“Whoa Versus Go!” A Rejoinder to Mannell and Caldwell

As the reader is likely aware, the title of this rejoinder refers to Linda Caldwell's (2005) comment that our conceptualization of culture and self-construal (Walker, Deng, & Dieser, 2005) "is far too complex to [be] whole-heartedly endorse [d] as the next defining moment of leisure research and practice" and, therefore, that "Whoa! " must be exclaimed. Frankly, we agree with her assessment in many ways: our proposal is complicated; the ideas that underlie it are not fully developed; the measures that are recommended require refinement; and, in terms of being the next "big damn deal" in recreation and leisure studies, it is up to the field to decide if it sets the predicate. Having said this, we remain convinced that "Go! " rather than "Whoa! " is the correct exclamation, and we interpret Roger Mannell's (2005) comments to be largely in concurrence. In the following pages we address more fully the issues Mannell and Caldwell raise, but before we do so we provide a brief "biography" of our idea.In 1994, while a doctoral student at Virginia Tech, the lead author (Gordon Walker) first read Markus and Kitayama's (1991) article on culture and self-construal as part of a sociological social psychology (SSP) course. Although Markus and Kitayama's propositions provided the framework for a class essay on culture, self-construal, and leisure, it wasn't until after becoming a faculty member and writing my first Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada grant proposal that I was able to develop my ideas more fully. The grant reviewers' comments, along with the arrival of two new doctoral students, allowed me to further refine these ideas; with Rod Dieser providing needed commentary on the practical and professional aspects, and Jinyarig Deng describing how independence and interdependence are exemplified in Western and Chinese cultures, respectively. Rod, Jinyang, and I then used this grant proposal as the basis for an abstract submitted to National Recreation and Park Association Research Symposium, followed by a manuscript submitted to the Journal of Leisure Research-the former being evaluated by a coordinator and two reviewers, the latter by an Associate Editor and five reviewers. Thus, 11 years after the idea was originally conceived, and 6 years after serious effort was first expended, a refereed paper on culture, self-construal, and leisure theory and practice was finally published.Hopefully this biography serves three purposes. First, as Martin and Erber (2003) note, the "behind the scenes" view of what makes an idea initially "click" and how it is subsequently modified is seldom discussed in research articles. second, as Searle (2000) states, graduate students are usually insufficiently exposed to leisure theory, and this recounting may provide them with some understanding of the important role others (e.g., students, grant reviewers, and journal editors, associate editors, and reviewers) play in its development. Third, and overlooked by Searle in his discussion of why there is so little theory in leisure studies, it illustrates the sheer amount of time it takes to formulate new frameworks. The last is particularly important since, in the numbers-driven kind of institution that universities have become, it often seems to make more sense to produce MPUs (i.e., minimum publishable units; Jackson & Scott, 1999) rather than theoretical pieces that take many years to develop and, in the process, can affect a researcher's ability to meet his or her annual publication "quota" (Jackson, 2003; Shaw, 2003). On the other hand, when ajournai format such as the current one is used, this issue is counterbalanced by the opportunity to have one's ideas commented on and challenged by leading researchers such as, in our case, Roger Mannell and Linda Caldwell.In terms of Roger Mannell's response, we are especially intrigued by his discussion of: (a) Hoshino-Browne, Zanna, Spencer, and Zanna's (in press) three-generation model of cross-cultural psychological research; (b) leisure as an experiential state being universal but also varying in certain observable and predictable ways across cultures; and (c) how our framework could potentially address some scholars' concerns that the social psychology of leisure is too focused on the individual level. …