Solitudes in Leisure Research: Just the Tip of the Iceberg?

Abstract

Jackson's study, comparing Canadian and American leisure research, shows some interesting differences between the two communities of researchers. While these difference do not represent completely separate solitudes, they do show that Americans are more likely to share their research (through publications and conference presentations) with other Americans and that Canadian are more likely to share their research with other Canadians.As Jackson points out, there are explanations for these tendencies towards parochialism, including differences in the relative sizes of the two communities, the relative number of outlets for research dissemination, and perceptions of the relative quality of journals. An additional set of factors, not mentioned by Jackson, is that there may be a natural tendency to publish close to home. This may be either because of familiarity with local academic and research organizations, and/or because research generated in one culture is believed to be (and indeed may be) of particular interest to others in that same culture.Despite these explanations for the preponderance of home-based research dissemination, the findings from Jackson's study do raise some concerns. In particular, they are an indication of a level of academic parochialism, which could have some negative consequences for the leisure research community as a whole. For example, they suggest that perhaps research findings may not be widely shared, that new knowledge and insights may not be effectively communicated, and that research may have a tendency to look towards their own local research communities for understandings and explanations of leisure phenomena. Thus breadth of understanding and vision within leisure studies may be somewhat limited.Of course Jackson's research, which looks only at numbers of publications and outlets for research dissemination, does not directly address these issues, nor the question of an inward orientation or narrow vision. Nevertheless, one of the intriguing aspects of his study is whether, and to what extent, his data are indicative of some significant problems in the leisure research field, which may be largely hidden. In other words, the findings of his study may be only the tip of the iceberg. Other issues that may constitute the hidden portion of the iceberg include the isolation of North American research from research in other parts of the world, intellectual or theoretical isolation, and isolation from other disciplines.The Isolation of North American Research?The fact that Jackson's research shows some significant differences between Canadians and Americans is particularly disturbing because of the relatively high level of interaction among North American leisure research scholars. Although many of us (perhaps especially Canadians) do perceive some fundamental differences between American and Canadian societies, there are also many similarities and avenues of connection, due, if nothing else, to geographic proximity. For example, although American are more likely to attend American rather than Canadian conferences, Americans certainly make up the largest contingent of foreigners at the tri-annual Canadian Congress on Leisure Research. This is also true of Canadians' attendance at American conferences such as the Symposium on Leisure Research. Tn addition, both Americans and Canadians are found on the editorial boards of North American journals located in both countries. Thus, if Canadian research and American research can be seen as two solitudes, the separation between North American researchers and those in other parts of the world can be expected to be much greater: solitudes within North America likely translate into considerably greater degrees of isolation worldwide.This is an issue that deserves further research as a follow up to Jackson's study. For example:- To what extent do North Americans publish in British, Australian or other non-North American journals? …