Legal Law

Restrictions on participation in leisure

In “Restrictions on Leisure,” Edgar L. Jackson and David Scott provide an overview of the field of research on limitations on leisure in the late 1990s. They note that researchers in the field originally studied what was then called “barriers to recreational participation”, but the word “barriers” refers to what is now considered only one type of restriction: something that interferes or prevents one from participating in an activity. . But now other types of limitations are recognized, including our own interpersonal and intrapersonal influences, which lead us not to participate in leisure. In addition, Jackson and Scott explain that the word “leisure” is used instead of simply recreation, as it is a more inclusive term, and the word “participation” was also removed, as research on leisure does not only imply whether a person participates, but rather what they prefer to do, where and what a particular type of leisure means to them.

Jackson and Scott also discuss the three main ways of looking at leisure that have evolved since the leisure limitations approach began in the 19th century. It began with considerations of “barriers to recreational participation and enjoyment of leisure”, assuming that the main issue to be addressed was the provision of services, so that people would participate more if more services were provided.

Then, starting in the 1960s, attention turned to analyzing how certain barriers could affect the participation of people with different economic and social characteristics. Later, in the 1980s, the notion of restrictions emerged and researchers realized that these restrictions could not only be external, such as in the form of a facility or service, but they could also be internal, such as a restriction. due to psychological and economic problems. social or interpersonal factors, such as a person’s relationships with their spouse or family.

Since the late 1980s, three main concepts seem to have emerged about limitations affecting participation in leisure activities, as outlined 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 indicated a preference or desire to participate. As conceptualized by Crawford and Godbey, these structural or intervention limitations are “the intervening factors between the preference for leisure and participation.” (p. 307). Research based on this conception of a constraint generally involves conducting a survey to identify particular elements that get in the way of participation, such as time, costs, facilities, knowledge of the service or facility, lack of a partner for participation (such as a partner to participate in a doubles tennis match), and lack of skills or a disability. The assumption underlying this approach is that a person would participate in any activity were it not for these limitations, which closely resemble the barriers conceived when that term was in use. By looking for patterns and common ground, using various quantitative methods such as factor analysis and cluster analysis, the researchers found support for certain common structural and intervening constraints, most notably: “commitments of time, costs, facilities and opportunities, skills and skills, and transportation and access. “Furthermore, the researchers sought to observe how different groups in society were restricted in different ways, such as women, or groups based on age and income, eventually leading to researchers to recognize that most restrictions are experienced to a greater or lesser degree depending on the personal situation. and situational factors.

2) An intrapersonal restriction 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, the intrapersonal limitations that may lead a person not to develop particular leisure preferences could 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 colleagues, family members, and others, leading one to think of certain leisure activities, places, or services as relevant or non-relevant leisure activities in which to participate. For example, based on what one understands when interacting with others, certain types of leisure could be considered inappropriate, uninteresting, or unavailable.

Although DW Crawford, EL Jackson, a 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 restrictions at the interpersonal level, and finally finds restrictions structural or intermediate, it would seem that there is no such sequential ordering of these constraints. Rather, they seem to act together in various ways and orders, although Henderson and other researchers have attempted to combine intrapersonal and interpersonal limitations to become antecedent limitations.

Whether or not there is such a history of restrictions, another way to see whether people participate in a leisure experience is based on how they respond to a perceived restriction. If they participate and want to participate, that would be described as a “successful proactive response.” If they do not participate even though they would like to, it would be considered a “reactive response”. Finally, if they participate but in a different way, that would be called a “partially successful proactive response.”

A good example of this response to a restraining approach could be a mountaineer who suffers from a disability. The climber who puts on a prosthesis and climbs the mountain himself could be considered to be showing a “successful proactive response.” The climber who decides to quit the sport could be considered to show a “reactive response”. Finally, the climber whom a team of other climbers helps to scale the mountain could be considered to be participating in a “partially successful proactive response”.

These ideas about limitations can be applied to how people engage in some of the activities that I have organized through various Meetup groups that I run. These include an occasional Potluck Video Night, where people come to my house to watch videos I get from Blockbuster; comment / discussion groups for independent film producers and directors, which could be considered a form of leisure, as most attendees produce and direct films during their free time, often for free, and have other paid jobs; and various teleseminar on book writing, publishing and promoting, which is also more of a hobby for the participants as they hope to publish books but have other jobs.

Structurally, some people who might be able to attend these Meetups may be limited 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 cannot attend any of these activities, because they have another event to go to at that time or they may have extra work to do, so they cannot waste time to attend. Although there is no cost for meetings, 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 ( that many people have to buy because they don’t have time to do something).

Another limitation is that some people may feel uncomfortable going to an event in a private home. Some may not attend the discussion groups or teleseminar, because they feel that their skills are not yet up to the mark, although they hope to one day become producers and directors or finish their book. Some may not attend because they have access problems, as they have trouble getting to my house if they don’t have a car, because they have trouble getting there by bus or BART (which are 1-3 miles from my house respectively). and they can’t get transportation. And if someone is severely disabled, they will have trouble entering my house, which is not wheelchair accessible.

Intrapersonal restriction can come into play when some people decide not to attend because they feel uncomfortable in large groups or meeting new people, such as in Video Potlucks, as they not only involve socializing before the movie during dinner, but also sharing during the presentations and in a discussion of the film after the screening. Others may not come because they fear to open up and show the work they have done, as they fear criticism.

Interpersonal restriction can occur when some people choose not to attend because their friends or family may be doing something else or their peers may discourage going to the activity. For example, your peers may be interested in attending and discussing the first movies that are released in theaters, while my shared video nights include Blockbuster DVD movies that come out about three months after their theatrical release. Or their peers may dissuade them from attending a director or producer discussion group, as they will discuss their work with others who are similarly trying to break into the industry or producing and directing small films as a hobby. Their peers may state that they should only go to programs where they will meet people who are already established in the industry or convince them that they don’t need any more feedback as their project is already very good.

In summary, these three concepts can be easily applied to understand participation in the leisure activities that I organize.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1