Discussion
In this article, we have extended Crawford and Godbey's (1987) previous formulation of
leisure constraints, which consisted of three distinct models focusing on intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and structural constraints. In their place we have proposed a hierarchical
process model in which these three types of constraints are integrated. We derived three
propositions from this model:
1. Leisure participation is heavily dependent on a process of negotiating through an
alignment of multiple factors, arranged sequentially.
2. The sequential ordering of constraints represents a hierarchy of importance.
3. Social class may have a more powerful influence on leisure participation and
nonparticipation than is currently accepted, that is, the experience of constraints
is related to a hierarchy of social privilege.
We have also demonstrated one of the many possible extensions to the basic model,
indicating how the reformulation applies to specialization and therefore, by inference, to
other aspects of leisure that may occur after participation has begun.
Our model is consistent with patterns that can be detected in much of the existing
Leisure Sciences 1991.13:309-320.
318 D.W. Crawford et al.
empirical constraints literature. It may, indeed, help to clarify some paradoxical findings
that were not fully explained previously, most notably the more frequent reporting of
structural constraints among people in the higher socioeconomic strata. We recognize,
however, that it is largely speculative and that it will require empirical validation. We see
three main directions in which future research might proceed.
First and foremost, it seems clear that those interested in leisure constraints are in
need of relevant intrapersonal- and interpersonal-level data. Given the poorly understood
nature of these antecedent constraints, however, and the processes whereby they operate,
exploratory research (in which qualitative methods should play an important part) is
recommended as an initial step. Notwithstanding this comment, it should also be recognized
that an adequate explanation of constrained leisure, in all its facets, is not possible
by investigating one type of constraint alone. Instead, it will be necessary in future
studies to investigate the entire array of constraints—intrapersonal, interpersonal, and
structural—simultaneously. It is only in this broad context that it will be possible to test
the propositions that people negotiate through sequential levels of constraints and that
these levels represent a hierarchy of importance.
Second, and related to the third proposition, the issue of social stratification and its
relation with leisure constraints seems to us to be a promising area for future research.
In the earlier attempt to reconceptualize leisure constraints, Crawford and Godbey
(1987) proposed that this line of inquiry might prove profitable, and our revised thinking
affirms this view. If the experience of leisure constraints varies systematically with the
social class location of individuals and families, then it is likely that social class has been
confounded in a sizeable proportion of the research that has dealt with constraints on
leisure. Moreover, in contrast to the older social class research, which never advanced
beyond static, descriptive premises (e.g., people from different classes have different
values), the model presented in this article explains such social class differences in
leisure constraints. We contend that, although social stratification needs to be examined
from a more dynamic perspective, the issue remains worthy of investigation in an era in
which the disparity between the affluent and the poor appears to be increasing.
Third, although most constraints research has been aimed at understanding aspects
of nonparticipation, our models imply that the explanation of participation and other
positive facets of leisure will be enhanced by the extent to which it takes into consideration
and accounts for the effects of constraints. This implication is consistent with our
conceptualization of leisure specialization, in which levels of participation (exemplified
by specialization) are also shown to be affected by constraints.
Finally, these comments also have an important broader implication—not in this
case for the future conduct of leisure constraints research, but rather for its place within
the general context of leisure studies. Although for practical reasons it is often useful to
conduct research at a high level of detail on separate parts of a system (in this case the
system of leisure behavior), there is a need to integrate leisure constraints research
within the mainstream of leisure studies. Leisure researchers cannot afford to investigate
the phenomena in which they are interested in isolation from other factors that influence
leisure choices.