Research in family recreation has a history that dates back to a 1929 study by Lynd and Lynd that revealed, among other findings, the leisure time behaviors of Midwestern American Families. A number of historical reviews carefully consider the evolution of family recreation research in America (Freysinger, 1997; Hawkes, 1991; Holman & Epperson, 1984; Kelly, 1997; Orthner & Mancini, 1990; Shaw, 1997). Although these reviews represent a substantial body of knowledge in family related recreation, a variety of divergent issues have been explored and contradictions identified (Hawkes, 1991; Shaw, 1997). Clearly, some themes have received considerable attention while others have been neglected, but no systematic approach has guided this body of work or necessarily connected the divergent themes.
Beginning in the 1960s, social scientists examined family recreation themes (Hawkes, 1991) of outdoor family recreation (Burch, 1965; Hill, 1988; West & Merriam, 1970), marital satisfaction (Holman & Jacquart, 1988; Orthner, 1975, 1976; Presvelou, 1971), recreational roles (Allen & Donnelly, 1985; Kelly, 1975, 1978), employment status and leisure adjustment (Jorgenson, 1977; Shaw,1985, 1988). Social scientists also studied family recreation and child adjustment (Hume, O’Connor, & Lowrey, 1977; Scheuch, 1960), family life cycle (Roberts, Cook, Clark, & Semeonoff, 1976; Witt & Goodale, 1982), leisure socialization (Barnett & Chick, 1986; Kelly, 1974; Yoshioka, 1981), and family cohesion (Lynn, 1983; Ragheb, 1975; Stinnett, Sanders, DeFrain, & Parkhurst, 1982). In addition, Orthner, Barnett-Morris and Mancini, (1994) identified human development as an important consideration in family recreation research. More recent research considers different family types and structures (Bialeschki & Pearce, 1997; Freysinger, 1997). Although broad topics of family leisure have been researched, a clear agenda guided by a consistent theoretical foundation does not exist.
Reviewers of the family leisure research continually call for further and better research. Their detailed recommendations identify themes that need additional attention, research questions that require examination, and call for further theory development. Holman and Epperson (1984), based upon their review of the literature, made nine specific recommendations for future research. While several of the nine recommendations are being addressed in current research (Mactavish & Schleien, 2000; Shaw, 1997, 2000; Zabriskie & McCormick, 1999, 2000) many are still relevant and worthy of attention. These include: Investigations of leisure activity patterns need a more in-depth analysis; a systems approach is needed to understand the complexity of family recreation; focusing on activity type only is inadequate, activity patterns also need examination; the similarity between preferred and achieved activity needs attention; research needs to be more theoretically based; and “the use of greater conceptual clarity, better research methodologies and more sophisticated statistical techniques” (p. 291).
Hawks (1991) reviewed the research related to family recreation over a 60-year period and concluded in general that, “a major weakness of family recreation research throughout the decades reviewed has been the sparse use of theory in formulating hypotheses and interpreting results” (p. 421). Hawks did recognize, however, that by the late 1980s most studies utilized a wide variety of inferential statistical methods. In addition, differing methodologies such as participant observation and qualitative methods, experimental and quasi-experimental designs that aid in explanation, and the use of theories related to family behavior should be employed to guide the work.
Kelly (1997) made three suggestions for guiding future research. First, researchers should avoid a monolithic approach, instead dialectic models may serve as better guides to research efforts. Second, researchers should recognize their “domain assumptions” in their work; that is, implicit ideologies that shape a person’s worldview should be a recognized part of research design and theory development. Third, in family research, the “commonplace” should not be ignored. The common activities that families participate in daily are central to family life and should have a meaningful part in theory development related to family recreation.
The reviews by Homan and Epperson (1984), Hawks (1991)
and Kelly (1997) put forward pieces of a proposed research agenda to
the work in family recreation scholarship. Given the growing
in the family, the variety of research that does exist in family
and the continual call for more, it is fitting that a systematic effort
be made to develop a research agenda for family recreation. The
of this study, therefore, was to develop a systematic research agenda
family recreation. The project organizes specific topics, issues, and
questions identified by scholars and professionals as significant for
research in family recreation.
To begin the Delphi process, the Nominal Group Technique (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975) was used to develop a list of experts in family studies and family recreation, as well as professionals with experience administering programs related to family recreation. Members of a Family Recreation Research Team that included 6 professors, 2 graduate students and 5 undergraduates created a list of academics and professionals identified for their perceived expertise in the areas of family science and family recreation based on their research and/or development of programs related to family recreation. The initial list was developed through successive brainstorming rounds. Each member of the team then ranked the experts according to their preferences for inclusion in the Delphi process. From the individual rankings, a prioritized list was developed.
From the developed list, 15 family recreation academicians
and 7 family recreation professionals were asked to participate in the
study. These individuals were first invited to participate in the study
by phone. Of the 15 academics initially contacted, 12 agreed to
all of the professionals agreed to contribute combining for a total of
19 experts on family recreation. Upon consent they were asked to
whether they wanted to participate through regular mail or through
The initial round of the Delphi process asked the expert panel to respond to the question “What topics, issues, and specific research questions ought to be addressed and answered to build the body of knowledge in family recreation?” Responses were received from 15 of the 19 experts. The returned responses were organized systematically by topics in combination with recommendations for further research from earlier literature reviews. Duplicate answers were combined.
For the second round in the Delphi process, the preliminary
research agenda was returned to the panel of experts.
They were asked to review the responses, support or criticize the issues identified, rank the topics, problems and questions according to their importance, and suggest additional items for the research agenda. Responses to the second round were received from 12 of the 15 individuals who participated in the first round.
The final iteration of the Delphi process was completed
by sending an initial research agenda, organized from responses to the
second round to the 12 participants. They were asked to provide
topics, questions or suggestions that came to mind after examining the
preliminary family recreation research agenda. Panel members were also
asked to makes suggestions or comments about this specific research
Additional comments and suggestions were received from four
Top 20 Family Recreation Research Topics and Questions
1. Developing healthy and successful families
Does family recreation unify or separate the family?
2. Increasing family cohesion
Are families that enjoy recreation together more cohesive?
3. Improving family functioning
What is the impact of parent/child interaction during recreation on family stability?
4. Examining demands for family time
What is the role and value of family recreation in a work-obsessed, time-starved culture?
5. Defining family and family structure
What is the influence of divorce/separation on family recreation patterns of parents and children?
6. Managing age-appropriate family activities
How can parents get involved with their children and participate in activities with them?
7. Increasing family recreation programs in the community
In what ways and with what types of programs do current recreation programs (community centers) provide for family recreation opportunities?
8. Exploring the family life cycle and its impact on family
What is the role of recreation across the life cycle, especially as families experience change?
9. Expanding the work of family socialization
How are family values, behaviors, and communication patterns passed on through family recreation?
10. Determining the role of family traditions and rituals in family
functioning and family life.
How do private family process such as ritual enactment, communication style, and problem solving be exposed during family recreation?
What is the value of family recreation on parent well-being, development, and effectiveness?
How can theories of family recreation, especially those that are more contextual that account for human and social ecology best be developed?
13. Outcomes and benefits of family recreation
What is the range of individual, relationship and family outcomes?
Does family recreation decrease divorce, involvement in gangs, immorality, drug, alcohol and tobacco use?
15. Marital satisfaction
Does support for one’s chosen leisure activity influence family leisure outcome variables?
16. Family recreation education
How do we train parents in healthy family recreation and inform them of the services and opportunities that are available?
17. Barriers/Constraints to family recreation
How does family stress influence family leisure patterns?
18. Human development through family recreation
What is the value of family recreation to child and adolescent development?
19. Types of family recreation
What are the benefits of ordinary, every-day family recreation versus organized, special, occasional family recreation activities?
20. Family Vacations
What features of family vacations are most and least effective in terms of individual and family well-being and enjoyment?
Top 10 Research Questions Related to Family Recreation
1. Under what conditions is family leisure most productive for families?
2. What is the value of family recreation to child and adolescent development?
3. How does recreation contribute to family cohesiveness?
4. What is the role and value of family recreation in a work-obsessed, time-starved culture?
5. What is the role of recreation across the life cycle, especially as families experience change?
6. What are the best types of family recreational activities and what are their perceived benefits?
7. What are the differences in joint/individual/parallel leisure activities in developing family cohesion? Does this differ with couples?
8. Can theories be developed specific to family recreation that are more contextual and account for human/social ecology?
9. What is the range of individual, relationship, and family outcomes from participating in family recreation?
10. How can families best balance recreation and work?
Kelly (1997) suggested that researchers recognize the paradigm from which they carry out their research on the family. It is assumed that the suggestions made by study panelists are based on their own “domain assumptions”. This should not hinder the work in developing theory based research designed to better understand and strengthen family life. The proposed research agenda should not be considered as representing only one perspective on family life and family recreation. Rather, it can provide a guiding framework for all who are interested in understanding family recreation.
Barnett, L. A. & Chick, G. E. (1986). Chips off the ol’ block: Parent’s leisure and their children’s play. Journal of Leisure Research, 18 (4), 266-283.
Bialeschki, M. D., & Pearce, K. D. (1997). “I don’t want a lifestyle-I want a life”: The effect of role negotiations on the leisure of lesbian mothers. Journal of Leisure Research, 29 (7), 113-131.
Burch, W. R., Jr. (1965). The play world of camping: Research in the social meaning of outdoor recreation. American Journal of Sociology, 70 (5), 604-612.
Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D.H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, Ill: Scott, Foresman.
Ewert, A. (1990). Decision-making techniques for establishing research agendas in park and recreation systems. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 8 (2), 1-13.
Freysinger, V.J. (1997). Redefining family, redefining leisure: Progress made and challenges ahead in research on leisure and families. Journal of Leisure Research, 29 (1), 1-4.
Hawkes, S.R. (1991). Recreation in the family. In S.J. Bahr (Ed.), Family Research: A sixty-year review, 1930-1990, Vol. 1, (pp. 387-433). New York: Lexington Books.
Hill, M. S. (1988). Marital stability and spouses’ shared time: A multidisciplinary hypothesis. Journal of Family Issues, 9 (4), 427-451.
Holman, T.B., & Epperson, A. (1984). Family and leisure: A review of the literature with research recommendations. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 277-294.
Holman, T. B., & Jacquart, M. (1988). Leisure-activity patterns and marital satisfaction: A further test. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50 (1), 69-77.
Hume, N. O’Connor, W. A., & Lowery, C. R. (1977). Family, adjustment, and the psychosocial ecosystem. Psychiatric Annals, 7 (7), 345-355.
Jorgenson, S. E. (1977). The effects of social position, and wife/mother-employment on family leisure-time: A study of fathers. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 7 (2), 197-208.
Kelly, J. R. (1974). Socialization toward leisure: A developmental approach. Journal of Leisure Research, 6 (3), 181-193.
Kelly, J. R. (1975). Leisure decisions: Exploring intrinsic and role-related orientations. Society and Leisure, 7 (4), 45-61.
Kelly, J. R. (1978). Family leisure in three communities. Journal of Leisure Research, 10 (1), 47-60.
Kelly, J.R. (1997). Changing issues in leisure-family research-again. Journal of Leisure Research, 29 (1), 132-134.
Lynd, R. S., & Lynd, H. M. (1929). Middletown: A Study in American Culture. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Lynn, W. D. (1983). Leisure activities in high-strength, middle-strength, and low-strength families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska.
Mactavish, J.B., & Schleien, S. J. (2000). Beyond
and quantitative data linking: an example from a mixed method study of
family recreation. Therapeutic
Recreation Journal, 34(2),
Nelson, D. A., Capple, M. L., & Adkins, D. (1995). Strengthening
families through recreation: Family outdoor recreation activities
opportunities for skill development and socialization. Parks and
Recreation, 6, 44-47.
Orthner, D. K. (1975). Leisure activity patterns and marital satisfaction over the martial career. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37 (7), 91-102.
Orthner, D. K. (1976). Patterns of leisure and marital interaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 8 (2), 98-111.
Orthner, D. K., Barnett-Morris, L., & Mancini, J. A. (1994). Leisure and family over the life cycle. In L’Abate (Ed.).
Handbook of Developmental Family
Psychology & Psychopathology (pp.176-201).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. A. (1990). Leisure impacts on family interaction and cohesion. Journal of Leisure Research, 22(2), 125-137.
Presvelou, C. (1971). Impact of differential leisure activities on intra-spousal dynamics. Human Relations, 24 (6), 565-574.
Ragheb, M. G. (1975). The relationship between leisure-time activities and family cohesiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.
Roberts, K., Cook, F. G., Clark, S. C., & Semeonoff, E. (1976). The family life cycle, domestic roles and the meaning of leisure. Society and Leisure, 8 (3), 7-20.
Scheuch, E. K. (1960). Family cohesion in leisure time. Sociological Review, 8 (1), 37-61.
Shaw, S. M. (1985). Gender and leisure: Inequality in the distribution of leisure time. Journal of Leisure Research, 17 (4), 266-282.
Shaw, S. M. (1988). Leisure in the contemporary family: The effects of female employment on the leisure of Canadian wives and husbands. International Review of Modern Sociology, 18, 1-16.
Shaw, S. M. (1997). Controversies and contradictions in family leisure: An analysis of conflicting paradigms. Journal of Leisure Research, 29 (1), 98.
Shaw, S. M. (2000). Ideals versus reality: Contradictory aspects of family leisure. p. 56
Smith, S. H. (1984). Family cohesion through leisure and recreation. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 55(8), 31-62.
Stinnett, N., Sanders, G., DeFrain, J., & Parkhurst, A. (1982). A nationwide study of families who perceive themselves as strong. Family Perspective, 16 (1), 15-22.
West, P. C., & Merriam, L. C., Jr. (1970). Outdoor recreation and family cohesiveness: A research approach. Journal of Leisure Research, 2 (4), 251-259.
Witt, P. A. & Goodale, T. L. (1982). Stress, leisure, and the family. Recreation Research Review, 9, 28-32.
Yoshioka, C. F. (1981). Leisure socialization and adult and child related decision-making interactions in family recreational activities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
Zabriskie, R. B., & McCormick, B. P. (1999). An examination of
and leisure contributions to family cohesion and adaptability. In
W. P. Stewart, & D. Samdahl (Eds.), Abstracts of the
Proceedings of the 1999 NRPA Leisure Research Symposium, (p. 17). Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.
Zabriskie, R. B., & McCormick, B. P. (2000). An examination of
leisure contributions to family life satisfaction. In D. Samdahl,
& M. Havitz (Eds.), Abstracts of
the Proceedings of the 2000
NRPA Leisure Research Symposium, (p. 26). Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.