Serious leisure theory has recently come under examination by Gallant et al. (2013), who note three challenges associated with the current framework. To overcome some of these
limitations, Gallant et al. propose “envisioning serious leisure as an experience” (2013, 94).
These challenges, and the proposed solution, are noteworthy because they extend to the development of information behaviour theory as it relates to leisure as well, and provide theoretical support for approaching the study of information behaviour, particularly leisure information behaviour, from the perspective of experience.
First, serious leisure’s focus on leisure activities unnecessarily limits the complexity with
which leisure can be viewed. Indeed, the current catalog of serious leisure activities tops 300 in number, with many more casual leisure activities yet to be identified (Stebbins, 2001, 54). Many of these activities have been studied from sociological and psychological perspectives to determine the characteristics of the activity that make it ‘serious leisure’. Although it is now widely acknowledged in both LIS and leisure studies that leisure activities facilitate a rich assortment of information behaviours (Stebbins, July 2012), empirical investigation into leisure information behaviours has also been primarily limited to activity–based contexts and their enthusiasts, for example gourmet cooks (Hartel, 2007), quilters (Forster, 2010), serial collectors (Case, 2009), photographers (Cox, 2013), and backpackers (Chang, 2009). While examining both leisure and information behaviour from the perspective of activity is a functional, valuable and necessary way to begin the discussion, there is an evolutionary need to simultaneously deepen our understanding of not only what happens in the leisure domain, but also of how and why it happens, and what role we have in its evolution.
Secondly, unacknowledged, socially constructed dichotomies limit the study and interpretation of serious leisure. Theoretical innovation, just like any innovation, emerges and evolves in particular social and political climates, which inevitably give shape and form to the research on which they are based. Such is also the case with serious leisure theory, which emerged at a time when work was viewed as the most important or valuable activity one could undertake.
Consequently, leisure has been considered predominantly as a foil for work, and in terms of the recuperative and restorative benefits it provides for our ability to engage in ‘meaningful’ work (Gallant et al., 2013). Similarly, associating (serious) leisure with positive psychology traps leisure and work in an unnecessarily limiting positive/ negative dichotomy. Ironically, information behaviour research has welcomed studies of leisure in part because of the
refreshingly positive viewpoint it brings to our frequently problem–based perspective in studies of information seeking and use. And although LIS researchers have been careful to acknowledge and avoid value judgments inherent in these dichotomies (Savolainen, 2010a, 261), it is difficult to do so entirely in any field that contextualizes categorically, as comparisons inevitably arise when trying to understand the relationship between groups. I speak of this all in past tense here, but of course, the reality is that both the social climate and the paradigms persist yet today, and unavoidably, LIS shares at least some responsibility for accepting and perpetuating the status quo, even in as much as it tries to change it. Guilty of this also, I am choosing to acknowledge the challenges rather than to attempt to break free of them at this time.
Finally, Gallant et al. note that a lack of attention to the social context in which leisure pursuits are undertaken inhibits examination of other benefits associated with leisure, such as the potential for it to nurture social ties and build identity. Limitations associated with funding, researcher interest, and accessibility mean that studies of leisure information
practices and experiences in unique cultural contexts are currently not well distributed in LIS research. It is warranted, however, particularly in situations that have the potential to “provide a context for [both] individual empowerment and community development” (Arai & Pedlar, 1997, 170). In this area, leisure studies and information studies are near perfect companion disciplines. Museums and libraries often cater to tourist clientele, and are continually concerned with preserving local heritage information. Non–profit tourist operations have successfully commodified knowledge from everyday life or work contexts like the one in this study and packaged it for leisure consumption in the form of tourist experiences in several remote, rural locations, for example, Fogo Island Inn (Fogo Island Inn, 2013) and the John C. Campbell Folkschool (John C. Campbell Folk School, 2013). And community–benefit tourism projects that market experiential information appear to not only preserve elements of culture at risk of disappearing, but also to create cultural
awareness among groups of people who might not otherwise meet (Simpson, 2007). Further investigation of such crossover leisure and information behaviour experiences is very much in line with library science values, and would benefit both leisure studies and information behaviour research.
This study therefore answers Gallant et al.’s call to move toward a study of leisure as
experience, representing an initial attempt to bring together the disciplines of leisure studies and information behaviour studies in a way that privileges the experiential nature of information behaviours in everyday life. While examining leisure information behaviours from the
perspective of activity reveals micro–level detail about particular activities, examining leisure information behaviours from the perspective of experience – broadly defined and across the work–maintenance–leisure spectrum – can potentially reveal macro–level detail and connections
between activities that might otherwise remain hidden. Macro-level research stands to produce a more nuanced understanding of leisure information experiences than can be obtained by
examining individual activities in isolation.