In the Eye of the Beholder: A Comment on Samdahl & Jekubovich (1997), "A Critique of Leisure Constraints: Comparative analyses and understandings".

Introduction As a long-time participant in and proponent of research on constraints to leisure, I welcome the publication of Diane Samdahl and Nancy Jekubovich's paper, "A critique of leisure constraints: Comparative analyses and understandings," both for the substantive data and interpretations the authors offer, as well as for the criticisms of the field that they raise. I am also grateful to have been invited to join Karla Henderson in writing a comment on the article: I view it as an opportunity to engage in public discussion about the value of what many would agree is an important component of contemporary North American leisure studies. A field of research will likely stagnate unless its basic assumptions are subjected to scrutiny and debated constructively in an open forum such as the current exchange. Samdahl and Jekubovich's article represents an important step in the evolution of leisure constraints research (Goodale & Witt, 1989; Jackson, 1988, 1991; Jackson & Scott, forthcoming; Wade, 1985). A scattering of papers appeared in the early 1980s (Boothby, Tungatt, & Townsend, 1981; Francken & van Raj, 1981; Romsa & Hoffman, 1980; Witt & Goodale, 1981), followed by a virtual explosion in empirical studies in the decade that followed: this literature was summarized and reviewed by Jackson (1988, 1991) and exemplified by the simultaneous publication of special issues of the Journal of Leisure Research and Leisure Sciences in 1991. From the mid- to late-1980s, empirical research was accompanied by a modest amount of theoretical development, coupled with the publication of models designed to understand the operation of constraints within people's leisure decision making processes (e.g., Chick, Roberts, & Romney, 1991; Crawford & Godbey, 1987; Crawford,Jackson, & Godbey, 1991; Godbey, 1985; Henderson, 1991;Jackson & Searle, 1985; Searle, 1991; Shaw, 1994). Then, in the 1990s, re-evaluations of early assumptions began to appear (Jackson, 1990; Jackson, Crawford, & Godbey, 1993; Kay & Jackson, 1991; Mannell & Zuzanek, 1991; Shaw, Bonen, & McCabe, 1991). It was also in the 1990s that concerns about and criticisms of leisure constraints research started to emerge, usually expressed relatively informally in face-to-face conversations and on Internet mailing lists (notably Leisurenet) and only occasionally and not very systematically or comprehensively in conference papers (e.g., Goodale, 1992; Leith & Shaw, 1996) and journal articles (e.g., Hemingway, 1995). Thus, Samdahl and Jekubovich have brought together for the first time in a single refereed article in a scholarly journal most of the criticisms that have been leveled at leisure constraints research in recent years. The essential question of Samdahl and Jekubovich's paper has to do with the effectiveness of constraints as a framework for understanding the factors that shape people's everyday leisure choices. They ask this question because, while the results of the empirical, qualitative study that they conducted seemed to offer examples that could be interpreted ex post facto as the experience of leisure constraints and the adoption of constraint negotiation strategies, the analysis also raised doubts about this effectiveness. Thus, the strategy of the analysis was to offer two competing interpretations of a single set of data, one from a "constraints perspective," the other from a "non-constraints perspective," contrasting the two sets of understandings, and concluding with "critical reflections on inherent assumptions and limitations of leisure constraints as a framework for understanding people's everyday leisure choices and behavior. " Samdahl and Jekubovich have raised several important questions about leisure constraints research. For example, they are correct in their challenge of the early assumption that constraints are insurmountable obstacles to leisure. I agree, too, with their comment that much of what we know about constraints has come from purpose-driven research (beginning and ending with questions about constraints), usually of a quantitative survey nature, which may therefore have produced distorted findings and faulty interpretations. …