In “Constraints to Leisure,” Edgar L. Jackson and David Scott provide an overview of the leisure constraints research field in the late 1990s. They note that originally researchers in the field studied what was then called ” barriers to participation in recreation,” but the word “barriers” refers to what is now considered just a type of restriction: something that interferes with or prevents one from participating in an activity. . But now other types of restrictions are recognized, including one’s own interpersonal and intrapersonal influences, which lead one not to participate in leisure. Additionally, Jackson and Scott explain that the word “leisure” is used instead of just recreation, as it is a more inclusive term, and the word “participation” has also been removed, as research on leisure not only involves whether a person participates, but rather what they prefer to do, where and what a certain type of leisure means for them.
Jackson and Scott also discuss the three main ways of looking at leisure that have evolved since the constraints approach to leisure began in the 19th century. It started with considerations of “barriers to participation in recreation and leisure time enjoyment” based on the assumption that the main issue to be addressed was service provision, so that people would participate more if more services were provided.
Then, beginning in the 1960s, the focus shifted to looking at how particular barriers might affect the participation of individuals with different economic and social characteristics. Later, in the 1980s, the notion of constraints emerged, and researchers realized that these constraints could not only be external, such as in the form of a facility or service, but also internal, such as a constraint due to psychological and economic problems. or to social or interpersonal factors, such as a person’s relationships with their spouse or family.
Since the late 1980s, three main concepts of constraints affecting participation in leisure activities seem to have emerged, as described in a model proposed by Crawford and Godbey in 1987.
1) The structural or intervening restriction is one that prevents someone from participating in some type of leisure, once the person has already expressed their preference or desire to participate. As conceptualized by Crawford and Godbey, these intervening or structural constraints are “those factors intervening between leisure preference and participation.” (p. 307). Research based on this conception of a constraint typically involves conducting a survey to identify the particular elements that stand in the way of participation, such as time, cost, facility, knowledge of the service or facility, lack of a partner for participation (such as a partner for participation in a doubles tennis match), and a lack of skills or a disability. The assumption underlying this approach is that a person would engage in any activity were it not for these limitations, which are very similar to the barriers conceived when that term was used. Searching for patterns and commonalities, using various quantitative methods such as factor analysis and cluster analysis, the researchers found support for certain common structural and intervening constraints, in particular: “time commitments, costs, facilities and opportunities, skills and skills, and transportation and access.” In addition, the researchers sought to look at how different groups in society were constrained in different ways, such as women or age and income groups, which eventually led the researchers to recognize that most constraints are experienced in greater or lesser degree depending on the personality. and situational factors.
2) An intrapersonal constraint is a psychological state or characteristic that affects leisure preferences, rather than acting as a barrier to participation once a person has already developed those preferences. For example, intrapersonal constraints that might lead a person not to develop particular leisure preferences might be that person’s “skills, personality needs, prior socialization, and perceived attitudes of the reference group.”
3) An interpersonal restriction is one that occurs due to one’s interaction with peers, family members and others, leading to thinking of certain leisure activities, places or services as relevant or not relevant leisure activities to participate . For example, based on one’s understanding of interaction with others, one might view certain types of entertainment as inappropriate, uninteresting, or unavailable.
Although DW Crawford, EL Jackson, and G. Godbey proposed a hierarchical model to combine these three concepts into a single model, based on one that first forms leisure preferences at the intrapersonal level, then finds constraints at the interpersonal level, and finally finds structural constraints. or intervening, it would seem that there is no such sequential ordering of these restrictions. Rather, they seem to work together in different ways and orders, although Henderson and other researchers have tried to combine intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints to become antecedent constraints.
Whether or not such antecedent constraints exist, another way to see whether people engage in a leisure experience based on how they respond to a perceived constraint. If they do participate and want to participate, that would be described as a “successful proactive response.” If they don’t participate even though they would like to, that would be considered a “reactive response.” Finally, if they do participate but in a different way, that would be called a “partially successful proactive response.”
A good example of this response to a constraining approach might be a mountain climber with a disability. The climber who receives a prosthesis and climbs the mountain himself could be considered to display a “successful proactive response.” The climber who decides to quit the sport could be considered to be displaying a ‘reactive response’. Finally, the climber who is helped up the mountain by a team of other climbers could be considered to be engaging in a “partially successful proactive response”.
These ideas about limitations can be applied to how people engage in some of the activities I’ve organized through various Meetup groups I run. These include the occasional Video Potluck Night, where people come to my house to watch videos I get on Blockbuster; commentary/discussion groups for independent film producers and directors, which could be considered a form of entertainment, since most attendees produce and direct films in their spare time, often for free, and have other paid jobs; and several teleseminars on book writing, publishing, and promotion, which is also more of a hobby for the participants, since they hope to publish books, but have other jobs.
Structurally, some people who could attend these Meetup groups may be constrained due to common structural issues that have been identified, including time commitments, costs, facilities and opportunities, skills and abilities, and transportation and access. Some people can’t attend any of these activities, because they have another event to go to at the time or they may have extra work to do, so they can’t waste the time to attend. Although the meetings are free, some people may be limited by the cost of getting to my house, including gas and tolls from San Francisco, Marin, or the Peninsula, and the cost of contributing something to the potluck (which many people have to buy because they don’t have time to do something).
Another limitation is that some people may feel uncomfortable attending an event in a private home. Some may not attend focus groups or teleseminars because they feel their skills are not yet up to par, although they hope to one day become a producer and director or finish their book. Some may not attend because they have access problems, such as having trouble getting to my house if they don’t have a car, because they have trouble getting to the bus or BART (which are 1-3 miles from my house respectively), and they can’t get a ride. And if someone is severely disabled they will have trouble getting into my home which is not wheelchair accessible.
Intrapersonal restraint can come into play when some people decide not to come because they feel uncomfortable in large groups or meeting new people, such as at Video Potlucks, as these involve not only socializing before the movie over dinner, but also sharing during presentations and in a discussion about the film after the screening. Others may not come because they are afraid to open up and show the work they have done because they are afraid of criticism.
Interpersonal restraint can occur when some people decide not to come because their friends or family may be doing something else or their peers may stop coming to the activity. For example, your peers may be interesting to attend and discuss theatrical release movies, while my video potluck nights feature Blockbuster DVD movies that are released about three months after their theatrical release. Or their peers may discourage them from attending a director’s or producer’s discussion group, as they will be discussing their work with others who are also trying to break into the industry or producing and directing small films as a hobby. Your peers may claim that they should only go to shows where they will meet people who are already established in the industry or convince them that they don’t need any further feedback as their project is already very good.
In summary, these three concepts can be easily applied to understand the participation in the leisure activities that I organize.