Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership/ factors that lead to women being underrepresented in sport leadership

LITERATURE REVIEW! (specific instructions down below)
The literature review should be about women in sport leadership and the factors that keep them from attaining/keeping their managerial positions. Basically, factors that make it difficult for them. It would be enough to focus on 2 main factors, which could have (if applicable), some sub-factors. The review should contain at least 10 sources and a minimum of 4 in the main body. I attached some articles that might be helpful.
The hypotheses should sound something like: To what extent does *factor 1/factor2* influence the representation of women in sport leadership/athletic administration positions/sport governance?

Research key words: athletic administration position/sport governance/gender (stereotypes)/leadership

Title: the title should clearly indicate which variables or theoretical issues the article discusses and how they interconnect. Preferably, the title of an article should state its main finding and not its central question. The title should be comprehensible even out of context and serve to inform its reader, i.e. don’t state: ‘Students and Money’. Leave out any methodological additions that unnecessarily lengthen the title. Therefore, try and avoid qualifications such as: ‘A literature study of… Make sure any words in excess of three letters start with a capital. Maintain this rule for headings inside the text. Words that follow a hyphen or a colon should also begin with a capital. The APA recommends you spend 10-12 words on your title. Please see this as a guideline.

Abstract: in the abstract you should give a brief synopsis of your article of a maximum of 150 words in length. Make sure that the abstract contains the central question, what sort of research your article is based upon (literature review), what the scope is (the domain to which the question applies) and what the most important conclusions are. A summary is not a summation of what is to be discussed, it rather states the main findings. An abstract gives a clear and complete overview of the content of the report and it invites the reader to read the report.

Introduction: here you introduce the subject, indicate the problem area, and you work towards a clear central question (from broad to narrow). Work out the problem area, by discussing relevant theory and earlier research. Make sure that the reader understands the relevance of the problem area. Also, make sure you explain important concepts when you introduce them. Finally, explain what you will investigate, and how your paper is structured.

Be aware that you are writing a scientific article and not a news item. To begin an article about depression like this: Emma is down in the dumps. She finds it hard to enjoy life these days and keeps thinking about death’, is not the best way to kick off the writing of a scientific article. However, it is suitable to describe topical interest or prevalence data, which shows the relevance of the topic.

Method: the method section justifies your literature search procedure and on what basis you selected your articles. It should allow the reader to replicate your search method. To be able to write a proper method it is crucial to log the steps of your literature search and selection procedure. Please include the following in your method section: Which search words and procedures did you use in looking up literature? Which databases did you consult? Which criteria did you apply in selecting a particular article (inclusion criteria)? Which criteria were applied for not selecting another article (exclusion criteria)? How did you rate the relevance of the sources you found? (E.g., did you read the full article or just the excerpt?) On what basis did you assess their quality? Finally, what were the criteria or the reasons underlying your final selection of sources?

Main body: the main body should contain all the relevant information you need to answer the research question. Indicate which different theories or views exist in the literature pertaining to your research question. Avoid successive summations of research results (e.g., study 1; study 2; study 3), but explain to the reader what we can learn from the various studies conducted (theoretical implications) in relation to the research question.

Keep the following line of argumentation in discussing individual studies: make clear why you discuss this study. Explain what the results were and how these were obtained. Give an interpretation of the results and explain what the results mean for your central question. Discuss limitations of the study.

Be critical when incorporating the literature (see also Annex 4), for example, by discussing the method of the various studies you describe. Make this the basis for what weight is given to a study you’re citing in answering your research question (as a rule, for example, conclusions drawn from a case study will have less weight than those drawn following a large-scale study or meta-analysis; and if you’re looking for causal relations, the conclusions drawn from an experiment will be more convincing than conclusions from correlational research).

Make sure that the information in the main body is cohesive and logical; you can do this by creating links between the various sources and by detailing any similarities, differences, contrasts and shortcomings. When discussing several studies within a subsection, keep the following in mind: Discuss the different studies in a logical order (for example, in increasing quality of the research method). Discuss each study according to previously described steps. Make clear with transitions how the studies are linked. Write a sub-conclusion at the end of the subsection in which you make a distinction between different results and/or theories by weighing the quality of the studies. Integrate the results, by providing explanations for the presented results that are linked to the central question.

Make sure your main body has a transparent organization. For example, you can choose to make a thematic classification of sub-topics if your research is suitable for this. Several approaches are suitable. For instance, to compare two interventions, you can divide the main body so that you first discuss the studies on one intervention and then studies on the other intervention. By contrast, you could also make a classification based on the intended effects of both interventions. Do not call the main body ‘main body’, but divide your article up into separate parts and give each part a fitting heading.

Discussion and conclusion: this is where you repeat your central question and your main findings. Argue your conclusion/stand and why it is supported by the literature you’ve discussed. After that you broaden your discussion by providing an interpretation of the findings and by pointing out the possible implications your findings may have on theory and practice.

You should then go on to discuss your findings, for example, by indicating any remaining ambiguities or inclarities; limitations of the described studies; and the limitations of your own literature review. Give substantiated suggestions for future research. Conclude with a clear message.

Thus, make sure that you do not just give a summary of the results from the main body, but that you integrate these findings and properly scrutinize them. A conclusion/discussion should always contain references, so don’t forget to include these.

References: this is where you list the sources you’ve used. Apply the American Psychological Association’s (APA) guidelines on referencing described in the book Academic Writing Skills. Make sure that all references in the text are listed in the bibliography, and that all references in the bibliography are included in the text.