Mary G. Parr

What is Leisure? The Perceptions of Recreation Practitioners and Others

The purposes of this research were to determine if agreement exists among leisure services practitioners regarding the meaning of leisure and to examine how they describe themselves and the body of knowledge related to leisure services. In addition, these responses were compared with a group of individuals outside the field to determine if these practitioners possess a unique understanding of leisure, leisure practitioners, and the body of knowledge. Members of the Recreation Branch of the Ohio Parks and Recreation Association (n = 108) and a purposive sample of employees of two local adoption agencies (n = 30) completed questionnaires, including a True/False section, a three-part free-list component, and demographic information. Data were analyzed according to consensus modeling theory using Anthropac™ data analysis software and SPSS™. The True/False data indicated high agreement, and thus, “culturally correct” definitions of leisure for each group that support traditional and multidimensional definitions of leisure. When analyzed along with the free-list data, the most frequently reported dimensions of leisure paralleled traditional definitions (i.e., free time, activities). The responses of both groups indicate that professionals need to know about management and activities. Implications of these findings are discussed in relation to models of service provision.

Come on in, but not too far: social capital in an inclusive leisure setting.

The purpose of this research was to explore the nature of relationships that develop in an inclusive youth camp context using the framework of social capital. Inclusive recreation contexts are designed to promote awareness and minimize differences among participants with and without disabilities. Eight campers including four with disabilities and four without disabilities ranging in age from 12-16 were interviewed. Three conceptual categories were constructed related to social capital: reciprocity and investment, inclusion as camouflage, and roles played in mediating social capital. Findings indicate that social relationships among the campers were mixed in their facilitation of social capital. The assertion that social structures are hierarchical and reflect relative positions of status, power, and prestige was evident in this context.

The relationship between leisure theory and recreation practice

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between leisure theory and recreation practice, using a cognitive approach. Seventeen male and 3 female public leisure service managers took part in the investigation. A pile‐sort technique was used to ascertain the structure of the conceptual domain consisting of the Accreditation Standards of the National Recreation and Park Association (1991). The pile‐sort data were used to generate hierarchical clustering (HC) and multidimensional scaling (MDS) solutions. Both the HC and the MDS solutions indicated that these practitioners associate leisure theory and philosophy primarily with the programming process and that this area of knowledge is used most by mid‐level managers and front‐line staff. This investigation demonstrated a relationship between leisure theory and recreation practice for these practitioners and that researchers and practitioners may hold different meanings for the concepts of leisure theory and philosophy. Implications for future ...

Repositioning the position: revisiting Pieper's argument for a leisure ethic.

Abstract The purpose of this essay is to examine a spiritual justification for a leisure ethic proposed by Josef Pieper. As work, for many people, becomes less meaningful, a society organized around productive labour is becoming increasingly problematic (Bartlett, 1990; Reid & van Dreunen, 1996; Robinson, 2003). Pieper (1948/1998) proposed that in order to understand the value of leisure, the concept must be decoupled from the concept of work. Only then could leisures true potential be realized: a reflection on what it means to be human. Models of leisure service provision as potential detractors from, or facilitators of, this potential are discussed.

Shaking up the Bag: A Response to Fox and Klaiber

Fox and Klaiber’s essay is first and foremost a sharp reminder that leisure, if nothing else, is contextual. Its meanings, values, and forms vary across cultures, have changed over time, and our understanding of “history” must be continuously challenged in interpreting historical events from a current perspective. This call for a leisure remix stems from the well-documented fact that theory in leisure and about leisure is lacking. Because of this lack, leisure research, theory, and scholars tend to remain isolated. What can knowing something about leisure (i.e., “leisure theory”) tell about behavioral practices particularly across cultures and/or historical eras? As I read and re-read this essay, I kept coming back to “the box.” I know we are encouraged to think “outside the box,” but sometimes it is helpful to think about “inside the box,” or maybe both at the same time. If we put X and Y and Z in the box, then what must remain outside the box? If the box is labeled “leisure,” then what goes in the box? If we looked at the contents of the box, what could we deduce about the box itself and how this box relates to all the other boxes that comprise peoples’ lives? If we looked at the box itself, would it help us distinguish what belongs in the box and what does not? These questions refer to category coherence, or one “whose members seem to hang together, a grouping of objects that makes sense to the perceiver” (Murphy & Medin, 1985, p. 291). A coherent category contains internal structure (i.e., members have something in common that places them in that category) and external structure (i.e., concepts or categories fit within a larger system). Of course if we encounter a behavior, context, or practice (BCP) that doesn’t seem to fit in the leisure box, then we have at least two options: conclude that the BCP is NOT in fact leisure or change the box to accommodate this new information. The box metaphor has its limitations. We are encouraged to think outside the box because boxes imply boundaries, limitations, constraints, and rigidity. But we are caught in the dilemma of making the box so large, flexible, and permeable that it loses all meaning. Maybe a bag would be a better metaphor as its shape and size are more flexible, but it still retains its function as a container. Conceptual bags, or categories, serve important functions. They help make sense of the world by reducing bits of information into manageable chunks and creating order. Fox and Klaiber point out that problems arise when we assume one bag represents leisure or that the concept of leisure came into existence from a single point origin (i.e., Ancient Greece). Perhaps saying the modern conception of leisure in the western world has its historical roots in ancient Greek philosophy is more accurate. We have to start somewhere. If we are to interpret meaning, it must be from a perspective. Meal practices potentially become leisure when we move beyond “people ate” to people ate not only for subsistence, but to communicate shared meaning. What meaning