.Results and findings: Findings show that perceived board roles fall into five categories: control, service, operations, resource co-optation and strategy. Organisational size was found to influence perceptions of board roles in Scottish clubs, while an apparent alignment of interests between owners and managers, and a subsequent reduction in agency cost, has implications for the control role. An integration of stewardship theory and resource-dependency theory is argued to provide a more holistic understanding of board roles in this context.Implications: The study responds to calls for a multi-theoretical approach to board roles research by developing an integrative stewardship-resource dependency theory. The integrated theory is argued to be useful in framing the complex dynamics of board roles in Scottish football. Future research is encouraged to assess whether the stewardship-resource dependency theory can provide an effective framework for understanding board roles in other sport settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".