The role of leisure education in parks and recreation.

The relationship between leisure and work has been examined in many cultures throughout history. The ancient Greeks viewed leisure as a serious pursuit and assumed that only a fool would work unless forced to. Work was justified as a means to obtain leisure. Aristotle described life as either work or leisure.

Just as in Aristotle's time, it is still extremely difficult to discuss leisure without mentioning work. To some, work and leisure are dichotomous extremes, while others view both concepts as related and continuously interacting. Teeters (1992) refers to the work and leisure relationship as polarized and hierarchical in nature with work assuming the top position. This particular view cultivates confusion and misdirection regarding leisure in the lives of individuals by forcing people to rank the characteristics of work and leisure by importance.

How people view the concepts of leisure and work have a significant impact on society. Financial success, prestige, and corporate power are societal goals which are deeply ingrained in many Americans. The work ethic which has defined the pursuit of the "American dream" extols work rather than leisure. The focus of this paper will examine the need to balance work and leisure rather than choosing one over the other.

The Role of Work and Leisure

Researchers have examined the role of leisure in society as it relates to work. Generally, many of the anticipated worker attitudes toward leisure have not been found in current research. It was predicted that leisure would expand with technological advancement, shorter work weeks, increased productivity, and more efficient home appliances. Unfortunately, the reality is that Americans are faced with too little, rather than too much free time (Harper and Hultsman, 1995). Many working Americans are salaried employees or entrepreneurs and their work week has actually increased and leisure time has decreased.

In addition to less time for leisure, workers also tend to be less satisfied with their work now than in the past. According to Godbey (1989) the source for this dissatisfaction is that workers have higher job expectations. To a generation going through the Great Depression, just making a living may have been viewed as a success. For more recent generations which have generally enjoyed more affluence in their lifetime, subsistence is often not enough.

The relationship between work and leisure can be observed from two perspectives: the compensatory and spillover theories. According to Kraus (1990) in the compensatory theory work is viewed as extremely boring. Outside of work, the individual engages in activity that is directly opposite of tasks performed at work. For example, a postal worker who does a considerable amount of walking while delivering mail, may choose to engage in activities which require less physical exertion such as fishing, playing cards, or reading.

Conversely, the spillover theory suggests that leisure and leisure attitudes are an extension of work and work attitudes. A worker who is tired or possesses a negative attitude towards work will often choose not to engage in any leisure activity after work. On the other hand, when work is viewed as pleasant a worker may enjoy leisure activities during non-work hours. For example, a postal worker may enjoy going for walks or running during non-work hours.

It is apparent that the nature of the work often determines the work and leisure relationship. Each individual must distinguish between work and leisure. If the purpose of the work is the work itself, then the individual will have a difficult time obtaining satisfaction from the job. Consequently, if the individual has some control or stake in the work or perceives the work to have purpose, satisfaction can be derived from work. The more mundane the work, the clearer the distinction between work and leisure. The more stimulating the work, the less the distinction between work and leisure.

According to Harry (1971) there is a psychological distinction between work and leisure, although, for some workers, the distinction may be situation specific.

In a study conducted by Adams and Stone (1977) individuals were unable to satisfy their needs for achievement through work. Consequently, individuals sought satisfaction through leisure activities. Bergermaier, Borg and Champoux (1984) found that there is little relationship between work and leisure, although work and leisure may spill over into one another. According to Kelly and Godbey (1992) people find both meaning and satisfaction in family, work, and leisure. As can be seen from these studies, work and leisure are complex and very difficult to fit in any circumscribed approach.

The challenge for the park and recreation professionals is to assist present and potential customers in assessing their existing attitudes toward work and leisure. This assessment must include how attitudes affect participation in leisure and the impact leisure has on quality of life. Unfortunately, according to Teeters (1992) leisure has now become a commodity or quantity to be measured, rather than a quality. Park and recreation professionals must emphasize that leisure is more than mere time. Leisure can take place during work and non-work hours and is important to overall life satisfaction.

Leisure Education

Leisure education can play a vital role in understanding the relationship between work and leisure. Leisure education can be defined as a total developmental process through which individuals develop an understanding of themselves, leisure and the relationship of leisure to their own life-styles and to the very fabric of their society (Mundy and Odum, 1979).

For some park and recreation professionals, the concept of leisure education is new. However, for some time, therapeutic recreation professionals have developed leisure education programs to meet specific goals for their clients. This concept has not been utilized for the general population until recently. As professionals define the benefits of leisure and how it can impact quality of life and satisfaction, there will be an increased need to educate the public.

Leisure education can be viewed from two perspectives: park and recreation professionals educating customers or customers educating themselves about leisure. Previous research has shown that years of formal education can be a predictor of involvement in leisure activity. Kelly (1990) concurs that the longer an individual is exposed to institutionalized learning, the greater their exposure to a diversity of activities.

Another concept closely related to leisure education is education for leisure. Education for leisure is developing appreciations, interests, skills, and opportunities that will enable individuals to use their leisure in personally rewarding ways. In addition, individuals should understand why this way of life is essential to their well-being and to the survival of society (Kelly, 1990). It is one thing to learn how to use the parks, beaches, libraries, etc., it is another to learn to use individual leisure in satisfying and creative ways.

Leisure Education and the Professional

According to Samdhl (1992) and Edginton, Hanson and Edginton (1992) it is wishful thinking that individuals will obtain all of their leisure satisfaction via organized recreation. As a profession, we want people educated for leisure. The more informed the user, the better their experience. But educating people for leisure is not a "one-shot deal." In the homes, schools and communities people must be exposed early and often to experiences that will help them develop appreciations and skills. Individuals should know how to use organized leisure services, but also create opportunities when organized services are unavailable.

Kelly (1990) confirms, the greater our abilities to learn, communicate and think, the greater our leisure opportunities. Skills (physical and social) can be learned within the contrived context of the activity. However, with limited oral and written skills, many opportunities for leisure are reduced or closed. Peterson and Gunn (1984) suggest the leisure education content model. This model is made of four components which include 1) leisure awareness, 2) skill development, 3) interaction skills, and 4) leisure resources. Each of these components build upon one another.

First, an individual must become aware of what leisure is and why there is a need to pursue it. Skill development implies learning specific skills related to a particular activity. Acceptable social behavior is crucial while engaging with a group in leisure activities. Finally, once the customer has learned the importance of leisure, what it consists of and the physical and social skills required, the individual must know when, where and how to get involved. Numerous leisure resources are available, yet knowing how to access them could be a potential problem. When each of these components is working in conjunction, the ability to identify and the needs and interests of any individual can be accomplished.

According to Harper and Hultsman (1995) park and recreation professionals must accept the fact that they can increase the public's leisure abilities and, in turn, help people to understand why leisure should be part of their lives. In addition, professionals can help customers meet leisure needs and interests. The authors acknowledge this may sound like justification for our profession. We can no longer afford to take our customers for granted. Through education, we can assist people of all, ages to understand the importance of leisure in their lives thus, potentially affecting participant's quality of life. The ultimate goal, is that the educated customer, take full responsibility for their leisure education.

References

Adams, A. J. & Stone, T H. (1977). Satisfaction of Need for Achievement in Work and Leisure Time Activities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 11, 174-181.

Bergermaier, R., Borg, I., & Champoux, J. (1984). Structural Relationships Among Facets of Work, Nonwork, and General Well-being. Work and Occupations,11(2).

Edginton, C. R., Hanson, C., & Edginton, S. R. (1992). Leisure Programming: Concepts, Trends, and Professional Practice. Brown and Benchmark, Dubuque, IA.

Godbey, G. (1989). Changing Relations Between Work and Leisure. Career Planning and Adult Development Journal, 11-16.

Harper, W. & Hultsman, J. (1995). Abstracts from the 1995 Symposium on Leisure Research. National Recreation and Park Association, Arlington, VA.

Harry, J. (1971). Work and Leisure: Situational Attitudes. Pacific Sociological Review, 301-309.

Kelly, J. R. (1990). Leisure. (2nd. ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kelly, J. & Godbey, G. (1992). Sociology of Leisure. Venture Publishing, State College, PA.

Kraus, R. (1990). Recreation and Leisure in Modem Society, (4th ed.). Scott, Foresman, and Company, Glenview, 11.

Mundy, J. & Odum, L. (1979). Leisure Education: Theory and Practice. John Wiley Sons, New York.

Peterson, C. A. & Gunn, S. L. (1984). Therapeutic Recreation Program Design: Principles and Procedures. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood, NJ.

Samdahl, D. (1992). Leisure in our Lives: Enhancing the Common Leisure Occasion. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(1),19-32.

Teeters, C. (1992). Permission to Learn: Leisure and the American School. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 28-31.

Irma O'Dell is Assistant Professor in the Department of Health Education and Recreation at Southern Illinois University. She also serves as Editor of the Research Update. Gayle A. Taylor is a Teaching Assistant in the same department.