Leisure Research and the Legacy of George Daniel Butler

In 2004, at the first George Butler Lecture, Dan Dustin (2004) provided a glimpse into the life of one of the fields pioneers, George Daniel Butler. For many of us who entered the field of parks and recreation over the last several decades, Butlers work, writing, and research remain less familiar. However, in a similar vein to Dustin, we wondered what George Butler would make of the current research presented at the Leisure Research Symposium. While our own experiences with the Leisure Research Symposium support the premise that it is inclusive, diverse, and rigorous, some of the research seems incongruent with NRPA's mission and mandate. How should the Leisure Research Symposium welcome speculative and cutting-edge research while embracing the reality that for research to be relevant to NRPA, it needs to inform practice and policy? This is a tired and in some ways, unproductive debate. However, it remains central as we continue to wrestle with the Leisure Research Symposium's fit and function within NRPA.To this end, the 2012 Butler Lecture, given by Robert Garcia (2013), began a dialogue that was continued by this year's speaker, Dr. Vivian Tseng. Dr. Tseng, a vice president of the William T. Grant Foundation, specializes in the translation, application, and use of research evidence in policy and practice. This approach to research aligns well with Butler's vision, when he served as the Research Director at the National Recreation Association (the forerunner of NRPA). Much of Butler's research involved tackling applied problems and creating evidence-informed solutions to advocate for the structure, utility, and design of public parks and recreation programs. While Butler embodied a service ethic, he was also passionate about the role of public parks and recreation in addressing health and wellness. Ultimately, he worked to inform and improve the profession through research and evidence.In her article, Tseng (2014) reminds us of three key avenues to better unite research, policy, and practice. To help readers connect these concepts to the field of Parks and Recreation, we have provided examples which further illustrate the usefulness and application of these approaches.Creating Conditions for Integration of EvidenceTseng (2014) described how researchers need to recognize that policymakers and practitioners do not use "research in isolation." Thus, however important we think research evidence and data are in guiding practice and policy, there are other types of evidence-political and financial realities and local data-that remain critical for policy and practice decisions. Putty and Wilkins (2011) refer to evidence as coming from three interrelated sources: research, experience, and context. In other words, the learned experience of practitioners in a specific context constitutes valued evidence that can be supported or refuted by research. Likewise, problems that research might inform can evolve from practical experience and contextual differences, not solely from past research.Bridging between practice, policy, and research is not easy, but some have found a way. Consider some of our academic compatriots who smoothly transitioned to work in governmental agencies or nonprofits who now have direct expectations of translation and application of research. Having representatives in practice and policy settings who are intelligent consumers and internal advocates of research certainly facilitates integration.Changing the ways we communicate our research findings to wider audiences remains crucial. However, the work involved in alternate forms of dissemination remains undervalued in most academic settings where impact factors and citation counts are commonly discussed in tenure and promotion decisions. Impact on policy or practice, while valued, remains more difficult to quantify-especially as promotion materials are reviewed by scholars from a diverse array of academic disciplines.How can we increase the probability that research will be used? …