Changing Family Life in the Rural Context: Women's Perspectives of Family Leisure on the Farm

Abstract

This paper examines the social meanings of rural life and how these meanings shape farm women's perspectives and experiences of family leisure. Based on qualitative interviews with a purposively selected group of farm women in Canada, the findings call attention to the values related to the social and physical context of family leisure activities on the farm and the integration of work, family and leisure. The role of leisure as a medium to remain connected to their rural heritage while preparing children for a nonfarming way of life was also significant. Emphasis is placed on the contradictory nature of family leisure and how family leisure is a window into the broader social, political and economic changes affecting rural farm life.

Keywords:

• Canada
• leisure meanings
• rural
• women

Although the importance and scope of family leisure within an urban or suburban context has been a topic of research, little attention has been paid to families who reside in rural areas. This oversight is unfortunate since rural communities share “cultural, social, and physical characteristics that distinguish them from urban environments” (Hornosty & Doherty, 2003, p. 40). Thus, the meanings and experiences of family leisure may be distinct from urban families. Several compelling reasons exist to explore family leisure in the rural context and specifically the family farm. First, for many farm families the generations are not only bound through kinship but also through business relationships. The highly interdependent interactions (i.e., social, physical and financial) may exert heightened emotional strain on the familial relationships, particularly during the long process of succession planning. Handing over the family legacy to the next generation may last decades and is often a difficult process. Further, in recent years family farms have experienced economic and social hardships (Ames, Brosi & Damiano-Teixeira, 2006; Qualman, 2001; Shortall, 2006). Thus, for farm families the close proximity to generational relationships, the interconnectedness of family life and work and the increasing agriculture financial difficulties may provide different family leisure experiences compared to urban and suburban families.

A second compelling reason to explore family leisure in the rural context is that “myths about families and rural residence dynamically shape family life in rural communities” (Struthers & Bokemeier, 2000, p. 17). Perhaps the most widespread belief is that in contrast to the urban centers, rural life provides a better place to raise a family with the opportunity for value-laden experiences (Bonner, 1997). This idealization may be because rural communities are often perceived as close-knit and caring and surrounded by the simplicity and peacefulness of the natural environment (Haugen & Villa, 2006).

Third, a contrasting image to the rural idyll is a dark underside to rural life that has been described as the rural dull due to a lack of cultural and leisure facilities (Haugen & Villa, 2006; Warner-Smith & Brown, 2002). Heightened physical and social isolation and higher rates of poverty and unemployment have contributed to negative images of the rural landscape (Hornosty & Doherty, 2003; Rye, 2006). Moreover, rural areas in Canada have undergone rapid social and economic change largely influenced by globalization, technological advancements and neo-liberal government policies. The decline in extraction industries, consequent unemployment levels and the lack of affordable and accessible housing and transportation options has forced a significant out-migration of young people in recent years (Gabriel, 2002; Malatest, 2002). This outmigration, as shown by one Australian study (Warner-Smith & Brown, 2002), has led to considerable inter-generational tension as mothers experience the negative emotions associated with the potential fragmentation of families.

These differences in environments suggest that residing in the rural context may alter the family leisure opportunities, contexts and meanings. Earlier research on farm women's experiences of family leisure suggested that although family activities are highly valued, attempts to facilitate these activities are often experienced with disappointment and frustration due to the workload demands of the farming operation and the consequent absence of husbands from family life (Trussell & Shaw, 2007). This research found that farm women and their husbands tended to live different yet parallel lives because of their competing schedules. As a result, when women talked about “family time,” they were usually referring to time spent only with their children. Thus, the physical and social fabric of the family farm may provide ways in which family leisure may be experienced differently.

Therefore, the purpose of our paper was to examine how rural life, and particularly life on the family farm, shapes the perspectives, meanings and experiences of family leisure for farm women. Specifically, data from an interpretative interview study were analyzed to explore: (a) how the family farm influenced the family's leisure interactions and activities and (b) how the social and economic changes occurring in rural communities were reflected in the family's leisure practices. The perspectives of farm women were purposively selected as women are usually the primary facilitators of their family's leisure activities in rural as well as urban environments (Brown et al., 2001; Havitz, 2007; Hunter & Whitson, 1991; Shaw, 2001).

Perspectives on Rural Family Life

The rural family has received little attention in the family leisure literature. Thus, to help frame this study and provide the initial sensitizing concepts, insights were drawn from the field of rural studies. Within this field have been ongoing debates about the concept of rurality (e.g., Berry et al., 2000; Halfacree, 1993; Rye, 2006). One approach has been to define rural using tangible objective measures such as economic and occupational land use or population density (Bealer, Willits, & Kuvlesky, 1965; Cloke & Thrift, 1994). However, criticisms of these measures, and the failure of such measures to explain complex social change, have supported the notion that rurality should be conceptualized as a subjective and socially constructed phenomenon (Rye, 2006) and as an immaterial product of social meaning (Cloke, 1997; Halfacree, 1993; Murdoch & Pratt, 1993). This constructionist approach emphasizes multiple understandings and meanings (Valentine, 1997) and helps to explain the co-existence of competing perspectives on rural life such as the “rural idyll” versus the “rural dull and backward” (Haugen & Villa, 2006, p. 182). Also, since this approach emphasizes how rurality informs and shapes social relations in everyday life (Little, Panelli & Kraack, 2005), it can also provide insight into rural family leisure. The approach provides a framework for exploring ways in which different beliefs about rural life influence the meanings and experiences associated with family leisure, and indicates the importance of taking differing perspectives into account.

Farm Families and the Rural Idyll

According to the rural studies literature, three central characteristics are inherent in the social construction of the rural idyll. Rye (2006) described the first characteristic of this idyllic perspective as its connection to nature. Rural life is perceived to be more natural compared to life in the urban centers, and nature seems to provide a moral foundation for rural residents. The second characteristic of the rural idyll relates to the notion of a caring social fabric including a sense of friendliness and an engaging community spirit. Rye described the third characteristic as the “tranquility, calmness, and peacefulness of rural life, as opposed to the restlessness of urban life” (p. 411). Other values that are ascribed to the rural idyll include health, relaxation, simplicity and safety (Struthers & Bokemeier, 2000; Valentine, 1997; Watkins & Jacoby, 2007). These characteristics are believed to provide a better quality of living.

Within this idyllic construction, rural life becomes a highly valued place to raise a family due to the romanticized notion of a close-knit and caring community that is relatively free of the social problems associated with urban life (Glendinning et al., 2003). Consistent with parents' beliefs, rural life provides a safe and secure place to raise children with a reduced fear of crime (Watkins & Jacoby, 2007). Moreover, raising children in the rural countryside is “often represented as idyllic places for children's play” and provides a plethora of “opportunities for environmental exploration, such as den building and climbing trees” (Valentine, 1997, p. 139). The rural idyll is also valued by parents because it facilitates a sense of surveillance and links to the idea of strongly regulated parental control. The close-knit culture means that parents usually know their children's friends. The rural setting also is seen to be safe because geographical isolation prevents children from traveling beyond their home boundaries without parental transportation (Giddings & Yarwood, 2005).

The Changing Rural Landscape and Family Life

The negative aspects of rural life such as the physical and social isolation and the economic devastation have been widely discussed in the rural studies literature. In recent decades, family farms have been particularly hard hit economically and socially. As a result of severely collapsed commodity markets coupled with rising energy costs and a rise in corporate agri-business, the family farm income is no longer sufficient to pay the farm debt or support the family household (Shortall, 2006). This state of despair and instability of family farms in rural Canada have been “driven by advances in technology, the influence of globalization and the restructuring of governmental regulation” (Smithers, Joseph, & Armstrong, 2005, p. 282).

Unable to pay the farm debt or support the family household, off-farm employment is sought by many families to help fund farm operations and for their economic survival (Kelly & Shortall, 2002; Machum, 2006). For many farm families, wives rather than husbands work off the farm to increase the household income and maintain the way of life on the farm (Shortall, 2006). However, as Shortall argued, women's off-farm employment has not affected traditional gender roles: “There is little evidence to suggest that women's off-farm work has led to any renegotiation of childcare roles, household work or on-farm responsibilities. Rather, it is another work role that women have assumed” (p. 313). As a result, farm families, and particularly farm women, have experienced increased time pressures and heightened fatigue as they try to balance their three shifts of paid employment, farm work and domestic responsibilities.

Apart from the impact of the economic crisis, rural Canada has been subject to social disruption and patterns of counter-urbanization in recent years, particularly in rural communities that are in close proximity to large urban centers (Dahms & McComb, 1999). Transportation and communication technologies have reduced the friction of distance. Residents who are seeking the rural idyll or more affordable living accommodations now reside in dormitory towns while commuting to nearby urban centers (Green & Meyer, 1997).

The influx of ex-urban residential dwellings can create significant social disruption with the potential displacement of local low-income residents who are unable to afford the newly structured rural land prices. Young adults, female-headed households and immigrants are particularly susceptible to being displaced and forced out of growing rural areas because of increased real-estate market values, property taxes and a higher overall cost of living (Nelson, 2001). Moreover, young people are forced to break family ties as they relocate to more affordable locations, and the out-migration of this population challenges mainstream rural ideologies that rural living is deeply rooted in tight knit family relationships (Bjarnason & Thorlindsson, 2006; Nelson, 2001).

Family Life and Family Leisure

The limited body of research on leisure and family life in rural settings indicates that rural women place value and importance on family time spent together in leisure activities (Hunter & Whitson, 1991; Trussell & Shaw, 2007). Similar to urban and suburban research on family leisure, many of the women described the purposive nature (Shaw & Dawson, 2001) of their family leisure activities to build and strengthen family relationships and encourage the development of their children's socialization (Harrington, 2005). Little discussion has focused on how family leisure fits with the rural idyll, but this evident valuation of family activities is consistent with the positive perspective on rural family life, and with recognition of the opportunities that the rural context provides for children and for families.

On the other hand, some researchers have noted heightened time demands and transportation challenges associated with leisure practices in the rural context (Thompson, Rehman & Humbert, 2005; Warner-Smith & Brown, 2002). In line with this more pessimistic view of the declining quality of rural life, Trussell and Shaw (2007) discussed the stress, fatigue, conflicts and strains that farm women face related to the facilitation of their family's leisure activities. These difficulties, they argue, were largely due to the increasing work demands of the farming operation and on their husbands' extended hours of toil. The absence of husbands from aspects of farm family life including family leisure were described as a situation of “single parenthood within the marital context” (Trussell & Shaw, p. 382) for farm women.

As noted, the studies of leisure within rural families have shown that it is typically women who are responsible for the planning and facilitation of family leisure activities (Havitz, 2007; Hunter & Whitson, 1991; Trussell & Shaw, 2007). These findings are consistent with other research in rural studies that has highlighted the unequal power relations within rural families. Due to the “patrilineal nature of land transfer from father to son” (Shortall, 2006, p. 20), the husband is established as the farmer and owner of the capital resources. This practice negatively affects the valuation of women's paid work and their contributions to farm labor. It also means that the women are assumed to be responsible for all household and family labor. Thus, although most farm women contribute to farm work, they typically organize their daily routines around the needs of their children (Bennett, 2005). This research not only helps to explain the stresses associated with family leisure for farm women but also serves to highlight the importance of focusing on women's perspectives when conducting research on rural family leisure and on gendered power relations.

The literature on the rural idyll and the changing rural landscape indicates that both the physical and social fabric of the rural countryside is highly valued, while at the same time growing problems contradict the rural idyll and add uncertainty to the future of rural life. These changes may mean that raising children in the rural idyll may provide unique challenges and circumstances to the family's leisure experiences. The idyllic myths that shape parental expectations may be at odds with the economic, political and material realities of rural life (Struthers & Bokemeier, 2000). Consequently, family leisure may be more valuable with limited prospects on the family farm and the intentions for the younger generations to leave. Moreover, as the primary facilitators, farm women may provide an important perspective in revealing their family's activities in understanding the experiences and meanings of rural family leisure.

Methods

With the discovery nature of the purpose of this study, the conceptualization of rurality as a social construction, and the focus on the subjective experiences of farm women, an inductive qualitative method approach was appropriate. Specifically, the guiding principles of grounded theory were used in this inquiry to examine the data through systematic gathering and analyzing while allowing for creativity and openness to emerging concepts and themes. Moreover, grounded theory is a “general methodology, a way of thinking about and conceptualizing data” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 163). As Strauss (1987) described, grounded theory is a particular style of doing qualitative analysis:

The methodological thrust of the grounded theory approach to qualitative data is toward the development of theory, without any particular commitment to specific kinds of data, lines of research, or theoretical interests. So, it is not really a specific method or technique. Rather, it is a style of doing qualitative analysis that includes a number of distinct features, such as theoretical sampling, and certain methodological guidelines, such as the making of constant comparisons and the use of a coding paradigm, to ensure conceptual development and density. (p. 5)

An important characteristic of the grounded theory methodology is its interpretive nature. As Patton (2002) suggested, the researcher is the primary tool in the collection of the data and its analysis. The researcher adopts a systematic method of “constant comparison of data with emerging categories and theoretical sampling of different groups to maximize the similarities and the differences of information” (Creswell, 2003, p. 14). Moreover, a grounded theory design is open-ended allowing for the development of emerging themes that are co-constructed by the participants and the researcher's interpretations of those experiences (Creswell).

The Participants

This study was undertaken in two rural communities in Ontario, Canada, that were in close proximity to a large suburban municipality. Consistent with an interpretative qualitative research framework, purposive sampling strategies were used to find farmwomen that were information rich. Initial participants were recruited through contacting two volunteer rural organizations within each of the communities: (a) an Agricultural Society's Board of Directors, and (b) the Farmers' Santa Claus Parade of Lights organizing committee. Members of these two organizations were asked to assist in the identification of potential farm women in their community who might be interested to participate in the study. Purposeful snowball or chain sampling strategies were then used to find additional information rich participants (Creswell, 2003). In this study, seven women residing on family farms were interviewed—four from the first community and three from the second community.

To ensure elements of homogeneity, only married women with one or more children ages 6 to 12 were selected. This criterion was based on the assumption that family leisure might be particularly important at this lifecycle stage. Children ranged from 2 months to 15 years, and family sizes varied from two to five children. Since economic hardship has led to the need for secondary income sources for most family-run farm operations, only women who had part-time or full-time jobs away from the farm were interviewed. An additional inclusion criterion was that the family farms had livestock as part of the farming operations.

All women in the study were currently living on farms on which their husbands were born and raised, although this commonality was not a criterion in the recruitment of participants. The family farms had been passed down or purchased from previous generations, with one farm described as a fifth generation farm. Further, six of the seven farms had a second residence on the property that comprised paternal extended family members (i.e., the husband's parents and/or siblings). The seventh farm had paternal grandparents located in a nearby dwelling. The size of the farms ranged from 200–500 acres with a variety of livestock (five dairy, one chicken broilers, and one beef). Six of the seven women had not grown up on family farms. However, three of these women had received a diploma/degree in Agriculture Business or Veterinary Medicine.

Data Collection and Analysis

The data were gathered by semi-structured interviews that took place in the participants' homes. This setting was not only relaxed and convenient for the women but also allowed the first author the opportunity to see and experience the farm. Although not intended in the original design of the study, additional insights and observations were made as the farm women and the author walked around the vicinity of the house and farmyard. The women pointed out areas that had special meaning to their leisure experiences with their family members. Descriptive notes were taken in a researcher journal after these walks. The journal was also used to make reflective notes and provided an important tracking tool throughout the analytical process by recording the development of emerging concepts and themes.

The interviews included discussion on a typical day on the farm, the value and importance of family togetherness, the anticipated benefits/outcomes in facilitating meaningful family activities and the advantages and challenges of family life in a farm setting. Consistent with the grounded theory methodology, the initial interview guide was informed by sensitizing concepts (Charmaz, 2006) from the rural studies and leisure studies literature. For example, an initial sensitivity was given to the farm women's three shifts (i.e., child care/ domestic work, farm labor and off-farm employment), the rural idyll and raising children in the countryside and the current social, political and economical changes in rural Canada. In addition, the literature on family leisure in urban settings led to a number of sensitizing concepts including the idea of family togetherness, parental expectations about the intended experiences and outcomes of family activities and the contradictory nature of family leisure. The first author's experience residing on a family farm during her childhood also enhanced the initial development of the interview guide with questions such as how harvesting and planting seasons and the daily responsibilities associated with the livestock shaped the family's opportunities to share meaningful experiences. The use of an interview guide provided a beginning focus only. The guide allowed for the flexibility and freedom to explore new topics of importance that emerged from each individual interview (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

The interviews typically lasted between one and two hours and were all tape-recorded and later transcribed. The transcriptions were initially analyzed using open coding procedures that involved reviewing the interview transcripts line by line (Strauss, 1987). Throughout the process we paid attention to potential verification and saturation of individual codes. This undertaking led to a number of descriptive codes related to daily activities, obligations, responsibilities, perceptions and experiences. Axial and selective coding procedures (Strauss, 1987) were used to develop themes that best captured the experiences and meanings of the family's leisure as reflected through the perspectives of the farm women. Axial coding consisted of intense analysis of the paradigm items (e.g., conditions, consequences) conducted around one code at a time. The process resulted in the discovery of emerging relationships between categories and/or subcategories. Of particular significance to these analyses were the values related to the social and physical context of family leisure activities and information about the changing nature of farm life. The selective coding process was conducted systematically focusing on the two main themes that emerged and were co-constructed in the words of the farm women and the authors' interpretation of their lived experiences.

Findings

The data analysis of our study revealed two broad clusters of meanings or main themes associated with the examination of family leisure on the family farm. First, we viewed the socio-spatial context of family leisure as significant. The physical space was appreciated since it provided extensive opportunities for leisure activities. In addition, farms represented sites for simultaneous occurrence of work, family and leisure activities that were often closely integrated. This situation, however, provided both benefits and problems. The second main theme related to the ways in which family leisure contributed to desired outcomes including the preservation of traditional values as well as preparing children for a changing future. Both positive and negative aspects of rural life and family leisure were evident. These main themes and subthemes are discussed in the following sections and reflect the tension between the idyllic view of rural family life as well as the more negative view of the challenges and difficulties that confronted farm families.

Socio-spatial Context of Family Leisure

Four subthemes emerged related to socio-spatial contexts: a multitude of opportunities for leisure; integration of work, family and leisure; heightened sibling leisure experiences; and leisure opportunities and losses with extended family members.

A multitude of opportunities. The size of the farm properties (i.e., 200–500 acres of land on each farm) allowed for the physical space for a variety of leisure-related equipment and activities for the family members to enjoy together. The first author observed a wide array of play equipment as the farm women and the author walked around the immediate proximity of the house. The women pointed out different play areas and shared stories of memorable family moments. Large play equipment such as trampolines, basketball nets, skateboard ramps and swimming pools were found on the majority of the farm properties. Hilary described:

There's a little bit of pavement in front of the barn so they would do it [skateboard and bike] there. They would sort of wreck the wheels on the skateboard, but have fun doing it. So they make their own ramps, especially for their bikes. They have a trampoline so they'll hang out on that.

Some women also pointed in the distance to ponds and forests in the back farm acreage that facilitated opportunities for family ice skating, swimming, tree forts, and childhood adventures. The large fields also provided room and opportunity for shared family activities such as motorbike riding, snowmobiling and long walks.

The barn buildings offered another area of leisure for the children. As Angela revealed, ropes were found in the barn rafters where the children could swing and jump into a soft hay landing: “They love the barn with all the hay and swings up there and stuff like that. The ropes they can swing off of. Most [other] kids have swing sets.” The farm outbuildings and land provided a resource rich landscape, which facilitated shared family leisure activities that were readily accessible without the need to ever leave the farm property.

Integration of work, family and leisure. At times, the social space of the husband/father working where the family resided provided simultaneous moments of work and leisure. The children enjoyed moments of play within the context of their father's farm-related tasks. For example, the children would often join their fathers for a ride on the farm equipment, or spend time with him while he tended to the livestock as they played with the animals (e.g., horses, calves, barn cats). The women reflected that this activity provided fun and playful moments for the children, while the fathers completed their work responsibilities and enjoyed shared experiences with their children. Kate and Hilary, respectively, described how work was integrated through impromptu moments of play:

He [her 5-year-old son] loves to have a ride with daddy on the tractor. He's only allowed to be on the cab tractor or the skid steer. He loves when his daddy will have him ride on the skid steer.

Just because we are already here, we can often do things. When they were young, we'd often take them on the toboggan. In the evening after chores [her husband] would always be pulling them on their toboggan in the snow, up and down the barn ramp. [He might build a] snowman [with the children] just because he is already outside bundled up … it's no big deal.

The farm women, however, also expressed a safety concern with the integration of children's outside leisure activities in the same vicinity of the farming operations. In one specific case, Hilary reflected on a horrific accident that their son had been involved in:

It also can be a very dangerous situation, which we learned. When [her son] was 3 years old he was run over in the yard. He was 3 years old and we were just outside and [her husband] didn't see him, and he ran over him with the truck. We learned that it was also a very dangerous place. There's a lot of activity. It's a really busy farm. People coming and going all the time. Lots of equipment around. Everybody learned after that, that you have to be really, really careful and know where the kids were if they were outside. They had to be taught how to be careful and to be aware all of the time.

Thus, as described by the farm women, leisure and work were not dichotomous. Rather, family, leisure and work were entwined due to the proximity of the parental workplace also being the home residence. Further, workplace safety concerns also shaped children's leisure activities and well-being.

Heightened sibling leisure experiences. The isolated nature of the family farm also shaped the social context of leisure experiences by encouraging siblings to play together regardless of their age differences. Many of the farm women expressed this benefit as they thought it provided the opportunity to foster family togetherness and develop stronger sibling bonds. Amy and Shannon, respectively, believed that if they lived in a city/town, the opportunity for their children to interact with each other would be less:

Sometimes I think it would be nice to be somewhere where they have kids next door. But I think it tends to make them get along better, I think, than they would if we lived in town and they could always go play with someone their own age. Here they have to play with each other.

I used to think not having neighbors around as a disadvantage at one point. But you've got to look at it on the other hand as being an advantage because the kids are always around. They're not always running off to their friends' house or going to so and so's house. So that's better, and I think as brother and sister it could be a disadvantage. But I think they get along pretty good for the most part because they have each other. So if they want to play hockey or they want to play basketball, then they have to play together. They have each other.

Therefore, the physical and social isolation of the family farm was believed to not only enhance opportunities for sibling interactions but also the parental surveillance of their children's leisure experiences.

Leisure opportunities and losses with extended family members. Six of the seven farm women interviewed lived on a family farm with multiple houses and generations residing on the same farm property. Many of the farmwomen saw this opportunity as important for the children to spend quality time with their paternal grandparents, and/or aunt, uncle and cousins. The farm women felt that it helped to instill good family values and morals with their children. As Hilary explained, it also provided a valued social context for their leisure experiences, and the frequent inclusion of extended family members:

So they've learned a lot of values and they've been able to spend a lot of time with extended family because [her husband's] parents live on the farm. They've spent hours and hours with their grandparents. With their aunt and uncle here they've got cousins here as well. They've always had people around. … They tend to play hockey. Their cousins come over and they play a lot of hockey. They'll play a lot of baseball out on the front lawn. They have golf clubs so they'll golf out on the front lawn, just with them and their cousins, because there are three boys they can play together. They'll play soccer, a lot of soccer.

However, being involved in a “business” with extended family members also provided moments of conflict, frustration and tension, which affected the quality of their family leisure experiences. For example, business issues were integrated into moments of leisure when they would be discussed at family meals and gatherings. It was a fine balancing act, which always had to be carefully attended to, to ensure positive family relations. Speaking from her own experience, Amy revealed:

Just right now we are in the middle of succession planning and all that. It can be a little awkward sometimes. But we really try to separate the business from the family. We've just come out of a big session series of meetings about the succession planning. His dad, I mean he's built it up or whatever and he's having some problems letting go, or letting go of control, that kind of thing. So the meetings get a little tense, and then you know, that weekend you're having a family birthday with them. So you've really got to separate it out. And some days it seems easier than others.

Further, the farming operations and related livestock and crop responsibilities made it difficult to visit extended family members who resided outside of the geographical area, which was particularly the case for extended maternal family members. Some farm women expressed sadness in their inability to travel great distances to see extended family members. At times, this situation was a source of family conflict as extended family members had difficulty fully understanding the complications with leaving the farm for a day. Angela described her sister-in-law's frustration with their inability to stay for the full duration of family dinners due to their livestock responsibilities:

It's frustrating … my poor sister-in-law can't understand it. She grew up on a fruit farm. So to her it's beyond her comprehension to why we have to get up from the table at 3:00pm to get back home. She'd like to see us stay and have a long visit, especially after she's worked so hard to make dinner …

As Hilary explained, she has been unable to go back home in almost a decade:

Making sacrifices. Often times my family had to always learn to come here and visit us because we couldn't always go visit them. And that was tough. And I often don't see a lot of my family. We don't visit my relatives because we can't get away from the farm very much. Even the ones that are just in Ontario, but my family's in Newfoundland and we haven't been back there in eight years.

In essence, the social opportunities and limitations of living on the family farm provided contradictory moments of both enjoyment and frustration. They were able to enjoy frequent leisure experiences with paternal extended family members because they often resided on the same property. However, moments of frustration also were expressed by the farm women with the lack of opportunities to visit extended family members, particularly maternal, due to livestock and crop obligations.

Leisure as a Medium to Preserve Traditional Values While Preparing for the Future

The second theme showed leisure as a medium to preserve traditional farm values while preparing future generations for a life outside of agriculture. Two subthemes emerged related to the purposive nature of family leisure experiences: remaining connected to their farming heritage and preparing children for a nonfarming way of life.

Remaining connected to their farming heritage. Even though participation in traditional rural family activities (e.g., 4-H, Junior Farmers) had declined, most of the women believed that their family's involvement, although at times minimal, was important. Participation in the traditional farm related programs was the only family activity where their husbands' participation was frequently noted. In this respect, involvement in 4-H shows and community fairs were important family activities. Not only did these activities involve participation on the actual day of the fair, but they also involved months of preparation prior to the big event to ensure that the calves or ponies were properly fed and groomed. As Tara and Kate, respectively, revealed, these shared family activities were seen as their most cherished experiences and memories:

We show cattle, therefore, we're at a lot of fairs. That's very much a family event, even though it's a busy day.

The kids have shown cows and those are probably our better memories as a family. Since they were 2.5–3 years old they've shown calves. That's a family thing. And now we are getting into the pony thing.

The women believed that participation and involvement in traditional rural family activities was a way to ensure that their children did not lose their rural heritage, and in a way, counter the “sense of change” on the family farm. As Kate and Hilary each described, their involvement in 4-H shows, fairs, and dances gave them a sense of connection to “others” like them:

The connection to our lifestyle and they meet other children that are still like us. ‘Cause where we are there [are] very few people that are on farms. Most of my kids’ friends have no connection to the farm. So that's their connection. And to our neighbors, the actual people that are farmers in [township name]. That's the only time that we see them.

Within the agricultural community there are actually a lot of events that go on. There's 4-H dances, and there's a Holstein dance and we'll all go. Often it's with the kids. It's usually a family event.

Preparing children for a nonfarming way of life. A shift in farm women's beliefs, values and expectations as they related to their future in the farming industry was evident, and it seemed to have implications on their family leisure practices. Many of the farmwomen perceived no future for their children on the family farm with rising costs, diminishing revenues and the work-driven lifestyle. The three farm women from the one community were particularly concerned perhaps because their farms were geographically located on the fringe of a large suburban municipality, and high rise apartment buildings could be seen in the distance. Kate stated that “the family farm is doomed. It's too bad, but that's the way it is.” Jeanette added that “realistically, in some ways there's no future. But I think dairy has a better future than beef.” Consequently, many of the women felt it was their responsibility to ensure that their children participated in community leisure activities away from the farm to help integrate them into the broader community for now and later in life. Time spent at traditional rural family activities such as Junior Farmers, 4-H and church were sacrificed to accommodate youth sport programs. The reduced time spent in traditional farm activities was reflected in by Kate and Tara, respectively:

There's a bit of conflict because the sports have overtaken the 4-H. There's a lot of old rules with the 4-H. They have them on Thursday nights, so if they want to join soccer and it's on Thursday nights … you have to make a choice.

Well because there [are] less and less people involved in 4-H and Junior Farmers now and it's a sign of the times that there are so many more activities for people to be involved in, so therefore, these ones go by the wayside as they are not seen as being exciting.

Thus, while the women valued family togetherness at home and the enjoyment of the opportunities offered by their farms' socio-spatial context (as explained in detail in the first major theme), they also felt their responsibility to ensure their children's participation and integration in the broader community's leisure programs.

However, not all farm women and their husbands were united in the perceived value and importance of facilitating their children's participation in nonfarm related activities. For example, Jeannette described while fighting back tears her husband's lack of support for her children's activities, which appeared to be placing marital strain on their relationship:

The odd time he'll [her husband] show up later to a soccer game after we are there. He finds that very difficult. Work comes first. So when I ask him to come to a soccer game it's a pretty big deal for him. I don't think we do very much with the kids by comparison, like some people do.

Despite the foreboding related to the farming way of life, the farm women valued the sense of solitude and tranquility that rural life provided for their family and them. They personally valued the peacefulness of residing on the farm for their own enjoyment and for the benefit of raising their children. Shannon noted: “Now that I've lived here I wouldn't trade it for anything. I would never as long as I had the choice, would never move to town. I love not having neighbors. I just love it.” Angela added: “I think it's wonderful. I wouldn't trade it for anything. There are the wide open spaces for the kids. I know its limiting [in reference to spending time with their friends from town] … they don't know anything different though. They have the best of both worlds.”

Discussion and Conclusion

This study of farm women's perspectives indicated that although family leisure was highly valued by the farm women, it was also inherently contradictory. The farm setting provided positive leisure opportunities that were seen to enhance family relationships. A sense of family togetherness was evident as parents and children could enjoy moments of leisure embedded within their farm work as well as leisure opportunities with extended family members who resided on the property. The relative isolation on the family farm also heightened sibling interactions and the rich landscape created opportunities for children's leisure activities without ever leaving the farm property. For the farm women, however, the positive and idyllic nature of the farm setting was also seen as challenging. Rural life limited their opportunities to spend time with some extended family members (particularly maternal extended family members), and business operations at times constrained valued family leisure opportunities and experiences (e.g., decision making about farm operations, workplace safety concerns). The notion of leisure as preservation of traditional values was also contradictory, reflecting competing priorities. The parents wanted to use family leisure to promote rural and farming heritage. At the same time, they also felt they should provide different types of leisure opportunities for their children that would prepare them for a nonfarming future. This notion of family leisure as contradictory is consistent with previous theorizing about the inevitable co-existence of divergent experiences, expectations, meanings and realities that are associated with family time (e.g., Shaw, 1997). These contradictions may be particularly evident in rural settings where ideas about the rural idyll co-exist with much more pessimistic sentiments about rural life.

This study also served to emphasize the importance of context for understanding the meanings of family leisure, and the need to explore family leisure in a range of social, environmental and cultural contexts. For example, although urban and suburban parents have expressed the need for low cost and easily accessible facilities such as bicycle paths, hiking trails and community swimming pools (Shaw, 2001), the farm women in this study spoke of different types of issues and problems. Further, while this study provided support for the notion of family leisure as purposive (Shaw & Dawson, 2001), the objectives associated with family leisure by the farm women differed from previously studied urban and suburban women. For the farm women in this study, the purpose of family leisure was to counter the perceived physical and social isolation that farm life provided, and in a time of uncertainty to help their children remain connected to their rural heritage.

Ironically, the time and energy needed to facilitate these family leisure activities may have heightened the women's own sense of social isolation. Throughout the interviews, the women never made reference to their involvement in traditional rural women's social groups (e.g., Women's Institute). Only on one occasion did a participant discuss women's traditional rural leisure activities such as quilting or crafts. This echoes Ames, Brosi, and Damiano-Teixeira's (2006) findings that rural women struggle to establish social supports in their community because of a lack of time due to domestic and employment responsibilities. Moreover, the women in this study and in Ames et al.'s study suggested that they learned to adapt and cope with social isolation and enjoy what rural life had to offer. These accounts are different than the stories shared by farm women in Henderson's (1990) research nearly two decades ago where “the value of women-only groups with the opportunity for women to be with other women was frequently mentioned” (p. 129). While ensuring that their children remained connected to their rural heritage, the women in our study may in part, have lost their own sense of connection to traditional women's activities and social groups.

Further, the women's perceived responsibility to ensure that children remained connected to their rural heritage was particularly interesting since all of the women married into the family farms, and all but one of them were raised in an urban or sub-urban context. The farm women's deliberate facilitation of traditional rural activities may reflect gendered power relations on the family farm. Although few rural researchers have explored the perspectives of the daughter-in-law who marries into a farm family, Pini (2007) stated that these women often experience a sense of marginalization relative to their husband's family of origin. Thus, in our study, the women's role in the promotion of rural leisure activities for their children may be reinforcing existing power relations. Similarly the close connection with paternal extended family members, combined with the limited opportunities for interactions with maternal extended family members, may also strengthen the patriarchal lineage. At the same time, the importance the women gave to encouraging children's participation in community activities away from the farm (i.e., youth sport programs) may also represent a form of resistance (Shaw, 2001) to traditional rural heritage and values.

In sum, this study adds to the growing body of research that examines the experiences and meanings of family leisure and its inherently contradictory paradigm (Harrington, 2005; Larson, Gillman & Richards, 1997; Shaw, 2001; Shaw & Dawson, 2001; Trussell & Shaw, 2007). The findings emphasize the positive aspects as well as the challenges of family life, child rearing and leisure experiences in the farm environment. Our study also calls attention to the farm women's reinforcement of and resistance to traditional leisure activities for their children that are reflective of their attitudes toward the rural heritage versus preparation for a different future for their children.

By revealing these aspects of family leisure in rural farm settings, this study also provides a window into broader social, political and economic changes. Mobilized by free trade policies and technological advances, large corporations are replacing small, independent family farms resulting in reduced labor needs (Qualman, 2001). In response to these changes, leisure was perceived by the women in our study as an important medium to remain connected to their traditional rural heritage, while successfully integrating and preparing future generations for urban and suburban cultures.

The findings in our study may also have important insights to contribute to the sense of place leisure literature. As Kyle and Chick (2007) pointed out, little attention has been directed to understanding how “social networks influence the meanings recreationists associate with place along with their attachments to the social landscapes in which leisure experiences are enjoyed” (p. 222). Moreover, Kyle and Chick argued that family and close friends have an important role in developing the social meanings attached to a sense of place. The shared family leisure experiences and interactions create social meanings that, in part, may contribute to the social construction of farm life as idyllic, tranquil and a great place to raise a family. However, the leisure experiences also reflected a fluid and dynamic social construction of place (Stokowski, 2002), whereby the farm women responded to the perceived threat of the family farm through their leisure practices and hoped to prepare their children for the farm's future uncertainty. Future research in more isolated rural areas that are not close to urban and suburban centers may reveal different findings.

Our study was limited to the experiences of selected farm women. Future researchers may want capture the experiences and meanings of other farm women, husbands, children and extended family members who also reside on the farm property to enhance an understanding of family leisure and raising children in the socially constructed rural idyll. As Hebblethwaite (2008) argued, grandparents and grandchildren also perceived contradictory experiences and memories in their shared time together. In addition, the voices of rural youth would be particularly valuable as the rural idyll may be in conflict with young people's expressed feelings of isolation, restlessness and an overall lack of belonging (Leyshon, 2005). With declining employment opportunities, youth and in particular young women have been affected by changing social and economic processes resulting in high out-migration rates (Bjarnason & Thorlindsson, 2006; Haugen & Villa, 2006). Research that explores the potential for leisure to play an active role in enriching young people's lives may help better understand how their lives, and their families, may be improved during a time of rapid social and economic change in Canada's rural areas.

The authors would like to thank the farm women for sharing their perspectives. They also thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments made on earlier versions of this manuscript.