Individual and Institutional Concentration of Leisure Research in North America

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify key characteristics of the community of leisure scholars in North America and to use patterns derived from data about publication activity as a platform for discussing the nature and implications of concentration in leisure research at the individual and institutional levels. The study uses cluster analysis to detect patterns of research and publication activity among 1785 people who were associated with leisure research in North America in the 1990s, concentrating on the slightly smaller number of people (1631) whose names were listed as authors on at least one publication in all editions of 6 research journals and 14 conference proceedings from 1990 to 1999 inclusive. The results demonstrate that leisure research in North America is concentrated at both the individual scholar and institutional levels. For example, at the individual level, less than one-fifth of authors accounted for more than two-thirds of journal articles and conference papers. The implications of these findings are discussed with reference to issues such as the critical mass of scholars and problems of disciplinary isolation detected by previous researchers.

Keywords:

• leisure research
• leisure sciences
• leisure studies
• cluster analysis
• research concentration
• disciplinary isolation

Notes

¹ With apologies to David Lodge, Changing Places (1975) and Small World: An Academic Romance (1984).

² The 1998 Leisure Research Symposium scheduled to be held in Miami, Fla., was included in the database because, despite the conference being cancelled due to a natural disaster in the region, papers had been reviewed and were published in the 1998 LRS abstracts booklet.

³ To be included in the study, a participant did not have to attend the conference, but rather be part of the record by having his or her name listed in association with a paper as a single author or co-author.

∗Rounded to the nearest full year.

^a F (6, 1624) = 668.33; p < 0.0001.

^b F (6, 1624) = 481.44; p < 0.0001.

^c F (6, 1624) = 241.42; p < 0.0001.

^d F (6, 1624) = 91.85; p < 0.0001.

^e F (6, 1624) = 94.00; p < 0.0001.

^f F (6, 1624) = 2935.75; p < 0.0001.

^g F (6, 1624) = 801.82; p < 0.0001.

^h Data are derived from calculations based on test a; therefore the same inference about the statistical significance of the difference applies.

⁴ It should be noted that the data for the members of Cluster 6 were somewhat at odds with the patterns summarized here, in that the levels of their gatekeeping activity were higher than would be expected if the trends were entirely consistent among the clusters. This anomaly may be accounted for by the fact that Cluster 6 members were active mainly in the early 1990s, and in some cases probably before that. Thus, while their average productivity measured in terms of journal articles and conference papers may have declined in the latter part of the 1990s, their reputations were perhaps such that they still continued to be invited to serve in various gatekeeping capacities, such as membership on journal editorial boards.

^a F (6, 1624) = 187.50; p < 0.0001.

^b χ² = 627.95; d.f. = 6; p < 0.0001.

^c χ² = 109.88; d.f. = 6; p < 0.0001.

^d χ² = 398.17; d.f. = 6; p < 0.0001.

^e χ² = 611.67; d.f. = 6; p < 0.0001.

^a F (6, 1624) = 41.81; p < 0.0001.

^b χ² = 216.73; d.f. = 6; p < 0.0001.

⁵ The data for ALS membership include all people elected to the Academy up to and including 2001. While these data extend beyond the 10-year span of the rest of the study, this is justifiable in that the people elected after the 1990s established their reputations during that decade.

^a F (6, 1624) = 109.65; p < 0.0001.

^b χ² = 393.44; d.f. = 6; p < 0.0001.

^c χ² = 317.10; d.f. = 6; p < 0.0001.

^d χ² = 395.72; d.f. = 6; p < 0.0001.

^a University of Waterloo; Texas A&M University; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Clemson University; Indiana University; Pennsylvania State University; Arizona State University; University of Manitoba; University of Georgia; University of Minnesota; University of Alberta; University of Utah; Colorado State University; University of Iowa; Brock University; University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

^b Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières; Dalhousie University; Université du Québec à Montréal; University of Ottawa; University of Oregon; University of Florida; Oregon State University; Laval University; University of North Carolina-Greensboro; Virginia Tech; North Carolina State University; Purdue University; University of Montana; Utah State University.

^a F (6, 206) = 592.52; p < 0.0001.