How do you know if you don’t try? Non-traditional research methodologies, novice researchers, and leisure studies

ABSTRACT

A variety of qualitative approaches – underlined by diverse postpositivist, postmodern, poststructuralist, and interdisciplinary perspectives – are employed by scholar’s in the field of leisure studies that influence the use of non-traditional qualitative methodologies. In this article, we discuss why novice researchers (such as graduate students or neophyte researchers) studying leisure contexts should engage in and build a legacy of utilizing non-traditional methodologies within their research. We provide a brief review of literature and an overview of our own experience conducting research utilizing (1) the methodological bricolage; and (2) autoethnography. We discuss our experiences of two novice researchers in the field of leisure who utilized non-traditional qualitative methodologies, and, building on contributions from scholars in the field of leisure who have advocated for a diversification and robust knowledge base, discuss and advocate for the use of non-traditional research approaches in leisure studies as something to be celebrated by inquiring, novice researchers. We conclude by suggesting that building a legacy of engaging in non-traditional methodologies by novice researchers offers potential to contribute to the dynamic and reflexive field of leisure.

RÈSUMÈ

A Les chercheurs utilisent différentes approches qualitatives (soulignées par diverses perspectives post-positivistes, post-modernes, post-structuralistes et interdisciplinaires) dans le domaine des études sur les loisirs et qui influencent l’utilisation de méthodologies qualitatives non conventionnelles. Dans cet article, nous présentons la raison pour laquelle les chercheurs novices (tels que les étudiants diplômés ou les chercheurs néophytes) qui étudient des contextes de loisirs devraient s’intéresser et utiliser des méthodologies non conventionnelles dans leurs recherches. Nous fournissons une brève revue de la littérature et un aperçu de notre propre expérience de recherches selon ces approches: (1) le bricolage méthodologique et (2) l’auto-ethnographie. Nous discutons de nos expériences avec deux chercheurs novices du domaine des loisirs qui ont utilisé des méthodologies qualitatives non conventionnelles. En outre, sur la base des contributions des chercheurs du domaine des loisirs ayant milité en faveur d’une diversification et d’une base de connaissances solide, nous discutons des approches de recherche non conventionnelles et préconisons leur utilisation dans lesétudes sur les loisirs comme un élément de célébration par des chercheurs débutants et curieux. Nous concluons en suggérant que la promotion de l’utilisation de méthodologies non conventionnelles par les chercheurs novices offre la possibilité de contribuer au domaine dynamique et réflexif des loisirs.

KEYWORDS:

• Qualitative research
• non-traditional methodologies
• novice researchers
• methodological bricolage
• autoethnography

MOTS-CLÈS:

• recherche qualitative
• méthodologies non conventionnelles
• chercheurs novices
• bricolage méthodologique
• auto-ethnographie

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. We use the terms multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary throughout this article. Following Mair (2006), multidisciplinary approaches bring together various knowledge of disciplines, but does not change those disciplines own theoretical, conceptual, or methodological underpinnings to initiate new insights. Interdisciplinary approaches integrate multiple disciplinary perspectives to create new theoretical, conceptual, and/or methodological forms of inquiry.

2. We speak in this article with what we hope is not perceived as in an authoritative manner. Instead, recognizing our own status as novice and early career researchers, we seek to position ourselves as offering an opportunity to novice researchers (including ourselves) to engage in innovative, non-traditional qualitative methodologies for leisure contexts due to the dynamic nature of the field. Although we advocate for the use of such methodologies, we also recognize the importance of traditional quantitative and qualitative methodologies within leisure, and the important contributions that such perspectives add to the field.

3. Although we suggest here that based on increasing scholarly work pointing to research approaches that are non-traditional that the field of leisure is advancing and indeed accepting of nascent research methodologies and approaches, we also wish to express that this is not necessarily in agreement with all leisure scholars. Although it is not our intent here to provide an overview of scholars who agree and disagree on the diversification of research in leisure, we wish to stress that it is not the case that all scholars in the field agree that this advancement is necessary and encouraging.