Opportunities for the Future of Leisure Studies

Leisure not only provides the opportunity to shape values; it also establishes a setting for expressing them. – Charles K. Brightbill (1961, p. 46)

A long and contentious political season, five years in the making, has left many feeling disheartened both globally and in our respective locales. At the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, throughout Bolivia, Brazil, China and the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, Lebanon, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United States, each of these countries have experienced various states of major civil unrest. Our ideologies and politics often feel personal, yet they are also communal in that we seek coherence with others who share similar belief and value systems. The flipside of that coin is that ideologies beget fracture for those who do not ascribe to the “majority” opinion, a fact that has been highlighted in recent debates amongst leisure scholars in the wake of national elections in the United States. At such a time as this, does the field of leisure studies have a coherent stance on issues that affect communities throughout North America and the world at large?

Our vision as the new editors for Leisure Sciences is based on serious concerns for the field of leisure studies, but also the belief that we, as a community of leisure scholars, can continue to make profound and positive impacts through our research, teaching, advocacy, and service. There remains, however, much work to be done. Talmage et al. (2017) conducted a noteworthy analysis of courses, curricula, and programs in the field, highlighting an important component of where a collective vision could be established: in the classroom. Parr and Schmalz (2019) penned a necessary critique of the ways in which the field has abandoned leisure philosophy as the common point of entry for scholarly exploration. Their paper is an important reminder of why the field came into being in the first place: to attend to the “problem of free time” – though as it was prophesied (too much) and as it arrived (too little) are starkly different. These two articles are quite poignant in what they present, but there have been only “crickets” in response to the issues they raised.

Interestingly, and appropriately, both cite two seminal articles from the field that should remain central in our conversations about its future: Burdge’s (1985) “Coming Separation of Leisure Studies from Parks and Recreation Education” and Godbey’s (1985) rejoinder, “The Coming Cross-pollination of Leisure Studies and Parks and Recreation Education: A Response.” The former could be seen as pessimistic about the future and longevity of the field in regard to its pairing with parks and recreation, the latter more optimistic in its assessment. For Burdge, leisure deserved more than being reduced to a simple recharge for work or as a forum for investigation into the economic contributions of recreation. He saw the study of leisure as having the potential for bigger personal and social implications than solely being relegated to park and recreation management analysis, with which we wholeheartedly agree, but he was not bullish on its academic home. Godbey challenged that notion, stating that leisure and park and recreation education were indeed intimately related and must be understood as inseparable if the field were to make meaningful contributions to society. He called recreation and park education a “finger on the hand of Leisure Studies. Those who examine the finger need to understand what it is attached to. Those who study the hand need to consider each finger” (p. 148). And this brings us to where we are today: needing to extend the outstretched fingers (e.g., sport management, tourism, therapeutic recreation, youth development, etc.) as a unified hand into the future of the field. Perhaps this attempt at unification can lend some insights into healing the civil unrest and fractious nature of our political and social climate.

Broadly understood, the field of leisure studies encompasses quality-of-life issues that affect every community in the world. Whether addressed through public or private channels, these matters entail consideration of various public goods that necessitate both interrogation and stewardship by our community of scholars. Where leisure spaces and activities have become arenas for oppression, the promise of our public goods have been betrayed and our scholarship will continue to respond. As the current pandemic has aptly demonstrated, the absence of public leisure also calls forth its continued relevance as a medium of expression, diversion, and self-determination. The task of advocating for leisure’s worth, while also interrogating its use in broader campaigns of marginalization, is difficult for us as scholars, and equally so as educators. How do we prepare students for professional careers where people may have divisive sociopolitical views? How do we discuss these issues in our classrooms, especially if our personal beliefs differ from those of our students? How do we moderate a political discussion that is not conducive to class activities? How do we put forth a model for activism that is true to the mission of our field without alienating those we serve? Some have asked how we can become advocates to preserve and protect social (e.g., DACA, human rights) and environmental institutions (e.g., EPA, climate change) that have come under fire with recent regimes in the United States and elsewhere; charges that had been adopted by the field decades ago. These are all important questions, and difficult ones to answer.

As we begin our editorship, we endeavor to challenge our community to formulate coherence around specific issues, while also extending and elaborating on the Journal’s current identity as a home for progressive leisure scholarship. During Diana Parry and Corey Johnson’s tenure, paradigmatic pluralism, progressive/transgressive thought, and a diversity of voices have become hallmarks of the Journal. We are grateful beyond measure for the course they have charted with Leisure Sciences, and we look forward to elaborating on this legacy as we articulate our own vision.

We ask you, the scholars of our collective field, to look at how your research enhances the lives of those you study; to build on and challenge the work of others in the field who came before you; to look for the people, places, and phenomena that have been left un/underexplored; and to draw clear connections between the work you undertake and the “values” put forth by The Academy of Leisure Sciences, so as to help create the coherence we seek. In our first year, these are our thoughts that are guiding us and will hopefully inform you and your contributions. More thoughts to come next year…

Justin Harmon
Department of Community and Therapeutic Recreation, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA
[email protected]

Rudy Dunlap
Department of Health and Human Performance, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, USA

Rasul A. Mowatt
Department of American Studies & Geography, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA