Philosophy of Science and Leisure Research

Abstract

Ten years before millennium, the, journal of Leisure Research published a special issue devoted a discussion of philosophy of science. While acknowledging those in leisure research who have seriously grappled with these issues, Sylvester (1990) noted that are largely uninformed about philosophy of science or, even worse, we choose ignore (pp. 281282). Weissinger (1990) voiced a similar perspective, suggesting that leisure researchers need engage in a process of learning intelligently discuss alternative paradigms. As we enter millennium, it is worthwhile ask far leisure discipline has progressed in last 10 years. A mid-decade evaluation by Weissinger, Henderson, and Bowling (1997) suggests a dramatic increase in publication of research using qualitative approaches in comparison 19'70's and 80's when such approaches were practically absent from leading leisure journals. However, one of most recent papers in Leisure Sciences expresses a qualitative researcher's increasing discomfort with nature of this qualitative research (Dupius, 1999). And at conferences I find that some colleagues continue ask why I spend so much time talking about philosophy of science. Seemingly like Nike generation we have become at end of this millennium, they urge me (and presumably their students) do it. I believe that this do mentality is still heart of problem. It traces back tendency equate science with methodology rather than philosophy. It is tempting point finger here just at old school rationalists who maintain a belief in a single approach science of sort labelled the scientific method in biology 101, falsificationism by some social science contemporaries, and positivism by some of its critics. But Weissinger et al.'s (1997) documentation of increase in publication of qualitative approaches suggests this explanation is not adequate. We also need point a finger new generation that continues perpetuate a methodological conception of science by framing alternatives as a discussion about qualitative methods. As a basis for understanding philosophy of science, a reference qualitative methods is largely meaningless. Methodologies are merely machinery, it is underlying philosophy that guides operation of that machinery that should be focus of discussion. This point has been made previously in leisure research (Weissinger et al., 1997; Dupius, 1999), but it seems get swept away all too frequently by discussions that frame how to of science chiefly in methodological terms. We need a language and set of concepts capable of lifting us out of this methodological mentality, and like Sylvester I believe leisure discipline needs turn philosophy of science. In fact, it is with respect this issue that Thomas Kuhn made one of his most significant contributions, defining appropriate unit of analysis in study of different approaches science as macrostructure (Anderson, 1986). Patterson and Williams (1998) introduce a model describing macrostructure suitable for discussions in leisure research. It characterizes macro-structure of science as consisting of three levels: world views (broad philosophical debates concerning nature of science and concept of validity); paradigms (debates concerning normative philosophical commitments underlying specific approaches science), and research programs (empirically centered debates concerning theory and specific methods of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data). This model portrays science as pluralistic, not in sense of a collection of different methodologies, but instead as a collection of paradigms each consisting of a core set of inter-dependent normative philosophical commitments that guide practice of science. Conceiving of science in this way allows leisure researchers incorporate contemporary concepts from philosophy of science and move beyond an understanding and discussion of science as merely method. …