Restrictions to participate in leisure

In “Constraints to Leisure,” Edgar L. Jackson and David Scott provide an overview of the field of research on leisure restrictions in the late 1990s. They note that researchers in the field originally studied what was then called ” barriers to participation in recreation “, but the word” barriers “refers to what is now considered only one type of restriction: something that interferes or prevents one from participating in an activity. . But now other types of restrictions are recognized, including one’s own interpersonal and intrapersonal influences, which lead one not to participate in leisure. In addition, Jackson and Scott explain that the word “leisure” is used instead of just recreation, as it is a more inclusive term, and the word “participation” was also removed, as research on leisure does not only imply whether a person participates, but rather what they prefer to do, where and what a certain type of leisure means for them.

Jackson and Scott also discuss the three main ways of looking at leisure that have evolved since the approach to restrictions on leisure began in the 19th century. It began with considerations of “barriers to participation in recreation and enjoyment of free time” based on the assumption that the main issue to be addressed was the provision of services, so that people would participate more if more services were provided.

Then, beginning in the 1960s, the focus shifted to looking at how particular barriers might affect the participation of individuals with different economic and social characteristics. Later, in the 1980s, the notion of restrictions emerged, and researchers realized that these restrictions could not only be external, such as in the form of a facility or service, but also internal, such as a restriction due to psychological and economic problems. or to social or interpersonal factors, such as a person’s relationships with their spouse or family.

Since the late 1980s, three main concepts seem to have emerged about limitations affecting participation in leisure activities, as outlined in a model proposed by Crawford and Godbey in 1987.

1) The structural or intervening restriction is one that prevents someone from participating in some type of leisure, once the person has already expressed their preference or desire to participate. As conceptualized by Crawford and Godbey, these structural or intervening constraints are “those factors that intervene between the preference for leisure and participation.” (p. 307). Research based on this conception of a constraint generally involves doing a survey to identify particular elements that stand in the way of participation, such as time, costs, facilities, knowledge of the service or facility, lack of a partner for participation (such as a partner to participate in a doubles tennis match), and lack of skills or a disability. The assumption underlying this approach is that a person would participate in any activity were it not for these limitations, which closely resemble the barriers conceived when that term was used. By looking for patterns and commonalities, using various quantitative methods such as factor analysis and cluster analysis, the researchers found support for certain common structural and intervening constraints, in particular: “time commitments, costs, facilities and opportunities, skills, and skills, and transportation and access. “Furthermore, the researchers sought to look at how different groups in society were restricted in different ways, such as women or age and income groups, eventually leading the researchers to recognize that most restrictions are experienced to a greater or lesser degree depending on the personality. and situational factors.

2) An intrapersonal restriction is a psychological state or characteristic that affects leisure preferences, rather than acting as a barrier to participation once a person has already developed those preferences. For example, the intrapersonal constraints that could lead a person not to develop particular leisure preferences could be that person’s “skills, personality needs, prior socialization, and perceived attitudes of the reference group”.

3) An interpersonal restriction is one that occurs due to one’s interaction with colleagues, family members and others, which leads to thinking of certain leisure activities, places or services as relevant or not relevant leisure activities to participate . For example, based on one’s understanding of interacting with others, one might consider certain types of entertainment to be inappropriate, uninteresting, or unavailable.

Although DW Crawford, EL Jackson, and G. Godbey proposed a hierarchical model to combine these three concepts into a single model, based on one that first forms leisure preferences at the intrapersonal level, then encounters restrictions at the interpersonal level, and finally finds structural constraints. or intervening parties, it would seem that there is no such sequential ordering of these restrictions. Rather, they appear to act together in different ways and orders, although Henderson and other researchers have tried to combine intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints to become antecedent constraints.

Whether or not such antecedent restrictions exist, another way to see whether people participate in a leisure experience based on how they respond to a perceived restriction. If they participate and want to participate, that would be described as a “successful proactive response.” If they do not participate even though they would like to, that would be considered a “reactive response.” Finally, if they participate but in a different way, that would be called a “partially successful proactive response.”

A good example of this response to a restraining approach could be a mountaineer who suffers from a disability. The climber who receives a prosthesis and climbs the mountain himself could be considered to show a “successful proactive response”. The climber who decides to quit the sport could be considered to be showing a “reactive response”. Finally, the climber who is helped to scale the mountain by a team of other climbers could be considered to be participating in a “partially successful proactive response”.

These ideas about limitations can be applied to how people engage in some of the activities that I have organized through various Meetup groups that I run. These include an occasional Video Potluck Night, where people come to my house to watch videos I get from Blockbuster; comment / discussion groups for independent film producers and directors, which could be considered a form of leisure, as most attendees produce and direct films during their free time, often for free, and have other paid jobs; and various teleseminar on book writing, publishing and promoting, which is also more of a hobby for the participants as they hope to publish books but have other jobs.

Structurally, some people who might be able to attend these Meetups may be limited due to common structural issues that have been identified, including time commitments, costs, facilities and opportunities, skills and capabilities, and transportation and access. Some people cannot attend any of these activities, because they have another event to go to at that time or they may have extra work to do, so they cannot waste time to attend. Although meetings are free, some people may be limited by the cost of getting to my house, including gas and tolls from San Francisco, Marin, or the Peninsula, and the cost of contributing something to the potluck (which many people have to buy because they don’t have time to do something).

Another limitation is that some people may feel uncomfortable attending an event in a private home. Some may not attend the discussion groups or teleseminar because they feel their skills are not yet up to the mark, although they hope to one day become producers and directors or finish their book. Some may not attend because they have access problems, they have trouble getting to my house if they don’t have a car, they have trouble getting there by bus or BART (which are 1-3 miles from my house respectively), and they can’t get a ride. And if someone is severely disabled, they will have trouble entering my house, which is not wheelchair accessible.

Intrapersonal restriction can come into play when some people decide not to come because they feel uncomfortable in large groups or meeting new people, as in Video Potlucks, as these not only involve socializing before the movie during dinner, but also sharing during the presentations and in a discussion about the film after the screening. Others may not come because they fear to open up and show the work they have done as they fear criticism.

Interpersonal restriction can occur when some people decide not to come because their friends or family may be doing something else or their colleagues may stop going to the activity. For example, your peers may be interesting to attend and discuss first-run movies in theaters, while my video potluck nights feature Blockbuster DVD movies that are released about three months after their theatrical release. Or their peers may dissuade them from attending a director or producer discussion group, as they will discuss their work with others who are also trying to break into the industry or produce and direct small films as a hobby. Their peers may state that they should only go to programs where they will meet people who are already established in the industry or convince them that they don’t need any more feedback as their project is already very good.

In summary, these three concepts can be easily applied to understand participation in the leisure activities that I organize.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *