If Leisure Research is to Matter II

Abstract

My journey as a member of the research community began some 30 years ago. Influenced by Drs. Mike Ellis and Doyle Bishop, my doctoral study days were filled with the excitement of being part of two different research groups and moving from research questions to developing methodologies, analyzing data, and subsequently developing papers for publication. I knew I had arrived as a true researcher when I finally had my own data set to mine and from which I could publish. It was not long before my name appeared as first author on a published paper (Witt, P. A. & Bishop D. W., 1970: Situational antecedents to leisure behavior). Life was good. I was hired for my first academic position (University of Ottawa), more publications followed, and in due course I was awarded the rank of associate and then full professor (oh happy days!). Through the exhilaration of undertaking research, the agony of rewrites, or worse yet having a manuscript rejected, it seemed to me I had gotten out of my doctoral studies and subsequent academic involvements what I had sought: I was an accepted member of the community of scholars. However, in the back of my mind lurked a concern that I have wrestled with for all the years from then to now: to what end do we pursue research? Depending on who you ask, their career stage, or their mood, a number of answers have been offered to question, including: to test theory; to solve problems; because it is fun; to achieve tenure and promotion so we can move on to something important; to gain raises; to achieve status in the minds of our colleagues, etc. I have heard all of these reasons expressed (and excuses) during the 23 cumulative years that I have been involved as an editor of four different journals (including JLR and currently JPRA). Some motivations have had more positive impacts on manuscript quality than others. With some manuscript submissions, I have been reminded of the two tourists who were eating a meal together in a restaurant. One remarked: this food is terrible, to which the other replied: yes, and in such small portions. One of the problems with research in our field is that too often the portions are too large! Articles are often produced that are of marginal quality (some may argue that includes one! ) , and there are so many of them produced. The irony is that we consistently hear that most practitioners and academics do not read a lot of what is written. We can decry the lack of curiosity, professionalism, and responsibility implies, or perhaps people only spend time reading what appears to be relevant to their frame of ref erence. In other words, a lot of people might not be reading because what is available to read does not matter. From a practitioners point of view, if we pay attention to the questions practitioners are asking on NRPANET and at conferences, it is clear that much of what is researched and published is of little consequence to them, or if of consequence produced in a format that makes determining applicability a major translation exercise. From all of these experiences comes the following top ten list (Here I guess I am supposed to credit David Letterman) of things I would wish for research in parks and recreation in the new millennium. I have included wishes related to publishing, along with those related to undertaking and teaching about research, because all are critical to the research enterprise and making research matter. * More research that matters (to someone beyond a tenure and promotion committee). Whether theory building or theory testing, or curiosity as the major justification, research that does not matter is a luxury we can not afford (I realize that deciding what matters is a subjective issue. However, there are real problems in the world that require real actions and solutions in short run...we may want to argue at the margins, but basic quality of life issues clearly matter and demand our attention. …