Philosophy of science and leisure research: an exploratory analysis of research paradigms

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this exploratory analysis was to examine paradigmatic trends within leisure research. Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science suggested that a field is the operational paradigm composed of a set of assumptions that include theories, methodology and instruments that guide inquiry. In contemporary leisure research, the scholarship being produced can be categorized into four research paradigms: (post)positivist, interpretive, critical and post×. The sample for this exploratory study included two timeframes (1991–1993 and 2014–2016) resulting in a total sample of N = 495 articles. Results confirmed evidence of a dominant (post)positivism in leisure research in the first sample and a trend toward paradigmatic pluralism in the second. Findings suggest that the philosophy of Larry Laudan’s ‘research traditions’ may be a more accurate model, compared to Kuhnian philosophy, for discourse within the leisure field. Additionally, results indicate a lack of paradigmatic and ontological and epistemological reflexivity among authors in leisure research.

Résumé

Cette analyse exploratoire a pour objectif d’étudier les tendances paradigmatiques de la recherche en loisirs. L’approche de Thomas Kuhn suggère qu’un domaine scientifique constitue en fait un paradigme opérationnel composé d’un ensemble d’hypothèses, qui lui-même comprend des théories, des méthodologies et des instruments qui lui sont propres. La recherche contemporaine en loisirs peut être subdivisée selon quatre paradigmes, soit la recherche (post)positiviste, interprétative, critique ou postmoderniste.* L’échantillon de cette étude exploratoire comprend deux périodes (de 1991 à 1993 et de 2014 à 2016) pour un échantillon total de N = 495 articles. Dans le premier échantillon, les résultats révèlent que le post-positivisme domine dans la recherche en loisirs et dans le deuxième échantillon, que la tendance est plutôt au pluralisme paradigmatique. En ce qui concerne les échanges d’idées dans le domaine des loisirs, les résultats de l’étude suggèrent que l’approche des « traditions de la recherche » de Larry Laudan permet l’établissement d’un modèle de recherche plus précis que celui proposé par Tomas Kuhn. De plus, ces résultats illustrent les déficiences en matière de réflexion paradigmatique, ontologique et épistémologique chez les chercheurs en loisirs.

KEYWORDS:

• Leisure
• Paradigms
• Philosophy of science
• Laudan

Mots-clés:

• loisirs
• paradigmes
• philosophie des sciences
• Laudan

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. When reviewing articles for classification as (post)positivism, the following criteria were used. Assumptions included an objective world which science can measure and ‘mirror’ with expert, privileged knowledge, ‘objective’ data could be collected to predict the relationship among factors (Chen & Hirschheim, 2004; Guo & Sheffield, 2008). Researcher perspective that stands aloof and apart from stakeholders and subject matter so that decisions can be made Chen and Hirschheim’s (2004). Ontological assumptions related to naïve reality but apprehensible and critical realism as ‘real’ reality but only imperfectly and probabilistically apprehensible (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).

2. Assumptions included inter-subjective world which science can represent with concepts and indicators, social construction of reality, difficult nature of ‘facts’ and importance of relativism, participants’ perspectives are taken as the primary source and the phenomena are examined with respect to cultural or contextual circumstances (Chen & Hirschheim, 2004; Guo & Sheffield, 2008; Tribe, 2001). Researcher perspective that becomes more fully involved with stakeholders and subject matter to achieve a good understanding of the stakeholders’ world (Guo & Sheffield, 2008). Ontological assumptions related to relativism-local and specific constructed realities and epistemological assumptions related to transactional/subjectivist; created findings (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).

3. Assumptions related to the material world of structured contradictions and/or exploitation which can be objectively known only by discourse on tacit ideological biases (Guo & Sheffield, 2008). Research perspective that includes active involvement with stakeholders to surface illusions and to implement alternatives that will improve their world (Guo & Sheffield, 2008). Ontological assumptions related to historical realism – virtual reality shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic and gender values; crystallized over time and epistemological assumptions related to transactional/subjectivist; created findings (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).

4. Assumptions that here is no single reality capable of measuring, but a multitude of realities which could be understood and contained in a communication process (Sandu, 2011). Reality is ultimately unknowable; attempts to understand it subvert themselves (Lather, 2006). Researcher perspective as the signifier (text/image) (Lather, 2006). Ontological assumptions related to truths that are socially constructed systems of signs which contain the seeds of their own contradiction and epistemological assumptions that assume the regularities of the social world as being arbitrarily socially constructed and not a result of generalizable laws and universal principles (Biedenbach & Müller, 2011; Lather, 2006).