<\/strong>
Parallel paths, sister cities, and billion dollar demands:
Relocation threats used in stadium funding discussions in Major League Baseball in the last five years<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Relocation in any form is an often contentious situation between a community and those who chose to leave. In America, relocation is not an uncommon situation, as companies move and shift frequently, forcing employees and communities to shift and adjust to their whims. Nick Trujillo (2012) states that sport is one of the biggest industries in the world where, \u201cSport is\u2026a trillion<\/em> dollar industry and shapes cultural values in most countries on the planet [emphasis Trujillo\u2019s]<\/em>\u201d (p. 69). Also, Sport in America, and more specifically Major League Baseball (MLB), is perceived as deeply rooted to its nation and communities as America\u2019s Pastime was used as a descriptor for baseball as early as 1856 (Curtis 2009; Thorn 2020). In fact these factors have helped stave off relocations in baseball compared to other \u201cBig Five\u201d sports in America (football, basketball, hockey, and soccer) as there have been only fourteen team relocations in MLB since 1901, the year that the American League and the National League began the creation of Major League Baseball as we know it today (Jozsa Jr. 2010; Law Institute of Marquette 2018; NFL.com; NBA.com; NHL.com; MLS.com). These economic and cultural factors only amplify the contention that surrounds discussions of relocation. Literature Review<\/strong> As seen in table 1.1, relocation in MLB has historically come in waves, with the last major wave being a westward expansion in the 1950\u2019s and 1960\u2019s (Jozsa 2010). Most other leagues in North America have seen more steady relocations over time, such as one or two every handful of years, like in the NFL\u2019s most recent relocations of the Raiders, Rams, and Chargers happening within a 4 year span (Law Institute of Marquette 2018 p. 3). Table 1.2 shows that there are two \u201cwaves of relocation.\u201d The first includes the two relocations as MLB establishes itself (including others that happened in the late 1800s (Jozsa 2010). The second, as stated earlier, holds the bulk of MLB relocations and happened mid-century. In this wave, MLB had eleven relocations within a twenty year span from 1953-1972. The only relocation to happen outside of one of these \u201cwaves\u201d was the Montreal Expos relocation, which is unique in its own right as it was the only relocation in MLB for decades on either side of it. Also, at the time of relocation the team had been owned for three years by MLB, which decided in the need for relocation due to a history of poor ownership (Keri 2014). Based on current conversations happening in MLB news reports and the recent relocation decision on the Oakland Athletics, baseball could be leaning into a new wave of relocations in the not-too-distant future, as more teams have been mentioned in relocation rumors in the last two years (Milwaukee Brewers, Tampa Bay Rays, Arizona Diamondbacks, Kansas City Royals, and Chicago White Sox). Threat<\/strong> Identification<\/strong> Memory (Memorialization)<\/strong> \u201crhetoric is synonymous with meaning, for meaning is in use and context, not words themselves. Knowledge and belief are products of persuasion, which seeks to make the arguable seem natural, to turn positions into premises\u2014and it is rhetoric\u2019s responsibility to reveal these ideological operations\u201d (2000 p. 14). <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The importance of what Bizzell and Herzberg state here is that rhetoric is about the making of meaning and not just the methods in which we use to persuade others. This connects both the threats with the identification practices, and in turn how we apply collective memory practices of communities and fans in relocation situations. What this research can find in rhetoric, and specifically the canon of memory, will help create meaning in these situations that evolves the identities of fans and communities from what was to something new. Methods<\/strong> Method<\/strong> Coding<\/strong> Ethics<\/strong> Analysis of Data<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/plovas\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/34770\/2024\/04\/GettyImages-oracle-park-2-copy.png\")
Oakland Athletics and San Francisco Giants fans chanting in response to the Athletics relocation on July 25, 2023. (Lachlan Cunningham \/ Getty Images)<\/sub><\/p>\n\n\n\n
What is not as often researched is how these arguments for relocation are made beyond economic or quality of life standards. Often these arguments play out in the media where fans and communities first hear about the possibility of relocation in ways that can be both jarring and demeaning to the communities that have supported the league and owners in the past. This study will look at five recent relocation discussions that involve MLB teams over the last five plus years (from 2019-2024), for responses to threats of the potential loss of a professional sports team to an area by the local public and fans of those chosen teams. This work will be done through an analysis of specific team related media (SBNation articles) for the identification of threats of relocation made on behalf of the team or MLB as a way of initiating the process of relocation or force stadium development conversations and the fan responses found in the comment sections of those articles to those threats. The goal is to see what responses do fans make to particular types of threats made in stadium development discussions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Relocation<\/strong>
Relocation is defined as one professional team’s ownership decides to move a team from one metropolitan area to another, rather than sell the team to a different local ownership group, merge with another team (as was frequent early in a leagues life), or disband the team altogether. Relocation is different from contraction or teams folding altogether. In these situations teams are not moved from one location to another, they just cease to exist anymore. These moments are often due to owners choosing not to fund a team any longer. The similarity here is that both relocation and contraction most commonly happen to \u201csmall market\u201d teams or teams with secondary teams in the area. Also, conversations of relocation often start from a capitalist view of location as just another marketable piece of team ownership (along with the stadiums that house teams), often separating the team from the community in which it resides. Defining relocation for our purposes in this way helps us locate disconnects between team ownership and the community of fans where teams are located.
Even the way that professional sports teams in North America are marketed to audiences and communities is one of capitalist land control that affects team locations and value. These locations are discussed in terms of \u201cmarkets” rather than communities or sometimes even cities. This is less common with sports around the world where teams are closely associated with the communities in which they are located and historic labor classes from those communities. In North America, a quick look at the biggest leagues in the country proves that many teams identify and brand with a combination of \u201cmarket\u201d identifiers that leave them open to relocating more easily. One example is when teams use \u201cmarket\u201d identifiers that omit the city (or even specific state) in which a team is located altogether, such as the Golden State Warriors (NBA), Carolina Panthers (NFL), or Carolina Hurricanes (NHL). These open variations in the naming of teams would help team owners explain how their teams can be less focused on the \u201clocal\u201d contexts of their existence and focus on the \u201cglobal\u201d or \u201cregional market\u201d factors of the teams. Meaning that when a conversation of relocation happens, the team can fit anywhere in a given market, such as the Warriors moving from Oakland to San Francisco without having to do any rebranding. Thinking about relocation in these ways is essential for researchers to be able to acknowledge the economic effects of any given potential relocation events.
More than just the \u201cmarket\u201d power of professional sports owners themselves, the relocation of teams amounts to its own big business in the professional sports landscape of North American leagues. Through an analysis of the traditional \u201cBig Five\u201d sports leagues in the North American sports landscape (which includes Major League Baseball [MLB], National Basketball Association [NBA], National Football League [NFL], National Hockey League [NHL], and Major League Soccer [MLS]), I have found that there have been fifty-seven franchises (teams) that have relocated from one region to new regions since 1950 (Law Institute of Marquette 2018 pp. 1-3; MLS.com; Kaplan 2024). Through the previous definition of relocation, I am not including any teams that relocate to new stadium developments in the same metropolitan area (Jozsa Jr. 2010) but specifically looking at those that left a metropolitan area. This means that there has been nearly one relocation per year in North American sports leagues at an average of 0.77 relocations per year in the 74-year span since 1950.
Conversations of relocation have become more prevalent in professional sports recently and the discussions around new stadium development in North America may lead to an increase in actual relocations similar to the 1950\u2019s and 1960\u2019s. In just the past 12 months, from April 2023 to April 2024, two leagues have already announced relocations of teams for the following seasons, The Oakland Athletics relocation from Oakland, California to Las Vegas, Nevada (via Sacramento, California) and the Arizona Coyotes move from Phoenix, Arizona to Salt Lake City, Utah. As you can see in Table 1.1 there has been a steady growth in team relocation since the turn of the 21st century among major professional sports in North America. In MLB these discussions have recently encompassed the conversations of six teams, five of which will be discussed further in the paper.
Table 1.1 Relocations in North American sports since the development of MLB in 1901<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/td> MLB*<\/td> NBA**<\/td> NFL***<\/td> NHL****<\/td> MLS*****<\/td><\/tr> Relocations 2001-present<\/td> 2<\/td> 3<\/td> 3<\/td> 2<\/td> 1<\/td><\/tr> Relocations 1950-2000<\/td> 11<\/td> 18<\/td> 9<\/td> 9<\/td> 0<\/td><\/tr> Relocations 1901-1950<\/td> 2<\/td> 0<\/td> 3<\/td> 4<\/td> 0<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>
* – MLB founded in 1901, data includes Oakland Athletics announced relocation (expected 2028)<\/em>
** – NBA founded in 1946<\/em>
*** – NFL founded in 1920<\/em>
**** – NHL founded in 1917, data includes Arizona Coyotes upcoming relocation (expected 2024)<\/em>
***** – MLS founded in 1993 but first game was in 1996<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Table 1.2 Data on the fourteen MLB Relocations Since 1901<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nTeam<\/td> Seasons in community<\/td> First season in new location<\/td> From community<\/td> To community<\/td><\/tr> Milwaukee Brewers *<\/td> 1 (1901)<\/td> 1902<\/td> Milwaukee**<\/td> St. Louis<\/td><\/tr> Baltimore Orioles<\/td> 2 (1901-1902)<\/td> 1903<\/td> Baltimore**<\/td> New York<\/td><\/tr> Boston Braves *<\/td> 41 (1912-1952<\/td> 1953<\/td> Boston<\/td> Milwaukee<\/td><\/tr> St. Louis Browns *<\/td> 52 (1902-1953)<\/td> 1954<\/td> St. Louis<\/td> Baltimore<\/td><\/tr> Philadelphia Athletics *<\/td> 54 (1901-1954)<\/td> 1955<\/td> Philadelphia<\/td> Kansas City<\/td><\/tr> Brooklyn Dodgers<\/td> 57 (1901-1957)<\/td> 1958<\/td> Brooklyn<\/td> Los Angeles<\/td><\/tr> New York Giants<\/td> 57 (1901-1957)<\/td> 1958<\/td> New York**<\/td> San Francisco<\/td><\/tr> Washington Senators<\/td> 60 (1901-1960)<\/td> 1961<\/td> Washington D.C.**<\/td> Minneapolis<\/td><\/tr> Milwaukee Braves *<\/td> 13 (1953-1965)<\/td> 1966<\/td> Milwaukee**<\/td> Atlanta<\/td><\/tr> Los Angeles\/California Angels ***<\/td> 5 (1961-1965)<\/td> 1966<\/td> Los Angeles<\/td> Anaheim<\/td><\/tr> Kansas City Athletics *<\/td> 13 (1955-1967)<\/td> 1968<\/td> Kansas City**<\/td> Oakland<\/td><\/tr> Seattle Pilots ***<\/td> 1 (1969-1969)<\/td> 1970<\/td> Seattle**<\/td> Milwaukee<\/td><\/tr> Washington Senators ***<\/td> 11 (1961-1971)<\/td> 1972<\/td> Washington D.C.**<\/td> Arlington<\/td><\/tr> Montreal Expos ***, ****<\/td> 36 (1969-2004)<\/td> 2005<\/td> Montreal<\/td> Washington D.C.<\/td><\/tr> Oakland Athletics *,*****<\/td> 57 (1968-2024)<\/td> 2024<\/td> Oakland<\/td> Las Vegas via Sacramento<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>
* – Relocated again<\/em>
** – MLB returned to city through expansion\/relocation<\/em>
** – Expansion team<\/em>
*** – league owned team when relocation decided<\/em>
**** – Expected Relocation timeline<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
In the context of this paper threats are moments when those in power (in this context either team owners or the league officials) make claims that support from the community is needed or the organization will need to look to new locations for that support. In North American sports this often looks like an team owner looking for public funding for new stadium development or stadium improvements (either from deals with city\/county\/state leaders or through passing legislation through public voting) rather than spending their own revenue on such things (such as new revenue streams or the selling of publishing\/filming rights or ownership stakes). The way these threats are also made is important as they can range from vague or veiled threats to overt and explicit threats. The latter is often blanketed over conversations of relocation from the start while the former is often used within other factors such as roster payrolls being slashed or experiences at the ballpark being cut for money or safety reasons. Other methods may include the \u201cleak\u201d of stadium negotiations or targeted marketing campaigns (the Oakland Athletics tactics echo these threat styles). These create a dynamic of \u201cdo this or else\u201d between the wealthy individuals\/families and the general population of the communities where teams are located.
The ultimate goal of looking at threats is to determine the frequency of use of these methods in stadium development and not necessarily their effectiveness, because the dynamics of \u201csuccess\u201d could have a vast number of factors. I will be looking specifically at frequency of use by ownership and how the communities respond to threats to their identities as fans and the membership of the team to the community.These threats can affect the perception of a given community and the identity of those involved as their community is treated as potentially no longer a \u201cmajor league city\u201d (Sapotichne 2012 pp. 176-177). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Using Kenneth Burke\u2019s work on identification and identifying acts addressed in A Rhetoric of Motives (1969), this study will balance the analysis of threat language\/usage with how communities identify with the teams making the threats. The use of Burke\u2019s work here is important because as he shares, the goal of identification is to bring people together when they have been in opposition with each other and being able to identify similar interests can help create a sense of belonging or community (22). Relocation conversations are filled with both opposition to relocation (and ownership) and a sense of belonging to the community through the potential loss of the local sports team. Burke (1969) explains that loss and subsequent belonging is \u201cin this sense is rhetoric” (p. 28).
Burke\u2019s identification helps to further solidify the ways in which the conversations that surround relocation show a need for connection among fans and communities to help create the sense of belonging in which he is speaking. For sports fans this identification can be both the belonging as a group of fans (rather than individuals, as well as their \u201chome\u201d being viewed as one of the exclusive \u201cmajor league cities\u201d (Sapotichne 2012 pp. 176-177) that are limited in number in North America. Within A Rhetoric of Motives<\/em> (1969), Burke argues that \u201cIdentification is affirmed with earnestness precisely because there is division; Identification is compensatory to division\u201d (p. 22). This means that for us to be able to identify we have to understand the division that is taking place or at least acknowledge difference. This can be seen when \u201cteam identity\u2026requires an individual to recognize membership to a group, and evaluative in that an individual must continuously reflect on this group\u2019s status (by comparing to relevant out-groups and\/or considering positive elements of the in-group\u201d (Lock & Heere, 2017 as qtd. in Wegner, Delia, and Baker 2019 p. 216). It is within this conflict, or difference, that this work of considering impact on community when a team leaves is important. The human connection and how sports can be a function of how people identify as a community are at the heart of the problem with threats as a rhetorical tactic in relocation conversations.
The use of Burke\u2019s theory of identification as a framework allows this research to negotiate moments where the conversations about relocation lead to moments of incongruence. The incongruence however is not specifically a rejection of various arguments but an observation of moments where disconnect just happens. This understanding is important for looking at the rhetoric because \u201cindividuals organize their multiple group identities at different levels of abstraction\u201d (Wegner, Delia, and Baker 2019 p. 216) meaning that while their fandom may be at a moment of incongruence in which the local community may not be in. It is useful in at least two moments of conversation: between the relocating team and the community, and between different groups within the community\u2014such as when fans identify and respond differently to changes to their connection to team identity (Wegner, Delia, & Baker 2019). Their work looks at the Rams relocation from, and subsequent return to, Los Angeles, and both relocations are moves that are recent enough that many fans remember the Rams arriving in St. Louis as well as leaving St. Louis, meaning their identity might be shaped differently than that of a team located in a community longer. This means that the idea of relocation is both substantially one idea, where all relocations are similar but by relating various relocations to each other they become consubstantial of each other, meaning that they are both similar but with each \u201cremaining unique\u201d with \u201can individual locus of motives\u201d (Burke p. 21). By framing relocation research this way, the work can specifically be looking for moments of what Burke (1969) defines as “substance” which is “an act; and a way of life is an acting-together” and when these moments happen people shared \u201csubstance,\u201d and they become consubstantial (p. 21).
This framework of identification also connects to the work that has been done previously in stadium development research and fan studies work in looking at how we create opportunities to persuade (or in some of these cases did not make the attempts when they could have been made). Burke (1974) identifies three ways that identification can be enacted. The first is through identification by sympathy or finding common ground with others. The second is through identification by antithesis or framing a common enemy between entities. The third is identification by false assumption or inaccurate identification between association in another group. An current example in MLB is the conflict between the Oakland Athletics organization and the fan and community as they respond to the growing relocation news of the teams ownership through reverse boycotts and other fan led events (Mastrodonato 2024; Smith 2024; Burke 2024a; Simon 2024). By finding both the connections between the fans and the organization we also see the inherent divisions involved with the process of identifying and responding. As often happens with relocation (and with most fandoms), the concept of identification plays out like a theatrical production (drama), where there is a division between the powerful (actors) and the those that are often less economically influential, but more socially influential in the fans and communities (audiences) that do the supporting and this drama allows audiences to identify and make associations with the actors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Including concepts of rhetorical memory and memorialization to my framework will help focus the research on not only how conversations of relocation happen but also how communities mourn (or do not mourn) any potential loss of professional teams that have been located (and in some cases ingratiate themselves to) in a community for years or decades. These affective moments become heavily linked to how we communicate identity, often in ways to \u201crecollect and communicate experience\u201d (Martin 2021 p. 477). Martin (2021) shows that within the context of relocation there is both a desire for the presence of the team (in the instance of relocation) and, through the act of communicating these moments, a loss through recollections are never complete. The rhetorical moments in which fans and communities enact memory practices become vital to how experience is shared within the community, solidifying our membership and identification with that community.
This study uses Bizzell and Herzberg\u2019s (2000) definition of rhetoric, which states that
<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Another issue of rhetorical memory is that of all the canons of classical rhetoric (invention, style, arrangement, delivery, memory), memory is the canon that has needed the most recovery through the centuries, especially as the study of rhetoric moved through the medieval and renaissance periods. These moments shifted focus of rhetoric to the classical canons of invention and arrangement (Ramus) or separating rhetoric from the production of knowledge (Bacon) (Eyman 2018 p. 15; Pruchnic & Lacey 2011 p. 472-473). The once vaunted memory, \u201cthe treasure-house of the ideas…the guardian of all the parts of rhetoric\u201d (Rhetorica Ad Herennium<\/em> 2004 p. 205) had been left to mere memorization. However, Brooke (2009) offers another view where \u201cmemory is painted as the victim of technological change\u2026, without much thought offered as to how it is being represented or how memory is actually practiced\u201d (p. 31). It is here that my focus on rhetorical memory is found. The use (or misuse) and (d)evolution of rhetorical memory has caused it to lag behind the other rhetorical canons in its rediscovery. However, reclaiming it as a \u201cguardian\u201d of rhetoric makes it the most important of the canons when we look at how memory is used to create knowledge as technologies and communication practices evolve. Memory then becomes something more than memorization, it gets \u201cpromoted\u201d to being about associations (memories) and accessibility, allowing for better understanding and effectiveness of the other four canons.
This redefining of rhetorical memory also shows that there is a difficulty with how memory is communicated. Miller (2021) argues that it is \u201cfrequently staged inside the rhetorical strategies of epideictic (or ceremonial) speech which foregrounds the present moment\u2019s articulation to the past and future\u201d (p. 478), and this runs in line with most discussions of relocation. However, Miller\u2019s work also places the use of memory as a discussion of both the past and future to create meaning, or at the very least identify with something else. This understanding, when combined with Pruchnic and Lacey\u2019s (2011) work as they share that the \u201cmere potential of exteriorizing memory in media can suggest that only those memories captured in such ways are real or reliable\u201d (p. 479), shows that there is a rhetorical power of how meaning is constructed communally and how it solidifies in spaces outside of the self. Also, \u201cmemories of individuals and groups are inextricably intertwined and shared\u201d and memories are stored and recalled through collective experiences and communications (Whittemore 2015 p. 14). When we have extended moments of memorializing, such as within protracted relocations of sports teams, how fans communicate their understanding and experience creates the narratives that will be remembered, not the actions actually taken in the process. In the example of the Oakland Athletics, the relocation event will be remembered for not just the initial actions and communications from the Athletics organization, but also through the external memory practices and storage of the fans and community responses to these actions taken. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Context<\/strong>
This project is a pilot study of relocation rhetoric, specifically focused on the use of threats as a tactic to force decisions on relocation. There are six teams in MLB who have been part of relocation conversations over the last five years where conversations of market size, attendance, public funding, land, and team performance have been mentioned as factors of relocation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This research used digital ethnography to investigate the use of threats in relocation discussions, how those threats affect identification to teams by their fans and communities, and how memorialization plays into the threat and response. Digital ethnography was chosen because of its observation-based inquiry practices and because of the ability to do that inquiry within digital spaces. Similar to Wegner, Delia, and Baker\u2019s (2019) work, this method allows me to unobtrusively observe interactions in a well defined community without directing any interactions through SBNation (p 218).
This work will look at SBNation, an MLB and sport \u201cnews\u201d outlet that has dedicated team specific news pages and writers, for content on relocation. SBNation was chosen over other sites because it is owned and operated by a reputable company in Vox Media as well as has clear guidelines that claim, in part, that \u201cSB Nation is a network of communities where sports fans from all backgrounds gather to share their passion for the teams they love\u201d (Community Guidelines 2024). These guidelines also share that the sites are moderated respectfully while still allowing for a variety of content and opinions to be shared by its writers and its audience without the oversight of the teams or leagues that are being discussed. Because there is no oversight by the teams\/league on SBNation\u2019s writers, the research will cover editorial articles by team beat writers and the comments by the fans in the comments sections when there are comments attached (some pages do not have comments enabled). For the sake of the conversation of relocation, the Oakland Athletics have been excluded from this study because they have officially announced their relocation to Las Vegas (by way of Sacramento for 3+ seasons). The focus was chosen to cover teams that are currently having conversations about relocation possibilities so that any comments analyzed were not added post announcement of relocation and skewing any results. SBNation team pages chosen were the South Side Sox (Chicago White Sox), Royals Review (Kansas City Royals), Brew Crew Ball (Milwaukee Brewers), AZ Snake Pit (Arizona Diamondbacks), and DRays Bay (Tampa Bay Rays). Initial searches of these pages were the keywords \u201crelocation\u201d and \u201cstadium\u201d for a period from 2019-2024. In total there were 150 articles that were originally chosen before narrowing that list to the individual article chosen for each team. From the results the pages will then be analyzed for any mention of threats to narrow down the specific reports before then coding for types of identification and threats. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Coding was done in three phases that are in line with Braun and Clark\u2019s work (2006) through data familiarization, coding, and theme generation. The initial coding was done through process and values coding (Saldana 2016), and at times expanded into In Vivo and Descriptive coding (See Table 1.3). The research started by coding for threat and identification. Secondary codes identified types of threats made, specific identification markers (type of identification made), and memorialization done by organizations or fans that solidify identification. By limiting my data set to the last five years of articles and only five teams, there was more opportunity to test codes and coding methods than would be possible in a larger study. The following Table 1.3 outlines all of the coding methods used in the collection of data.
Table 1.3 First cycle coding methods and coding types for use on this project<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nCoding Method<\/td> Coding Type<\/td> Rationale*<\/td><\/tr> Elemental<\/td> Descriptive<\/td> \u00b7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Appropriate for a wide variety of data sources\u00b7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Foundational in qualitative study
\u00b7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Uses include documenting material products and physical environments of ethnographies<\/td><\/tr>In Vivo<\/td> \u00b7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Appropriate for participant-generated language from members of a culture or subculture
\u00b7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Prioritizes and honors the voice of the participant
\u00b7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Can be used with several other coding methods<\/td><\/tr>Process**<\/td> \u00b7 Appropriate for finding action and interactions\u00b7 Focuses on processes that are embedded in actions as well as the psychological concepts of identity and memory\u00b7 Searches for consequences of actions and interactions as well as the action itself<\/td><\/tr> Initial<\/td> \u00b7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Appropriate for grounded theory work, ethnographies, and studies with a wide variety of data forms
\u00b7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Creates a starting point to provide leads for further exploration
\u00b7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Suitable for interview transcripts<\/td><\/tr>Affective<\/td> Values**<\/td> \u00b7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Appropriate for exploring cultural values and belief systems, identity, actions in case studies, and oral histories
\u00b7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Can look for areas of interplay, influence, and affect
\u00b7 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Use of multiple sources corroborates the coding and enhances trustworthiness of findings<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>
** \u2013 initial coding method chosen<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Even though this research uses digital ethnography as a research method, I acknowledge that there are still ethical concerns when researching public spaces and privacy concerns (see Wegner, Delia, and Baker 2019). These concerns were one of the reasons why SBNation was chosen as a research location because their terms of use are very clear about anything being posted on their sites is considered public (Terms of Use 2024). The use of pseudonyms for usernames through SBNation was also taken into account because commenter chosen usernames already keep the information anonymous to readers. This means that under the Protection of Human Research Subjects this would be considered secondary data because of how it is recorded and publicly available and is therefore exempt from the common rule for human subject research (Protection of Human Research Subjects 2018; Wegner, Delia, and Baker 2019). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Initial data for coding consisted of 404 comments in response to the five chosen articles. There were 296 comments that ultimately were eliminated from the coding process because they were off-topic or otherwise unproductive comments, leaving 108 comments in the data set. Two themes that emerged from the data (seen in Table 1.4 below) was that commenters were most focused on issues that involved either civic issues (such as government duty, voting, or taxes) and\/or the conflict between the fans and the teams owner or leagues actions.
Table 1.4 Total coding data of five articles\u2019 comments sections<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nCodes<\/td> Description examples<\/td> Total Codes<\/td><\/tr> Memory<\/td> Team history mentioned in response<\/td> 15<\/td><\/tr> Team Quality<\/td> Good vs. bad teams, Attendance issues<\/td> 8<\/td><\/tr> Civic or Community<\/td> Reference community or city needs or actions<\/td> 42<\/td><\/tr> Conflict with owner or league<\/td> Anti-owner\/anti-league comment<\/td> 43<\/td><\/tr> Overall comments for coding<\/td> Totalled 404 comments<\/td> 108<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Tampa Bay Rays<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n