Innovations in leisure education: revisiting and re-imagining leisure education

Over the last two decades, some of our scholarly work and teaching has included a focus on leisure education (e.g. Hutchinson & Robertson, 2012; Shannon, 2012). In recent years, the two of us, together and with others, have been engaged in roundtable discussions, panel presentations (e.g. S. Hutchinson et al., 2014), and writing projects (Shannon et al., 2016) related to community-based leisure education. Susan initiated this special issue with an interest in continuing our work by welcoming and highlighting innovation in leisure education – new ideas or practices that add value to the existing body of literature on leisure education and/or are particularly relevant in addressing current social issues. As a result, in our call for papers, we invited work from researchers and practitioners related to leisure education that was occurring in community settings, that moved beyond the person-centred approach, and/or was positioned to play a role in addressing complex social problems.

Leisure education in community settings

The early roots of leisure education focused on the design and delivery of recreation programs in community settings, with the premise that all people and society as a whole could benefit from learning about, for and through leisure in order to maximize optimal development and living (Brightbill, 1966; Mundy, 1998; Mundy & Odum, 1979). Over the last 50 years, however, most published work on leisure education programs or interventions from North America have come from or are targeted toward the therapeutic recreation (TR) sector. One explanation for the strong showing of leisure education in TR may be that the guiding model of practice for therapeutic recreation for the last 30 years – the Leisure Ability model (Stumbo & Peterson, 1998) – has leisure education as a core focus of service provision. While implementation of leisure education outside the realm of TR in North America has not been widespread, examples do exist (e.g. Caldwell et al., 2004; S. L. Hutchinson et al., 2017; Oncescu & Neufeld, 2019; Shannon, 2012). One goal of this special issue was to encourage those doing leisure education within community contexts to share their work. All five articles highlight such work.

Leisure education beyond a person-centred approach

Within the leisure and TR literatures, leisure education has been identified as a core means of enabling individuals to address barriers to recreation (Dattilo, 2015). Dieser (2013) notes that scholars have identified the limitations of viewing leisure education from a person-centred perspective (in which individuals are expected to take responsibility for their leisure) and have called for more system-directed and social policy approaches. He points out that Mundy’s (1998) definition of leisure education acknowledged, in part, the importance of understanding leisure and its relationship within society. She defined leisure education as, ‘a total developmental process through which individuals develop an understanding of leisure, of self in relation to leisure, and of the relationship among leisure, their own lifestyle, and society’ (p. 5). While part of Mundy’s (1998) definition takes an ecological or social policy perspective, Dieser (2013) comments that these perspectives are largely underdeveloped within the body of work related to leisure education.

Dieser’s (2013) points resonated with both of us. As part of the Susan’s MA thesis research, she interviewed former participants of a ‘transition to the community’ leisure education program with individuals who have experienced an acquired brain injury (Hutchinson, 1997). It was astounding that the only community programs or spaces they said they were accessing 1 year later were those they had been introduced to within the context of the program. Over two decades later, Susan was able to reinforce the value of connecting people to existing community-based opportunities with the development of Steps to Connect, a brief leisure education program targeting persons living with chronic health problems (see S. L. Hutchinson et al., 2017).

Charlene was involved in a Pediatric lifestyle management clinic that supported children who were overweight and their parents in assessing and changing eating, physical activity, and leisure behaviours. In the first year of the program, Charlene served as a ‘leisure educator’ and met with parents and children together and focused on engaging the children – asking them about their leisure and giving them leisure education activities to advance their understanding of their own leisure interests, attitudes, knowledge as well as perceived barriers to leisure that would both improve self-esteem and see them participate in more physically active leisure pursuits. What she discovered, however, was that some parents were taking a very ‘hands off’ approach to the work. If leisure education exercises (e.g. a leisure interest inventory) were not completed, some parents spoke of their children’s lack of cooperation, lack of motivation, or forgetfulness. Despite her own research focused on parents’ influences on and responsibility for children’s leisure (e.g. Shannon, 2006; Shannon & Shaw, 2008), Charlene had used a person-centred approach and developed a leisure education process that did not appreciate parents as tastemakers and facilitators of their children’s leisure. In subsequent years of the program, parents (individuals in the children’s immediate environment or microsystem; Brofenbrenner, 1979) were the primary focus of leisure education, and they were provided with leisure education exercises and activities and the responsibility to complete them with their child (e.g. working with their child to identify barriers and develop strategies to overcome them; Shannon, 2012, 2014). As a result, parents developed an awareness of their children’s leisure (e.g. how time was spent, child’s interests) and an enhanced understanding of their role as facilitators (e.g. the value of discussing leisure with their child, the importance of being a role model).

Ecological theories or perspectives can be useful lens in moving beyond the person-centred perspective. For example, Brofenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory focuses on different environments or contexts that influence human growth and development. With the individual placed at the centre, the microsystem involves the face-to-face interactions with their immediate surroundings including family, school, peers, and coaches or recreation leaders. The next layer of influence is the mesosystem which is a system of microsystems and focuses on the influence of interrelationships between various microsystems with which an individual interacts (e.g. how interactions between family and school influence the individual). The exosystem refers to the influence of the broader social systems in which one is embedded (e.g. mass media; community services). For example, a child does not have direct interactions with their parents’ work environment. However, work schedules, work hours, and compensation may impact the parents’ ability to be available for leisure or to support their children’s leisure participation. In this way, a parents’ work environment influences the child because the child is embedded in that system. Finally, the macrosystem acknowledges that cultural values and beliefs along with the political climate influence both the microsystems and mesosystems in which individuals are embedded. For example, Jacobson and Samdahl (1998), whose research focused on leisure in the lives of older lesbians, found that the discrimination they experienced could be linked to cultural values that viewed lesbian women as deviant and devalued women and those who are older.

This special issue includes work from those who have recognized the need to engage an individual’s microsystem in leisure education processes in order to reduce barriers, improve access, increase leisure literacy, and/or enhance one’s leisure experiences. While authors have not specifically labelled them as ‘microsystems’, parents, an afterschool setting, and recreation service providers are among the microsystems discussed in this issue. The contributions support the expansion of the body of knowledge that moves beyond the person-centred approach to leisure education.

Leisure education and social problems

In addition to moving beyond the person-centred approach to leisure education, there is also recognition of the need to go beyond being problem-focused to strengthen or harness individuals’ assets, talents, and interests (e.g. Anderson & Heyne, 2012). Extending beyond this individual-level understanding and impact, there is a need to consider what role leisure education might have in addressing complex social problems like poverty, chronic health problems, or even the current global pandemic. Following ratification of the National Recreation Framework in Canada, we teamed up with Oncescu (Shannon et al., 2016) to consider how leisure education can be a process to influence multi-level change (e.g. within individuals, families, organizations, as well as across organizations or broader health promotion campaigns). We suggested that:

Leisure education can be an individual, family and community engagement tool, as well as an approach to facilitating this engagement, that could help the recreation sector work collaboratively with others (including individuals and families, as well as with other service providers) to tackle the wicked problems facing Canadian families and communities. (p. 266)

This special issue picks up on these propositions with each of the articles providing compelling evidence of the potential of leisure education to reduce systems-level barriers and enhance leisure participation and community inclusion.

Introduction to the articles in this special issue

The issue begins with an invited commentary by Dieser titled: Re-imagining leisure education with Canadian hope: Will the caravan of American individualism keep rolling? We invited Dieser to provide this commentary because he has written extensively from a systems-directed and social policy perspective on leisure education (e.g. Dieser, 2013). In this invited commentary, he revisits research he has done to look at the extent to which leisure education models and research explicitly address social-ecological variables.

The first article is written by Canadian colleagues from Dalhousie University: Gallant, Hutchinson, Burns, Litwiller, Hamilton-Hinch, and Lauckner. The article is based on a Nova Scotia-based community-based participatory action project and is titled: Reaching out to welcome in: Guidelines for socially inclusive recreation settings and programs for people with mental health challenges. Their paper draws on findings from several research studies that were part of a broader ‘Recreation for Mental Health’ project to present a set of principles, guidelines, and recommended actions for welcoming and socially inclusive recreation settings and programs for persons who are living with mental health challenges (and the stigma, discrimination and social exclusion that often accompanies a mental illness). These evidence-based tools can be considered a form of leisure education to effect change in the knowledge, skills and confidence of recreation practitioners and others who provide recreation programs or services in their communities.

The second article in this special issue is by Anderson and is titled: Leisure education from an ecological perspective: Inclusion and advocacy in community leisure. Anderson has been an ardent advocate for strengths-based and ecological approaches to therapeutic recreation practice, and has been the visionary behind the Inclusive Recreation Resource Center (IRRC) at the State University of New York (see https://inclusiverec.org/). In this article, Dr. Anderson advocates for extending leisure education to organizations that deliver community-based leisure services to persons with disabilities. This article builds on this work to share how changes were made to community leisure service venues after staff participated in InclusionU Online training offered through the IRRC. As she notes, embedding leisure education in a strengths-based, ecological framework and a social model of disability broadens the focus of who is educated and what outcomes are achieved for people with disabilities to live a full leisure life in community settings.

It seems that the adage ‘it takes a village’ applies not only to the current pandemic situation but also to the way to effect change in communities related to overcoming barriers to leisure participation. The third research article in this special issue is by Oncescu and Neufeld titled: Bridging low-income families to community leisure provisions: The role of leisure education. These authors explain that, despite the existence of financial assistance programs designed for low-income families, many parents are unaware of leisure resources available to them that would support their children and family’s leisure opportunities and, as a result, tend not to take advantage of these programs. In their article, Oncescu and Neufeld describe a community-based leisure education program in Manitoba Canada, for low-income families. Drawing on interview data with staff and family members, they describe the impact this program had on helping families to become more informed and empowered.

The fourth paper in the special issue, by Janke, Payne and Son, is titled: Leisure education in chronic disease self-management: A case study and lessons learned. As they note, across North America the number of individuals experiencing chronic conditions is on the rise, increasing the need for effective self-management strategies to promote health and quality of life. Their paper identifies how leisure education may complement and enhance skills considered necessary for appropriate self-management. Although there are many different self-management programs, the most widely known internationally is the Chronic Disease Self-Management program (CDSMP; Lorig et al., 1999). These leisure researchers had the opportunity to develop curricula that would extend the CDSMP to include a focus on leisure education. In the article, they describe how the CDSMP + Leisure Education program was developed, provide examples of the curriculum, and share ‘lessons learned’ from pilot implementation of the program. Their suggestions for the inclusion of leisure education in other self-management programs have the potential to be applied across diverse populations and community contexts.

The final article in this special issue is by another team of Canadian leisure researchers: Wilkinson, Kmiecik, and Harvey. Their article is titled: Community connections: Leisure education through afterschool programming. We considered this article an example of an Innovative Program we encouraged in our call for papers. Wilkinson et al. provide a compelling argument that while leisure education may help children to gain a better understanding of the role of leisure in their lives, leisure education in schools has been slow to evolve. To address this need, the authors worked collaboratively with a school district in Montreal Quebec to introduce elementary schools to leisure education through afterschool programming. The authors describe the curriculum and some of the challenges and successes they encountered in the process of having university recreation students develop and implement leisure education learning activities as part of a university-level service-learning course project. We look forward to the future research related to this initiative.

A note on leisure education during a global pandemic

When the call for papers for this special issue was developed in July 2018, we could not have anticipated that we would be writing this introduction and sending the issue to the publisher during a global pandemic. Where we reside (Atlantic Canada), the current COVID-19 pandemic has seen recreation centres, sport facilities, and national and provincial parks close; commercial leisure spaces such as restaurants and coffee shops close; caution tape wrapped around playground equipment because they are off-limits; restrictions placed on leisure or ‘non-essential’ travel with provincial borders closing; and requirements for self-isolating. These measures have presented a unique opportunity to consider what role, if any, leisure education has in the context of a population health crisis – another complex social problem (Shannon et al., 2016).

While this special issue focuses on more formal leisure education processes, ‘informal’ leisure education seems to be flourishing. There are many advertisements by small businesses providing a myriad of DIY kits, crafts, or equipment that are available for curbside pick-up or can be delivered to our homes – paint by number painting kits, woodworking projects, science kits to help kids learn about their world. News articles indicate that puzzles and games are selling out (Larson, 2020; Verdon, 2020). There have been innumerable messages on social media promoting the value of brief, pleasurable activities that can be done at home. In some cases, this information is being shared by individuals or organizations who are not positioned in the recreation sector. For example, people in neighbourhood groups are sharing ideas based on what they have done in their home for leisure while mental health agencies offer self-care tips that include mindfulness activities, tips for exercising at home and reminders to take time to be outside. In other cases, recreation professionals are working to help individuals’ transition to more home-based or outdoor leisure. For example, Charlene has been following a public Facebook group, Annapolis Valley Recreation St(ay)tion (https://www.facebook.com/groups/annapolisvalleyrecreationstation/), in which recreation departments in communities across that region of Nova Scotia are posting suggestions for activities, information about exercise and outdoor recreation, and online events and classes for residents. Residents who access this group or their community recreation department’s Facebook page can receive information to support home-based recreation while staying home is required. The creation of this group and the ways community members are being engaged are examples of how crisis or the disruption of ‘normal’ can prompt practitioner responses that are innovative in the way they serve the public.

Further, a multitude of social media posts emphasizes the value of appreciating the moment and being grateful for what we have in our lives, both of which are related to the development of a ‘leisure ethic’ (Dattilo, 2015). As one example, most of the current posts on a Facebook group focused on retirement, to which Susan belongs, are about managing life in the context of this pandemic. Pat, one of the group members, commented:

Now is the time to try new things, to indulge yourself a little (don’t use it as an excuse to be lazy) and to be grateful for all the good in our lives. Even without the virus, we are not promised tomorrow, so make today the best day you possibly can.

Underlying Pat’s and others’ comments seem to be widespread recognition (a.k.a. ‘awareness’ in leisure education terminology) of the ‘benefits’ of leisure and how brief moments of enjoyment can contribute to improving coping efficacy and well-being.

Some of the general population seem to be accessing information related to leisure during a pandemic, seem to ‘get’ the importance of leisure to maintain health and well-being, and can experience leisure. However, what about others whose everyday lives may be more precarious? What leisure education, if any, might individuals living with complex physical or social problems (i.e. chronic health conditions, poverty) be accessing in the absence of in-person programs and services? What information do these individuals need to access leisure and how might they be reached? Can leisure education make a difference in addressing the needs of people, families and communities living with complex physical and social problems during this time? Finally, to whom and how should we provide ‘education’ in order to truly assist those who are most vulnerable in our communities? These are among the questions we, as scholars who are inspired to apply a leisure education lens to this complex social problem, are asking. We encourage others to do the same and to consider developing partnerships, similar to those forged by the authors in this special issue, that can support those who are vulnerable in understanding the role of leisure in their lives and in accessing meaningful leisure experiences.

Conclusion

The authors’ work related to leisure education within this special issue offers new ideas related to the community-based leisure education, that are not person-centred, and/or offers ways in which leisure education can be included in addressing complex social problems. In an effort to extend this work, we encourage leisure researchers and practitioners to read and reflect on what each one of these articles contributed to this special issue, and to consider how you might be able to bring some of these ideas or evidence to life in your own institutions or communities. Is there an opportunity to ‘infuse’ leisure education, formally or informally, into your teaching, research and service? Or can you collaborate with agencies (like churches or homeless shelters) that serve some of the most vulnerable people in our communities? We hope this special issue provides us all a chance to revisit and reimagine the role leisure education can play in addressing complex social problems (including population health crises) and in considering the role of leisure education in capacity-building within our communities.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.