Intentional Insularity? Alternative Interpretations of Jackson's Analysis

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

I could refute any one of the findings in Jackson's paper. As I read through it I made a list of points-alternative explanations or interpretations-that could be imposed on the findings. Some of these points were acknowledged by Jackson in his own reflections on the meanings of these analyses. However, the most compelling feature of this paper, and one I could not refute, is the fact that the same patterns emerged again and again as the data were systematically examined from a variety of perspectives. Whether he looked at publications or presentations, analyzed by person or by authorship, Jackson's analyses repeatedly led him to the same conclusion.It surprised me that I tried so hard to refute his findings. In many respects, his message of insularity parallels and extends my own work in this area (cf. Samdahi & Kelly, 1999). Perhaps I was feeling defensive at the unflattering image his data conveyed about the parochial nature of American leisure researchers. Jackson began his discussion by citing Valentine, Allison, and Schneider (1999) who suggested that North American leisure scholars are ethnocentric, then Walker's (2000) rejoinder that forced a distinction between Americans and Canadians. By elimination, and in conjunction with Jackson's own discussion, this leaves the United States standing alone in a shameful myopia.But putting national pride aside, I feel there are other important considerations that must be examined before accepting Jackson's conclusions. His analysis is meticulous and his results are clearly presented, but the meaning behind those statistical patterns is open to debate. It reminds me of an important distinction between quantitative and qualitative research: With interviews you would be able to return to the participants using probes and member-checks to sec if your understandings were correct; with statistics you are on your own to impute meaning onto numbers.An important overriding issue that undoubtedly influenced Jackson's database, and a point he himself acknowledged in his summary remarks, is the uneven nature of opportunities lor publishing or presenting in the United States and Canada. Looking just at 1995, the midpoint of the decade in Jackson's analysis, the four American leisure journals published over 100 articles; in contrast, the two Canadian journals published 42. Likewise, from 1994 to 1996 there were over 330 papers presented at the American leisure research conferences; during that same period the Canadian leisure conference, which only occurs once every three years, had 77 presentations. Given that American and Canadian leisure researchers are comparably productive (Table 1), and that the United States offers significantly more opportunity for publications and presentations, it is hardly surprising to learn that Canadians are more likely to publish or present in the United States (Tables 2-7). Though Jackson pointed out this concern, he pushed it aside as less important than the striking patterns in the data. I argue that this concern might explain those patterns and that all interpretations should be filtered through this fact. We must be cautious giving any other interpretation to these results.Another important point stems from the unique decade that is captured in Jackson's analysis. In the 1990s Canadian leisure research was just beginning to emerge with an international reputation. This decade saw the establishment of the first Canadian doctoral program that was solidly grounded in leisure studies. Most Canadian students came to the United States to earn their doctoral degrees, where they undoubtedly were socialized towards the American leisure research outlets. That background plus on-going collaborations might account for some of the Canadian presence in American journals and conferences. Does this mean Canadians were less parochial? Or were they simply using and extending the networks that circumstance had provided?These tables also imply that co-authorships are more common among American leisure scholars than Canadian leisure scholars. …