ResearchPDF Available

The Serious Leisure Perspective or the Leisure Experience Perspective? A Rejoinder to Veal

Authors:

Abstract

Abstract Veal (2016) suggests that the serious leisure perspective (SLP) should be reconstituted as a “Leisure Experience Perspective” based on a variety of faults he finds in his reading of the SLP literature. Nevertheless, four problems undermine his assessment: 1) he bases much of his critique on Elkington and Stebbins (2014), which is a textbook; 2) he ignores the theoretically pivotal concept of “core activity,” 3) he fails to see the extensive theoretic bases of the types in the SLP typology, and 4) he understands poorly the grounded theoretic nature of the Perspective. Key words: serious leisure perspective, leisure experience, grounded theory, leisure activity
1
The Serious Leisure Perspective or the Leisure Experience
Perspective? A Rejoinder to Veal
by Robert A. Stebbins
Veal (2016) suggests that the serious leisure perspective (SLP) should be reconstituted as a
‘Leisure Experience Perspective’ based on a variety of faults he finds in his reading of the SLP
literature. Nevertheless, four problems seriously undermine his assessment: 1) he bases much of
his critique on Elkington and Stebbins (2014), 2) he ignores the central idea of ‘core activity’, 3)
he fails to see the theoretic bases of the types in the SLP typology, and 4) he understands poorly
the grounded theoretic basis of the Perspective.
One, he frequently (see Veal, 2016, p. 4 and elsewhere for numerous examples) maintains
that the SLP has conceptual weaknesses, because Elkington and Stebbins only give certain
concepts ‘brief mention’, ‘not mentioned in the consolidating book’ (but were mentioned in
earlier publications), ‘only merited a footnote’, and the like. It should be noted that the
Elkington/Stebbins volume is an introductory textbook, not a literature review. Strict word limits
prevented a full and lengthy review of the more than 40 years of theory and research on various
aspects of the SLP. The book does provide some consolidation of the Perspective, but a complete
job of it would require a far longer work and would thereby become unfit for undergraduate
consumption.
In other words, much more attention is paid in the SLP literature to many of the concepts
Veal takes issue with than he admits in his article. For example, see the discussions of
commitment in Stebbins (e.g., 1979, p. 39; 1992, pp. 51-52 and Index). Moreover, I should point
out that trying to assess a framework as dynamic and evolved as the SLP is fraught with the
hazard of being unaware of all that has recently happened or is presently happening in its name.
Thus, only recently have trust and happiness been introduced into the Perspective (Lynch &
Dibben, 2014; Wang & Wong, 2014). Stebbins (2016) is only now getting around to addressing
himself to Rojek’s and Blackshaw’s claim that the SLP is unable to account for social change and
the structural framing of leisure (Veal, 2016, pp. 8-9).
Veal cites several of what he believes are internal conceptual inconsistencies. This stems
from a failure to read carefully the relevant texts. Here are two examples (and there are others):
he writes on p. 9 that ‘there are activity types that appear in more than one leisure form:
volunteering and entertainment both appear in the three forms’. This is as it should be for there is
career (serious leisure) volunteering, casual volunteering, and project volunteering. The first two
are distinguished in Stebbins (1996) and the third is defined in Stebbins (2005). The seeming
inconsistency in usage of re-creation (regeneration) is explained in Stebbins (2012, p. 87). This
overlap terms is not a scholarly sin, but simply a recognition of research data; namely, that this
reward is found in both forms of leisure, albeit with different senses of the meaning and
importance in each.
Two, Veal fails to consider the idea of ‘core activity’ (as is actually done in Elkington &
Stebbins, pp. 7-8 and extensively introduced in Stebbins, 2009, pp. 4-7 and linked directly to
experience on p. 79). Thus he misses the centrality of the leisure experience in the SLP. I state on
those pages that participants experience their most rewarding moments in a general leisure
2
activity (e.g., skiing, quilting , working with autistic children,) when pursuing its core activity
(e.g., actually skiing down hill, working as a volunteer, sewing a quilt). Moreover, my words on
the general and core activities show how the former are linked to social structure, to groups,
relationships, organizations, institutions), sometimes as leisure roles but sometimes outside the
constraining sociological conception of role (i.e., by no means all leisure activities fit the social
scientific definition of role). General and core activity and the participant’s experiences in the
latter lie at the very center of the SLP as well as Stebbins’ definition of leisure (2012, p. 4).
Three, the SLP typology is a theoretic rather than a descriptive construction. There is
considerable theory set out in Stebbins (e.g., 1979, 1980, 1992, 1997, 2005); more than enough
to anchor the types and subtypes in explanatory discussion. I have probably (inadvertently) aided
the misunderstanding of the typology by all too often referring to it, simply, as such, when in
reality it is a map of the SLP. A map tells you where a physical object is located, while saying
little or nothing about what it looks like or contains. So, the SLP theoretic map or typology
presents the term casual leisure, but the reader must go to Stebbins (1997), for example, to learn
what the term means. Note in all this that a definition is itself a theoretic statement; a proposition
subject to verification (Kaplan, 1964, p. 73). All the types and subtypes are, at minimum, defined
at various points in the corpus of SLP literature.
There is now an immense literature to review in an undertaking such as that of Veal; the
SLP website lists over 1,250 theoretical and empirical works
(www.seriousleisure.net/Bibliography). Thus a full literature review is badly needed. There have
been stock takings in 1992, 2001, and 2007. Elkington and Stebbins (2014) constitutes a fourth,
less-than-perfect attempt at this, but being principally a textbook it is not really up to the job.
But, whereas these stock-takings bring together some of the theoretic themes of the SLP, they
contain all too often only brief mention of their empirical support. A proper literature review
would correct this deficiency.
Four, the SLP exemplifies the long-term accumulation of grounded theory (GT), the first
component study of which began in 1973 on classical musicians (partly reported in Stebbins,
1976). According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), GT should, ideally, grow inductively from
substantive theory – i.e., one or a small number of studies – to formal theory – i.e., many studies
validated by open-ended, exploratory research. The two authors never said how many studies
would be necessary to claim that a formal theory has been accomplished. Yet, after these many
years, the SLP would seem to have reached formal status with respect to serious and casual
leisure, in that new concepts and propositions are now rare, even while many serious and casual
activities remain to be explored. The rest of the SLP (e.g., project-based leisure, devotee work,
leisure career, leisure as play [Stebbins, 2015]) is still too thinly explored to justify such a claim.
This exploratory unevenness also pertains to recreational specialization and leisure
constraints/facilitation whose theoretic links to the SLP have been sketched out but whose
empirical validity awaits further examination.
Veal’s misunderstanding of GT development is further revealed in his discussion of the
place in the SLP of the vast literature on identification and social world (pp. 5-6). Both ideas and
several others are referred to in Stebbins, 2007, pp. 112-114, and Glaser, 1978) as ‘imported
concepts’. Such constructions are defined and elaborated outside the SLP and brought into it to
broaden its explanatory scope. The main object here is to show how the borrowed idea can
enhance the explanatory scope of the Perspective, and lengthy digressions into the other ways an
3
import fits elsewhere in the social sciences are, for the purpose of building a GT, irrelevant. Put
otherwise, a full literature review of an import risks drowning its significance for the burgeoning
GT in a sea of extraneous considerations. Yet, this appears to be exactly what Veal is calling for
on those pages.
In sum, whereas I see no reason to rechristen the SLP as the Leisure Experience
Perspective, given my foregoing comments, I do believe that Veal’s list in his Conclusions is
most helpful. The three categories of constructs and variables can serve as sensitizing concepts,
as notes on where to explore for (and later confirm) data and concepts that advance our
understanding of leisure.
References
Elkington, S., & Stebbins, R. A. (2014). The serious leisure perspective: An introduction.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory.
Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Atherton.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco,
CA: Chandler.
Lynch, P., & Dibben, M. (2014).Maintaining leisure values in adventure recreation events: The
role of trust. Annals of Leisure Research, 17(2), 180-199.
Stebbins, R. A. (1976). Music among friends: The social networks of amateur musicians.
International Review of Sociology (Series II), 12, 52-73.
Stebbins, R.A. (1979). Amateurs: On the margin between work and leisure. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage. (also available at www.seriousleisure.net/ Digital Library)
Stebbins, R. A. (1980). "Amateur" and "hobbyist" as concepts for the study of leisure problems.
Social Problems, 27, 413-417.
Stebbins, R.A. (1992). Amateurs, professionals, and serious leisure. Montreal, QC and Kingston,
ON: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Stebbins, R.A. (1997). Casual leisure: A conceptual statement. Leisure Studies, 16, 17-25.
Stebbins, R.A. (2005). Project-based leisure: Theoretical neglect of a common use of free time.
Leisure Studies, 24, 1-11.
Stebbins, R. A. (2009). Personal decisions in the public square: Beyond problem into a positive
sociology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications.
Stebbins, R.A. (2015). The interrelationship between play and leisure: Play as leisure, leisure as
Play. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
4
Stebbins, R.A. (2016). Leisure activities in context: A micro-macro/agency-structure
interpretation of leisure. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Veal, A. J. (2016). The serious leisure perspective and the Experience of Leisure. Leisure
Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2016.1189367.
Wang, M., & Wong, M.C.S. (2014). Happiness and leisure across countries: Evidence from
international survey data. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 85-118.
... Some serious leisure, we will see shortly, also offers the experience of psychological flow. In brief, an activity is the means for having a certain leisure experience-thus when we speak of leisure activity, we speak of its leisure experience, whether satisfying, fulfilling, or both (Veal, 2016, misses this crucial point-see Stebbins, 2016). The theoretic advantage of linking experience, a psychological state, with activity is that the latter, also being social, has a place in the meso and macro levels of leisure analysis and theory discussed in the following chapters. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter opens with a discussion of agreeable versus disagreeable obligation. The agreeable project-based variety is occasionally found in making something, as in a swing hung from a tree for a child’s pleasure or a special meal with which to celebrate a birthday. Volunteering on a project basis can be moderately agreeable. Some fine artists get drawn into one-off projects that fall outside their routine involvements. Theatrical skills may be especially relevant here, as in being invited to emcee a talent show or variety-arts show or serve as a chairperson for a set of scholarly conference papers.
Chapter
The serious leisure perspective is presented in sufficient detail to show how project-based leisure fits in that framework and how PBL relates to well-being. The working definition of leisure is the following: it is un-coerced, contextually framed activity engaged in during free time perceived as such, which people want to do and, using their abilities and resources, actually do in either a satisfying or a fulfilling way, if not both. The SLP forms, in the main, the theoretic foundation for the definitional work reported in this book. Among the general theories typically considered in leisure studies, the SLP is the only one rooted substantially in research on free-time activity. More precisely, the Perspective grew inductively from a foundational set of eight exploratory studies of a sample of leisure activities carried out between 1973 and 1988. Thus the SLP can be described as an internal theory and contrasted with the various external theories that have also been used to explain this sphere of life.
Chapter
I have integrated eight essential properties called “first principles” in a lengthy definition of leisure presented in Stebbins (2012). All of them figure in the shorthand definition set out below. Five of them, however, are only alluded to there. These five are leisure as a unique social institution, as having unique geographic space, as the fulcrum for work/life balance, as what a person does in free time, and as having a unique image in the larger world.
Chapter
We manage everyday life by pondering it, by thinking and talking about a variety of personal interests and concerns while engaged in work, leisure, or non-work obligatory activities. This process is referred to here as pondering everyday activities, or PEA. It is at once a process of thought and talk as well as an activity. This chapter explores the interplay between the macro-level domains of work, leisure, and non-work obligation, on the one hand, and the meso-/micro-level of PEA, on the other. The concept of genus Homo is introduced, as is the basic framework of the serious leisure perspective. Throughout, leisure and PEA are discussed as activities that deliver distinctive, positive leisure experiences, be they satisfying or fulfilling (sometimes both). Activity, with its experiential component, is a vital linchpin in leisure theory. The methodological foundation of this book is then considered.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.