Walter F. Kuentzel

From Novice to Expert? A Panel Study of Specialization Progression and Change

The recreation specialization concept assumes that over time, participants in an activity move along a continuum of progression from beginner to expert. Past specialization research, however, has made exclusive use of cross sectional data and never specifically tested this proposition about change in leisure participation. This study used data from two panels of boaters at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore: a three-wave panel contacted in 1975, 1985 and 1997, and a two-wave panel contacted in 1985 and 1997. The study analyzed change on seven specialization indicators including boat ownership, frequency of participation on other Great Lakes and oceans, racing, perceived boating skill, interest in boating, and discontinued participation. The results showed that specialization progression was the exception rather than the rule among boaters. Only two of five people showed patterns of change that resembled specialization progression. The majority either sustained low levels of casual participation over time or decreased their participation. These findings indicate that change in leisure participation is more complex than the change represented by specialization progression. These findings also suggest the need for alternative management frameworks for thinking about leisure change.

Social status, self-development, and the process of sailing specialization.

Is the process of specialization in a recreation activity a function of individual choice and desire for self-development, or is the process of specialization determined by the social context that can dictate ones entry into a leisure activity and lead to diverse styles of participation? Most discussions of recreation specialization propose a linear process of individual selfdevelopment where participants progress along stages of a continuum from novice to expert. For example, Bryan (1977, 1979) argued that fishing participants follow an ordered progression from occasional angler, generalist, technique specialist, to technique setting specialist. Empirically, most specialization researchers have used social psychological models of individual development to position participants in an activity along stages of a specialization continuum based on experience and cognitive development (Schreyer, Lime, & Williams, 1984), commitment (Wellman, Roggenbuck, & Smith, 1982), or involvement/centrality (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988). This focus on individual development assumes all participants follow essentially the same route to activity specialization. Variation in participation style and behavior depends on how far one chooses to progress along the specialization continuum. This social psychological focus on self-development in the specialization process ignores the external forces of ones social context that can influence leisure behavior. Variation in participation style and behavior may instead be due to sociological variables such as social status, family structure, occupation, or life stage. For example, Kelly (1983) argued that as people pass through different life stages and experience age-specific events such as leaving home, marriage, child bearing, child rearing, career development, divorce, relocation, retirement, age-related illness, and death of a spouse, their styles of leisure participation change. Similarly, social status can dictate access to certain leisure activities (West, 1977, 1984), or dictate the style of participation one chooses within a given activity (Aversa, 1986). These external social forces can create different styles of participation and can lead to divergent trajectories of specialization in a given activity depending on the social context of the individual. This paper compares the traditional self-development approach to recreation specialization, which assumes a single continuum of specialization from novice to expert, with the social context approach, which argues for multiple routes to activity specialization. Specifically, the paper examines whether sailing participants at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Wisconsin follow a developmental trajectory of activity specialization, sharing similar experiences and behavioral conventions as they become expert sailors, or whether their social context leads them to choose different styles of participation, and therefore divergent paths to sailing specialization. The Process of Leisure Specialization Specialization and Self-Development According to the specialization framework, the progression along a developmental continuum from novice to expert involves a transition of leisure behaviors from the general to the specific (Bryan, 1979). Bryan says that novice anglers typically fish for any species of fish in a variety of settings with any conveniently available methods, while expert anglers fish for only one species of fish in a single preferred type of setting with a specific type of equipment that often makes the chance of success more challenging. Most leisure researchers have used social psychological models to describe this transition from general to specific behaviors in a recreational activity. The past experience literature relies implicitly (Schreyer, Lime, & Williams, 1984; Williams, Schreyer, & Knopf, 1990) or explicitly (Hammitt, Knauf, & Noe, 1989) on cognitive models of individual development. …

Life Course Changes and Competing Leisure Interests as Obstacles to Boating Specialization

Research has shown that most boaters do not follow a specialization trajectory resembling a progression from novice to expert. This paper asks what kept people from becoming boating specialists. A life course analysis was used to explore the relationship between changes in boating specialization and life course events (e.g., family changes, career changes, health issues, and new leisure interests). Marriage had a uniformly negative effect on five specialization indicators. Changes in finances, retirement, and illness had selective effects. Although cause-and-effect constraints of life course disruptions were modest, developing other leisure interests had a strong negative influence on specialization, indicating a natural process of attrition occurred from boating over time. Future specialization studies should model processes of progression and retrogression in the research designs.

Beyond Progression in Specialization Research: Leisure Capital and Participation Change

Recent specialization research shows that progression along a unidirectional continuum from novice to expert is more the exception than the rule. We argue that a capital metaphor of changing leisure investments provides a better way to explain multidirectional participation. We propose four mechanisms of leisure capital investments. First, contemporary diversification of leisure opportunities may encourage people to use their leisure capital in more, rather than fewer activities. Second, limitations in ones abilities, desire, or situation may produce casual or declining activity participation. Third, people may develop casual leisure routines that provide organization, routine, and predictability in everyday life. Finally, life-course change leads to activity attrition as leisure capital is devoted to new age and life-stage appropriate activities. These mechanisms enhance the ability of the specialization framework to overcome the unidirectional nature of progression, and allow a more dynamic conceptual framework of participation over time.

When Do Normative Standards Matter Most? Understanding the Role of Norm Strength at Multiple National Park Settings

Research has demonstrated variation in the prevalence, importance, and stability of normative standards across different settings and activities. None of these studies, however, has directly used the concept of norm strength to help explain this variation. This study used norm strength to explore variation in normative standards at 52 locations in 13 U.S. national parks. The analysis measured and supported five dimensions of norm strength: intensity, consensus, certainty, preference consistency, and management consistency. No significant correlations were found between the five indicators indicating conceptually distinct dimensions of the norm strength concept. The findings support the notion that normative standards matter more at some places and the norm strength concept can help managers better understand these differences.

Why do hunters skybust? Personal disposition or social influence

Abstract This paper explores two explanations for why waterfowl hunters sometimes shoot at birds flying beyond the range of their guns. One explanation argues that skybusting is perpetrated by “slob”; hunters who lack the ethical sensitivities of the sport hunter. Another explanation argues that skybusting occurs in a socially ambiguous field setting where hunters are influenced by emergent norms of appropriate shot distance established by nearby hunters. This “person vs. situation”; framework was tested using data from goose hunters at the Grand River Marsh in Wisconsin. The study tested the effects of person variables (shooter, crippler) and situational variables (density, perceived crowding, competition, and social influence) on skybusting. The results supported the social influence explanation. Hunter competition and other nearby hunters’ skybusting had significant effects on skybusting. The “slob”; hunter variables, along with density and crowding, did not have significant effects. These results sugg...

Comment on Scott: Is Integration Better?

David Scott calls for “marrying” the specialization framework and the serious leisure perspective. However, I am not sure integrating the two approaches is necessary or prudent. When the article by Kuentzel and Heberlein (2008) was first submitted for publication, the reviewers asked us to incorporate the similarities of the two frameworks in the introduction and literature review. We struggled with this task, and in the end we only gave passing reference to the serious leisure perspective. I am only now beginning to understand why we struggled. In spite of overlapping concepts, the two frameworks reflect different theoretical orientations. Stebbins (2007) has characterized the serious leisure perspective as a “typological map of the world of leisure” (p. 3), and his book is filled with language such as “classify leisure activities,” “descriptive taxonomy,” “categories” of leisure behavior, and “discover the properties.” At its core, the serious leisure perspective employs a structural-functional approach to its study of leisure in society. Its goal is to observe patterns of leisure experience and to articulate the social and psychological outcomes they generate. In serious leisure, people persevere in their efforts, find leisure careers, and expend significant personal effort (patterns of experience) while realizing durable benefits, social support, and selfidentification with the activity (participation outcomes) (Stebbins, 1992). This approach is consistent with the prevailing rational actor, benefit maximization models of behavior. Leisure does good things for us, so we develop patterns of leisure behavior to repeatedly achieve those rewards. As long as the goal of specialization research is a descriptive typology of participation and benefit, I agree with Scott that the serious leisure framework has probably done a better job at describing “intense styles of leisure involvement” (Scott, this issue). I also agree with Stebbins (this issue) that an elaboration of the casual leisure/serious leisure continuum may also be an equally effective way to describe diversity in leisure participation. I acknowledge the methodological and empirical advantages of the specialization framework that Scott outlines. Nevertheless, I believe that when specialization research focuses on activity description, the serious leisure framework is probably a couple of steps ahead. The specialization framework, however, has attracted my research attention over the years because of its theoretical potential. Despite Bryan’s (1979) descriptive typological formulation, researchers in this tradition have found that the specialization framework offers a compelling theory of change. While understanding diversity among participants may