The purposes of this study were to compile demographic characteristics, educational backgrounds, coaching experiences, and duties of strength and conditioning (STC) coaches at NCAA Division II and III institutions, and compare the profile of Division II and III STC coaches to the Martinez (2004) study of Division I-A STC coaches. NCAA Division II and Division III athletic personnel (N=578) received an electronic survey for this study. The return rate from Division II and Division III STC coaches were as follows: Division II, 23 responses (n=175), Division III, 34 responses (n=403). Descriptive statistics were used to examine each item. STC coaches at NCAA Division II and III institutions are white, male, approximately 35 and 34 years of age respectively, earn an annual salary of $30,001-$40,000, hold the CSCS certification, and received a Master's degree. The results indicated differences between this study and Martinez's (2004) study of NCAA Division I-A STC coaches.

Research has shown that collegiate female athletes are oftentimes faced with negotiating meanings of their femininity and their athleticism. Athleticism has traditionally been equated with masculinity, and to be a collegiate athlete requires certain levels of skill, experience, and athletic ability. Therefore, female collegiate athletes are conflicted with managing their identities in order to avoid accusations of their sexuality, which often results in being labeled as deviant. A primary indicator of athleticism is muscularity, which is also considered a masculine trait. In order to stay within gender boundaries, female athletes may go above and beyond to emphasize their femininity, or they may hold back on performance and training to avoid a muscular physique. An area of collegiate athletics that has become increasingly important is the strength and conditioning coach and weight room. These coaches are responsible for training athletes in power and speed development to enhance sport performance and prevent injury. Research has shown, however, that the weight room and activity of lifting weights has not been deemed socially appropriate for women. The purpose of this study was to understand first, how do Division-I female athletes negotiate their femininity and muscularity within the strength and conditioning environment? Second, is there a difference in femininity and muscularity negotiations and management between underclassmen female collegiate athletes and upperclassmen female collegiate athletes? Finally, what aspects of the weight room influence the negotiations of femininity and muscularity among female collegiate athletes? To gain a rich understanding of how female athletes negotiate their femininity with muscularity in the strength and conditioning environment, a qualitative methodology was used. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 14 athletes, from 7 different sports, at a Midwestern Division-I university. Using a critical feminist interactionist theoretical framework, this study found that female collegiate athletes negotiate their meanings of muscularity and femininity in the strength and conditioning environment. Athletes viewed it necessary to place boundaries on their muscularity in regards to size, preferring the `toned' physique. All athletes acknowledged a positive impact on their sport performance, yet some athletes admitted to holding back during strength and conditioning sessions. Others believed that the weight lifting program was not threatening to their muscularity, but explained they would hold back if it did have a `bulking' effect. Finally, some athletes performed additional cardiovascular training to reduce body size. Additional findings suggest that the weight room environment is influential for the female athletes. The public weight room was described as a gendered space that was intimidating. In contrast, the collegiate weight room was a place that was welcoming to the female athletes. The strength and conditioning coach played an important role to the environment and the female athletes. Concluding results show that inconsistent with previous research, there were no consistent findings in attitude or behavior differences between underclassmen and upperclassmen athletes.

The purpose of this study was to explore the interdepartmental integration between athletic trainers and strength and conditioning coaches in relation to relationship, communication, collaboration, and education. Forty participants from the NCAA Division I Southern Conference, twenty-eight athletic trainers and twelve strength and conditioning coaches, completed an electronic survey during a two-week period. Collected data were analyzed by descriptive and thematic coding analyses. The results suggested participated athletic trainers and strength and conditioning coaches were interactive and collaborative. Open-ended responses identified key concepts when athletic trainers and strength and conditioning coaches communicated and collaborated. A high interaction and collaboration model may be ideal to optimize athletes through rehabilitation while considering injury management, athlete monitoring, training program modifications, and athletic movement correction.

Aim The aim of this study was to examine current factors regarding strength and conditioning coaches at the collegiate level, furthermore to examine factors dependent on the level of sports. 1. What was the educational background of strength and conditioning coaches at the collegiate level? 2. What was the salary of strength and conditioning coaches at the collegiate level? 3. How much relevant work experience did strength and conditioning coaches have at the collegiate level? 4. What were the differences and similarities of strength and conditioning coaches’ factors dependent on collegiate division? Method The method was a cross-sectional study applying a survey to examine the study’s four previously mentioned issues. Coaches encompassing the inclusion criteria (e.g. seniority and professionalism) of the study were contacted for possible participation. The survey was sent to collegiate strength and conditioning coaches (n=225) whom were randomly chosen with equal amounts of potential samples from each division. The results were then analyzed using mode, mean, range and frequency. Results 82 surveys were completed and returned (36 %). Three surveys were ineligible, therefore 79 surveys were used to produce the results. A Master’s degree (67.09 %) and CSCS certification (81.01 %) were recognized as common attributes among collegiate strength and conditioning coaches. Salary and relevant experience answers were fairly spread throughout all divisions. Differences in certifications were found as the SCCC was cited in higher frequency among Division I coaches (52.63 %) than the two lower divisions (≤26.67 %). Conclusions Both a master’s degree within a relevant field and a CSCS certification can be regarded as fundamental attributes of collegiate strength and conditioning coaches. Work experience and CSCCa certifications may be efficient predictors for salary and involvement in elite versus non-elite environments. The study’s results will aid aspiring collegiate strength and conditioning coaches in career development as well as employers in hiring processes.