OBLIGACIONES DE LA EMPRESA CON LOS ORGANISMOS DE CONTROL

Of particular relevance to structured leisure (SL) activities is the construct of play. Although it has been identified as the foundation of leisure by some researchers (e.g., Freysinger, 1998; Kleiber, 1999), play has received limited attention regarding its role in SL activities.

Many similarities exist between play and leisure. As with leisure, play is not easily defined. Rubin, Fein, and Vandenberg (1983) noted that various factors can serve to characterize play. These factors include intrinsic motivation, pleasure, free choice, nonliteral aspects, and active engagement. In addition to the above characteristics, play can also be characterized by personal expression and a lack of necessity (Kelly, 1996). Finally, the consequences of play are not of vital importance to the participant; the activity is done for its own sake (Kleiber, 1999). Researchers have identified various developmental benefits of play for children in the areas of cognition, creativity, social skills, and emotional development (Barnett, 1991). It is important to note that much of the play literature focuses on infants and young children. Research emphasizing play in adolescence is limited and not all of the above characteristics (e.g., nonliteral aspects) are likely relevant to adolescent play.

Kleiber (1999; Kleiber & Roberts, 1987) has noted that the use of SL activities can be seen as attempts by society to formalize and structure play for youth. Similarly, other authors have viewed SL activities as efforts to supervise, control, and rationalize the free time of adolescents (Larson & Verma, 1999; Freysinger, 1998). Given the known benefits of play in childhood, having these benefits continue in adolescence is

profitable for everyone involved. However, the constructs of leisure and play are not identical. One important difference between childhood play, and leisure in adolescence and adulthood, is that participants are often expected to have a more self-conscious and aware presence in the activity as they age (Kleiber, 1999; Freysinger, 1998). The free license that existed in childhood is no longer present and restraints are put in place to effectively socialize the participant. In terms of adolescent SL, various degrees of adult control and structure are implemented in order to ensure that the time is not used inappropriately. Such control illustrates the dialectical relationship between structure and leisure.

Another difference between play and leisure is that leisure can be viewed as being a more inclusive construct. For the current discussion, fun is seen as a core component of the play context. If children are not experiencing some sort of pleasure,

play is likely not occurring. In contrast, leisure can involve fun but it can also involve a

number of other experiences such as sadness or grief from reading a novel or watching a film. As noted previously, there are many similarities between the two constructs but there are also subtle developmental differences that may help to elucidate the

transitional experience from childhood to adulthood.

Although the benefits of SL activities have been said to be most apparent in the dynamics of play (e.g., fun, freedom, intrinsic motivation), some SL activities may not have such dynamics (Kleiber, 1999). When the structured aspect of SL activities is heavily emphasized, aspects of play that provide developmental benefits are likely minimized and participants may no longer be involved in a leisure context. These SL

activities may have benefits in that various skills are gained, but the learning context likely no longer has the emotional satisfaction that so often accompanies leisure (i.e., these activities may resemble work more than leisure). While the aim of many SL activities is to provide a context where adolescents can enjoy themselves, and at the same time gain valuable skills (e.g., perseverance and discipline), the main emphasis may become the attainment of skills. With this emphasis comes the question: Will these activities lead to overall developmental benefits (e.g., improvement in both emotional and performance domains) or simply improve certain skills?

This instrumental focus of SL activities has been identified as being more in line with the values of work rather than leisure (Kleiber & Roberts, 1987). Kleiber and Roberts addressed this issue by discussing aspects of high school play. For example, they identified the instrumentality of high school sport as being antithetical to the values of play. Characteristics such as adult direction, a focus on extrinsic rewards, and formal structure go against what is often thought of as play. Kleiber and Roberts argued that there is a transformation of play as children age and that play often loses its bipolar nature during SL activities. These bipolar aspects involve convergent thinking, repetition, accommodation, and practice on one hand, and divergent thinking, experimentation, and innovation on the other. SL activities may be emphasizing the former aspects to the detriment of experimentation and innovation. This imbalance arguably leads to the bifurcation of play into either deviant/antisocial forms (i.e., illicit play) or forms that emphasize a strong identification with the dominant social values (e.g., hard work, discipline, etc.). Both outcomes have potentially serious consequences.

Forms of illicit play may allow for self-expression, but this expression often comes with social costs. With those SL activities that mainly serve to socialize youth and help them become productive adults, there is a risk that their overall development is inhibited as the aspects of true play are not encouraged (Kleiber & Roberts, 1987).

Partial evidence for the bifurcation of play can be found in the results of a qualitative study by Dworkin, Larson, and Hansen (2003), which sought to investigate the growth experiences that accompanied adolescent SL participation. Two of the subthemes that emerged were learning effort and perseverance and learning to manage

time. Frequent descriptions for these themes included “learning to push oneself, trying

harder, being disciplined, staying focused...” (Dworkin et al., 2003, p. 21) and “learning to get their homework done, say[ing] ‘no’ to social opportunities, and set[ing]

priorities” (Dworkin et al., 2003, p. 21). These descriptions provide examples of how SL activities can potentially serve to socialize youth to adopt the dominant social values of current society. As noted previously, such socialization is not detrimental in itself, but there is the possibility of these aspects being overemphasized and, thus, limiting the developmental benefits that could potentially occur in other areas (e.g., divergent thinking, creativity).

What is apparent in addressing the bifurcation of play and the relationship between illicit and sanctioned forms of play, is the relative absence of real play. Perhaps when a SL activity has a context that allows for intrinsic motivation, freedom, and fun (while at the same time providing meaningful structure), then the developmental benefits will be optimized for such activities.

The role of play in SL activities has not been thoroughly addressed in the literature. Aside from the work of Kleiber and his colleagues, few researchers have investigated the relationship between play and SL; one purpose of the current study is to further develop this area. In order to better understand how aspects of play may be relevant to SL activities, it is necessary to review the literature on the relationship between SL participation and adolescent adjustment.

4. STRUCTURED LEISURE AND ADOLESCENT ADJUSTMENT