Myths of Leisure Research: An Uneasy Alliance

The value-orientation of the two notes by Jordan and Roland, and Samdahl and Kelly, assert two myths of the field of leisure research. Jordan and Roland address the "widely-held and long-existent" discussion about a researcher-practitioner gap, and in doing so, put a collective anxiety of leisure academics on the table. Our needs for social relevance, often fueled by beliefs in research-informed decision-making, draw us to this gap. Whereas, Samdahl and Kelly provide evidence of external validation of the intellectual rigor of our field, and in doing so, address our insecurities in being a scholarly community. By appealing to our anxieties regarding the intellectual backbone of leisure research, they point us to disciplinary discourse. Application vs. theory, the problem vs. the understanding, the practical vs. the academic; leisure research is framed by a dialectical tension between these myths. Neither is sufficient to define ourselves; it is the uneasy alliance of the two that makes us who we are. Each of us negotiates this alliance in search of imperatives for our work and criteria to evaluate others. The separate claims of each of these papers effectively "pulls the rug out from under" this uneasy alliance by positing the sufficiency of a single myth to critique research. Jordan and Roland focus on a wide gap between researchers and practitioners, and ask what to do with "the existence of a non-influential body of research literature?" Samdahl and Kelly focus on leisure research as potentially isolated, inbred, and in need of intellectual oxygenation. Each paper appeals to a core value, but neither is complete in its depiction of core values that shape leisure research. This response questions the separate claims of each paper, and reaffirms the positioning of our field as an uneasy alliance between these two myths. How wide is the gap? It is not clear that the gap between researchers and practitioners is as wide as that concluded by Jordan and Roland. They reason that leisure practitioners and academics work in relative independence of one another due to a literature base that is not widely shared. The literature does not influence practitioners because it is not read; practitioners do not influence research because they do not contribute. In short, they argue that practitioners do not read, or contribute to, academic literature and thus, there is a wide gap between practitioners and researchers. However, sharing a literature base serves as one indicator of cross-fertilization; alternate indicators may be more insightful to the assessment of a gap. Other evidence suggests leisure academia is not completely detached from leisure practice. American academic programs linked to leisure research have a longstanding history of chamaeleon-like behavior linked to socially relevant labels of the day. As a brief account: Many leisure academic programs were established during the 1950s and 60s in response to a perceived crisis in outdoor recreation. In the late-1960s and 70s, therapeutic recreation grew in visibility due to its relevance in assisting the many Vietnam war veterans in their return to civilian life. In the 1980s, leisure research embraced tourism due to community-based needs linked to economic diversification and development. During the past decade, sports management has been a charismatic label that resonates well with dominant societal values and dovetails with some of the academic lineage of leisure research. Although these assertions about the academic framing of leisure programs are cryptic, incomplete, and have many exceptions, they are illustrative of a winding path that we, as applied academics, have purposely framed for ourselves. My interpretation of such a winding path is that leisure academics are both anxious and motivated to be close to the pulse of societal, community, and/or practitioner needs. Academics and practitioners communicate with one another in several forums other than peer-reviewed literature. …