Return to Electronic
Discussion Paper Index PageLEISURE THEORY IN THE CURRICULUM: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH
Mary Parr; School of Exercise, Leisure and Sport, Kent State University
The purpose of this paper is to present a basis for discussion
regarding the relationship of theory and practice in leisure
services, and more specifically how this relates to curriculum
issues. I will begin by discussing what is meant by theory and what
theories are potentially useful in leisure service practice. Next I
will discuss how I perceive "leisure theory" fits into the curriculum
picture, and how integrating leisure theory into leisure service
practice can perhaps change the nature of practice. I have concluded
the paper with several points for discussion, but other directions
for discussion are certainly welcomed and encouraged. I would also
like to state that the ideas presented here are not intended to be
statements of indisputable fact, but rather as a stimulus for
discussion. This paper is based on my current thoughts and research
unless otherwise noted.
The words theory and practice (and their relationship) can be interpreted in many ways depending upon the context. Students tend to differentiate theory and practice in terms of classroom or book knowledge vs. practical experience. Even though information contained in a book might be quite practical - it is still theory because of the source of the knowledge. Course content that includes hands-on experience, while better than book knowledge, may still be suspect because of the falseness of the classroom environment. Academicians and researchers tend to think of theory and practice in more scientific terms. Theory is a systematic explanation of the relations among constructs, based on empirical evidence, and testable through further research. Practice is the application of general theories to a real-life situation. For the purposes of this discussion, theory refers to the academic definition.
What theories are important to the education and professional preparation of our undergraduate students? Leisure studies and leisure services have been proclaimed as interdisciplinary. We draw from organizational behavior, management, sociology, anthropology, psychology, social psychology, economics, counseling, and many others. Without a doubt, theories developed in disciplines such as management, economics, marketing, and organizational behavior (to name a few) can inform leisure service providers about tasks associated with agency administration. Clinical psychology, counseling, kinesiology, and other allied health disciplines can inform Therapeutic Recreation Specialists about the use of recreation as an effective treatment tool.
But where does "leisure theory" fit? (This assumes that such a thing as "leisure theory" exists - a worthy topic of debate for another time and place.) However, for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume that leisure theory is concerned with: the information that characterizes a leisure experience and assists in differentiating leisure from some other kind of phenomenon; the contexts in which leisure experiences might occur; and the possible outcomes derived from engaging in such an experience. It is noted that "leisure theory", as defined here, has been influenced by multiple disciplines. In contrast to the interdisciplinary perspective, the field of parks, recreation and leisure services has been striving for professional status which implies a unique body of theoretical knowledge. Accreditation, certification, and licensure in leisure services and therapeutic recreation have been initiated toward this end. Many studies have been conducted that attempt to identify the knowledge base of the field, and thus define the boundaries of the "profession." Ironically, most of these studies have found leisure theory to be ranked near the bottom in terms of importance and relevancy to the job. I once asked one of my professors what was unique about leisure services; what distinguished leisure studies students and their careers, from business students? The professor replied, "That's easy, we know something about leisure!" But the question remains: how does knowledge of leisure, or leisure theory, fit into a curriculum so that it informs practice?
Most educators would agree that a well-rounded curriculum includes both theoretical and practical elements. I would venture to say that most curricula present leisure theory (as defined above) in an introductory course and some programs may have a capstone course that covers theory and philosophy. In addition, definitions of leisure, play, and recreation may be included at the beginning of several or all of the more "technical" courses. I'll refer to this curriculum "style" as the balanced approach.
The problem with the balanced approach is that it assumes students have the skills and practical experience to translate leisure theory into useful, practical information when this may not be the case. In this approach, students are given the pieces and it is expected they will be able to put them together to form a meaningful whole. However, students may gain knowledge of leisure theory, and technical skills in documentation, assessment, and budgeting, for example, but little experience in integrating theory and technical tasks. Without this integration, defining and understanding leisure becomes predominantly an academic task. From my experience, when leisure theory is presented in such a way, students may dismiss it as irrelevant.
To further illustrate this issue, I would like to examine the leisure services knowledge base required of entry level practitioners/professionals as represented in the NRPA CLP Examination Candidate Handbook (1993). The Handbook lists 128 "tasks likely to be performed by entry level leisure services professionals. . . as determined by a national job analysis and an expert committee" (p. 6). These 128 items purportedly represent the knowledge base, yet none of the items are directly related to knowledge of leisure theory and its application. In its description of the test content, the Handbook does state that the examination questions are written in the following context: "Leisure services professionals bring to the leisure service setting a knowledge and expertise which enables them to create the environments - physical and attitudinal - necessary for the recreative experience" (p. 6). The 128 tasks are carried out in order to facilitate the recreative experience; with the context of a recreative experience in mind, these tasks may take on a unique character. While not stated directly, this language implies much more than simply "knowing something about leisure." It implies that entry level practitioners know how to use this information to facilitate the experience. (Another side issue here is that many would argue that a "leisure experience" and a "recreative experience" are not the same thing (e.g., Hemingway, 1996; Howe & Rancourt, 1990; Pieper, 1952).)
I propose that what is needed is an integrated approach that facilitates the union of scientific theory and practical experience. This integrated approach is based on Griffiths and Tann's (1992) discussion of public and personal theories. Griffiths and Tann described theory and practice as a relationship between public (or scientific) theories and personal theories. Practitioners rely on their personal theories to guide their practice and the source of these theories is likely to be a combination of scientific/public knowledge and the practitioner's own practical experience with the environment. Students may lack extensive experience and thus may be limited in their personal theory development. The balanced approach described previously tends not to provide that direct link between leisure theory and leisure services practice that is necessary in order to facilitate personal theory development.
An integrated approach to curricula simply means that leisure theory and practical skills are discussed, learned, and developed within the same course. Relationships are discussed and developed as an integrated part of the course content. Such issues as how leisure theory can influence programming design decisions, administrative decisions, therapeutic goals, agency mission statements, and other areas should be addressed. Course assignments, papers, and exercises would be designed to provide students with practical, technical experience, while relating these elements to theory. An integrated approach assists students in the development of their personal theories in two ways. First, students gain practical experience in the classroom that can be tied to leisure theory - a broader practical base from which to draw, if you will. Second, it facilitates critical thinking skills by requiring students to collect, analyze, synthesize, and apply information from a variety of sources. Rossman (1995) uses this integrated approach in his program planning text. Drawing from Symbolic Interaction Theory, he takes the perspective that recreation programs can be a means of facilitating leisure experiences, rather than simple opportunities for recreation participation. Samdahl (1988) has also contributed to our understanding of the leisure experience by drawing from Symbolic Interaction Theory. She identified freedom in leisure as a condition of low role constraint. Using Rossman's program design approach, programmers can facilitate conditions of low role constraint. Furthermore, recreation programs an be used as a tool to promote stepping outside of the "looking-glass" self and expressing one's "true" self.
Most people would agree that a gap exists between theory and practice in the field of leisure services. One way to bridge this gap is to make theoretical curricula more reality-based. Academicians and practitioners should carry on a dialogue to determine what knowledge, skills, and abilities are required for practice. Curricula can then be adapted to changing market demands. (For instance, this curriculum conference is a good example of just such a dialogue.) However, this approach alone, while necessary, may find us further and further away from the foundation of leisure theory. Another way to bridge the gap between theory and practice is by changing the nature of the "practical reality" to be more leisure-focused. This can be done by making leisure theory more accessible and connected to leisure service practice. Educating students to integrate leisure theory into recreation practice assists them in formulating leisure-based personal theories that can create a whole new reality of leisure services.
I would like to summarize by offering a few possible discussion points that came to mind as I wrote this paper. This entire paper has been predicated on two rather large assumptions. First, that something called "leisure theory" exists and second, that leisure is defined as an individually perceived, personally meaningful experience characterized by freedom of expression (among other things). These two points could be debated, but I think regardless of how leisure is defined, an integrated approach to curricula would be a beneficial way to link nebulous concepts such as leisure and play to the techniques of practice. In addition, an integrated approach would help students develop a "personal" leisure theory. I think it would also be interesting to discuss additional ways leisure theory might fit into the curriculum in order to provide useful guidance for practice. Along these lines, it would be beneficial to hear from practitioners: their views on what they perceive leisure theory to be and how they perceive it to relate to their practice. I also think it would be beneficial to hear what academicians are currently doing to integrate leisure theory into the curriculum.