Constructing knowledge: the case of leisure management in the UK

Abstract

Models of curricula development in higher education pay scant attention to the role of self‐interested actors in the construction of knowledge. Rather, it is assumed that curricula develop on the basis of fission within disciplines, fusion between fields, the exertion of pressure by the state or other stakeholders, or the development of knowledge in relation to professional practice. This article argues that the ongoing debate about the nature and appropriateness of leisure management curricula masks the reality of the field as the product of actors whose vested interests and ideological imperatives have shaped the field in its various manifestations. Through analysis of qualitative data gathered at 14 higher education institutions, the article identifies a series of problematic conceptions and approaches which characterise the field of leisure management. It is argued that the nature of the field is best explained with reference to the social antecedents of contributing academics in the traditional middle classes and petite bourgeoisie. The field reflects a series of social and cultural constructions which, through the processes of academic production, have become reified and legitimated.