Skip to main content
Log in

Leisure Studies in America and the Quandary of the “Experience Economy”

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of the Sociology of Leisure Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study set out to explore the origins of leisure studies in the United States largely from the perspectives of eighteen veteran scholars in the field. Leisure studies, much like other fields of inquiry, is one that was born from parent disciplines in a somewhat haphazard manner when considered retrospectively. It is generally assumed that fields of study come into being to serve some specific problem or issue and do so in a multior interdisciplinary fashion. Because of the multiple, intertwining roots in parent disciplines, including anthropology, geography, history, political science, and sociology, coupled with the marriage of those schools of thought, issues of identity and purpose for fields of study remain in flux and contentious. Our primary purpose in undertaking this research was to better understand the original intents of a field that studied leisure. We sought to add clarity to an otherwise tumultuous and ambiguous understanding of the purpose of leisure studies from an historical context resulting in a stronger foundation for the future of the study of leisure. This is a strictly North American investigation. As each author and participant’s education and professional experience in leisure studies has taken place in the United States, we thought it best to keep our focus close to home. Secondly, we understand that much history exists in regard to the study of leisure; parent disciplines like sociology and anthropology had been studying the phenomena for decades before the field of leisure studies came into being. This is an investigation into origins and original intents, and from that starting point we hope to add some substance to the current state of the field and its items of inquiry, service, and education. To dismiss the history of the field or to evaluate it too critically would be a disservice to the future of the field and not allow for the potential to make greater impacts in the present and in the future. By showcasing how the idealized, values-laden visions of the classic texts served as guidelines for action in the field for early leisure scholars, we establish that the American field’s current drift towards the experience industry model not only adds to the issues of fragmentation in the field, but moves further away from its goals as a service industry intended to affect issues of civil, social, and environmental justice, to one that emphasizes bottom lines and ephemeral experiences. This paper serves as a “red flag” waving to those either aloof, apathetic, or encouraging of the sea change of the field in the United States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Dr. Ed Heath (Texas A&M University and Oregon State University) passed away after the writing of this essay. The manuscript is dedicated to his memory.

  2. The pronouns ‘I’ and ‘me’ refer to the first author.

References

  • Brightbill, C. K. (1960). Man and leisure. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brightbill, C. K. (1961). The challenge of leisure. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burdge, R. J. (1985). The coming separation of leisure studies from parks and recreation education. Journal of Leisure Research, 17(2), 133–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, T. L., & Jackson, E. L. (1989). Charting the future. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Understanding leisure and recreation: Mapping the past, charting the future (pp. 629–642). State College: Venture Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, G. D. (1940/2007). Introduction to community recreation. Fairfax: Mason Press.

  • Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. L. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. (1918). The Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. Retrieved from https://www3.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/cardprin.html

  • Craven, I. (1960). “Leisure,” according to the encyclopedia of the social sciences. In E. Larrabee & R. Meyersohn (Eds.), Mass leisure (pp. 5–9). Glencoe: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, M. (2010). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Grazia, S. (1962). Of time, work and leisure. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dustin, D. L., & Goodale, T. L. (1999). Reflections on recreation, park, and leisure studies. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the 21 stcentury (pp. 477–486). State College: Venture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, G. D., & Rossman, J. R. (2008). Creating value for participants through experience staging: Parks, recreation, and tourism in the experience industry. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 26(4), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flamm, M. C. (1905). George Santayana. Retrieved from https://www.iep.utm.edu/santayan/.

  • Glover, T. D. (2015). Leisure research for social impact. Journal of Leisure Research, 47(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godbey, G. (1985). The coming cross-pollination of leisure studies and recreation and park education: A response. Journal of Leisure Research, 17(2), 142–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godbey, G. C. (2000). The future of leisure studies. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1), 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godbey, G. C., Caldwell, L. L., Floyd, M., & Payne, L. L. (2005). Contributions of leisure studies and recreation and park management research to the active living agenda. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 28(2–2), 150–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, J. (2018a). Leisure studies is for experience, not for industry. Scholé: A Journal of Leisure Studies & Recreation Education, 33(2), 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, J. (2018b). Rebuttal to Lundberg’s response paper. Scholé: A Journal of Leisure Studies & Recreation Education, 33(2), 66–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, K. A. (2010). Leisure studies in the 21st century: The sky is falling? Leisure Sciences, 32(4), 391–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, K. A. (2011). A continuum of leisure studies and professional specialties: What if no connections exist? World Leisure Journal, 53(2), 76–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, K. A. (March, 2015). The death of leisure in academia? Academy of Leisure Sciences Newsletter, 3(1), 4–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunnicutt, B. (2000). Our reform heritage: Recovering the vision of community leisure services. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1), 58–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunnicutt, B. K. (February 7, 2014a). Why do republicans want us to work all the time? Politico. Retrieved from: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/jobs-leisure-republicans-want-us-to-work-all-the-time-103282#.VDxI6tTF_nw

  • Hunnicutt, B. K. (October 20, 2014b). The labors of leisure. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Time-to-Imagine/149395.

  • Kaplan, M. (1960). Leisure in America: A social inquiry. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiber, D. A. (2011). Taking leisure seriously: New and older considerations about leisure education. World Leisure Journal, 54(1), 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. (1910). Play as an antidote to civilization. New York: Playground and Recreation Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, N. R. (2018). Experience design in leisure studies, parks, recreation, and tourism. Scholé: A Journal of Leisure Studies & Recreation Education, 33(2), 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure and tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 314–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. (1962). Outdoor recreation for America. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieper, J. (1952). Leisure: The basis of culture. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pine, J. B., II, & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theater and every business a stage. Brighton: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesman, D. (1960). Work and leisure in post-industrial society. In E. Larrabee & R. Meyersohn (Eds.), Mass leisure (pp. 363–388). Glencoe: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossman, J. R. (1995). Recreation programming: Designing leisure experiences. Urbana: Sagamore Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossman, J. R. (2007). The pursuit of happiness: Programming in the experience economy in the 21st century. George D. Butler lecture presented at the National Recreation and park association annual congress, Indianapolis, IN.

  • Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samdahl, D. M. (2016). How our narrow professional alliance has stymied leisure studies. Scholé: A Journal of Recreation Education and. Leisure Studies, 31(11), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, M. (1918). Cardinal principles of secondary education. Retrieved from https://www3.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/cardprin.html.

  • Scott, D. (2010). What would Veblen say? Leisure Sciences, 32, 288–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sessoms, H. D. (1991). The professionalization of parks and recreation: A necessity? In T. L. Goodale & P. A. Witt (Eds.), Recreation and Leisure: Issues in an era of change (3rd ed., pp. 247–261). State College: Venture Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sessoms, H. D., & Henderson, K. A. (2009). The noble experiment: NRPA 1965 to 2005. Urbana: Sagamore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siehl, G. H. (2008). The policy path to the great outdoors: A history of the outdoor recreation review commissions. Discussion paper prepared for the Outdoor Resources Review Group.

  • Spracklen, K. (2014). Leisure studies education: Historical trends and pedagogical futures in the United Kingdom and beyond. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 15, 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stebbins, R. A. (1997). Meaning, fragmentation, and exploration: Bête noire of leisure science. Leisure Sciences, 19, 281–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester, C. (2008). The ethics of experience in recreation and leisure services. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 26(4), 21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, S. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veblen, T. (1899). Theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin Harmon.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harmon, J., Scott, D. & Woosnam, K.M. Leisure Studies in America and the Quandary of the “Experience Economy”. Int J Sociol Leis 2, 365–383 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41978-019-00041-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41978-019-00041-3

Keywords

Navigation