Showing papers in "Journal of Leisure Research in 2002"

Development of a Multi-Dimensional Scale for Measuring the Perceived Value of a Service

Abstract: The construct of perceived value has been identified as one of the most important measures for gaining competitive edge (Parasuraman, 1997), and has been argued to be the most important indicator o...

Languages of place and discourses of power: constructing new senses of place.

Abstract: The concept of “sense of place” typically is used to refer to an individual's ability to develop feelings of attachment to particular settings based on combinations of use, attentiveness, and emoti...

An empirical investigation of the relationships between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions among visitors to a wildlife refuge.

Abstract: A model was developed in which quality of performance and quality of experience were conceptualized as direct antecedents of overall service quality and visitor satisfaction, which influence behavi...

Perceived constraints on recreational sport participation: investigating their relationship with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation.

Abstract: This study aimed to investigate the influence of constraint dimensions on intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation. The self-determination theory and the hierarchical model of int...

Facilitators to Leisure

Abstract: Samdahl and Jekubovich (1997) suggested that the constraints paradigm has shaped leisure research in such a way that it is now difficult to adopt alternative explanations of participation. One majo...

"We're Gators...Not Just Gator Fans": Serious Leisure and University of Florida Football.

Abstract: The concept of serious leisure (Stebbins, 1979; 1992) was used to examine the meanings, rituals, and practices associated with being a University of Florida Football fan. We contend that Gator foot...

Women and Adventure Recreation: Reconstructing Leisure Constraints and Adventure Experiences To Negotiate Continuing Participation.

Abstract: This paper presents results from a study of women with a history of participation in adventure recreation. Semi-structured in-depth interviews and 6-month activity diaries were gathered from 42 wom...

The Social Nature of Leisure Involvement

Abstract: The involvement construct has been used to explain a variety of leisure-related phenomena. While these efforts have made valuable contributions toward furthering the field's understanding of leisur...

Leisure identities, globalization, and the politics of place

Abstract: As a particularly modern modality for making and resisting claims about the use and meaning of places leisure has a prominent role in the politics of place. This is particularly evident in land use...

Work-Leisure Relations: Leisure Orientation and the Meaning of Work

Abstract: The relationship between work and leisure, with regard to various aspects of work and its meaning, was examined in two groups of people: leisure-oriented and work-oriented. Leisure-to-work spillove...

Context and Dialogue in Research on Women and Leisure

Abstract: Research about women and leisure in the past twenty years has expanded as researchers from around the world have examined leisure and its meanings from different perspectives. In the past five year...

The Dynamic Nature of Leisure Experience: An Application of Affect Control Theory

Abstract: Leisure experiences are believed to be dynamic and to emerge through an interaction process. A lack of theoretically based research has kept leisure scholars from developing a systematic understand...

Interracial Couples' Experience of Leisure: A Social Network Approach

Abstract: There has been a significant amount of research that has indicated divergent patterns of leisure participation among African Americans and European Americans; however, there has been a paucity of r...

A Short-Term Longitudinal Analysis of Leisure Coping Used by Police and Emergency Response Service Workers

Abstract: The role of leisure in coping with stress and protecting health has received increased research attention in recent years. A number of studies have been conducted to identify specific aspects of leisure that may contribute to coping with stress and maintaining good health among various population groups (e.g., Caltabiano, 1994, 1995; Compton & Iso-Ahola, 1994; Dattilo, Caldwell, Lee, & Kleiber, 1998; Dupuis & Pedlar, 1995; Dupuis & Smale, 1995; Hull & Michael, 1995; Lee, Dattilo, Kleiber, & Caldwell, 1996; Lobo, 1996; McCormick, 1999; Ouellet, Iso-Ahola, & Bisvert, 1995; Patterson & Coleman, 1996; Trenberth, Dewe, & Walkey, 1999). This interest in leisure coping research has paralleled the growth of stress and coping research in the social sciences in general (see Hobfoll, Schwarzer, & Chon, 1998; Somerfield & McCrae, 2000). In social science research on general coping processes, specific types of coping resources and strategies have been identified (e.g., problem-focused coping and emotionfocused coping; Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Parker & Endler, 1996), and the impact of these types on the relationship between stress and outcome indicators such as pathology and health has been examined (see Gottlieb, 1997; Lazarus, 1999; Zeidner & Endler, 1996 for reviews). Recently, greater attention has been devoted to examining the processes of adaptation to stress (e.g., a daily process approach to the study of stress and coping; Tennen, Affleck, Armeli, & Carney, 2000; Stone, Shiffman, & De Vries, 1999) and developing clinical interventions to help people deal with stress (e.g., Coyne & Racioppo, 2000; Folkman & Greer, 2000). A variety of coping scales have been developed that have promoted research on coping and they provide a good description of what are seen as the important dimensions of general coping. For example, the Coping Orientation for Problem Experiences (COPE) inventory has been one of the most frequently used coping instruments (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). It was constructed to measure a wide range of potential responses to stressors and is based on a model that identifies four primary coping dimensions: (a) problem-focused coping (active coping, planning, and suppression combined), (b) social support and emotion-focused coping (instrumental and emotional social support and venting of emotions combined), (c) acceptance, restraint, and positive reframing combined, and (d) disengagement coping (denial, mental disengagement, behavioral disengagement, and use of religion combined). However, these dimensions deal only with general coping-coping that is not directly associated with leisure. Health and stress-- coping researchers have mostly ignored the role of leisure in helping people cope with stress and have not included leisure as a coping dimension. Coleman and Iso-Ahola (1993) were among the first researchers to systematically conceptualize the use of leisure as a way of coping. They developed a leisure and health model in which leisure-generated enduring feelings of self-determination and social support are conceptualized as two major dimensions or types of leisure coping. Some evidence to support their model has been found. For example, using a small-scale general population survey (n = 104), Coleman (1993) found evidence for the buffer effect of the leisure-generated self-determination disposition, but the buffer effect of leisure-- generated social support was not found. Iso-Ahola and Park (1996) examined the role of leisure in coping with stress among Taekwondo practitioners and found that leisure companionship (shared leisure activities engaged in primarily for the sake of enjoyment) buffered the effect of life stress on mental illness symptoms (depression), whereas leisure friendship (friendly feelings gained through leisure participation) did the same for physical illness symptoms. They did not, however, find a moderating effect of the selfdetermination disposition. …

American Indians, Place Meanings and the Old/New West

Abstract: The American West has long played a key role in recreation and tourism for the American people The West is where most of the "crown jewels" of the national park system are located, as are most of the nation's designated wilderness areas, national forests, and other protected areas managed by federal agencies These lands are visited by millions of Americans and international tourists each year The parks and protected lands of the West are also important to the American psyche Even those who do not visit these protected areas relate to them as part of America's heritage and national bounty of resources The protected areas of the West seem to symbolize freedom, beauty and the renewal of the spirit to many Americans Many would claim that many Americans have a general sense of place and place attachment to the landscapes of the West So, it is important that professionals in recreation; parks and tourism understand the sense of place and place meanings Americans have regarding the West, have a realistic understanding of the changes that are happening in the West, understand the difference between the myths and the realities of the West, and understand the impli

"The parks are being loved to death" and other frauds and deceits in recreation management.

Abstract: Many common concepts in recreation and leisure research originate from the “interests” of four groups: users, legislators, managing agencies, and researchers. These interests, and their ties to soc...

Emotion and stress in serious and hedonistic leisure sport activities

Abstract: Forty-four Japanese women recreational tennis players aged 28 to 58 years old acted as the main sample of volunteer participants in this reversal theory-based study of changes in emotion and stress...

Rescuing Hikers in Israel's Deserts: Community Altruism or an Extension of Adventure Tourism?

Abstract: This study focuses on the motivation and attitudes of volunteers taking part in rescue activity in Israeli desert areas. In line with contemporary literature on postmodernism, it is argued that the...

Citizenship and the Production of Public Recreation: Is There an Empirical Relationship?.

Abstract: In the leisure literature, fostering citizenship is often cited as a traditional rationale for the delivery of public recreation services (Coalter, 1998; Ravenscroft, 1993; Reid, 1995; Stormann, 2000). Johnson and McLean (1994), for instance, noted that the public provision of leisure in North America was intended historically to "inculcate desirable character traits in both the individual and in the society" (p.120). Leisure was, and continues to be, a means through which the state can mold individuals into the ideal citizen. Indeed, to this day, public recreation agencies continue to combine the pleasure of participation in leisure activities with enduring social values, such as reciprocity, social trust, and civility, to potentially enrich individuals, groups, and communities. In so doing, government has assumed a direct role in the delivery of leisure services. By acting on behalf of its citizens to address their social (leisure) needs, however, government distrusts individuals to judge for themselves what is in their own interests or in the interests of the public good. Coalter (1998) contended that the history of public recreation provision has rested upon this very notion. "Individual choices," he explained, "are regarded as distorted and the general societal, as well as personal, welfare is maximized by changing people's behavior by overriding their ignorance, or negative view, of particular goods, services or activities" (p. 25). Similarly, Whittington (1998) argued that government intervenes directly "into the development of individual character to instill citizens with a proper sense of social purpose and to serve as a corrective to defects in democratic society" (p. 28). In short, the state serves, not simply as a mechanism for the production of services, but more importantly, as having its own purposes in expressing and affecting the public good (Walsh, 1995). Based on these observations, critics of government, underpinned by a variety of political ideologies, have contested whether the state ought to force its own values upon its citizens. "Social cohesion," Saunders (1993) wrote, "is best fostered by leaving individuals and the groups they form to get on with their own lives" (p. 79). Saunders, a classical liberal, insisted that social compassion is something that cannot be demanded or granted by government. Instead, he believed compassion arises out of the experience of exercising autonomy in one's personal life. Similarly, Ignatieff (1989), a socially moderate liberal, argued articulately that active citizenship and a moral social order cannot be enforced; rather, government can ensure only that the appropriate conditions are present through which such things can develop. Similar sentiments have been expressed in the leisure literature. Hemingway (1999), Pedlar (1996), and Stormann (1996) are among a litany of scholars who have questioned whether recreation practitioners are capable of truly determining what is in the best interests of society. When an administrative or professional hierarchy dispenses benefits and entitlements, Hemingway (1999) reasoned "it is too easy to allow claims of expertise to degenerate into claims of authority" (p. 162). Considerable skepticism exists, consequently, about the state's ability to achieve outcomes in accordance with the public good. Still, many see a salient role for the public sector as an enabler of recreation services (Arai, 1996; Murphy, 1989; Pedlar, 1996; Whitson, 1986). Classical liberals, libertarians, and market liberals on the right argue that community emerges when people are left to themselves to deal with community issues (Saunders, 1993; Self, 1993), whereas welfare liberals on the left argue for greater state intervention to enable citizen action and rectify past injustices (Oldfield, 1990; Pierson, 1991). Irrespective of their differing political ideologies, proponents of facilitation advocate a reduced role for government. In this regard, the state is encouraged to support civil society-- the mediating third domain between government and the market (Barber, 1999) that deals with associational life (Foley & Edwards, 1996)-in its attempt to realize public ends autonomous from state power and direction. …

The Marginal User as the Justification for Public Recreation: A Rejoinder to Crompton, Driver and Dustin

Abstract: Introduction My original paper questioned if our interests as researchers or managers affected our epistemology-the concepts we use for analysis and discussion. I believe that they do, eventually supporting a bias against lower income groups in the delivery of recreation services. Clearly, the reviewers think differently and have vigorously and appropriately defended their mainstream positions within recreation research. I am indebted to Drs. Crompton, Driver, and Dustin for their thoughtful comments, but ultimately I remain unconvinced: I believe that, while there may be advantages to the mainstream positions, these concepts have other dimensions that the research community has been slow to expose in part because the concepts are interlinked in nonobvious ways and, in part, because they are grounded in social values that are so much the products of our time that we fail to question them. In responding to the reviewers concerns it is tempting to quibble-to raise the sort of "Yes, buts" described by Dustin on a point by point basis. But to focus on such quibbles risks missing broader points important in the discussion. Therefore, my response centers on five main topics that cross the issues raised by the reviewers: 1. Are the concepts I describe really "frauds and deceits"? Are they as tendentious as I suggested? 2. Are managers, researchers and legislators really as biased as I suggest? Have I done our profession a significant disservice by suggesting they are not disinterested public servants? 3. What is the relationship between functions (my solution) and benefits? Aren't they really the same thing as both Driver and Crompton propose? 4. What does it mean for something to be a 'public' resource? How can investments in "public" recreation be justified? 5. While I've been critical, I seem short on solutions. What else can be done? Among the many issues raised by the reviewers, these five seem crucial to me. Frauds and Deceits? All three reviewers suggest that I'm pushing the envelope to claim that the concepts I discussed are actually "frauds and deceits." Crompton, in particular, seems to have had a sort of semantic tantrum over the title, suggesting that it is scandalous and inappropriate in a scientific journal. I am unrepentant. While I admit that the title was aggressive, thirty-five years of reading technical literature in various fields has convinced me that all sorts of titles are used (for a similar example, see Learner, 1983). I have, however, included the traditional colon in the title of this response, which I trust will render it more acceptable. Crompton also suggests that I should have identified specific individuals and studies for criticism. While I could have done that, it seems inappropriate; why should a discussion of ideas require attacking someone directly? Unfortunately some ideas are so closely associated with specific people-benefits with Driver and marketing with Crompton, for example-that they are inseparable from their creators. This surely testifies to the immense impact these researchers have had on the field. But my goal was to discuss leading concepts and to suggest that there are other interpretations of them than the ones we typically see in the literature. Dustin, in particular, with his emphasis on the "Yes, but . . ." suggests that there is at least one other legitimate view of each concept. I believe this is true. Most important ideas in our field exist as arguments that support multiple viewpoints because they are grounded in assumptions. All I have done is to question some of those underlying assumptions. Consider overuse, We are perfectly willing to believe that overuse of national forests and national parks is a problem, a belief buttressed by all the research on crowding, capacities, and site deterioration. And that same research helps justify public opinion: "Parks in JEOPARDY", a brochure published by the National Parks Foundation (n. …

Reliability of the Leisure Boredom Scale for Use with High School Learners in Cape Town, South Africa

Abstract: Introduction To improve measurement quality in research, consideration should be given to the reliability of the measurements that are used. Reliability refers to "the degree to which a measurement produces systematic or reproducible variation" (Shrout, 1995, p. 213). Critically examining factors that may affect reliability, such as the variability of the trait being studied and respondents' understanding of questions improves the quality of the measurement. Using several methods to determine reliability provides a more comprehensive picture of the measurement's reliability than using one method alone. The test-retest method can be used to determine reliability by administering the measurement to the same respondents on two separate occasions. A limitation of this method is that the second measurement is often affected by systematic changes in the respondents that have occurred during the interval between measurements. Internal consistency is another method of establishing reliability in questionnaires, by determining the degree to which patterns of responses to items are empirically related. Items relating to the same underlying construct can be considered as replications of one another. Thus where questionnaires include items relating to different constructs, reliability may be underestimated (Shrout, 1995). Previous studies have shown that the Leisure Boredom Scale (LBS) is a reliable and valid method of determining subjective perceptions of leisure boredom. Iso-Ahola & Weissinger (1990) used the LBS to investigate leisure boredom among college students in America, in three studies (N = 171, N = 164, N = 344). Cronbach's alpha was used to determine reliability and was found to be 0.85, 0.88 and 0.86 for the three studies respectively, indicating high internal consistency. To determine construct validity, theoretically meaningful constructs that included factors relevant to leisure behavior, such as "depth of leisure boredom," "leisure satisfaction," and "frequency of leisure participation," were correlated with the LBS (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, p. 11). The results showed evidence of significant correlation between the constructs and the LBS as predicted (p The LBS has not been used previously in South Africa, therefore the reliability of the LBS with South African populations has not been established. Furthermore, no studies have determined the test-retest reliability of the LBS. In order to address this situation, two studies were undertaken to document the test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the LBS with high school learners in Cape Town, South Africa. Methods and Procedures Sampling Procedures The data were provided by a pilot study (Study 1) and a main study (Study 2). These studies focused on the degree of leisure boredom experienced by high school learners, and the extent to which leisure boredom was associated with use of selected substances and demographic variables (Wegner et al., 1999). In Study 1, respondents were randomly drawn from all learners in the Grade 8 and 11 classes at four independent (private) high schools, producing a sample of 117 learners. All of these schools were situated in urban parts of Cape Town. One school was for boys only, one for girls only and two were for boys and girls. As the schools were private, the majority of learners were from middle to upper class families of all ethnic backgrounds. In Study 2, the study population was defined as all learners in the Grade 8 and 11 classes attending government (non-private) high schools in Cape Town. These schools were situated in urban areas, and admitted boys and girls from all socio-economic and racial/ethnic backgrounds. Postal (zip) codes were used to stratify schools as there is a high degree of homogeneity in terms of race/ethnicity and social class within each postal code area; thus producing a representative sample. …

The Rest of the Story

Abstract: A polemic is defined as "a controversial argument against a prevailing doctrine" (Webster, 1989). By definition, it is unbalanced since it sets out to be deliberately controversial and to selectively use information to bolster its particular position. I find it ironic that More accuses an extensive cohort of researchers of bias, and responds by offering a determinedly one-sided perspective to attack them. He fails to acknowledge the merits of the perspectives offered by the conventional mainstream literature which he attacks. Essentially, he is hoisted by his own petard. My intent in this commentary is to review "the rest of the story." The terms "fraud" and "deceit" in the polemic's title have no place in a leading scientific journal. Indeed, More's use of them in this paper is both fraudulent and deceitful because he states, "I do not doubt the integrity or good intentions of those who propound [the concepts he attacks]". The paper does not accuse individuals of engaging in deliberately false or misleading actions. Rather, the discussion revolves around what More perceives to be inadvertent outcomes that arise when people of integrity misapply concepts, inaccurately implement them, or implement them legitimately in inappropriate contexts. Nowhere in the manuscript does More allege "fraud" or "deceit." This type of pseudo-sensationalistic "headline" designed to grab the reader's attention while misrepresenting the article's contents belongs in the tabloid press, not in a scientific journal. More's misrepresentation in the title of the content of the paper is indicative of what follows. The polemic is replete with generalizations and noticeably devoid of criticism of specific contributions. To criticize in the abstract, without citing examples of specific failings in the empirical literature which constitutes the basis of the mainstream scientific literature serves only to arouse suspicion about the legitimacy of the generalizations being made. I concur that there are occasions when "researchers provide 'products' that please agencies". The goal of such research is to legitimize a position rather than being predicated on a search for truth. As one commentator observed, "The fees for such studies are like religious tithes paid to a priest to come and bless some endeavor" (Curtis, 1993, p. 7). However, there is a defense mechanism built into the system. The idea that the research community is a pliant, coherent entity of "hired prize fighters", uniformedly committed to "providing 'products' that please agencies" is absurd. The response to such pseudo-science is likely to be an outcry from that large segment of the research community which is offended by what they perceive to be unethical work. An example of this with which I have had substantial personal involvement as a critic is the "economic impact" research which has been undertaken by "big name" consultancy firms, commissioned by supporters of major league sports franchises to justify the massive public subsidy of facilities for these wealthy owners. [In 2003 dollars, the capital cost of facilities used by the 125 teams in the four major leagues was almost $24 billion of which the public sector contributed $16 billion]. The mischievous, deliberately misleading "research" promulgated by these studies to justify public investment has been subjected to sustained, aggressive attack by a highly visible segment of the academic research community, so the legitimacy of these consultants' research reports is now widely discredited even in the popular press. If mischievous "research" of this nature was prevalent in the parks and recreation literature as More alleges, then precedent suggests a counter body of "real" research would emerge empirically discrediting the findings. More is unable to cite such a literature in his paper which I find to be confirmatory evidence indicating "The Emperor has no clothes." More's tirade in his opening paragraph alleging the recent emergence of elitism is puzzling. …

One Dog or Another: Tugging at the Strands of Social Science

Abstract: On the cover of Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic is a painting of an old woman at the edge of the Badlands designing quillwork on a buffalo robe. Each time the woman gets up to gather more wood for the fire, her wolf dog unravels all the work she has done so that when she returns she must start over. According to Lakota legend, if the old woman ever finishes her quill work it will be the end of the world (Driver, Dustin, Baltic, Elsner, & Peterson, 1996). The practice of social science is not unlike designing quillwork on a buffalo robe. As new strands of learning are woven into the fabric of policy and practice, one dog or another looks for an opportunity to unravel them. This means social scientists, too, must sometimes begin their work anew, and it is easy to imagine that if they ever complete their assignments it will be the end of the world as well. The "dog" in this case is Tom More, a research social scientist in the USDA Forest Service. His "'The Parks are Being Loved to Death' and Other Frauds and Deceits in Recreation Management" (in this issue) tugs at four strands of social scientific thought underpinning much contemporary recreation resource management: 1) the idea that outdoor recreation environments are being "loved to death" and that their use must be restricted; 2) the idea that public sector agencies must adopt private sector strategies to survive in times of fiscal austerity; 3) the idea that benefits-based management is the best approach to delivering park and recreation services; and 4) the idea that sustainability ought to be the summum bonum of recreation resource management practices. Whether More's tugging results in an unraveling, or whether the four strands hold firm, is a judgment best left to each reader. For my part, I focus not so much on what More says in his polemic, but on what he doesn't say. I focus on what appears to be the source of his snappishness. More's argument can be distilled to the following: 1) he observes that there is great economic disparity in the United States and that the distance between the haves and have-nots is widening; 2) he observes that public agencies, largely out of concern for their own welfare, are aping the financial practices of the private sector, resulting in the haves getting even more while the have-nots get even less; 3) he argues that benefits-based management caters to the haves while neglecting the needs of the have-nots; and 4) he argues that an overarching concern for sustainability is a ruse for protecting the interests of the haves, again at the expense of the have-nots. To make matters worse, More sees social scientists and practitioners alike as unwitting apologists for a government beholden to special interests-interests he categorizes as users, legislators, management agencies, and researchers. He goes on at great length to describe how these interest groups, driven by a hunger for money and power, shape and mold the conduct of social science, including the definitions used in formulating research questions, the questions asked, and the use to which answers to those questions are put. Much of this criticism is not new. The idea that social science is value free has been challenged repeatedly. What is new is More's intimation that it's all part of a twisted plot to keep the lower classes in their place. His remedy for this sorry state of affairs is functionalism, what he describes as a clear articulation of public agency goals and objectives, such that planning for parks and recreation is guided by "top line" rather than "bottom line" thinking (Schultz, McAvoy, & Dustin, 1988). What he's really calling for is a soul search, a reexamination of our field's raison ditre. In the absence of deep reflection on first principles and fundamental purposes, he fears outdoor recreation planning and policy is merely a reactionary process governed by special interests. While I think there is an element of truth in what More says, calling the field's current practices "fraudulent" and "deceitful" is a stretch. …