In 1982, Naisbitt described megatrends in society. The trends and the examples that struck me the most related to the movement from to multiple (p. 231). He noted that through much of the century, we had two maybe three choices. We could have chocolate vanilla ice cream with maybe strawberry thrown in occasionally We had our choice of a Chevy a Ford. In the 1970s, things began to change. We now had Baskin Robbins 31 flavors of ice cream. We had cars available manufactured all over the world. Our lives were transformed with the evolution to a multiple option society. How positive it is to have choices. Yet, overwhelming it can be to sort through the choices and make decisions. The area of leisure research, as well as the broader field of the social sciences, has evolved to a multiple option world. In a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Feagin (1999) described the possible crisis facing sociology related to encouraging greater intellectual (p. B4). The best way to describe our new world of research is no longer either/ or but rather both/and. These shifts parallel postmodernism to some extent, and they suggest no totally right wrong approaches. For leisure researchers, the expansion beyond binary thinking to more intellectual diversity provides a strong anchor. All of us in this field recognize the changes, and yet I am not sure that we appreciate the value and the challenges that these multiple options hold. Some of this discussion may sound familiar. I believe, however, it is useful to place some of the false dichotomies on the table so we can articulate the changes that are occurring in leisure research. I will discuss six false dichotomies (i.e., either/or premises) that leisure researchers are addressing as we move to the next millennium. Either/Or Premises Qualitative/Quantitative. The debate over what data are best is fortunately over in our field. For the most part, the evolution to qualitative research as a viable approach to leisure research was steady and quiet. The goal of research ought to be to study phenomena as thoroughly, broadly, and deeply as time, energy, and resources allow. The value of quantitative data is that they can produce factual, reliable, outcome information that may be generalized. Qualitative data generate rich, valid, detailed, process information that leaves the study participants' perspectives intact and provides an insider's view to better understand a phenomenon under study. We know that some approaches work better for particular research problems than others. Despite the objections of a few purists, we see examples of qualitative and quantitative data can be linked. Linking data allows researchers to accept the assumptions, and limitations, of using both qualitative and quantitative data to create broader perspectives (Henderson, Ainsworth, Stolarzyck, Hootman, & Levin, 1999). The days of either/or methods have been replaced with numerous choices of methods. The challenge lies in researchers carefully rationalizing the choices they make, and readers and reviewers being able to critically evaluate the rigor and the theoretical value of the options chosen. Researchers/Practitioners. The notion of a researcher and practitioner gap is a false dichotomy that needs examination in the future. None of us are solely one the other. Further, in this complex world, we need collaboration between and within both positions. This discussion might lead us to also examine the duality of evaluation and research the difference between the questions asked of it work? and how does it contribute to the body of knowledge? These questions are not mutually exclusive. The opportunities for data collection and problem solving are the same whether one is a researcher a practitioner whether an individual is doing evaluation doing research. The issues and social ills that both leisure researchers and practitioners want to address in contributing to the quality of life for all individuals are not dissimilar. …
Read full abstract