Gender Analysis and Leisure Constraints: An Uneasy Alliance
In their article, “Gender Analysis and Leisure Constraints: An Uneasy Alliance”, Susan M. Shaw and Karla Henderson described the relationship between gender scholarship and constraints scholarship as an uneasy alliance as opposed to one of integration or consolidation. Based on the viewpoint of literature in both areas, gender research and constraints research could mutually benefit from integration by promoting respective new insights into each area. The authors examined the reasons behind gender researchers’ unwillingness to apply constraints approach and explored solutions to deal with this disparity.

I strongly agree with the authors’ assertion that “bring(ing) together information on individual behaviors, negotiation strategies, attitudes, and experiences, along with an understanding of the influence of social structures and sociocultural contexts, should lead to a stronger basis for understanding leisure constraints, an enhanced understanding of this important aspect of people’s lives, and new and innovative directions for future research”(p. 31). However, I would argue that not all of the strategies suggested by them of how to strengthen the alliance between these two areas of investigation would lead to their original expectation.

Two broad categories of alliance are created when associating one area of investigation with another. The first category creates broader “container”, which contains both theoretical and conceptual bases of these two areas of research. The second category explores a wider vision, which combines and references understandings drawn from respective areas of research by employing different theoretical and explanatory systems. Shaw and Henderson spared no effort to reach both categories of alliance. This raises the following question: is it necessary to put two distinct theoretical and conceptual bases together if, to some extent, they are incompatible, just for the sake of creating an alliance? What kind of undesired consequence would be brought by this reluctant linkage?
The strategy suggested by the authors that would bring the disjunct literatures on gender and on constraints together, is to explore both individual and societal levels of analysis. The authors advised, on one hand, that constraints researchers should examine not only individual experiences, but also social context, as well as place more emphasis on the holistic aspects of people’s lives. On the other hand, gender researchers should participate in the ongoing debate on constraints. It is certainly helpful for researchers in both areas of investigation to gain a more comprehensive understanding about leisure constraints, but a further argument can be made about the feasibility of this strategy by reviewing the difficulty faced by researchers studying women’s leisure to distinguish categories of constraints. Just as the authors pointed out, many factors inhibiting women from participating in leisure activity or reducing the quality of the activity measured from the perceptive of social context can fall simultaneously into all three constraints categories. I wonder how constraints researchers can classify those factors? When they take into account a variety of social factors, how can they take their studies to the next step if there are no recognizable categories of constraints? Although I do not agree with applying gender research’s theoretical bases to constraints scholarship, for the reason that they are based on different conceptual bases, the merits of integrating these two research areas could be achieved by other strategies discussed by the authors in this article.

Aside from the foregoing point, the authors’ concern about constraints on men’s leisure spark compelling ideas relating to my own interests. Usually, people consider the circumstances which deter people from taking part in a leisure activity or decrease the enjoyment of participation as a constraint, however, we should not ignore the factors which compel men to participate in leisure activities labeled as male activities in order to conform to social expectations.

In conclusion, although this article might have been more persuasive with more feasible strategies, it can serve as a good example of theory development.