 

 

i:
r a. 3

$1?

buy.

5. .1»...

I?

am?

$62.4

.13.”...

 

L5. :1
IX.(.‘
.1. .

:. 9..
I: x;

L”.
. ﬂ ._
. in
z.

x.wM¢).;,y ,

m” M mm

. «mixswlsmﬁﬁﬁ
_ I

93m.- ' .va

‘5.

, .
. I. . I’-
nmr

rn~
n ”M? t
.31.:
.tvﬁ. .. PPM:
math—u... .ya. ‘
. his .
. _

4H3.

 

'! ,. )-r‘~~_.

.4 . \‘-,§
lbw .
24L,

Jpn 2

(7423/

5‘5

 

LIURARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

CONSTRAINTS AND CONSTRAINT NEGOTIATION BY
WOMEN SEA KAYAKERS PARTICIPATING IN A WOMEN-
ONLY COURSE

presented by

LYNN ANN DOMINGUEZ

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Park, Recreation, and Tourism
Resources

 

aMajor Professor’ s Signature
IS a wo‘us‘I’ 03

Date

MSU is an Afﬁnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

_-—__V

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuepGS—ots

CONSTRAINTS AND CONSTRAINT NEGOTIATION BY WOMEN SEA
KAYAKERS PARTICIPATING IN A WOMEN-ONLY COURSE

By

Lynn Ann Dominguez

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Park, Recreation, and Tourism Resources

2003

CONWAY
MW

Tne theors‘

COISLTT‘II: III": CDC

ll ' I I

am" f"“‘ I.‘

«LEA DWI slSADJhO"
n

4. '
Inge-m .1 Iii-STE.

pinned to occur '

page. ‘ 1
Lapin-OD In iCI‘

constant DCSUIIJ

Crease our m .

an OD , ‘
ntéatntxon u 1‘?"
“III.

larger; sicsurc c

WWII resent
m u: \l
m outdoor 21d\ 31‘:

Tim - ‘
:31)me II;

It “Omen M10 zir

course

M

JIIZple 1:»

km.
LIL USCd IO IIHC

id's}: -
“Umen (18 ~

I
I

 

ABSTRACT

CONSTRAINTS AND CONSTRAINT NEGOTIATION BY WOMEN SEA
KAYAKERS PARTICIPATING IN A WOMEN-ONLY COURSE

By
Lynn Ann Dominguez

The theoretical basis for leisure constraints is grounded in the concept that
constraints are encountered hierarchically and linearly, with negotiation occurring to
allow participation in leisure activities. However, results of recent studies have not
supported a hierarchical or linear occurrence of constraints. Instead constraints are
proposed to occur in a cyclical pattern, impacted by preference and motivation for
participation in leisure activities. Recent advancements in the understanding of
constraint negotiation has led to recommendations for the use of qualitative methods to
increase our knowledge of the complex interaction of constraints and constraint
negotiation within leisure and life experiences. In addition, a better understanding of
women’s leisure experiences, related to constraints and negotiation, has emerged as an
important research need. Currently, there is a lack of knowledge of women’s experiences
in outdoor adventure activities, even though they represent a growing participant group.
The purpose of this study was to investigate leisure constraints and constraint negotiation
by women who are beginning sea kayakers participating in a women-only sea kayaking
course.

Multiple methods of data collection and analysis, within a qualitative framework,
were used to investigate constraints, negotiation methods, and patterns. Subjects were 21

adult women (18 years and older) participating in women—only, two-day, Basic Coastal

limiting £0355 1‘"

mg before 4-“

.w‘““’
I
if: 005m anon T7 ~
up; conducted 2151'
men: xii->515 11’
technique. Interco.

esclts in;
xxx-:1} period and I
course. H.115 ol‘th;
CGJSC. Constraint-
"a: “are negotiate.
We used to ox erg
restraints as citin-
ii'iér‘kar lthrcugt
m frank. Struct

:'d 'n '
ll” HAOII\ aled [0 “
t'u

 

Kayaking course in Michigan and Wisconsin during the summer of 2002. Data were
collected before and during the courses using open-ended questionnaires supplemented
with observation ﬁeld notes. Two-months following the course, a telephone interview
was conducted using a standardized interview schedule. Data were analyzed through
content analysis using a cross case design, analytic induction, and constant comparison
technique. Intercoder reliability, preformed on a data sample, was 89%.

Results indicated that all of the women encountered constraints during each
activity period and successfully negotiated constraints to participate before and during the
course. Half of the women negotiated constraints in the two-months following the
course. Constraints emerged in intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural categories,
and were negotiated using mainly behavioral methods. Cognitive negotiation methods
were used to overcome activity-related constraints of fear. Results did not support
constraints as either hierarchical or linear. Instead constraints were found to emerge,
disappear (through negotiation), and then re-emerge continuously throughout the study
time frame. Structural constraints tended to disappear as women become more invested
and motivated to participate. A lack of leisure companions and ethic of care concerns
were found to be the most difﬁcult to negotiate and usually resulted in sea kayaking
participation at less than desired levels. An Integrated Model of Leisure Constraints and
Negotiation was presented to illustrate constraint / negotiation interactions with life and
leisure experiences. Procedural, research, study limitation, and practical application

recommendations were included.

 

 

Belated :0 m}
Kuhn .1:

Dedicated to my husband and life-long sea kayaking partner, Rafael, and my children,
Kailyn and Paul, who learned the word ‘dissertation’ way too early in life.

iv

I'o—o
.1111. .\e
.5311“...

 

isar acknoulcdgr“
To the Mt“
tanks; expert-en.

To the 60.3.7

 

 

 

 

RIDES?) allow cg

memorial suppon

To m} corr
Steep. who made a
Bar} van tier Stri
tunnel; Dr. Shari 1

Dme Enough IO 1:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Qualitative research requires support and input from many people. The following
is an acknowledgment of that assistance and a thank you:

To the women who, so patiently and willingly, allowed me to share their sea
kayaking experience and their lives with them over a two-month period.

To the course instructors, Laurie, Suzie, Wendy, and Danny; the owners of Black
Parrot Paddling, Ron and Suzie Smith; and the owners of Adventures In Perspective, Gail
Green and Grant Herman, for allowing access to their company clients and courses.

To the members of the West Michigan Coastal Kayakers Association who
graciously allowed access to symposium participants and provided encouragement and
emotional support throughout the project, and just took me kayaking when I needed it.

To my committee members at Michigan State University: Chair Dr. Gail Vander
Stoep, who made sure the ﬁnal product was better than I ever imagined it could be; Dr.
Betty van der Smissen, who believed I would ﬁnally reach the light at the end of the
tunnel; Dr. Shari Dann, who would not let me give up; and Dr. Fred Whims, who was
brave enough to tell me to start over, again.

To the faculty of the Recreation, Parks, and Leisure Services Department at
Central Michigan University who always provided support. My department chair Roger
Coles, Bob Frost, and Dean Pybus who had to put up with years of listening to project
details, and Mary Lou Schilling, for all of those classes and commutes together.

And ﬁnally to Al, who found me in the ofﬁce on too many Sundays, but wasn’t

here to see the end of this project. It’s ﬁnally time to go ﬁshing, A1!

LIST OF TABLE:
HST OF HGL’RE:

CHAPTER I
NRODI'CTIOX

" for». ant ‘
H1\VIIIL.IL L

Rt‘x.
Def
8 .0
De:

 

 

 

CHIPTER ll
RENEW 0}: LIT
Leisure C ,
KIOCICiS of
Leisure C,
Gender ur-
Women ir
G:
G:
\\
Qualitatix

Ti

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................... xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................... 1
Statement of the Problem .......................................... 12
Research Questions ........................................ 13
Deﬁnitions ............................................... 13
Basic Assumptions ......................................... 14
Delimitations ............................................. 14
CHAPTER 11
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................ 15
Leisure Constraints .............................................. 15
Models of Leisure Constraints ...................................... 26
Leisure Constraints Negotiation ..................................... 30
Gender and Leisure Constraints ..................................... 36
Women in the Outdoors ........................................... 45
Gender and Outdoor Experiences ............................. 45
Gender-role Conformity and the Outdoors ...................... 47
Women-only Outdoor Programs .............................. 49
Qualitative Research Design ....................................... 51
Trustworthiness ........................................... 54
Credibility ......................................... 55
Transferability ...................................... 57
Dependability ....................................... 58
Conﬁrmability ...................................... 58
Qualitative Data Collection .................................. 6O
In-depth Interviews .................................. 61
Observation ........................................ 62
Data Analysis ............................................. 63
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES ....................................................... 66
Sample ........................................................ 66
Instrument Development .......................................... 67
Open-ended Questionnaire Development ....................... 68
Standardized, Open-ended Interview
Schedule Development ............................... 71

vi

O‘N

 

I
Data Coil-c.

‘
0‘

.\l..

 

 

 

Data Anal}
Dai.
DJ.

CHXPTER l\'
ANALYSIS OF [1
FIDDLE: of .
Dc
Sc

Cg.

Observation Recording Form Development

and Critical Activity Identiﬁcation ...................... 71
Data Collection Procedures ........................................ 72
Pilot Study ............................................... 73
Sample ............................................ 73
Data Collection ..................................... 74
Results ............................................ 75
Main Study ............................................... 75
Initial Contact ....................................... 76
Data Collection: Phase 1 .............................. 76
Data Collection: Phase 2 .............................. 77
Data Collection: Phase 3 .............................. 78
Data Analysis ................................................... 79
Data Preparation for Analysis ................................ 79
Data Analysis and Presentation Procedures ...................... 81
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA ................................................. 84
Proﬁle of the Participants .......................................... 84
Demographic Proﬁle ....................................... 85
Sea Kayaking Participation Proﬁle ............................ 86
Motivation Proﬁle for Beginning Sea Kayaking .................. 86
Motivations for Taking the Sea Kayaking Course ................. 89
Motivations for Taking a Women-only Course ................... 91
Constraints Experienced Before, During, and Following
the Course ............................................... 94
Before the Course .......................................... 95
During the Course ........................................ 100
Following the Course ...................................... 105
Constraint Negotiation ........................................... 114
Before the Course ......................................... 114
During the Course ........................................ 121
Following the Course ...................................... 124
Constraint Patterns .............................................. 131
Pattern 1: Constraints Across Categories ....................... 132
Pattern 2: Emergence/Disappearance/Re-emergence
of Constraints ...................................... 133
Pattern 3: Constraint Differences Between Post-course
Participants and Non-participants ...................... 137
Constraint Negotiation Patterns .................................... 139
Pattern l: Negotiation Methods Used During Each
Activity Phase ..................................... 140
Pattern 2: Negotiation Methods Related to Constraint
Category .......................................... 142

vii

 

CHIPTER \'
CONCLI'SIOXS
Summq
Samar)
(I.
.\ _'
Ck .
.\V.-.

Concicsu‘"

 

Discussztv

Int:
Ch:
Col
Q13:
39.

L4

Pattern 3: Using the Sea Kayaking Course to Negotiate

Constraints ........................................ 148
Pattern 4: Negotiating Challenging Experiences into
Best Experiences ................................... 150
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION .................................... 153
Summary of Procedures .......................................... 153
Summary of Findings ............................................ 154
Constraints .............................................. 154
Negotiation .............................................. 155
Constraint Patterns ........................................ 156
Negotiation Patterns ....................................... 156
Conclusions ................................................... 157
Discussion and Implications ...................................... 158
Theoretical Implications ................................... 158
Qualitative Design Implications and Discussion ................. 166
Women’s Outdoor Experiences .............................. 168
Practical Application and Implications for the
Paddlesports Community ............................. 177
Recommendations for Further Study ................................ 183
Procedural Recommendations ............................... 183
Research Recommendations ................................ 184
Study Limitation Recommendations .......................... 187
Practical Application Research Recommendations ............... 188
APPENDICES ....................................................... 191
Appendix A: Expert Review Panel Materials ......................... 189
Members of the Expert Review Panel ......................... 193
Review Panel Materials .................................... 195
American Canoe Association Basic Coastal Kayak Outline ........ 198
Appendix B: Pilot Study Materials: Consent Form, Narratives,
Modiﬁed Questionnaires ............................. 201
Consent Form ............................................ 202
Pilot Study Narratives and Questionnaires ..................... 203

Appendix C: Initial Phone Contact Script, Cover Letter, Consent
Form, Narratives, Questionnaires for Phases 1 & 2

Data Collection, and Sea Kayak Log .................... 212
Initial Phone Contact ...................................... 213
Consent Form ............................................ 214
Cover Letter ............................................. 215
Questionnaires and Narratives ............................... 216
Sea Kayak Participation Log ................................ 229

viii

REVEREX C ES

 

Appendix D: Post-Course Interview ................................ 230

Appendix E: Observation Recording Form and Field Notes ............. 235
Appendix F: Preliminary and Final List of Codes ..................... 254
REFERENCES ...................................................... 258

ix

A

Trle 4.1

r 1
Tabs: 4.-

I456 4.3

Table 4.4

Table 4.5

Table 4.6

Table 4.7

'r m
was 4.8

Table 4.9

Table {10

W411
r...
“3164.12

Table4.13

 

CO?
In,

C or
3T0

 

Table 3.1

Table 4.1

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Table 4.4

Table 4.5

Table 4.6

Table 4.7

Table 4.8

Table 4.9

Table 4.10

Table 4.11

Table 4.12

Table 4.13

LIST OF TABLES

Data Collection Instruments and Analysis Techniques
Matched to Research Questions ............................... 68

Demographic Proﬁle of the Participants ........................ 85

Themes that Emerged as Participant Motivations
for Taking the Sea Kayaking Course ........................... 90

Themes Related to the Inﬂuence of the Women-only
Course on Participation Choice ............................... 92

Constraints that Prevented Participation After Women

Found Out About Sea Kayaking .............................. 95
Constraints Experienced by Participants Prior to

Arrival at the Course ....................................... 97
Participant Concerns About the Sea Kayaking Course ............. 99

Constraints Predicted to Affect Participation for
Two Months Post-course ................................... 106

Constraints Experienced by Participants in the Two
Months Following the Course ............................... 107

Constraints Related to Challenging Experiences in the
Two Months Following the Course ........................... 111

Constraints Predicted to Impact Participation Over the
Next Year ............................................... 1 13

Negotiation Methods Used to Begin or Continue Sea Kayaking
Before the Course ......................................... 115

Negotiation Methods Used to Allow Participation in the
Course Following Registration .............................. 117

Negotiation Methods Used to Allow Participation Immediately
Prior to the Course ........................................ 118

 

Ici‘if 4.18

Titie .19

T516 420

 

F
.\1.
Co.

CIA .

 

Table 4.14

Table 4.15

Table 4.16

Table 4.17

Table 4.18

Table 4.19

Table 4.20

Table 4.21

Table 4.22

Table 4.23

Table 4.24

Table 4.25

Table 4.26

Table 4.27

Methods Used to Negotiate Concerns About the Sea Kayaking
Course ................................................. 1 19

Constraint Negotiation Methods Used During the Course ......... 121

Negotiation Methods Used During Challenging Experiences
in the Two Months Following the Course ...................... 125

Negotiation Methods Predicted to Allow Future Participation
in Sea Kayaking .......................................... 127

Comparison of Constraint Emergence Within Structural,
Intrapersonal, and Interpersonal Categories During
Activity Phases Before the Course ............................ 134

Constraints that Emerged as Course Concerns, During
Challenging Experiences, and Predicted Following
the Course .............................................. 135

Comparison of Constraints that Emerged Following the Course,
as Activity-related Constraints, and as Predicted for the

Following Year .......................................... 136

Comparison of Constraints Experienced by Post-course
Sea Kayaking Participants and Non-participants ................. 137

Comparison of Negotiation Methods Used Before the
Sea Kayaking Course ...................................... 141

Negotiation Methods Used During the Course for Concerns
and Constraints Related to Challenging Experiences ............. 142

Negotiation Methods Used Following the Course and
Predicted for the Future .................................... 143

Constraints Experienced and Negotiation Methods Used
Before Course Began ...................................... 144

Constraints and Negotiation Methods Related to Course
Concerns and the Activity .................................. 146

Activity-related Constraints and Negotiation Methods of Women
Who Participated in Sea Kayaking Following the Course .......... 147

xi

Tabie 4.33

Table 4.39

 

 

Table 4.28 Predicted Constraints and Negotiation Methods for Two Months
and One Year Following the Course .......................... 148

Table 4.29 Reasons for Participation in the Course Related to Constraints
and Negotiation .......................................... 149

xii

Eye 11
Fzgre l2

fzgre 3.1

P o

W...”

3m» .‘.I
V

E

 

 

 

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

Figure 3.1

Figure 5.1

LIST OF FIGURES

The Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints .................... 3
Expanded Model of Leisure Constraints ......................... 4
Study design illustrating the activity phases corresponding

with the data collection phases and instruments .................. 73
Integrated Model of Leisure Constraints and Negotiation .......... 163

xiii

 

liaison and D...
‘-,’ 9,,
.ie no: pa. 1.39....

leisure :cnstrxrf.

leoc-dale and \V;

The Stu.
{333601} and S,

Sake P70\ 151.

“."T‘I~‘ , .

r “MPRIIOE .

“(g-C. .
“med 0...}

... ance Lamp

30‘

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

During the 19803 and 19903, the study of leisure constraints emerged as a major
research theme in leisure studies, growing both theoretically and practically in importance
(Jackson and Dunn, 1991; Jackson and Scott, 1999). Early investigation of why people
do not participate in particular leisure activities, even if they have the desire to do so, led
leisure constraints researchers to explore speciﬁc factors that impeded participation
(Goodale and Witt, 1989). Building on early work that focused on barriers to
participation, nonparticipation in leisure activities, and lack of opportunities for leisure,
leisure constraints research evolved into a distinctive subﬁeld of investigation within
leisure studies (Jackson and Scott, 1999).

The study of constraints can be traced through three stages of development
(Jackson and Scott, 1999). The ﬁrst stage occurred during the early years of recreation
service provision when practitioners realized they needed to discover why individuals or
groups of people were not participating in recreation activities, so researchers began to
ask questions about barriers to participation. However, the true leisure constraints
research began with the publication of results from the Outdoor Recreation Resource
Review Commission’s study in 1962 that asked speciﬁc questions about barriers to
participation. This second stage of development was characterized by research that . .
was carried out largely to provide practical answers to practical questions, rather than to

enhance theoretical understanding of recreation and leisure” (Jackson and Scott, 1999, p.

302).

  
  
  

£211} in I.”
reconsidering a .
in focus from cor
the riddle of the

incorporation of 1

Kassandra c F

& .ecti-n

00

pm

.0
'2
7"

“L Aux; b
Cmegoﬁﬁ of l
I
"”7115,
appI—(Vg
[mean
f .
prefer.
1e Yo.
:anen
“maize
In .
.,e k
[‘Ieof'er;
«AC!

Early in the 19808 researchers shifted from thinking about speciﬁc leisure barriers
to considering a more generic concept of constraints. This third stage included a change
in focus from constraints as only physical and external to also as internal and social. By
the middle of the 19908, constraints research had “. . . begun to be enriched by the
incorporation of theoretical frameworks adapted from other themes and issues in leisure
studies as well as more generally from other social sciences” (Jackson and Scott, 1999, p.
307).

The development of leisure constraints models has been an important advance to
understanding how constraints affect all aspects of people’s leisure rather than simply
affecting participation in one speciﬁc activity (Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey, 1991;
Henderson and Bialeschki, 1993). Early models were built upon the concept that
constraints do not simply intervene between an activity preference and participation in
that activity, but also inﬂuence preferences (Crawford and Godbey, 1987). Three
categories of leisure constraints were deﬁned as

structural constraints - factors that intervene between leisure preferences and
participation, e.g., time, money, transportation;

intrapersonal constraints - individual psychological states and attributes that
interact with leisure preferences, e.g., stress, depression, religiosity, perceived
appropriateness of various leisure activities; and

interpersonal constraints - barriers related to social interactions with

friends, family members and others, e. g., differences in spouses’ leisure
preferences, unable to ﬁnd co-participants. (Crawford and Godbey, 1987)
The three constraint categories were used by Crawford et al. (1991) to

conceptualize and construct the Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints (Figure 1.1).

The theoretical basis for the model was grounded in the concept that constraints are

encountered hier.

integerscnal cor.

Tamper). «as.

Contra: rm

__1
leisure Prefer-er.
A

 

 

 

 

31KNU\ 3:.(13‘

”vu- \.
I. \..- ‘1‘ ‘I‘41?\
\-—.

Figure 1.1. The F
Creamy. 1991‘ p-

IntrdperSL
L:0“ij for 1‘

R35 IQLmd 10 be

"reIlcal ..
trdmr
CC: 15‘

encountered hierarchically, and in linear fashion, from intrapersonal constraints to

interpersonal constraints, and ﬁnally to structural constraints.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Structural
Constraints Constraints Constraints
Leisure Preferences Interpersonal Compatibility Level of
j and Coordination Partrcrpatron
Motivations
(Attractions)

 

 

 

 

Figure 1.1. The Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints (Crawford, Jackson, and
Godbey, 1991, p. 313).

Intrapersonal constraints were believed to be the most powerful, providing the
motivation for participation (Crawford et al. (1991). However, continued participation

‘6

was found to be . . . heavily dependent on negotiating through an alignment of multiple
factors . . . to maintain an individual’s impetus through these systemic levels” (p. 314).
These guiding concepts — that participation is dependent upon a linear negotiation
through constraints and that the order of constraints represents a hierarchy of importance
- have substantially impacted continuing research and debate within the leisure
profession (Shaw, Bonen, and McCabe, 1991; Kay and Jackson, 1991; Scott, 1991;
Henderson, Bedini, Hecht, and Schuler, 1995; Samdahl and Jekubovich, 1997).

Until the 1990s, the majority of leisure constraints research was not based on a
theoretical framework; rather, many studies simply listed item-by-item descriptions of

constraints (Jackson and Scott, 1999). The Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints

introduced an initial hypothesis to constraints research proposing the linear and

hie?“ silica] pm?“
demonsmzed pf:
C rawford and \ t
abseqaent stud: .
:Iehierarchieal u
fie need for f uni
Tlcha'ne and J
Results fr
inzen ening cons:-
herirehieal patte'
deelopment of ,3-
“Omm- 31350;“15121‘
m... .. . . l
ruserpatron lFig,
intended to diSCog

maﬁa! -
. u» Cd In the e;

 

Figure 1 ‘3
I993 “‘

'D-24

hierarchical properties of constraints (Figure 1.1). Raymore (1993) presented results that
demonstrated preliminary support for the hierarchical model (Raymore, Godbey,
Crawford, and von Eye, 1993; Raymore, Godbey and Crawford, 1994). However,
subsequent studies, while not speciﬁcally testing the model, have found less support for
the hierarchical occurrence of leisure constraints while recommending or acknowledging
the need for further study and development (Jackson and Rucks, 1995; Hurlbut, 1996;
McQuarrie and Jackson, 1996; Jorgensen, 1998).

Results from a qualitative study of women’s leisure, found that antecedent and
intervening constraints inﬂuenced one another in a cyclical manner rather than a
hierarchical pattern (Henderson and Bialeschki, 1993). These ﬁndings resulted in the
development of an expanded model of leisure constraints, based on the leisure patterns of
women, associated with interrelationships among constraints, leisure preferences, and
participation (Figure 1.2). While the expanded model of leisure constraints was not
intended to discount past research, it did allow for interaction of constraints that were not
reﬂected in the earlier hierarchical model of constraints (Henderson and Bialeschki,

1993).

 

 

preferences Negotiation and Decision Making
(Distal, Proximate, No) 4 T T >

 

 

Participation

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
   
     
  
 

   

   
 

Intervening
Constraints

  
 

Antecedent
Constraints

Figure 1.2. Expanded Model of Leisure Constraints (Henderson and Bialeschiki,
1993,p.248)

Linked :.
|
ones for 1e:
ntQQOSCCI. to o s;
1993 l. Constrai'
SL'JCILJTEI. as ori .4
lCrasford et al..
clashed as anze.
leisure Constrai 7
constraints \s as p
interactions of ie;

exclusivity “ his .~ a

kktul.

 

of constraints as 3

0i COﬂS-If‘djm n60 _

negotiation \, as 1‘

[more Consrr.

L12?
for .

a a:

W .
£3.ng , .
O K

of ale _

C0 m .
“PI-Tun

5h 01’ CH: 1‘
I ‘1 ‘3

Linked to constraints model research has been the development of classiﬁcation
categories for leisure constraints. While various constraint classiﬁcations have been
proposed, two sets of categories are most commonly used (Henderson and Bialeschki,
1993). Constraints have usually been classiﬁed as intrapersonal, interpersonal, or
structural, as originally proposed in the Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints
(Crawford et al., 1991) (Figure 1.1). Temporal concepts of constraints usually are
classiﬁed as antecedent or intervening and are associated with the Expanded Model of
Leisure Constraints (Figure 1.2). The use of an antecedent / intervening classiﬁcation of
constraints was proposed as a better way to describe the cyclical patterns found within the
interactions of leisure constraints, participation, and preferences. However, mutual
exclusivity within categories was found to be very difﬁcult to achieve with any of the
proposed constraint classiﬁcation systems (Henderson and Bialescheki, 1993).

Theoretical and conceptual development has advanced beyond the identiﬁcation
of constraints as simply barriers to participation; research studies now include the process
of constraint negotiation (Samdahl and J ekubuvich, 1997). The concept of constraint
negotiation was proposed ﬁrst as part of the development of the Hierarchical Model of
Leisure Constraints (Crawford et al., 1991) (Figure 1.1) and was hypothesized as one way
for people to overcome or modify leisure constraints. In one of the earliest studies to
examine constraint negotiation, leisure constraints were found to not always prevent
participation. Some people were able to overcome constraints to allow for participation
or alter their participation to lessen the impact of constraints (Kay and Jackson, 1991).

Constraint negotiation was deﬁned as a process or method(s) used to move

through or change a sequence of constraints to reach participation. In addition, a

ciasszticazion S} ~
obsen able chart:
proposed (J JCLM
Lire majorit} of r
behaiioral in na‘.
help explain hot.
mertime has be.
ofin-depth inter.
reii’ionships beg

Samdahl and 1e}.

JakaOn e'

 

INICS'ﬁ'v w
-L.:u.c meg: \—

ﬁ...’
p

classiﬁcation system for negotiation methods or strategies as either behavioral (an
observable change in behavior) or cognitive (a reduction of cognitive dissonance), was
proposed (Jackson, Crawford, and Godbey, 1993). Early studies of negotiation found that
the majority of negotiation methods employed by people to overcome constraints were
behavioral in nature (Jackson and Rucks, 1995). However, the use of longitudinal data to
help explain how people’s preferences, participation, and negotiation methods change
over time has been recommended (Henderson and Bialeschki, 1993). Increasing the use
of in-depth interviews and other qualitative methods to improve the understanding of
relationships between constraint categories and negotiation was also recommended
(Samdahl and Jekubovich, 1997).

Jackson et al. (1993) proposed that the concept of negotiation supports the need to
investigate methods of negotiation simultaneously with intrapersonal, interpersonal, and
structural constraints to provide a complete picture of the interrelationships of leisure
participation. However, Samdahl and Jekubovich (1997) and J orgensen (1998) found
that constraints are not always negotiated sequentially and that a dynamic interaction
exists between categories of constraints. People were found to be active creators rather
than passive responders in shaping their leisure lives (Samdahl and Jekubovich, 1997).
The interactive nature of negotiation with constraints appeared to demonstrate support for
antecedent and intervening constraints as conceptualized in Henderson and Bialeschki’s
(1993) expanded model of leisure constraints (Figure 1.2).

The methods that people use to negotiate threats to leisure participation has
challenged many of the original assumptions about leisure constraints (Samdahl and

Jekubuvich, 1997). In particular, instead of restricting or inhibiting leisure participation,

constraints otter.
probation 101' IL

Jackson. 3000 l.

 

understanding 0’
I

experiences lI'ac -
0er the '-
Jackson. 1991; J.
Ilﬂuarne and J.
Iceman. 1993.
that {3607916 empik

‘0 SUPPOTI the prd

torsramts rather

more

 

{)1 the mod

{h ~ - -~
e tonsrmm neg

MCQUmie and J4

it
ahianced b\ HEW"
. , \

S} t. »
~ 3‘ c

constraints often are overcome through negotiation; the anticipated beneﬁts and
motivation for leisure encourage people to attempt to negotiate constraints (Nadirova and
Jackson, 2000). Investigations of constraint negotiation have increased researchers’
understanding of the complex interactions occurring as people seek out leisure
experiences (Jackson and Scott, 1999).

Over the last decade (1990-2000) several studies (Shaw et al., 1991; Kay and
Jackson, 1991; Jackson et al., 1993; Henderson et al., 1995; Jackson and Rucks, 1995;
McQuarrie and Jackson, 1996; Hurlbut, 1996; Samdahl and Jekubovich, 1997;
Jorgensen, 1998) have investigated the concept of constraint negotiation and the methods
that people employ as part of negotiating participation. Much of this work has appeared
to support the proposition that participation is dependent upon negotiation through
constraints rather than the absence of constraints (Crawford et al., 1991).

Although there continues to be a lack of support for the hierarchical model in its
entirety, the model framework may be applicable as a tool for systematic investigation of
the constraint negotiation process (McQuarrie and Jackson, 1996). In addition,
McQuarrie and Jackson hypothesized that the “. . . more holistic and interactive model
advanced by Henderson and Bialeschki (1993) may ultimately prove to be a more
stimulating framework for future research on leisure constraints negotiation” (p. 476).

An increase in the study of women’s leisure emerged at approximately the same
time that leisure constraints research was becoming more focused. By the early 19903
constraints research and studies of women increasingly were linked as new concepts and
insights spurred continued growth of the ﬁeld (Henderson, Bialeschki, Shaw, and

Freysinger, 1996). Leisure studies that focused on women were concerned with the social

 

I
and cultural cortl
participation. C.
leisure behax ior.
tCrau’ford and C.
stereonping of e.
but also men's. ;‘
recreation (Brat-c.

Althou ~12".

been considered .

 

Man} of the earl}
moxernents in the

their achtes emen'

erporers and act
terror} (Kaufma:

£83113); the} 100

among. and me.

L'Ittizzional Social
it” occurred in t

. 1‘ he “IIdC‘mc
Mei I
I 1r. a§ memkwr

ima:
19:33-
4“ “Ear-Kl.

and cultural context of their lives rather than time-based components of leisure activity
participation. Certain demographic variables were identiﬁed as inﬂuencing women’s
leisure behavior, including age, social class, marital status, and number of children
(Crawford and Godbey, 1987; Henderson and Bialeschki, 1993; Shaw, 1999). Gender
stereotyping of certain sports and leisure activities was found to affect not only women’s,
but also men’s, participation. One example is within the realm of outdoor adventure and
recreation (Bialeschki, 1992; Bialeschki and Henderson, 1993; Henderson et al.,1996).
Although the outdoors, and the traditional activities associated with it, has long
been considered a male domain, women always have participated in outdoor recreation.
Many of the early historical accounts of the outdoor recreation and environmental
movements in the United States were dominated by the stories and accounts of men and
their achievements (Bialeschki, 1992). However, women also were involved as early
explorers and activists, usually right along with men, at the beginning of the twentieth
century (Kaufman, 1996). A3 women struggled in the late 18003 for independence and
equality, they looked to outdoor recreation activities, such as climbing, camping,
canoeing, and mountaineering, as symbols of freedom and independence from more
traditional social roles (Bialeschki, 1992). But, early exploration and discovery efforts
that occurred in the outdoors have been viewed as very masculine adventure activities,
with the wilderness perceived to be a male domain (LaBastille, 1980). Women were with
Muir, as members of the Sierra Club, attempting to save the Hetch-Hetchy valley from
damming. During the 1905 ascent of Mt. Rainier, 46 of the 112 team members were
women (Kaufman, 1986). One third of the membership of the Alpine Club of Canada in

1906 and nearly half of the original Sierra Club were women (Kaufman, 1996). By 1920

 

semen naturaii ~
empioyed at Ye ',
Paris (Kaufman.

In the 6:1:
aetiie. mar.) as ,
lllZIiXIUCC a new ‘
independence rt.
leaders 01-915 Car
It"*Jioon. v. no “t.

L .
Cm CmPS tn 1

 

 

 

1986). 81:1

lesser.

women naturalists were the forerunners of the National Park Service interpreters,
employed at Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Rocky Mountain National
Park (Kaufman, 1996).

In the early organized camp movement of the 19203 and 19303 women were very
active, many as camp directors (Miranda and Yerkes,1996). Early camps helped to
introduce a new generation of girls to outdoor experiences and the sense of freedom and
independence that accompanied these experiences (Miranda, 1987). However, early
leaders of the camp movement, including Gulick, Famsworth, Marshall, Kingsbury, and
Mattoon, who were instrumental in forming the National Association of Directors of
Girls Camps in 1916, are rarely mentioned in association with camping leadership (Eells,
1986). Bialeschki (1992) believes

. . . the reluctance of some recreation professionals to accept that
women were actively involved in outdoor pursuits prior to the
beginning of the twentieth century, particularly in adventurous
activities, has made women almost invisible . . . [I]t is time to stop
thinking of women’s involvement in outdoor recreation activities
as a phenomenon of the last 20 or 30 years. (p. 55)

Expanded opportunities for women’s involvement in outdoor recreation have been
through women-only groups, family programs, and organized group activities (Bialeschki
and Henderson, 1993). The ways that women were demanding outdoor recreation
services shifted early in the 19803 with the emergence of women-only Outward Bound
courses. By the mid—19903 Becoming an Outdoors Woman workshops were prevalent
across the United States (Miranda and Yerkes, 1996; McClintock, 1996).

Research related to women-only programs has been limited, relying primarily on

retrospective surveys. These studies have resulted in the identiﬁcation of a variety of

    

{110013110115 for
IEITCVC were g.-
lierderson are; E
Parr). Setmens.

research efforts 1r

 

designed to intro
outdoor recre at: c
numbers as unci-c

The inert
inmaant nattor
I335) boomers 1'
Opportunities is
13417181112111) lug
Mt“. accounted

(Cordell, 8812.

motivations for why women choose women-only programs and the beneﬁts that they
believe were gained through that particular choice (Yerkes and Miranda, 1985;
Henderson and Bialeschki, 1987; Thomas and Peterson, 1995; Homibrook, Brinkert,
Parry, Seimens, Mitten and Priest, 1997; Jordan, 1998). However, the majority of the
research efforts have focused on the Becoming an Outdoors Woman program that was
designed to introduce women to hunting, ﬁshing, and general outdoor skills. These were
outdoor recreation activities identiﬁed by natural resource agencies through license-sale
numbers as under-represented by women as participants (I-lornibrook et al., 1997).

The increase in women’s participation has been identiﬁed as the second most
important national outdoor recreation trend after the increase in participation by aging
baby boomers (Wellner, 1997). One example of growth in outdoor recreation
opportunities is the increase in specialized programs for women in adventure recreation,
particularly kayaking. During 1994-1995, 2.6 million people participated in kayaking.
Men accounted for 78% of the total while women made up 22% of the participants
(Cordell, Betz, Bowker, English, Mou, Bergstrom, Teasley, Tarrant, and Loomis, 1999).
By the end of the 19903 nearly 1.5 million women were participating in sea kayaking,
representing 50% of the activity’s total participants (Graves, 2000). Kayaking demands
technical skill rather than strength which, along with lighter materials used in kayak
construction, makes the activity attractive to women (Wellner, 1997). In 1996 kayaks
were reported as leading the paddlesports industry in purchases and, when combined with
canoes, totaled $99.1 million in sales (ORCA, 1997). It has been predicted that canoe
sales would remain level over the next ten years while the sale of kayaks, particularly sea

kayaks, would continue to demonstrate strong growth (Yeager, 1999).

10

 

- ~ I' ‘- r '-
inst-“$10“. at i

For example. in

I
syrgposiurn. the-
30 $63 kn} trite.“
participants; by '.

parictpaied (IT \ i‘

\2. tot. persor

 

The Gre.

majont) of these

communication '
me synposia in I

it.
35411) the Sdmt

p‘i-ICIDIHTIS, 54 v

.LW‘A
» ”l-kr' ' v

t
“d Tat]

Increasing sales of kayaks and related equipment, and the growing demand for
instruction, are reﬂected in the increasing number of participants at sea kayak symposia.
For example, in 1995 at the West Michigan Coastal Kayakers Association (WMCKA)
symposium, there were 100 participants; by 2000 that number had more than doubled to
230 sea kayakers. In 1996 the ﬁrst women’s clinic was offered and attracted 20
participants; by the 2000 symposium, 35 women and seven female instructors
participated (ﬁve instructors had participated at the ﬁrst clinic in 1996 as beginners) (J.
Van Wyk, personal communication, December 30, 2000).

The Great Lakes Sea Kayaking Association (GLSKA) symposium in 2000 drew
350 participants, with more than 55 women participating in the women’s clinic. The
majority of these women were identiﬁed as beginners (G. Green, personal
communication, December 28, 2000). Although a registration cap was placed on both of
the symposia in 2001, the number of women participating in the women’s clinic remained
virtually the same (WMCKA: 150 total participants, 33 women; GLSKA: 250 total
participants, 54 women) (G. Green, personal communication, July 19, 2001).

Even though more women are participating in outdoor recreation, their
experiences are not well understood (Miranda and Yerkes, 1982; Yerkes and Miranda,
1982; Warren, 1990; Henderson et al., 1996). Many studies have been conducted on
gender and constraints to leisure (Chambers, 1986; Shank, 1986; Henderson, Stalnaker,
and Taylor, 1988; Harrington, 1991; Bolla, Dawson, and Harrington, 1991; Henderson,
1991, 1994; Henderson and Allen, 1991; Harrington, Dawson, and Bolla, 1992;
Henderson and Bialeschki, 1991, 1993; Bialeschki and Michener, 1994; Shaw, 1994;

Frederick and Shaw, 1995; Jackson and Henderson, 1995; Harrington and Dawson,

11

   
  
 
 
  

1995). Hows"
7.1311511 (Kane. l
Ito-tens and Do.
1997; Culp. 19‘:
focused on male
experience the o
women and out:
befietes it is INT;
feel about doing
outdoor recreut:
ouzdcors. and ti:
"tit'ities. leisur

Henderson et. a

The [Rift

' I

1995). However, the research base on outdoor recreation programs related to women is
limited (Kane, 1990; Humberstone and Lynch, 1991; Backman and Wright, 1993;
Roberts and Drogin, 1993; Henderson, Winn, and Roberts, 1996; Roberts and Henderson,
1997; Culp, 1998; Jorgensen, 1998). The majority of outdoor recreation research has
focused on male participation and a gap exists in our understanding of how females
experience the outdoors (Henderson et al., 1996). Jordan (1998) found that studies about
women and outdoor recreation in the last ﬁfteen years have been few in number. She
believes it is important to understand “what women want in outdoor recreation, how they
feel about doing outdoor recreation activities, and the constraints they face in their
outdoor recreation efforts” (p. 1). By better understanding women’s experiences in the
outdoors, and the constraints they encounter during participation in outdoor recreation
activities, leisure providers will be better able to serve their leisure needs (Mitten, 1992;

Henderson et. al., 1996; Warren, 1996; Bell, 1997; Jordan, 1998).

Statement of the Problem

The theoretical basis for leisure constraints was grounded in the concept that
constraints are encountered hierarchically, and in linear fashion, from intrapersonal
constraints to interpersonal constraints, and ﬁnally to structural constraints. However,
some researchers have questioned the hierarchical and linear approach to constraints;
instead proposing that constraints occur cyclically. The addition of the concept of
constraints negotiation has further advanced constraints theory; but, longitudinal and
qualitative data are needed to increase understanding of the complex interaction of

constraints and constraint negotiation as part of the leisure experience. Although women

12

rearesent a grew.
experiences the;
is to ins estigate

snoare partici;

The rese.

1. “hat are the
$63 Tia} gkr- c

u_
N-

g.)

dime. and :"

LI)

. What are the
“CSOUation r

 

represent a growing participant base in outdoor recreation, understanding of the
experiences they have in the outdoors is limited. Consequently, the purpose of this study
is to investigate leisure constraints and constraint negotiation by women sea kayakers

who are participating in a women-only sea kayaking course.

Research Questions
The research questions guiding the study are as follows:

1. What are the leisure constraints women experience before, during, and following a
sea kayaking instructional course?

2. How do women negotiate those constraints affecting their participation before,
during, and following a sea kayaking instructional course?

3. What are the patterns that exist related to leisure constraints and constraint
negotiation methods that women experience and use when beginning to participate in
a new outdoor pursuit?
Deﬁnitions

The following terms and designators are deﬁned as used in this study.

Leisure constraint: 3 factor or factors that are perceived or experienced by
individuals to limit the formation of leisure preferences and to inhibit or prohibit
participation and enjoyment in leisure (Jackson, 1997).

Constraint negotiation: a process or method(s) used to move through or change a
sequence of constraints to reach participation (Jackson et al., 1993).

Women-only course: a course that is designed speciﬁcally for women
participants, has at least one female leader or instructor, and is focused on one or more
outdoor pursuits (Henderson and Bialeschki, 1987; Homibrook et al., 1997; Jordan,

1998).

13

OUIUOO?
for its ossn suite
snare tlhrahirn

Outdoor
self-propelled a.

Beginnir
experience outs
expenence pJLIL
knots. is not ab}.
Iill‘diid expenen.

communication

 

 

 

 

 

 

if;
they,“ est

Outdoor recreation activity: an organized free-time activity that is participated in
for its own sake and includes an interaction between the participant and an element of
nature (Ibrahim and Cordes, 1993).

Outdoor pursuit: a human-powered form of outdoor recreation that is, primarily, a
self-propelled activity performed in an outdoor setting (Priest and Cass, 1997).

Beginning sea kayaker: a person, using a sea kayak, who has no or limited
experience outside of protected waters (ponds or small lakes), has no or limited
experience paddling in waves of more than two feet and wind conditions of more than 10
knots, is not able to consistently perform successful 3010 or group rescues, and has no or
limited experience with open water crossings of more than 1/4 mile (G. Green, personal

communication, July 19, 2001).

Basic Assumptions

In this study it is assumed that:
1. constraints to leisure participation exist, and
2. leisure constraint negotiation occurs related to participation in outdoor recreation

activities.
Delimitations

This study is delimited to adult women ages 18 and older participating in a

women-only, two-day, American Canoe Association Basic Coastal Kayaking course in

the Midwest Region of the United States.

14

 

 

 

The put:
.egotiation b) s-
I
l'ne .tteruture re
leisure construe. "

women in the on.

 

 

literature.

CHAPTER H
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of this study is to investigate leisure constraints and constraint
negotiation by women sea kayakers participating in a women-only sea kayaking course.
The literature review discusses previous studies related to leisure constraints, models of
leisure constraints, leisure constraints negotiation, gender and leisure constraints, and
women in the outdoors. Also summarized is relevant qualitative research design

literature.

Leisure Constraints

This section reviews research related to the early conceptualization of leisure
constraints as barriers to participation and through the emergence of constraints theory.
The concept of leisure constraints can be identiﬁed with the early development of the
parks and recreation profession (Goodale and Witt, 1989). The emergence of the sub-
ﬁeld of leisure constraints research occurred in the early 1980s (Jackson, 2000). During
this time leisure constraints were identiﬁed as barriers to participation; issues of
nonparticipation and ceasing participation in leisure activities were the focus of many
studies (Jackson and Scott, 1999).

Boothby, Tungatt, and Townsend (1981) studied the reasons why people stopped
participating in recreational activities. In-depth interviews were used to investigate
leisure and recreational life-histories of residents in suburban areas of Cleveland County,
England. The reasons for ceasing activity were divided into two categories. The ﬁrst

category was personal reasons that included physical ability for, and intrinsic interest in,

15

the activity. The second category included social reasons such as lack of time, money,
facilities, transportation, and partners. While the term constraints was used occasionally,
the reasons for ceasing participation were not identiﬁed as constraints. However, the
“social reasons” category contained many of the constraints the literature now identiﬁes
as intervening or structural constraints.

The relationships between barriers to leisure enjoyment and family stages was
studied by Witt and Goodale (1981). Their cross-sectional study of two groups of
citizens and one group of recreation professionals from Ontario, Canada identiﬁed ﬁve
family stages. A list of eighteen barriers to participation was used as part of the survey.
Results demonstrated the value of using lifecycle stages as an explanatory and predictor
variable for participation barriers. However, the researchers indicated that personality
and attitudinal barriers were not accounted for by using a lifecycle stages approach.

The concept of constraints was ﬁrst used by Godbey (1985) to develop a model
for non-use of public services. Mail questionnaires were used to collect data from 894
households, and telephone interviews were completed by 550 individuals to report
nonparticipation in a public leisure service agency of a large city in the Eastern United
States. A speciﬁc constraint, awareness of level of services, was examined in addition to
determining what other barriers to participation might exist. Results indicated that lack
of knowledge of services offered was the most prevalent reason for non-use of facilities.
A study limitation was noted that people or households with low to middle-low
socioeconomic status were disproportionately represented as lacking knowledge of

services. Twenty-one other barriers to participation were listed.

16

The main concern of leisure agencies until the mid-19808 had been how to get
nonparticipants to participate in their services. However, prior research efforts had been
primarily “. . . based on an artiﬁcial and undesirable separation of participation and
nonparticipation” (Jackson and Searle, 1985, p. 699). Their contention was that people as
nonparticipants didn’t exist; rather, nonparticipation was activity-related. They proposed
that two types of barriers to participation existed, blocking and inhibiting, and called for
the development of a conceptual model that would distinguish between different aspects
of non-participation and types of barriers.

Building upon previous barriers research, Crawford and Godbey (1987) proposed
a conceptual model to illustrate the relationships among leisure barriers, preferences, and
participation. The model was built within the contextual framework of family leisure.
They also divided barriers into three types: intrapersonal barriers, those that affect
preferences (e.g., stress, depression, prior socialization, and evaluations of
appropriateness); interpersonal barriers, those that occur from interpersonal relationships
and may affect both preferences and participation (e. g., sex role attitudes, spousal
conﬂict, and lack of suitable partners); and, structural barriers, those barriers that
intervene between preference and participation (e. g., life-cycle stage, ﬁnancial resources,
time, and opportunity).

Prior research had been concerned almost exclusively with barriers intervening
between preferences and participation, not with any barriers that might impact
preferences (Crawford and Godbey, 1987). While nonparticipation in new activities had
been studied, activities in which people might already be participating were essentially

ignored. The conceptualization of a model of barriers to participation represented an

17

  
    
   

lmoxatitc lea;
constants as x
has mile. 5 2‘
choices llac‘rtst’ .
Beta set

to participation
titan ening cor.
19909.; J acksor.
constraints. tho
participants in
new leisure ac
ﬁSSumed that r
interest in pf
dimonstrated
Wht Ie

‘ I

innovative leap in the understanding of constraints, moving beyond classifying
constraints as only intervening between preference and participation to understanding
how people’s participation, nonparticipation, and constraints interacted to affect leisure
choices (Jackson, 1990a).

Between 1987 and 1990 the term “constraints to leisure” began to replace barriers
to participation as researchers expanded their deﬁnition to include antecedent and
intervening constraints (Jackson, 1988; Henderson, Stalnaker, and Taylor, 1988, Jackson,
1990a; Jackson, 1991). Jackson (1990a; 1990b) sought to ﬁnd evidence of antecedent
constraints, those that negatively affect leisure preference, by focusing on a group of non-
participants in Alberta, Canada who previously were identiﬁed as not wishing to begin a
new leisure activity. Results of the mail survey challenged previous studies that had
assumed that non-participation in leisure activities could be accounted for by a lack of
interest in participating in a new activity. Jackson found that some of the people who
demonstrated non-participation could have been affected by antecedent constraints.

While individuals had been the focus of previous research efforts, Scott (1991)
studied group-related constraints. Using a naturalistic inquiry design — participant
observation and in-depth interviews - participants and would-be participants were
examined within the social context of contact bridge. Participant observation was used
over a six—month period in four separate bridge clubs. In-depth interviews were
conducted with 38 bridge players. Results indicated that constraints were frequently
interrelated. For example, a structural constraint — lack of time — experienced by an
individual could result in interpersonal constraints — scheduling problems — for the group.

It was determined that an understanding of leisure constraints relied on understanding

18

how individual human activities are interconnected with groups. Scott also found that
constraints to leisure did not seem to be insurmountable and that group members, both
individually and jointly, developed strategies to overcome constraints.

The relationship between intervening constraints and participation in physically
active leisure was studied by Shaw, Bonen, and McCabe (1991) to determine if social
theory and greater attention to social structures might produce a better understanding of
leisure constraints. A total of 14,674 Canadians, who had indicated preference for
increased levels of leisure participation, completed the survey. Results challenged the
idea that intervening constraints resulted in decreased participation. Instead, those people
who frequently identiﬁed constraints had higher participation levels. Two constraints —
ill health and low energy levels -- were shown to impact heavily on women, decreasing
their participation levels. Study results also showed evidence that some social factors are
associated with participation levels (e.g., social class, age, gender, age of children,
occupation).

The concept of constraints and their relationship to activity loyalty was studied by
Backman (1991) in examining what could influence an individual to cease participation
in golf. Using a self-administered questionnaire, data were collected from a random
sample of 294 daily-fee municipal golfers in Austin, Texas. Frequency of participation
and affective attachment to the activity were combined to assess loyalty levels. Results
indicated that golfers who exhibited high, low, and latent loyalty toward golf would
discontinue the activity only if their attitudes toward golf changed. The ﬁndings suggest
that“. . . loyalty is associated with the perception of constraints that would lead a current

participant to discontinue participation” (Backman, 1991, p. 342).

19

Frequency of participation and interest or lack of interest in additional
participation in hunting was studied by Wright and Goodale (1991). The concept of
“participant” was sub-divided by frequency of participation and interest in additional
participation. Two stratiﬁed random samples were drawn from hunting license
purchasers and telephone directories in Virginia representing both urban and rural
population distributions. A total of 1,666 questionnaires was returned from the two
groups. Respondents were categorized into 10 groups based on their participation
frequency and level of interest in hunting. A list of 25 statements of perceived constraints
was used to compare the groups. Results indicated that using frequency of participation
and interest compared to constraints was valid. However, the researchers recommended
additional investigation of sequence and interactions among variables.

Prior research on non-participation had focused on constraints that seemed to be
relatively stable over time and within behavioral contexts (Mannell and Zuzanek, 1991).
Since it had been proposed that the use of survey methods could overlook the changing
nature of constraints within people’s daily lives, this study examined constraints related to
non-participation, using personal interviews, with a stratiﬁed sample of 92 older adults
(ages 55-88). Results agreed with previous studies that structural constraints such as
being too busy, lack of energy, lack of interest, and poor health were also present in older
adults. However, many of these constraints were identiﬁed as transient conditions when
viewed across the daily context of people’s lives.

Jackson and Dunn (1991) studied the similarities and differences of 12 constraint
items related to ceasing participation in a former activity, and desire to participate in a

new activity, as distinct indicators of constrained leisure. Two mail surveys were used to

20

collect data from 7,965 residents of Alberta, Canada. Respondents were asked if they had
ceased an activity within the preceding year and their reasons for stopping. After
identifying activities they would like to begin, they then evaluated the importance of
selected constraints to participation. Results indicated that the dorrrinant pattern of
constraints did not occur uniformly for both ceasing participation and desire to
participate. Constrained leisure was found to not be an internally homogeneous concept,
but instead differentiated depending upon the criterion variable selected.

A follow-up study by Jackson and Rucks (1993) further supports the concept of
constrained leisure as not internally homogeneous. Constraints were found to operate in
different ways to inﬂuence people’s leisure at many stages of the decision-making
process. Data were collected as part of a larger study on adolescents and their leisure
patterns in Canada. Constraints identiﬁed included an expansion of intrapersonal and
interpersonal items. The study supported the negative ﬁndings of previous research on
constrained leisure (Jackson and Dunn, 1991) as an internally homogeneous concept, with
several types of constraints becoming more or less important depending on the current
stage of the leisure decision-making process.

Hultsman (1993) also examined the concept of constrained leisure as internally
homogeneous, investigating whether constraints perceived to prevent participation in a
new activity are interchangeable with the reasons for ceasing participation. A
questionnaire was used to collect data from 940 early adolescents (ages 10-15 yrs.) living
in a metropolitan area of the southwestern United States. Results supported the concept
of constrained leisure as internally dissimilar although the perceived relative value of a

particular constraint was internally homogeneous. Differences were found between the

21

constraints that young adolescents perceive in relation to ceasing or beginning a new
leisure activity and constraints adults perceive.

Constraints to participation were studied in relation to activity domains and
demographic features by McCarville and Smale (1993). The purpose of this study was to
determine if perceived constraints varied across ﬁve different activity domains — physical
activity/exercise, arts/entertainment, hobbies, social activities, and home-based
entertainment - and if constraint variations could be explained using selected
demographic variables. A telephone interview was conducted with 1,513 Ontario,
Canada residents aged 15 years and older. Respondents were asked to determine their
activity level for each of the ﬁve activity domains. Those who indicated less than
desirable levels of participation were asked to respond to a list of ten questions related to
constraints. Demographic variables used were income, age, marital status, and gender. A
large degree of uniformity was noted within the response patterns, regardless of activity
domain or demographic variable. In general, women and single respondents reported
more constraints than men and people who were married; low-income respondents
reported more constraints than hi gh-income respondents. Leisure constraints were found
to differ from one group to another, with some groups experiencing more constraints than
others. Additionally, leisure constraints should be considered dynamic, varying from
individual to individual and from one setting to another.

Constraints were investigated from a people-based, rather than constraints-
oriented, perspective to identify regular patterns in which people encounter and
experience them (Jackson, 1993). The data used had been collected in 1988 from a mail

survey of 4,044 Alberta, Canada residents. Respondents were asked to identify any

22

leisure activity in which they would like to participate but were not currently and then to
evaluate the importance of 15 constraint items for that activity. Cluster analysis was used
to identify sub-groups of people characterized by similarities in the type, number,
intensity, and combinations of constraints they had reported experiencing. Six clusters
were identiﬁed and described as: time; time/costs/accessibility; costs; costs/facilities/
awareness; accessibility/awareness; and, relatively unconstrained. Age was the one
demographic variable most strongly associated with the perception of constraints.
Beneﬁts of using cluster analysis included: an enhanced opportunity to investigate the
experience and operations of leisure constraints in people’s lives, including the processes
of adaptation and negotiation; a sharp differentiation of categories, allowing for a greater
extent of comparisons between variables; and, the identiﬁcation of an additional group as
relatively unconstrained.

Using the same data set from 1988 and adding an additional data set from 1992,
Jackson (1994) investigated activity-based variations in constraints across homogeneous
sub-groups segmented by age. Relationships were compared between age, type of
activity people liked but were unable to participate in because of constraints, and
constraints that inhibit participation. Respondents were asked to identify an activity in
which they would like to participate but were unable to because of one or more
constraints. They then evaluated the importance of 15 reasons for not participating in the
activity. Results indicated that the desire to participate in physical health/exercise
activities and mechanized outdoor recreational activities remained stable across the life-

span. Constraints remained stable in relative importance between the ages of 29 and 50,

23

with the type of activity desired exerting a strong influence on the importance of
experienced and reported constraints.

Jackson and Witt (1994) replicated the Jackson (1994) study to examine socio-
economic and demographic variables of age, gender, income, and household type. Age
was classiﬁed into seven life-span groups. Leisure constraints were found to remain
stable over a four-year time span. A beneﬁt that emerged was the commonality of the
characteristics exhibited by the two data sets, allowing a combined data set to be created
and permitting the application of more sophisticated analytical and inferential techniques
to be employed in the future.

Hultsman (1995) extended the investigation of dimensionality of leisure
constraints proposed by Jackson (1993). Six dimensions of constraints were identiﬁed
that have repeatedly emerged across studies, including: accessibility (structural
constraint), social isolation (interpersonal constraint), personal reasons (intrapersonal
constraints), costs (structural constraint), time commitments (structural constraint), and
facilities (structural constraint). Thirty-two adults in Phoenix, Arizonia responded to a
mailed questionnaire. Data were analyzed using multidimensional scaling focusing on
similarities and differences to demonstrate relationships between items. Results
supported the dimensions Jackson (1993) had hypothesized and veriﬁed that the
dimensions were identiﬁable. Three distinct constraint groups emerged as cost, personal
reasons, and facilities.

Scott and Jackson (1996) studied constraints that limited people’s use of public
parks in an urban environment. Telephone interviews from 637 adult residents of

Cleveland, Ohio, who identiﬁed themselves as non-users or infrequent users of public

24

 

pairs. formed

different facttr:
or operations
conclusions in
oais. C onsL'-
friction of the

companionship

 

 

i'ks. To add;
amcting nona
creating an mi;

The De:

consul;n ts on

generation p 0

- 6‘ {Rick
”h!“
d._.1\ i0 tak“

parks, formed the sample for the study. Respondents indicated the extent that fifteen
different factors limited their use of parks and whether ten changes to park programming
or operations would result in more use. Results conﬁrmed other constraints research
conclusions in that availability of time was the most important reason for not using the
parks. Constraints to park visitation and willingness to visit parks were found to be a
function of the separate effects of gender and age. Fear of crime and lack of
companionship were the two critical factors that limited older women’s use of public
parks. To address constraints other than “lack of time”, a strategy was proposed for
attracting nonusers and infrequent users through better programming and promotion, and
creating an image that parks are safe.

The general concept of leisure constraints was used to investigate the dynamics of
constraints on the leisure of immigrant populations by Stodolska (1998). Static
constraints, speciﬁc to minority status, and dynarrric constraints, that evolve with
changing assimilation levels, were examined as characteristics of the leisure of ﬁrst
generation Polish immigrants in Canada. A mail survey was collected from 236
individuals who had immigrated to Canada after 1979. Factor analysis was used to create
a classiﬁcation of constraints related to immigrant populations. Five dimensions of
constraints emerged, including: immigration related constraints (e.g., not at ease with
non-Polish Canadians, lack of ability to speak English); general constraints (e.g., lack of
time, lack of money, too tired); work related circumstances (e. g., no set work hours, not
able to take time off); social isolation (e.g., lack of knowledge, lack of co—participants);

and, personal reasons (e. g., lack of skills, lack of physical abilities). Dimensions of

25

constraints within this immigrant group were dynamic in nature; evolving as individuals
became more assimilated.

Since the emergence of leisure constraints as a distinct sub-ﬁeld of leisure studies
(Jackson, 1991), researchers have investigated constraints through an evolving framework
of barriers to participation, non-participation, ceasing participation, activity-speciﬁc
constraints, as an internally homogeneous concept, and from the perspective of life-cycle
(Scott and Jackson, 1996). However, it was the proposal of a hierarchical model of
constraints (Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey, 1991), followed by the alternate expanded
model of leisure constraints (Henderson and Bialeschki, 1993), that has added an

additional theoretical framework to the study of leisure constraints (Jackson, 1999).

Models of Leisure Constraints

Building upon the original concept of a leisure constraints model proposed by
Crawford and Godbey (1987), and supported by other studies (Kay and Jackson, 1991;
Scott, 1991; and Shaw et al., 1991), a hierarchical model of leisure constraints was
conceptualized by Crawford et a1. (1991). The hierarchical model was developed to
integrate the original three discrete models described by Crawford and Godbey (1987)
(Crawford et al., 1991). A framework was then proposed, whereby leisure participants
encounter a hierarchical series of constraint levels that must be negotiated successfully to
allow for beginning or continuing participation (Figure 1.1).

Researchers theorized that people ﬁrst encounter leisure constraints at the
intrapersonal level, where leisure preferences are formed. If intrapersonal constraints are

absent, or have been negotiated, constraints then may be encountered at the interpersonal

26

level. This level may require negotiation that encompasses interpersonal relationships
and interactions, acting on both preferences and participation. Structural constraints
would be encountered as the ﬁnal level. At any of the levels — intrapersonal,
interpersonal, or structural —- the lack of successful negotiation could result in
nonparticipation (Crawford et al., 1991) (See Figure 1.1, p. 3). Early research emphasis
on structural constraints ignored needed investigation of intrapersonal and interpersonal
constraints. It was proposed that a study of the entire array of constraints at the same time
would make it possible to test the negotiation process and determine if sequential levels
of constraints represent a hierarchy of importance (Crawford et al., 1991).

A test of the hierarchical model of leisure constraints was conducted by Raymore,
Godbey, Crawford, and von Eye (1993) to determine if intrapersonal, interpersonal, and
structural constraints would form distinct categories, and if those categories existed in the
hierarchy predicted by the model. A questionnaire was used to collect data from 363 high
school students (12th grade) in Toronto, Canada. Subjects were asked to focus on general
perceptions of constraints associated with beginning a new leisure activity. Factor
analysis was used to determine if three distinct categories of constraints existed. Results
indicated that intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural categories existed as separate
leisure constraint categories. Hierarchical relationships were tested using cross-
tabulations, z-tests, and a metamodel. Results supported the predicted hierarchical model
of leisure constraints.

The hierarchical model was used as a starting point in an investigation of patterns
and relationships among preferences for, constraints to, and participation in leisure by

women (Henderson and Bialeschki, 1993). A reﬁnement was proposed to the

27

classificatzon .
intertersonal .

attitudes 3550,

 

ciasitied as g' .
upon one's 3'3.

data from 59 \\
matron acti -.

”1151351 in SILL-'1‘

 

m mind i
AL; ..
W>IlnLI bur no:
10 inﬂ

Ué’nce P'-

mr Isislire inn

classiﬁcation categories used to identify and study leisure constraints. Intrapersonal and
interpersonal constraints were combined to form an antecedent constraint category (i.e.,
attitudes associated with an a priori recreation activity) and structural constraints were
classiﬁed as an intervening constraint category (i.e., constraints that immediately impact
upon one’s ability/opportunity to participate). In-depth interviews were used to collect
data from 59 women. Respondents were asked a series of questions related to 27 specific
recreation activities to determine nonparticipation. Questions were asked to determine
interest in starting an activity, perceived constraints, and beneﬁts of participation. Data
were analyzed inductively using the constant comparison method, which resulted in the
emergence of ﬁve themes. These included: antecedent and intervening constraints as
distinct but not mutually exclusive; antecedent and intervening constraints as interacting
to inﬂuence preferences, negotiation, and participation in leisure activities; preferences
for leisure involvement as being impacted by both antecedent and intervening constraints;
both antecedent and intervening constraints impacting decisions about leisure activity
participation and throughout the negotiation process; and, preferences and participation
forming an interactive link that was evident in the negotiation process. Based on the
themes that emerged from this study and an inductive analysis of previous literature, an
expanded model of leisure constraints was developed (See Figure 1.2, p. 4). Henderson
and Bialeschki (1993) state, the model

. . . suggests constraints are not sequential and hierarchical, but dynamic

and integrated . . . that the relationships among constraints, preferences,

and participation were more complex and interactive . . . and that

negotiations may occur over and over within the expanded model . . . this
model is not linear, but holistic and interactive in its basic tenets. (p. 247)

28

Even though the expanded model is not intended to discount past research on
constraints, it was found that the linear causal conclusions used to develop the
hierarchical model did not allow for the emergence of the interactive nature of constraints
(Henderson and Bialeschki, 1993). Recommendations for further research included the
need to develop a better understanding of the interactive relationships that occur between
antecedent and intervening constraints, and how these relationships affect preferences and
participation. The use of qualitative techniques is also recommended, as leisure
constraints research moves beyond the simple listing of barriers and examines how
people experience leisure in their lives. In addition, a more complete understanding is
needed of how people negotiate leisure constraints throughout the participation process
(Henderson and Bialeschki, 1993).

Replication and extension of previous constraint model research, to test the
sequential hierarchy of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural constraints, was
conducted by Hawkins, Peng, Hsieh, and Eklund (1999). Associations between self-
perceptions of competency (intrapersonal constraints) and interest in new leisure
activities was investigated. The Leisure Assessment Inventory was used to collect data
from 118 adults with mild-to-moderate mental retardation to assess current and desired
participation in 50 activities using picture cues. Leisure constraints were measured using
20 constraint items. Results did not conﬁrm a hierarchy of constraints but did support the
existence of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural constraint categories.

Interrelated with the hierarchical model and the expanded model of leisure
constraints is the concept of leisure constraints negotiation (Crawford and Godbey, 1987;

Crawford et al., 1991; Henderson and Bialeschki, 1993; Jackson, 2000). Based on a

29

strategies to c.
and Jackson. J
empirical int-ox

Scott. 1999 ).

Much C
assumption [ha
i‘eisune aCIlVIIiC
identified durin
CTiIlCal COmPOI‘
negotiation 18 "Li
sequence of C0:
33311011 “View,

identification 0?

 

 

 

growing body of research, constraints are now considered negotiable as people apply
strategies to decrease, change, or eliminate the effects of constraints on their leisure (Kay
and Jackson, 1991; Jackson et al., 1993; Henderson et al., 1993). However, limited
empirical knowledge about leisure constraints negotiation exists currently (Jackson and

Scott, 1999).

Leisure Constraints Negotiation

Much of the early research into leisure constraints was based on an untested
assumption that a negative link existed between constraints and levels of participation in
leisure activities (Shaw et al., 1991). However, the concept of constraint negotiation was
identiﬁed during the development of the hierarchical model and is now considered a
critical component of the leisure experience (Crawford et al., 1991). Constraint
negotiation is deﬁned as a process or method(s) used to move through or change a
sequence of constraints to reach participation (Jackson et al., 1993). The following
section reviews the development of constraint negotiation following the initial
identiﬁcation of the concept in 1991.

The earliest study to propose that constraints are reported by both nonparticipants
and participants was conducted by Kay and Jackson (1991). They examined the
relationship between social characteristics, constraints, and reported effects of constraints
on leisure participation. An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect
data from 366 households in England. Participants were asked to identify the type and
importance of constraints that affected their leisure. Financial and time constraints had

the most influence on participation, but almost one-quarter of the respondents found ways

30

to overcome these constraints to allow for participation. Findings suggested constraints
to activities were being perceived even when participation was not greatly affected and
that any level of participation could expose individuals to constraints. People who
participate in leisure activities at high levels also report high levels of constraints.

Further explanation of the concept of constraint negotiation was proposed by
Jackson et al. (1993) in a study that expanded upon Kay and Jackson’s (1991) results.
Six propositions were formulated related to the negotiation of leisure constraints.

1. Negotiation through constraints determines participation rather than the
absence of constraints.

2. Variability of reported constraints is related to both differences in
experiences and negotiation success.

3. Successful negotiation of structural constraints may explain the lack of
desire to change leisure behavior.

4. Desire to participate may be suppressed if an interpersonal or structural
constraint is perceived to be insurmountable.

5. Perception of the ability to negotiate a constraint may affect the
presence or intensity of a constraint.

6. The negotiation process depends on motivation for participation and
how this motivation interacts with a constraint.

Results indicated that negotiation strategies can be classiﬁed as either behavioral (an
observable change in behavior) or cognitive (reduction of cognitive dissonance), but
further research is needed for veriﬁcation of this classiﬁcation system. In conclusion, the
concept of negotiation supports the need to investigate negotiation simultaneously with
intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural constraints to achieve a complete picture of the

interrelationships of leisure participation.

31

Negotiation strategies, and the interrelationships of key components of the
constraints negotiation process, were investigated by Jackson and Rucks (1995) in a study
of 425 junior high and high school students in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Students
responded to questions about leisure activities in which they currently participated,
constraints they encountered, and negotiation methods they used to impact participation.
Results indicated that the concept of constraints as insurmountable barriers to leisure
should be rejected and that the concept of constraint negotiation be conﬁrmed. The
majority of negotiation strategies used were behavioral, including modifying time and
commitments, acquiring skills, changing interpersonal relations, improving ﬁnances,
getting physical therapy, and changing leisure behavior.

Constraint negotiation by women with physical disabilities was studied by
Henderson, Bedini, Hecht, and Schuler (1995). In-depth interviews were used to collect
data from 30 women with physical and sensory disabilities. Data analysis was conducted
using the constant comparison technique. The constraints to leisure of women with
physical disabilities were similar to constraints that occur for women without disabilities
(e.g., time, money, ethic of care, and safety). Additional constraints that emerged
included energy deﬁciency, lack of opportunities and choices, and dependency on others.
Based on how they negotiated constraints, respondents were placed in three broad
categories: passive responders (women who chose not to participate in a desired activity);
achievers (women who perceived a constraint but participated despite it); and, attempters
(women who participated but in an altered way). The ability to negotiate constraints
often was related to other life circumstances which, in some cases, also provided the

motivation for negotiating constraints to continue participation in leisure.

32

Hurlbut (1996) studied the ways people attempt to negotiate constraints to their
leisure. A mail survey was used to collect data from 169 Alberta, Canada residents.
Results of the study identiﬁed a total of 51 negotiation methods people used to allow
participation in leisure activities. Ninety percent of the respondents reported that they had
attempted to negotiate a constraint to their leisure time and had experienced as least some
success.

Concerns about the effectiveness of constraints as a framework for understanding
the factors that shape people’s leisure choices were raised by Samdahl and Jekubovich
(1997) in an investigation of factors inﬂuencing the daily leisure experiences of 88 adult
men and women living in the Paciﬁc Northwest of the United States. Respondents
described their daily routine and predicted what they would do with an extra three-day
weekend through in-depth interviews. Also collected were reﬂections on why those
experiences were not commonly part of their normal lives. Constant comparative
technique was used to analyze the data and resulted in the emergence of four themes
related to constraint negotiation, including making time for self, coordinating time with
others, compromising on activity, and the signiﬁcance of sharing. Study results
emphasized the active and dynamic strategies people used to experience their lives.
Rather than being passive responders, people were active creators. These results
supported the concept of constraint negotiation. The results suggested some support for a
hierarchical perspective for constraints; however, this was not absolute. In some cases,
constraints were encountered and negotiated in the opposite direction of the proposed

model.

33

Sam-ti

~31

Cr. .lrasis on ~

’12)

   

whirl 3 30C 1;
leisure was l7
of the acti \it)
which pCOElie
provides data‘
researchers ne
nature of lei s».

Respc
andlackson I
there also are
research has
are not the f:
Wentially i1
$111503ij 1
broader Con:
JekUbOVlCh .'

307131qu n [S

Samdahl and Jekubovich ( 1997) state that previous constraints research with an
emphasis on activity participation limits a broader understanding of the aspects of leisure
within a social context. Their results indicate that the dimension giving meaning to
leisure was the chance to be with others and share in the experience, not in the end result
of the activity. They question the methods that have been used in previous research in
which people were asked to think hypothetically about an activity. Use of this method
provides data that is removed from the reality of people’s lives. They caution that
researchers need to understand the limitations of constraints for studying the broader
nature of leisure choices and meanings.

Responses to Samdahl and Jekubovich (1997) were written by Henderson (1997)
and Jackson (1997), who agreed that good applications of constraints theory exist; but,
there also are limitations to the theory. Henderson states that, although constraints
research has helped to guide leisure research, most researchers understand that constraints
are not the ﬁnal answer to understanding leisure meanings. Jackson discusses the
potentially important contributions Samdahl and Jekubovichs’ research has made to
constraints literature by examining people’s leisure experiences and decisions in the
broader context of their everyday lives. However, Jackson argues that Samdahl and
Jekubovich have limited their response to a narrow deﬁnition and interpretation of
constraints. Instead of using the insights their research provided to make positive
modiﬁcations and extensions to the concepts of constraint negotiation and constraint
models, they chose to attack the ﬁeld of leisure research. Henderson and Jackson state

that Samdahl and Jekubovich have made an important contribution to the ﬁeld of leisure

34

constraints r-c

dam.

 

 

The \s
recreation ac:

. i
obsen'ations .
in Chico. Cu:

. |
uere negotia:
participation 1
participating \

protectit-e gm.

 

 

 

the envi ron me
Certain times t
constraint is n
Within each OI
conﬁrms (St

Intervening Cc

constraints research, especially in terms of the qualitative methods they used to gather
data.

The ways that women negotiate and cope with fear of violence during outdoor
recreation activities was studied by J orgensen (1998). Unobtrusive systematic
observations and focus group interviews were used to collect data from17 women living
in Chico, California. Results indicate that activity constraints related to fear of violence
were negotiated through avoidance and protective behaviors to allow continuing
participation in outdoor recreation activities. Ten constraint negotiation themes emerged:
participating with other people or a dog, using various defensive methods, using internal
protective strategies, avoiding participation in the dark, seeking safe locations, scanning
the environment, staying near other people, seeking information, participating during
certain times of the day, and avoiding participation in bad weather. Fear of violence as a
constraint is not negotiated sequentially, but is a dynamic interaction between variables
within each of the constraint categories. Results support the expanded model of leisure
constraints (See Figure 1.2, p. 4), demonstrating the interactive nature of antecedent and
intervening constraints.

The criterion variable (i.e., desire but inability to participate or ceasing
participation) has become increasingly important in demonstrating how people perceive
themselves to be constrained in leisure participation (Nadirova and Jackson, 2000). A
mail questionnaire was used to collect data from 296 housholds in Edmonton, Canada to
examine how people view the parts of their leisure that are constrained, and to determine
key criterion variables for further research. Respondents answered questions about their

participation in leisure activities and if they felt their leisure was constrained. Results

35

indicated that people felt their leisure was most constrained by being unable to participate
as often as they would like, suggesting that constraints usually inhibit the frequency or
intensity of participation rather than block participation completely. People’s responses
to structural constraints indicated a sequence of responses. For example, ceasing
participation did not occur because of time constraints but did occur if high costs or lack
of skill were encountered ﬁrst.

Increased understanding of the process of constraint negotiation has helped to
shape the concept that constraints impact leisure, but do not necessarily preclude it
(Nadirova and Jackson, 2000). This understanding has implications in the ways that
leisure is viewed for both individuals and groups within society (Henderson, 1991). The
exploration of constraints to leisure, investigation of comprehensive models to explain
constraints, and the conceptualization of constraints negotiation have further evolved

from the study of families and women’s leisure experiences (Henderson, 1994).

Gender and Leisure Constraints

Beginning in the middle of the 1980s, interest in and research about women’s
leisure experienced tremendous growth (Henderson, 1994; Shaw, 1994). Recognition of
the signiﬁcance of gender and the androcentric nature of early leisure theories, have led
researchers to examine closely the role of leisure in both women’s and men’s lives (Shaw,
1994). Henderson (1994) states that “gender scholarship addresses the complexity of
expectations, roles, and behavior associated with being male as well as being female”
(p.127). The following section reviews literature related to the impact of gender on

leisure constraints.

36

Research of leisure constraints has included studies focusing on the ways that
women’s leisure is constrained. A distinct body of literature has emerged, grounded in an
understanding of gender relations within society (Shaw, 1994). These studies have
revealed the existence of additional constraints, such as: a sense of a lack of entitlement
to leisure; an ethic of care related to personal and family responsibilities; a sense of how
body image affects leisure; and, greater understanding of the importance of health/safety
issues (Henderson, 1991; Jackson, 2000). A greater understanding of the unique
constraints associated with women’s leisure contributes to a better understanding of the
leisure experience for both men and women (Henderson, 1994).

The meaning of leisure in the lives of dual career women and the consequences of
limited discretionary time to the role and function of leisure was studied by Shank (1986).
In-depth interviews were used to collect data from 12 women who worked outside the
home. Several themes emerged: discretionary time was extremely limited, which the
subjects believed was deleterious to their lives; all of the women desired more time for
themselves; leisure was conceptualized as a time for self-directed activity resulting in
feeling of renewal, revitalization, and stability; guilt, especially associated with time away
from their children, was a pervasive feeling; and, lack of role models as both parents and
professionals affected their leisure. Women conceptualized leisure as a reward to which
they were entitled only after they had attended to the needs of their children and/or
spouses.

Similar ﬁndings were reported in a study by Chambers (1986) that examined the
effects of shift work on the leisure behavior of both men and women. Interviews and

diary entries were used to collect data from 527 employees on eleven different work shifts

37

in London, England. Respondents were asked if their working hours interfered with their
out-of-work lives. Results indicated that both men and women valued opportunities to
unwind and recover after completion of their shifts. Men were found to participate more
in leisure activities than women, whose attitudes toward leisure were highly inﬂuenced by
the nature of their work tasks and the additional burden of domestic duties. Men were
culturally attuned to participate in leisure activities on nights and weekends. When shift
work interfered with expected leisure timing, their activities were greatly impacted.
Women accepted lack of time for leisure as a way of life, secondary to household
responsibilities. Results indicated that the interrelationships of work, time, family time,
domestic time, and leisure time is qualitatively different depending upon gender.

Relationships between constraints and gender-role personality traits for women
were studied by Henderson, Stalnaker, and Taylor (1988). A mail questionnaire was used
to collect data from 294 female university students, staff, and faculty in the southern
United States. The questionnaire was developed using the Bern Sex Role Inventory, and
included questions concerning barriers to recreation participation, recreation activities
and demographic categories. Factor analysis was used to identify barriers to recreation
that were similar to those found in previous studies with women. Additional research
into the antecedent constraints that women encounter was recommended.

Ethic of care has been most closely associated with women and their perceived
need to be responsible and committed to others. In a conceptual paper, Henderson and
Allen (1991) described ethic of care as an attitude that deﬁnes how a person should be in
the world. Ethic of care becomes a constraint to leisure when a woman focuses on self-

denial, when other family member needs come ﬁrst, and the self is put last. However, in

38

  
  
 

some instrr.
particularli

mmW't‘rQWt \,

starlietl b) F
concerning
questionm
DURS- 33C
attitudeg":
indicated
COnsu-zii“.
“ OWE“ I

incl} Cate

g 1

ether-c

some instances, ethic of care was found to be an empowering dimension in people’s lives,
particularly within the family context in which interpersonal bonds become a primary
component of leisure. Henderson and Allen concluded that the study of leisure and
constraints must include relational dimensions to gain a fuller understanding of the
complexity of the leisure experience within people’s lives.

The leisure constraints experienced by women who work outside the home was
studied by Harrington (1991). She found that a number of studies had been conducted
concerning men and work, but there were limited references to women. Mail
questionnaires were sent to 548 women in three occupational groups (university faculty,
nurses, and administrative assistants). Respondents were asked about their work
attitudes/behavior, leisure activities and preferences, and family commitments. Results
indicated that the amount of time women spent on the job did not necessarily represent a
constraint to their leisure, but the amount of work they took home with them did. Many
women took work home so they had additional time to care for their households. Results
indicate that models being used to study leisure behavior may better represent the male
perspective and should not be applied blindly to women.

An entitlement to leisure assumes that all individuals should have an equal
opportunity to experience leisure. A sense of entitlement to leisure was studied by
Henderson and Bialeschki (1991) in a pilot study examining the priority of leisure in
women’s lives. Interviews were conducted with 21 women who were asked a series of
questions concerning their perceptions of leisure. Results were analyzed using constant
comparison technique to develop themes. A description of leisure as unobli gated time

emerged along with concepts of leisure related to freedom, intrinsic motivation, and

39

enjoyment. Themes included a deﬁnition of leisure as having a choice, a perception that
respondents were entitled to leisure, the idea that leisure was not a priority, and
disagreement related to entitlement and priority for leisure. Respondents indicated that
they felt entitled to leisure, but with many qualiﬁcations. Entitlement and priority of
leisure, as inﬂuenced by gender and socialization, was recommended for further study.

The meanings of leisure to women, their subjective experience of leisure, and
constraint to their enjoyment of leisure was studied by Bolla, Dawson, and Harrington
(1991) (also reported in Harrington, Dawson, and Bolla, 1992). A mailed questionnaire
was used to ask 1,739 women in Ontario, Canada about their leisure experiences. Results
indicated that women view leisure as self-gratifying, relaxing, and providing personal
freedom. Most women experience diverse positive feelings during their leisure, although
some experience negative feelings and have difﬁculty attaining meaningful leisure.
Respondents reported a variety of constraints including both objective (e.g., insufﬁcient
time) and psychological (e.g., getting responsibilities off of mind) items. An additional
constraint experienced was a devaluing of their abilities in leisure activities rather than a
lack of skills, indicating that constraints are not only practical but also relate to the
perception of oneself.

Relationships were examined between self-esteem, gender, and socioeconomic
status on the perceptions of leisure constraints among adolescents by Raymore, Godbey,
and Crawford (1994). A questionnaire was used to collect data from 363 male and
female grade 12 students in Toronto, Canada. The Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSE)
was used to measure self-esteem. Socioeconomic status was determined using total

household income and highest level of education achieved by a students’ parent. Results

40

concluded that subjects with low self-esteem reported signiﬁcantly higher amounts of
intrapersonal, interpersonal, and total constraints to leisure. Females were found to have
signiﬁcantly lower levels of self-esteem than males, resulting in more constrained leisure.
Individuals with low self-esteem were more constrained in beginning a new leisure
activity than those with medium or high self-esteem. Females reported signiﬁcantly more
intrapersonal constraints than did males. The researchers concluded that skill
development at a basic level, in a non-threatening environment, may be helpful in
addressing some constraints. Altering programs to help individuals overcome
intrapersonal constraints may help some people develop preferences for new leisure
activities.

Further exploration of the meaning of leisure in women’s lives was reported by
Bialeschki and Michener (1994), in a study that examined motherhood from the
perspectives of life course and family life stages. In-depth interviews of 53 women, who
were reaching the end of their active mothering roles, were conducted to develop
grounded theory based on the meanings of leisure to women. Constant comparison was
used for analysis of the transcribed interviews to identify themes. The themes included:
leisure, described as a focus on self; a concept of full circle leisure, similar to a
suspension of career while children were dependent; a concept of socialized gender role
limitations; and, the inﬂuence of the ethic of care on the women’s leisure.
Recommendations included the need to study leisure from an integrated context of
gender, life-span, and family perspectives to understand the complexity of the leisure

experience.

41

Building upon previous gender and leisure research, Shinew, Floyd, McGuire, and
Noe (1995) studied the leisure preferences of subgroups deﬁned by gender, race, and
subjective social class. A national, random phone interview was conducted with 1,711
adults to gain understanding of multiple sources of inequality and how they relate to
leisure preferences. Results indicated that poor, working class black women were the
most isolated in terms of dissimilarity in activity preferences. The middle classes of both
the white and black respondents were closely associated in their leisure preferences. The
results raised questions about how social class and gender inﬂuence leisure preferences;
however, no data were collected related to the family structure of the households involved
in the study. The combined or interactive effect of race, class, and gender was
recommended as an important area for further research.

Extensive research has been conducted toward the investigation of women and
body image related to psychological health and self-image. However, how body image
impacts leisure behavior has not been fully addressed. Frederick and Shaw (1995)
studied how body image might function as a constraint to young women’s participation in
aerobic classes. In-depth interviews were used to collect data from 190 female university
students who were current, former, and nonparticipants in aerobics in Ontario, Canada.
Respondents were asked questions about their perception of aerobics classes and how
feelings about their bodies affected attitudes, motivation, enjoyment, and participation
toward the classes. Results indicated that although concerns about body image did
constrain the enjoyment of aerobics as a leisure activity, they did not limit or reduce
participation; instead, they were an important motivating factor for participation.

Evidence also was found to support the concept of negotiation through constraints. But,

42

in this instance, negotiation was used to reduce the negative aspects of aerobics
participation rather than overcoming constraints that prevented participation. Frederick
and Shaw state that “. . . negotiation of body image constraints was extrinsically motived
by the societal pressure on women to be thin rather than by the intrinsic desire to increase
participation” (p. 72).

A gender-based perspective was used by Jackson and Henderson (1995) to study
between-gender and within-gender similarities and differences of men and women related
to leisure constraints. Responses from 9,642 questionnaires collected in a previous study
by Jackson (1990a; 1990b) were used for data. Factor analysis was used on the sample as
a whole, among men only, and among women only. Results indicated that the experience
of leisure constraints is characterized by both within-gender and between-gender
differences. Women are more constrained in their leisure than men, with cultural
interpretations of gender functioning as a constraint to leisure for women.

Between-group differences in constraints of women who were full time workers,
part-time workers, or full time homemakers were investigated by Harrington and Dawson
(1995). A mail questionnaire was used to collect data from 1,549 women in Ontario,
Canada. Analysis of variance was used to test for signiﬁcance related to the effects of
labor force participation on meanings, experiences, and constraints of leisure behavior.
Results indicated that women do not deﬁne leisure as free time or activity, but as the
opportunity for self-gratiﬁcation, relaxation, and freedom. The constraints experienced
were related to how difﬁcult the constraint makes it for women the achieve their ideal of

leisure.

43

Body image, leisure constraints, and constraint negotiation were again addressed
in a study by James (2000) of adolescent girls who were participating in swimming at
public pools. In-depth interviews from 16 girls, and data from four focus groups of 6-8
girls each, were collected from participants living in Western Australia. Content analysis
resulted in the emergence of themes related to constraints and negotiation. Results
indicated that one primary constraint was the potential for embarrassment concerning
how the girls’ appearance was perceived by boys at the pool. Negotiation methods
included: using pool time as an opportunity to challenge gendered stereotypes, the use of
self-talk to overcome inhibitions, covering up as much as possible, jumping in the water
quickly, surrounding themselves with friends, and seeking anonymity (i.e., swimming in a
pool where no one knew them).

Gender inﬂuences all aspects of the leisure experience, especially related to
physical recreation (Kane, 1990). The pressure to conform to societal deﬁnitions of what
it means to be female and male may constrain leisure choices and behavior (Shaw, 1994).
One area of leisure in which traditional gender roles occur is within the realm of outdoor,
adventure-based activities (Henderson and Roberts, 1998). Historically considered a
male domain, women who are involved in outdoor programs face a great social risk,
where their femininity is questioned the moment they step into the woods (Warren, 1985).
However, despite the social and gender stereotyping related to pursuing outdoor
activities, women increasingly have been interested and involved in the outdoors
throughout the 19808 and 19903 (Bialeschki and Henderson, 1993). In 1989 “. . . almost
26 million women went backpacking and camping, 29 million rode bicycles, 16 million

went ﬁshing and seven million went skiing” (Bialeschki and Henderson, 1993, p. 36).

Graves (2000) reports that by the end of the 1990s nearly 1.5 million women were
participating in sea kayaking, representing 50% of the activity’s total participants. This
was an increase from the middle of the decade when approximately 20% of sea kayaking
participants were women. However, the participation and experiences of women in
outdoor activities has not been well documented or studied through empirical research
(Henderson, Winn, and Roberts, 1996). Many questions remain about the ways in which
women experience the outdoors, and the meanings they associate with being there

(Henderson and Roberts, 1998).

Women in the Outdoors

Literature related to women’s and girl’s participation and experiences in the
outdoors can be traced through four evolutionary phases (Henderson and Roberts, 1998).
These phases include: stories of women who contributed historically to the outdoor
movement; use of a male perspective to explain gender differences related to the outdoor
experience of women; ferrrinist scholarship that focused on leadership and all-women
groups; and, the interface between gender and inclusion that affects women’s and men’s
involvement and behavior in the outdoors. This section reviews literature related to
constraints and gender differences in outdoor experiences, gender—role conformity as a

constraint to outdoor participation, and women-only programs.

Gender and Outdoor Experiences
Girls’ concepts of themselves after participating in an outdoor/adventure
education program were studied by Humberstone and Lynch (1991) in New Zealand and

England. Case studies were collected from an unidentiﬁed number of adolescent girls

45

participating in one-week outdoor adventure programs as part of their school experience.
Results indicated that outdoor experiences were perceived to be positive. Girls who had
the most limited perceptions of their capabilities demonstrated the greatest increases in
self-conﬁdence. The supportive atmosphere of the camps and sensitive teachers were
concluded to have contributed the most to gains in self-esteem and a successful
experience.

Gender as an intervening variable, related to situational fears and anxiety in the
outdoors, was studied by Young and Ewert (1992). The Situational Fear Inventory was
used to collect data from 380 male and female subjects. Fear levels were measured
before, during, and following participation in an outdoor education practicum course.
Results indicated that social-based fears (e. g., not meeting the expectations of others)
were more anxiety producing than physical-based fears. Persistent and widespread
differences in fear between genders indicated that social learning may have a role in the
development of fears among women participating in outdoor recreation.

Leisure studies examining the outdoor experiences of women with varied racial
and ethnic backgrounds are particularly limited. To address this need, Roberts and
Drogin (1993) studied the factors affecting participation in outdoor recreation by African-
American women. In-depth interviews were used to collect data from 6 women of color
concerning their perceptions of participation in outdoor activities. Results indicate that
socialization into outdoor activities is limited for black women because they are not
introduced to the outdoors as children. Lack of role models, lack of access, poor
economic conditions, and lack of transportation were also identiﬁed as constraints to

participation.

46

The meanings of culture related to the experiences women of color have in the
outdoors was studied by Roberts and Henderson (1997). In-depth interviews and a focus
group were used to collect data from 24 women of color related to their outdoor
recreation involvement. Results indicated that lack of early experiences in the outdoors
and lack of skills contributed to feelings of need for social support when attempting
outdoor activities. Discomfort and fear were present in two dimensions: physical fear
(e.g., appearance, skill levels) and social fears (e.g., cultural connotations, stereotypes,
perceived stigma, racial discrimination). The prevalent perception was that outdoor
activities are a “white thing” and that black women participating in outdoor activities
were “leading the way” for others. Constraints to participation were based on cultural
traditions, limited opportunities, and cultural perceptions of who should be in the

outdoors.

Gender-role Conformity and the Outdoors

Henderson, Winn, and Roberts (1996) studied whether the outdoors was perceived
as a gendered environment by investigating the links between past, present, and future
involvement of women in outdoor activities. Focus groups and a questionnaire were used
to collect data from 36 university women who were outdoor recreation participants or
non-participants. Results indicated that a prerequisite to developing an appreciation of
the outdoors was childhood exposure. The development of appreciation, interests, skills,
and opportunities in the outdoors is a result of, and resistance to, a gendered society.
Most of the subjects wanted to believe that the outdoors was a gender-neutral

environment, although many acknowledged that society perceived it as a male domain.

47

To achieve a greater understanding of gender and outdoor experiences, more information
is needed about gender, gender relations, and the stigma attached to gender and the
outdoors.

The issue of gender role conformity as a constraint to women’s participation in
outdoor adventure activities was studied by Stringer (1997). Focus group data were
collected from 35 university-aged women through group interviews and a slide response
scale. A questionnaire and the slide response scale were used to collect data from an
additional 155 men and women. All subjects were attending the University of Minnesota
in Duluth, Minnesota. Results indicated that gender-role conformity affected the
perceptions of participants relative to activity appropriateness for women. Participation
was constrained by gender-role conformity in outdoor activities perceived to be gender-
inappropriate. Results from the slide response scale supported the hypothesis that women
are under-represented in the popular media as outdoor recreation participants.

Culp (1998) studied constraints that inﬂuence outdoor recreation participation of
adolescent girls. Interviews and focus groups were used to collect data from a total of 55
females. The group included 34 adolescent girls, 6 female outdoor leaders, and 5 adult
women. Three categories of constraints emerged as personal constraints, relational
constraints, and structural constraints. These categories, and the constraints contained
within them, demonstrated a high degree of interrelatedness, closely resembling the
hierarchy of constraints proposed by Jackson et al. (1991). Gender roles occurred as one
of the most commonly mentioned inﬂuences on outdoor recreation participation. Most of
the subjects expressed frustration with stereotypical gender expectations from peers,

parents, and social institutions. Lack of female role models for involvement in outdoor

48

activities and lack of opportunities for females were the most frequently mentioned
constraints. Outdoor-related strategies identiﬁed as most effective for increasing
participation were single gender programs for girls and allowing girls to fully participate

without competition from boys.

Women-only Outdoor Programs

The phenomena of women-only outdoor programs has become widespread as the
demand for these types of programs continues to grow (Henderson and Bialeschki, 1986;
McClintock, 1996; Mitten, 1995). Pottinger (1994) found that

women-only courses provide a safe and supporting atmosphere in which

women from all social, economic and racial backgrounds are able to gain

conﬁdence and train to become leaders in the outdoors in a non-

competitive, non-judgmental, safe, and supporting environment. (p. 15)

Four themes are expressed consistently by women as the reasons they choose to
participate in women-only outdoor programs (McClintock, 1996). Those themes include:
safety, both emotionally and physically; freedom to leave gender-role stereotypes behind;
development of close connections and networks with other women; and, opportunities to
learn new skills, as both a beginner and highly skilled participant, in a comfortable
environment.

The ability of women to achieve equity and empowerment from the outdoors is
dependent on them having the opportunity to take responsibility for themselves. Women-
only groups provide certain advantages, such as: the opportunity to learn a new skill in a
supportive environment, encouragement to begin a new activity that may be associated

with negative gender role stereotypes, and opportunities for increased independence and

self-acceptance (Henderson and Biakeschki, 1986).

49

Women may be intimidated when participating in mixed gender programs,
especially when attempting a new outdoor activity. Women-only programs allow for
increased conﬁdence and enhancement of skills before participating in a mixed gender
program. However, some disadvantages may exist for those who continue to participate
in women-only programs if they limit expanding their experiences by excluding co-ed
programs. If women become too dependent on women-only programs, they may never
integrate into co—ed programs, thus missing out on chances to learn more skills (Nolan
and Priest, 1993).

The elements of an outdoor experience perceived as valuable by women
participating in a week-long, women-only camping program were studied by Henderson
and Bialeschki (1987). A pre-camp telephone interview, participant observation during
the camp, and a follow-up interview after the camp experience were used to collect data
from 22 women. Elements perceived to be valuable included the opportunity to choose
activities for themselves, the chance to learn and practice environmental aesthetics, the
women-only aspect of the experience, the opportunity for physical and emotional
challenges, and the opportunity to play and be themselves.

The beneﬁts of and motivations for participation in women-only outdoor
programs were studied by Homibrook, Brinkert, Parry, Seimens, Mitten, and Priest
(1997). A mail questionnaire was used to collect data from 274 women who participated
in a Woodswoman program in Minnesota. The most important program components
identiﬁed were the all—women participants, the opportunity to become immersed in
nature, and the inclusive environment. The most important reasons for participating were

the opportunity to take part in a physical activity, to gain a new experience, and the non—

50

competitive atmosphere. The greatest beneﬁts achieved were an increased belief in self, a
desire to participate again, and pride in their accomplishments.

Jordan (1998) studied the reasons why women chose to participate in women-only
outdoor recreation programs. Mail questionnaires were used to collect data from 100
women who had participated in a weekend-long, women-only outdoor recreation
program. Four themes emerged as reasons to chose a women—only program, and included
the non—threatening environment, the safe and high quality nature of the program, the
chance to be with other women and make new friends, and the opportunity to learn new
outdoor skills and gain knowledge. The safety of the program emerged as the most
important, but the opportunity to learn proper skills increased feelings of competence and

conﬁdence in the participants’ outdoor recreation abilities.

Qualitative Research Design

A qualitative paradigm assumes that knowledge is the outcome or

consequence of human activity, rather than an entity that is out there to be

discovered . . . objectivity is not always useful or even desirable . . .

instead subjectivity is sought, in the sense that the subjective experience of

the researcher helps her understand the realities of the study. (Kraus and

Allen, 1997, p. 22)

This section provides a review of qualitative research with an emphasis on leisure
research, including discussions of trustworthiness, data collection, and data analysis. For
reader clariﬁcation, references to “this study” indicate where issues related to the
dissertation research are addressed.

Criticisms of traditional leisure research are centered around excessive reliance on

the survey method, allowing the research method to dictate the problems to be studied

(Howe, 1985; Jackson and Scott, 1999). Repeated recommendations for the use of both

51

quantitative and qualitative perspectives have been common in the literature (Kraus and
Allen, 1997). One of the challenges to the study of leisure constraints has been the
inability of researchers to better understand the process and interrelationships that exist
between preferences, participation, negotiation, and categories of constraints (Jackson
and Scott, 1999). The use of cross-sectional questionnaires has not been shown to
provide the knowledge needed to understand how constraints are actually experienced by
people in their daily lives. Instead,

. . . qualitative methods of various kinds offer alternative opportunities to

identify and evaluate the impact . . . of constraints. It is precisely because

qualitative methods have been used that some researchers have discovered

constraints such as sense of entitlement, ethic of care, and body image as
constraints to leisure (most notably among women) -— constraints which

likely would have been overlooked in the absence of naturalistic

approaches. (Jackson and Scott, 1999, p. 314)

The study of leisure is too complex to rely on one research perspective: instead, it
is important to understand the differences between a qualitative and quantitative
approach, and choose methodology based on the guiding research questions (Patton,
1990; Henderson, 1991). Henderson (1991) states, “when a researcher forces a method to
ﬁt a question, she/he may be closing off other valuable information that could be
discerned” (p. 32).

The research questions in this study are descriptive and investigate patterns
occurring in leisure behavior over time and activity phases. The study design is based
upon a qualitative paradigm that assumes reality is “a function of personal interaction and
perception . . . that must be interpreted rather than measured” (Merriam, 1988, p. 17).

The setting in which human actions occur has signiﬁcant impact on behavior. Studies

using an individual’s lived experience should be conducted in the setting where

52

participants build that experience, and examined through their feelings, thoughts, values,
beliefs, and assumptions (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). Qualitative methods are best
used when the researcher wishes to examine questions related to “. . . the meaning of
human behavior, the context of social interaction, empathetic understanding, and the
connection between subjective states and behavior” (Henderson, 1999, p. 12).

Qualitative studies share several thematic characteristics that include naturalistic
inquiry, inductive analysis, holistic perspective, qualitative data, personal contact and
insight, dynamic systems, unique case orientation, context sensitivity, empathetic
neutrality, and design ﬂexibility (Patton, 1990). Kraus and Allen (1997) identiﬁed six
key elements of qualitative research design.

1. It is carried out in natural settings, where people are living their real
lives.

2. Data are collected in the form of words or pictures, rather than
numbers, and may include ﬁeld notes, videotapes, diaries, ofﬁcial
records, and other data types that provide a rich picture of the subjects
being studied.

3. It is concerned not only with what happens but how and why it
happens — the nature of interpersonal relations, how people confront or
respond to each other, their jokes, body language, and conversational
gambits.

4. It requires trust and researcher integrity in that subjects must be
assured that the researcher is being honest with them and will not
exploit them or destroy the meaning of their lives.

5. It is based on an inductive approach in which researchers do not begin
with theoretical assumptions to be tested by observation, but rather
with the need to see things from study participants’ perspective and
thus develop theory.

6. It demands checks in the form of detailed written notes and other types
of documentation or evidence to conﬁrm the researcher’s conclusions.

01 99)

53

As with any type of research design, method, or technique, a qualitative approach
has both advantages and limitations. Kraus and Allen (1997) identiﬁed several
advantages to qualitative methods, including the ability to observe behavior in a natural
setting, a richer and deeper experiential exposure to the subjects, observations /
impressions grounded in real-life happenings, and the possibility of a more ﬂexible
approach to research.

In this study the use of a qualitative research design provided the opportunity to
examine leisure constraints and constraint negotiation as they occurred. Purposeful
sampling, where information-rich cases are selected for in-depth study (Patton, 1990),
forms the foundation for the study design. Investigating the lived experiences of women
sea kayakers, as they began a new outdoor pursuit, allowed increased understanding of
leisure constraints and constraint negotiation patterns over time and activity phases.

The selection of a qualitative research design requires the researcher to address
issues of trustworthiness throughout the design process. Trustworthiness is determined
by examining the truth value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality of the study

ﬁndings (Lincoln and Guba (1985).

Trustworthiness
Qualitative methods have been attacked as less rigorous than a positivistic or
quantitative approach (Patton, 1990). Potential limitations to a qualitative inquiry
include: risks to the subjects through revealing of potentially harmful data; unconscious
or deliberate inﬂuence of the subjects by the researcher; the unstructured nature of

qualitative design, allowing too much ﬂexibility; and, ﬁndings that are based on a limited

54

number of subjects, who may not be representative of a larger population (Kraus and
Allen, 1997).

Qualitative research is not necessarily less rigorous than its quantitative
counterpart; however, different methods for determining rigor may be appropriate and
necessary (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Patton, 1990; Henderson, 1991; Marshall and
Rossman, 1999). The use of multiple methods to overcome possible weaknesses in the
data collection process and analysis, along with other strategies that address the
researcher’s assumptions, worldview, and theoretical orientation, are frequently used to
ensure the trustworthiness of the data (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Patton, 1990; Henderson,
1991).

The issue of trustworthiness is approached through the use of the terms
credibility, transferability, dependability, and conﬁrrnability. These terms correspond to
the quantitative concepts of internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity

(Henderson, 1991).

Credibility

The purpose of credibility is to demonstrate that a study was done in a way that
ensured accurate identiﬁcation and description of the subject (Marshall and Rossman,
1999). Credibility is addressed at two levels. The ﬁrst level concerns the use of the
qualitative method as the study design. The second level is related to the instrument used
to gather data and can be either the researcher or a speciﬁc data collection tool.

To ensure credibility at the ﬁrst level, multiple data collection techniques may be

used within a study, which allows cross—checks of the information being gathered. The

55

purpose of using multiple data sources is not to generate perfect matches, but instead to
point out differences in the data that is gathered, and to understand the reasons for those
differences. Patterns of data that are consistent from different sources, and with
explanations for differences, makes a signiﬁcant contribution to credibility (Patton,
1990). An open-ended questionnaire, supplemented with observation, and an interview
are the multiple data collection methods selected for this study.

The second level of credibility relates to the researcher as a data collection
instrument and her involvement with participants. Patton (1990) describes four ways that
the presence of the researcher could affect the study ﬁndings: reactions of program
participants and staff to the presence of the researcher, changes in the researcher during
the course of the study, any predispositions or biases the researcher has, and researcher
incompetence. Although objectivity is essential, preconceptions and interpretations will
surface no matter what methods are used (Patton, 1990). Some bias can be controlled
through the use of a well-thought out, sound research design and pilot testing (Marshall
and Rossman, 1999). In addition, the careful documentation of procedures allows for
review by other researchers (Patton, 1990).

Credibility at this level is addressed through the use of a pilot study to allow for
procedure testing and researcher practice. Reactions of the participants, reactions of the
instructors to the researcher, and any changes that occur in the researcher, were

documented in the observation ﬁeld notes.

56

Transferability

Transferability refers to the representativeness of the individuals or units being
studied to similar populations, and whether results from the study being conducted could
be transferred to the entire population (Henderson, 1991). Marshall and Rossman (1999)
state that the “burden of demonstrating the applicability of one set of ﬁndings to another
context rests more with the researcher who would make that transfer than with the
original researcher” (p. 193). In addition, the degree of ﬁttingness between the study
situation and other settings may allow the transference of ﬁndings as working hypotheses
(Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

Transferability has been challenged as one of the primary limitations of a
qualitative approach. The guiding theoretical framework should be used to demonstrate
that data collection and analysis are grounded in concepts and models. This approach
allows readers or users to determine if the cases are transferable to other settings, and to
understand how the research contributes to a body of knowledge and theory (Marshall and
Rossman, 1999). Degree of transferability is also determined through the use of guiding
research questions based on the research literature and the resulting rich descriptions of
the data (Henderson, 1991).

The theoretical framework of leisure constraints and negotiation was used to guide
the development of research questions for this study. Transferability will depend upon
the degree to which results are applicable or useful to people or situations sirrrilar to those
described. Readers who intend to apply the results must determine if the situation and

study population are similar to their settings. The researcher’s responsibility was to

57

provide the most complete and accurate description as possible for comparison to other

situations.

Dependability

Dependability should be viewed as very different from the positivistic concept of
reliability, for which the assumption is made of an unchanging universe in which a study
could be replicated (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). A qualitative approach is based on
the idea that the world, and people’s experiences within it, are continually changing and
that people are continually reconstructing themselves, making the logic of replication
problematic (Henderson, 1991).

However, the issue of dependability remains and must be addressed, even though
the real world is continually changing. Dependability can be increased in a number of
ways, including: formation of a research plan that sets boundaries for the study, yet
maintains the ﬂexibility needed to gather data when new ideas emerge; documentation of
any changes to the plan that occur; the use of triangulation; and, use of an audit trail to
allow other researchers to obtain the same conclusions and test for consistency (Patton,
1990).

Boundaries for this study were set by the theoretical framework and guiding
research questions, and within the parameters of the in-depth interview procedures. Any

changes to the research procedures will be documented and reported.

Conﬁrmability
Qualitative research allows for in-depth understanding of a participant’s world

and experiences to emerge. One of its strengths is allowing insight into the complex

58

social system that is being studied and description of what is happening (Marshall and
Rossman, 1999). However, the ability of the researcher to become part of the setting
under study, and to get close to her subjects, is a potential area of conﬂict through loss of
objectivity (Patton, 1990; Henderson, 1991; Marshall and Rossman, 1999).

No research is completely objective. Quantitative measurement, experimental
designs, and questionnaires are no less open to researcher bias than qualitative techniques
(Patton, 1990). “Numbers do not protect against bias; they merely disguise it. All
statistical data are based on someone ’s deﬁnition of what to measure and how to measure
it” (Patton, 1990, p. 480). The burden of proof for conﬁrmability (objectivity) should be
placed on the data, rather than being an inherent characteristic of the researcher (Lincoln
and Guba, 1985). The qualitative criterion for conﬁrmability should be viewed in terms
of the data helping to conﬁrm the general ﬁndings that lead to the implications discovered
from the study (Marshall and Rossman, 1999) .

The researcher must be aware of and acknowledge that objectivity is needed, and
plan strategies for limiting bias as important components of the proposal (Marshall and
Rossman, 1999). Strategies for limiting bias and ensuring conﬁrmability include
examining a variety of behavioral explanations for what occurs in the study, seeking
another person to critically question the researcher’s analysis, providing examples of
judgement-free note taking, having a plan for conducting an audit of the study design
including data collection and analysis, and having multiple data sources (Marshall and
Rossman, 1999).

Multiple data sources and an intercoder reliability check form the basis of

controlling for conﬁrmability in this study. The potential for bias is recognized and

59

atlnou le.
Sllld} pro.
pain of obs
taking.

07
collection '
amounts of

research q.

The
depth. Open

interviews;

 

Physical tra
mOre lhgm 0'
Collecting d
exF’el‘iértce i

An i
Wilecred 1h
Sullt’lufed 0
“Eat the dc:
data (”Patton

intemms I

acknowledged by the researcher. Strategies for limiting bias included adherence to the
study procedures, noting when an expected event did not happen during the courses as
part of observations, and separating objective and subjective observations during note
taking.

Once issues of trustworthiness have been addressed, the selection of data
collection techniques are determined. Gathering of qualitative data results in large
amounts of descriptive material that are collected using techniques suited to the study

research questions and design.

Qualitative Data Collection

The appropriate qualitative techniques used for data gathering can include: in-
depth, open-ended interviews; simple observation; participant observation; key informant
interviews; open-ended questionnaires; review of documents or other artifacts; and,
physical traces (Howe, 1995; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Henderson, 1991). In some cases,
more than one data collection technique is appropriate. Using multiple methods of
collecting data increases the likelihood of a rich and accurate understanding of the
experience or phenomenon under investigation (Patton, 1990).

An in-depth interview strategy forms the framework of this study, with data
collected through an open-ended written questionnaire, unobtrusive observation, and a
structured open-ended interview. It is important for the researcher to clearly understand
what the data collection techniques being used can be expected to produce in terms of
data (Patton, 1990). Using an interview design strategy with written answers and

interviews, supplemented with observation, allows for a large amount of data to be

60

collected (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). This method also allows for the discovery of

possible relationships and interconnections that emerge from the data (Henderson, 1991).

In-depth Interviews

Interviews used in qualitative research are divided into four types: closed-ended
quantitative interviews with ﬁxed responses; standardized, open-ended interviews using
the same set of ﬁxed questions; an interview guide using topics and issues to be covered;
and, informal conversational interviews (Patton, 1990; Henderson, 1991). This study
uses both an open-ended questionnaire and a standardized, open-ended interview for data
collection. The choice of interview type was guided by the study’s theoretical and
conceptual framework and the research literature that allowed prior determination of the
types of information to be gathered (Henderson, 1991). A standardized, open-ended
interview minimizes interviewer effects, ensures a systematic interview process, and
allows for cross case analysis. The credibility and dependability of the interview are
enhanced because the instrument is available for inspection (Patton, 1990). In-depth
interviews have both advantages and limitations.

In-depth interviewing can be expensive, time consuming, biased, and

sometimes inefﬁcient, but the method also provides some of the richest

data that we can ﬁnd. In-depth interviews are hard to pretest, have

unpredictable results because different people tend to respond differently,

and are difﬁcult to standardize and replicate . . . they also offer many

advantages in allowing the researcher to have a greater understanding of

the complexities of social reality from a number of perspectives.
(Henderson, 1991, p. 72)

61

Observation

Observation requires a systematic noting and recording of events and behaviors
that occur in the social setting of a study (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). The value of
observational data includes: a better understanding of the holistic context of the course
being observed; an approach to data collection that is open, discovery-oriented and
inductive; and, the opportunity to observe events that might escape the awareness of the
participants (Patton, 1990). Limitations of observation techniques include possible
negative observer effects on the subjects, researcher bias, and uncomfortable ethical
dilemmas for the researcher (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). The choice to use
unobtrusive observation was guided by the need to gather data concerning the women’s
experiences with challenges during the course. The use of the theoretical framework of
leisure constraints allows for observations that are valid and grounded in the actual
behavior of the participants during the course (Henderson, 1991).

One area of concern is the decision to use overt or covert observation (Patton,
1990; Henderson, 1991). The use of covert observation lessens the chances of a halo or
observer effect; however, the issue of ethical research remains (Marshall and Rossman,
1999). In this study, overt observation was used and the participants were informed as
part of the consent process.

The collection of qualitative data in the form of words requires the use of speciﬁc
data analysis techniques. Again, as for the data collection techniques, the selection of

data analysis techniques is based on the study research questions and design.

62

Data Analysis

Qualitative data provides a better picture of a person’s life experiences by
examining the perceptions and assumptions they make about the world around them
(Patton, 1990). Qualitative data are described as

. . . a source of well-grounded, rich descriptions and explanations of

processes in identiﬁable local contexts. With qualitative data one can

preserve chronological ﬂow, see precisely which events led to which

consequences, and derive fruitful explanations. (Miles and Huberman,

l994,p.1)

The study research questions and related literature should assist in developing
guidelines for data analysis. There are six phases of analysis procedures, including: data
organization; generation of categories, themes, and patterns; data coding; testing of
understanding of the data; seeking alternative explanations; and, report writing (Marshall
and Rossman, 1999).

The process of data analysis and interpretation in qualitative studies relies heavily
on the ability of the researcher (Patton, 1990). Qualitative data are analyzed using one or
more of the following techniques: analytic induction (i.e., data reduction, data display,
conclusion drawing); enumeration (i.e., counting frequencies of a unit of analysis);
constant comparison (i.e., distills patterns of responses, clusters of categories); or
clustering (i .e., used for difﬁcult to place information) (Lincoln and Guba, 1985;
Henderson, 1991, Marshall and Rossman, 1999).

In this study analytic induction was used to reduce the data during content analysis

and to draw conclusions. Constant comparison technique was used to examine emergent

patterns, themes, and categories.

63

A researcher involved in qualitative data analysis must be “comfortable with
developing categories and making comparisons and contrasts . . . be open to possibilities
and see contrary or alternative explanations for the ﬁndings (Creswell, 1994, p. 153).
Findings are commonly described as patterns and interactions of the people studied
(Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Often the report of ﬁndings will contain reams of descriptive
material that is provided in great detail (Patton, 1990; Henderson, 1991; Marshall and
Rossman, 1999). It is from this descriptive material that the researcher must use both
critical and creative thinking to complete the data analysis (Patton, 1990).

An important distinction of qualitative data is that “it goes beyond how much
there is of something to tell us about its essential qualities” (Miles and Huberman, 1994,
p. 253). However, there is value in using numbers and frequencies to report ﬁndings.
Numbers help to verify hypotheses and protect against bias by keeping the researcher
analytically honest (Miles and Huberman, 1994). In this study the results are reported via
participant quotes. Descriptions of the participants and their experiences are used to
illustrate emergent themes, categories, and patterns. Numbers and frequencies are used to
assist the reader in understanding and verifying results.

The preceding review of literature has examined both conceptual papers and
empirical studies. A number of research perspectives and techniques were used to
examine leisure constraints, constraint negotiation, models of leisure constraints, women
and gender issues related to leisure and the outdoors, and women—only outdoor programs.
Researchers in the area of leisure constraints have continuously recommended that a
diversiﬁcation of research methods and techniques is needed to fully understand the ways

that people experience leisure (Henderson et al., 1996; Jackson and Scott, 1999). Sound

research design practices dictate that the research methods selected for use in a study
must be determined based on the type of research problem under investigation (Patton,
1990; Henderson, 1991; Marshall and Rossman, 1999). For this study, a qualitative
design is critical to understanding constraint and negotiation interactions that occur over

all activity phases.

65

CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES
The purpose of this study was to investigate leisure constraints and constraint
negotiation by women sea kayakers who were participating in a women-only sea kayaking
course. The research questions guiding the study were:

1. What were the leisure constraints women experienced before, during, and
following a sea kayaking instructional course?

2. How do women negotiate leisure constraints affecting their participation
before, during, and following a sea kayaking instructional course?

3. What were the patterns that exist between leisure constraints and constraint
negotiation methods that women experience and use when beginning to
participate in a new outdoor pursuit?

This chapter sets forth the study procedures, including the sample selection

description, instrument development, data collection, and data analysis.

Sample

Subjects were twenty-one adult women (18 years and older) from courses offered
by two companies, Black Parrot Paddling in Hamburg, Michigan and Adventures in
Perspective in Bayﬁeld, Wisconsin. The women participated in American Canoe
Association (ACA) two-day, Basic Coastal Kayaking courses during the summer of 2002.
All of the subjects were self-identiﬁed to the sea kayaking companies as beginning sea
kayakers.

The coastal kayaking courses took place on inland lakes in Michigan and
Wisconsin, and on Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. Each course, taught by female

ACA certiﬁed instructors, was designated as women-only and used a standardized ACA

66

curriculum (Price, 1991; ACA 2001) (Appendix A, pp.198-200). The number of
participants in each course was limited to an ACA required instructor/student ratio of no
more than ﬁve students per instructor. The ﬁrst course had thirteen participants and the
second course had eight participants. The company owners notiﬁed participants during

initial registration about contact from the researcher concerning participation in the study.

Instrument Development

Multiple methods of data collection were used to increase the generalizability,
credibility, and dependability of the data. The use of multiple methods contributed to
gathering a variety of data types, thus increasing the methodological rigor of the study.
This section reviews development of the open-ended questionnaire, interview schedule,
and observation recording/critical activity period identiﬁcation form.

Instruments were developed to (1) determine the leisure constraints women
experienced, (2) determine how constraints were negotiated, and (3) determine patterns
among constraints and negotiation methods. Instruments included: an investigator-
designed questionnaire, containing open-ended and demographic questions; an
investigator-designed standardized, open-ended interview schedule; and, a recording form
with critical activities identiﬁed for observation. The questionnaire was used during the
ﬁrst two phases of the study, the interview schedule was used in phase three of the study,
and the recording form, with critical activities identiﬁed for observation, was used during

phase two (Table 3.1) (Note: Study phases are discussed beginning on p. 72).

67

Table 3.1
Data Collection Instruments and Analysis Techniques Matched to Research Questions

 

 

Research Questions Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Analysis
1. Constraints experienced MQ 2Q; OB IN C/c; AI; CCp
2. Constraint negotiation MQ 2Q; OB IN C/c; AI; CCp

3. Patterns of constraints
and negotiation MQ 2Q IN C/c; AI; Ccp

 

Note. Mailed questionnaire - MQ; phase 2 questionnaire - 2Q; interview - IN; observation - OB; cross-case
analysis - C/c; analytic induction - AI; and constant comparison - CCp

Open-ended Questionnaire Development

Preliminary development of the open-ended questionnaire was based on a review
of the literature on leisure constraints, constraint negotiation, and women-only programs.
Further development of the questions was guided by the study’s research questions.
Open-ended questions were used to solicit information-rich descriptions of the women’s
experiences in the courses.

Questionnaire development proceeded through three steps, including preliminary
development, expert review, and the pilot study. Preliminary development occurred
during the summer of 2001 at the Great Lakes Sea Kayaking Symposium in Grand
Marais, Michigan. Eight women sea kayakers — two beginners, two intermediates, and
four advanced/experts — were asked to respond to pilot questions in writing. The purpose
was to determine if the questions were understandable and would result in answers that
were appropriate to the research questions. Each person was asked to comment
speciﬁcally on any unclear terms or question structures related to constraints, constraint

negotiation, sea kayaking experience, women-only courses, and the demographic question

68

of marital status. The depth and detail of responses validated the choice of a qualitative
study design. The experience of gathering question responses provided practice in
conducting an interview, contributing to the credibility and dependability of the
researcher as a data collection instrument.

An expert review panel of six female ACA instructors was used for the second
step of questionnaire development. All members of the panel were intermediate to
advanced sea kayakers who have instructed beginning, women-only sea kayaking courses
(Appendix A, pp.193-194). They were asked to provide written responses to the

questions and comment about understandability. Results were used to further reﬁne the
questions used in the questionnaire. The use of an expert review panel contributed to the
credibility and dependability of the open-ended questionnaire (Appendix A).

The ﬁnal step for questionnaire development occurred during the pilot study.
Eight women participating in the West Michigan Coastal Kayaking Symposium in May,
2002, made up the pilot sample. A modiﬁed version of the questionnaire was used
because the pilot study subjects were not participating in a women-only course and data
collection occurred during a single activity phase. Questions asked related to prior sea
kayaking experience, constraints, and constraint negotiation. Included were: questions 1
thru 5 (Phase 1 questionnaire); question 2 (Phase 2a questionnaire); questions 3 thru 7
(Phase 2b questionnaire); and questions 8 thru 12 (Phase 2c questionnaire) (Appendix B,
pp. 205-211).

Results from the pilot study were compared with the expert review panel
comments and the following revisions were completed. The questionnaire section used

for Phase 1 required minor editorial changes and question re-numbering to maintain topic

69

integrity. No changes were made to the Phase 2a questionnaire section. Revisions to
questionnaire sections b and c of the Phase 2 questionnaire were needed to ensure that
questions related to constraints and constraint negotiation were identically worded.
Re-numbering occurred to allow for continuity within questions that explored the same
concepts and to provide a logical question sequence. One question was deleted because
the data gathered in the pilot study was deemed irrelevant to the research questions. One
new question was added to allow for follow-up in the post-course interview. Because the
majority of changes to the questionnaire sections were editorial, with the meaning of
questions left intact, no further piloting of the questionnaire was conducted and the ﬁnal
questions were conﬁrmed.

The ﬁnal questionnaire consisted of the following components. The Phase 1
section contained demographic questions concerning age, marital status, number of
children, education level, occupation, and income. Also included were questions about
previous experiences with sea kayaking, constraints experienced, and negotiation
methods used before coming to the course. The Phase 2a section contained questions
regarding constraints, negotiation methods, and concerns about participation immediately
prior to beginning the course. During the course, the Phase 2b section was used to ask
about activity-related constraints and negotiation methods. The ﬁnal questionnaire
section (Phase 2c) gathered data about predicted constraints and negotiation methods for

two months post-course (Appendix C, pp. 216-228).

70

Standardized, Open—ended Interview Schedule Development

Development of the interview schedule was guided by the need to deepen the
understanding of the experiences of women beginning a new outdoor pursuit and to
increase understanding of constraints and constraint negotiation following their
participation in the course. Interview questions were based on the knowledge gained
from development of the open-ended questionnaire. On completion of the ﬁrst two
phases of data collection, the preliminary interview schedule questions were reviewed and
revised. Three practice interviews were conducted with female sea kayakers at the Great
Lakes Sea Kayaking Symposium in July, 2002 to gain experience with the instrument and
to ensure that the interview questions were clearly worded, non-leading, and non-
judgmental. Minor revisions of the instrument were completed following the practice
interviews, and included: numbering changes to group constraint and constraint
negotiation questions together, deletion of one question determined to be irrelevant to the
study purpose, and revision of the wording of two questions for clarity. Interview
practice contributed to the credibility of the researcher, and to the credibility and

dependability of the instrument (Appendix D, pp. 231-234).

Observation Recording Form Development and Critical Activity Identiﬁcation

Identiﬁcation of critical activity periods for observation were determined by
applying the concepts of constraints and constraint negotiation to the ACA course outline
by the researcher and the expert reviewers. The expert reviewers used the course outline
to identify experiences that were challenging for beginners and to list other critical

experiences they believed would be important for observation. The activity periods

71

included the initial introduction and ﬁtting of kayaks, the wet exit component, beach
activity preceding each on-water period, and on-water rescue activities. Use of the expert
panel reduced the potential for bias, which strengthened conﬁrmability of study results.

A recording form was developed listing each of the critical activity periods next to
columns designated for objective and subjective entries. Copies of the form were placed
in a plastic chart pocket and mounted on the front deck of the researcher’s sea kayak. The
form was used to remind the researcher of the critical activity periods to be observed and
was used in transcribing written and recorded observations. Field notes included:

1. descriptions of the course setting, including weather conditions and sea states;

2. descriptions of the social environment, including patterns and frequency of
interactions, and directions of communication patterns; and,

3. descriptions of what did not happen based on prior knowledge of the course
critical periods. (Appendix E, p. 236)
Data Collection Procedures

This section details the data collection procedures for the pilot and main studies.
The pilot study was used to practice data collection procedures. An in—depth interview
strategy, supplemented with open-ended questionnaires and observational data, formed
the framework of the study. Data collection occurred over three activity phases — before,
during, and following — the sea kayaking courses. Phase 1 data collection occurred
following registration of the participants in the course using an open-ended questionnaire.
Phase 2 data collection occurred during the course at three different times — immediately
prior to the start of the course, mid-way through the course, and at the end of the course —

using an open-ended questionnaire and observation. Phase 3 data collection occurred two

72

months following the completion of the course during a telephone interview using a

standardized, open-ended interview (Figure 3.1).

 

 

 

Data Collection Phase:
. Phase 1 . I Phase 2 (a. my a . Phase 3 a
Activity Phase:
€ 0 G . O O—-—————>
Before During After

         
 

     
     

     
    

    
    

Prior to and up to
registration

\ t .

l Open ended l l . . Standardized open
i questionnaire i i Observation ended interview

Following registration
up to arrival at course

   

During course
(mid-way & end)

Following course
(two months)

    

 

 

Instruments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.1. Study design illustrating the activity phases corresponding with the data
collection phases and instruments.

Pilot Study
Using a pilot study provided important advantages for the research design related
to credibility, dependability, and conﬁrmability. Study procedures were practiced and
reﬁned and the researcher gained additional practice in administering the instruments.
The following subsections review the pilot sample, data collection procedures, and

results.

Sample

Eight adult women (18 years or older) attending the West Michigan Coastal

Kayaking Symposium in May, 2002 participated in the pilot study. All the women

73

identiﬁed themselves as beginning sea kayakers and were self-selected for participation
during the session that welcomed new participants to the symposium. The pilot study
parameters and data collection procedures were explained to the subjects. Consent forms
were signed and nicknames were selected to be used during the pilot to keep sections of
the questionnaire together. To protect the conﬁdentiality of the pilot study participants,
no master list of nicknames was maintained. Women who participated were given a

small gift for their assistance.

Data Collection

The modiﬁed version of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 questionnaire segments were
used during the pilot. Instructions for each questionnaire section were provided
immediately prior to use of the instrument. The Phase 2a questionnaire was used Friday
evening before the on-water section of the symposium began (Data collection Phase 2a).
The Phase 2b questionnaire was used on Saturday evening, following the ﬁrst day of the
symposium (Data collection Phase 2b). The Phase 2c questionnaire was used
immediately before the participants left the symposium, on Sunday afternoon (Data
collection Phase 2c) (Appendix B, pp. 205-211).

The observation recording form and a voice-activated recorder were used during
the pilot to practice observation. However, the researcher was unable to do any sustained
observation of the pilot study participants during critical activity periods. Immediately
prior to the symposium another instructor cancelled and the researcher became a primary

instructor, limiting the time available to practice observation. Observation procedures

74

were practiced during the time the researcher was on safety boat patrol, allowing for

veriﬁcation of adequate equipment performance.

Results

The pilot study provided an opportunity to practice the study procedures,
including administration of the questionnaire sections and use of the narratives. Based on
the results, the narratives were edited for sequences of information presentation. None of
the procedures was modiﬁed. The researcher developed a higher level of comfort with
administering the instruments and explaining the consent forms to participants.

Following the pilot study, ﬁnal revisions to the questionnaire sections were
completed, observation activity periods were conﬁrmed, and study arrangements were
completed with the two sea kayaking companies. Initial contact with participants

commenced two weeks prior to the start of the ﬁrst course.

Main Study
This section describes initial subject contact and the three data collection phases.
Contact with Black Parrot Paddling and Adventures in Perspective occurred in April,
2002 to ﬁnalize the course dates, conﬁrm their participation, and detail the information
they would provide to potential study participants registered for their courses.
Preparation of the open-ended questionnaire included copying each section on different
colored paper to aid in later organization. Folders containing a sea kayaking participation

log were prepared for each woman in the courses (Appendix C, p. 229).

75

Initia.

comp
conta.
their r
panic:
sports:
been p
more:
made \
inform

C0l’llilCl

Initial Contact

As each course participant registered, they were notiﬁed by the paddling
companies to expect a telephone or e-mail contact about the study. The initial telephone
contact was to be used to introduce the researcher, explain the research study, and request
their participation in the study. However, numerous phone calls to the ﬁrst course
participants resulted in minimal contacts. Most of the phone calls were screened by
spouses, children, or answering machines. Even though preliminary information had
been passed along to the participants by the sea kayaking company, they were reluctant to
answer the phone because of concerns about telemarketers. Finally, e-mail contact was
made with each of the participants and either a phone call was scheduled or study
information was provided over e-mail. Participants in the second course were ﬁrst
contacted exclusively through e-mail, resulting in a 100% contact rate (Appendix C, p.

213).

Data Collection: Phase I

The ﬁrst phase of data collection covered the activity period prior to registration
(Figure 3.1). The Phase 1 cover letter, questionnaire, consent form, and a self-addressed,
stamped envelope were sent to each participant (Appendix C, pp. 214-220). If
registration occurred within one week of the beginning of the course, they were instructed
to hand carry their questionnaire and consent form. Extra cover letters, consent forms,
and questionnaires were available on-site, but all participants either mailed or hand
carried the ﬁrst questionnaire. These were collected when the participants arrived at the

meeting on the night before the course.

76

Data Collection: Phase 2

The second phase of data collection consisted of three sub-phases and covered the
activity periods immediately prior to, during, and immediately following the course.
Instruments for this phase included the Phase 2a, b, and c sections of the questionnaire
(Appendix C, pp. 223, 225, 227-228) and the observation recording form (Appendix E, p.
236) (Figure 3.1).

Phase 2a. Subjects met on the evening before the course and were reminded that
data collected was conﬁdential, their participation voluntary, and that participation could
be ended at any time. The Phase 2a questionnaire was completed with a reminder to use
the nickname picked out for the ﬁrst questionnaire. Nicknames were used to keep
sections of the questionnaire together. A conﬁdential master list of participant names,
addresses, and nicknames was maintained, and allowed questionnaires to be matched
with the ﬁnal interviews for data analysis. After the questionnaires were completed,
participants were reminded about the two other data collection phases.

Phase 2b. This phase of data collection occurred during the actual course through
observation, and midway through the course (at the end of the ﬁrst day) using the Phase
2b questionnaire (Figure 3.1). Observations were written immediately following each of
the critical activity periods. This represents a change from the original research design
that included the use of a tape recorder for observations. During the ﬁrst course, use of
the tape recorder became very intrusive and disruptive to course activities. Instructors’
attention was diverted from the participants when the recorder was used. Participants
tended to paddle to the researcher when they noticed the use of the recorder and

continually asked questions about what was being recorded. The small size of the groups

77

also contributed to the difﬁculty of audio-recording observations. To preserve the
integrity of the course and the participants’ experiences, use of the recorder was
suspended midway through the wet exit activity on the ﬁrst day. As an alternative
observation ﬁeld notes were written up immediately following each of the critical activity
periods (Appendix E, pp. 237-253).

Observation was unobtrusive and continued on the second day of the courses.
When critical activity periods were not occurring, the researcher acted as an assistant to
the course staff, helping load/unload kayaks and equipment and acting as a safety boater.
This activity helped with integration and acceptance into the group. The Phase 2b
questionnaires were distributed following dinner on the ﬁrst day of the course.
Participants were asked to think back upon the events of the day to answer the questions.

Phase 2c. Immediately before the ﬁnal debrieﬁng session on the ﬁnal day of the
course, the Phase 2c questionnaire was provided to the subjects (Figure 3.1). After the
questionnaire was completed and collected, each participant was given a sea kayak log
folder. They were instructed to keep track of their sea kayaking activities and verbally
reminded about the telephone interview in two months. Subjects veriﬁed their phone
number, address, and e-mail information. They were given the researcher’s contact

information and a thank you gift (t-shirt) for participating in the study.

Data Collection: Phase 3

Data collection during phase three occurred two months following the completion
of each sea kayaking course (Figure 3.1). Subjects were contacted by telephone or e-mail

to set up a time for the interview. All interviews were tape recorded and subjects were

78

ilertriittl on
read l‘Cl'lﬁll
participate
we islet
months it

subjects (’

C3333 31‘
compa:
6.2ng01:
the tese
constrzi

liable

Data F

QUOtati

COIlate

”litter.

”item

identiﬁed on the tape by their nickname. To begin the interview, a consent statement was
read reviewing conﬁdentiality and the voluntary nature of the study. Consent to
participate was audio-recorded in addition to the signed consent form on ﬁle. Subjects
were asked to use their log entries to report on sea kayaking activities during the two
months following the course. Notes also were taken on the interview form for each of the

subjects (Appendix D, pp. 231-234).

Data Analysis
Data analysis began with data organization and coding. Content analysis across
cases analytically reduced the data to generate themes and categories. Constant
comparison technique was used to describe relationships between theory and data as
categories and patterns emerged and data were compared for ﬁt. Analysis was related to
the research questions to determine (1) leisure constraints women experienced, (2) how
constraints were negotiated, and (3) patterns between constraints and negotiation methods

(Table 3.1). The following sections review data preparation and data analysis procedures.

Data Preparation for Analysis

Data were prepared for analysis through data compilation, data coding, and
quotation organization.

Data Compilation. Individual questionnaires and transcribed interviews were
collated under each respondent’s nickname. Triplicates were made of each data set (i.e.,
master, complete copy for analysis, and copy for notes). Questionnaire segments were

transcribed, individual responses were organized under each question, and questions were

79

growth mt
form.

Codm:
it‘iiwkb‘a
353). The li
reﬁtting [l
The ﬁnal li
mm
Results w
[hill timer

ind“ \duz

“5T8 USI
Written

Were Se
illustra

lntEn-‘I

5938c
Clan f
mull);

ConStr

grouped by activity phase. Observation ﬁeld notes were transcribed onto the recording
form.

Coding the Data. A preliminary list of codes was created prior to the start of
ﬁeldwork, based on the conceptual framework and research questions (Appendix F, p.
255). The list was organized using antecedent and intervening constraint categories
reflecting the Expanded Model of Leisure Constraints (Henderson and Bialeschki, 1993).
The ﬁnal list of codes was organized using structural, intrapersonal, and interpersonal
constraint categories that better described the emergent data (Appendix F, pp. 256-257).
Results were coded according to the list of codes or by codes developed from the themes
that emerged from indigenous typologies. Emergent themes or categories were typed on
individual sheets with the questionnaire or interview question and the coded data.

Organization of Quotations for Description. Quotations from the participants
were used to illustrate and support the results in narrative form. Selected quotations were
written on 3X5 cards and grouped based on the research questions. Additional quotations
were selected to illustrate the descriptive portions of the data. Quotes provided for
illustration before the course began and during the course were from written responses.
Interview quotations were verbatim transcriptions.

For reader clariﬁcation, in the reported results from interviews, short pauses in
speech are indicated as (. . .), words and phrases emphasized by the speaker are
underlined, double parentheses (( )) are the researchers’ descriptions added for
clariﬁcation or used when identifying names that were removed for privacy. When
multiple constraint categories are present and important to the results, structural

constraints are in italics, intrapersonal constraints are underlined, and interpersonal

80

constants Lil
negotiation 1
additional :
lit boon it
panicipan

instructor

0qu Am

minis
categop;
used to

0f resul

iniOrm
kiosk:
lie. c

temp;

constraints are in bold type. In the constraint negotiation results section, behavioral
negotiation methods are underlined and cognitive negotiation methods are in italics. Any
additional changes in quotation reporting are described within the results. Punctuation
has been added to quotations to make the text easier to read. Quotes are cited by
participants’ self-selected nicknames. Names of other participants and the course

instructors have been omitted to ensure privacy.

Data Analysis and Presentation Procedures

A descriptive participant proﬁle was reported from the results. Cross case
analysis, analytic induction, and constant comparison were used to generate themes,
categories, and patterns to answer the research questions (Table 3.1). Quotations were
used to illustrate results. Numbers were used to increase understanding and veriﬁcation
of results. An intercoder reliability check was performed.

Participant Proﬁle Description. The descriptive proﬁle provided demographic
information and answered basic questions such as how women found out about sea
kayaking and reasons for taking the course. Data were coded using indigenous typologies
(i.e., created and expressed by the participants). Constant comparison was used to
compare themes and categories across cases.

Generating Categories, Themes, and Patterns. Cross case analysis was
accomplished using content analysis to reduce the data, group it to discover emerging
themes and patterns across cases, and to generate categories of constraints and constraint
negotiation methods by activity phase. Data were analyzed ﬁrst by question. Each data

bit was transferred to a sticky note and placed on a large board. The data bits were then

81

groupttltolt
reduction of

Ann
tonttxtol
and reset
categone:

negotiatit

theoretit
inten'ic'
Explore
ile e;
Source;
than I

mean

“as b
Xum‘t
big a
Teddi.

Slgnit‘

[he CW1

grouped to form categories or themes. This use of inductive analysis allowed for
reduction of the data into usable categories or themes.

Analysis of constraint and constraint negotiation questions proceeded within the
context of analyst-constructed typologies (i.e., reﬂecting categories grounded in the data
and research literature). The decision to use analyst-constructed typologies to form data
categories was guided by the theoretical conceptions of constraints and constraint
negotiation.

The search for constraint and constraint negotiation patterns was guided by the
theoretical foundations of the study. Potential emergent patterns were noted on the
interview transcriptions and the questionnaire summary pages. Patterns were further
explored through constant comparison of the resultant themes and categories emerging
from each of the activity phases. This process was brought to closure when all of the
sources of data had been exhausted, when no new category sets or themes emerged, and
when the researcher began to extend the analysis beyond the bounds of the guiding
research questions.

Use of Numbers in Results Reporting. The identiﬁcation of themes and categories
was based on the number of times a response emerges and consistency of the data.
Numbers of respondents and frequencies were used during data analysis to protect against
bias and to identify the robustness of patterns. Those numbers are reported to assist the
reader in understanding and verifying data analysis results. They do not imply statistical
signiﬁcance.

Intercoder Reliability. An intercoder reliability check was performed to increase

the credibility and dependability of the study results. The percentage of agreement of the

82

categories and themes emerging from the data should be in the 80% to 90% range (Miles
and Huberman, 1994). After initial data coding was complete, three constraint questions
and three constraint negotiation questions from the questionnaires, and three interview
questions were selected. Data were sorted and coded by two graduate students, using
their own classiﬁcation schemes, to identify categories and themes. Comparison with the
researchers’ ﬁndings resulted in 89% intercoder reliability. Discussion of ﬁndings that
were not in agreement resulted in all but 1% of the remaining data being coded into
existing categories or themes. The residual data could not be coded into any of the
categories or themes, and was determined by the coders as not relevant. A complete
intercoder reliability check of all the data was not accomplished because of the large
volume of responses. The researcher was unable to ﬁnd anyone else who was willing to
code all of the data; consequently, the questions that represented the most critical

components of the study were selected for the intercoder check.

83

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The purpose of this study was to investigate leisure constraints and constraint
negotiation by women sea kayakers who participated in a women-only sea kayaking
course. The research questions that guided the study were:

1. What are the leisure constraints women experience before, during, and
following a sea kayaking instructional course?

2. How do women negotiate leisure constraints affecting participation before,
during, and following a sea kayaking instructional course?

3. What are the patterns that exist related to leisure constraints and constraint
negotiation methods that women experience and use when beginning to
participate in a new outdoor pursuit?

This chapter presents the analysis of the study data. Following the proﬁle of the

participants, data are presented for the three research questions: constraints experienced

‘oe‘iOre, during, and following the course; negotiation methods used before, during, and

following the course; and, constraint and negotiation patterns.

Proﬁle of the Participants
The participant proﬁle is divided into the following subsections: demographic, sea
kayaking participation, motivations for beginning sea kayaking, motivations for taking
the course, and motivations for taking a women-only course. All but one woman, who
became ill between the ﬁrst and second day, completed the course. All twenty-one

women provided an interview two months following their course.

84

Demographic Proﬁle

The study group consisted of twenty-one adult women who identiﬁed themselves
as beginning sea kayakers. All of the women were Caucasian, with ages ranging from 20
to 64 years old. Thirteen were single and eight were married. Eleven had children and
four of those had children living with them full time, with ages ranging from 8 to 18 years
old. Six women had adult children living elsewhere and one participant had one child
living with her part-time. All of the women reported some education beyond the
secondary level. Eighteen worked part-time or full time outside the home. The women

reported a wide range of income levels (Table 4.1).

 

 

Table 4.1
Demographic Proﬁle of the Participants

Demographic n Demographic n

Age Education
18 - 29 6 Some college 3
30 - 39 2 Associate’s Degree 3
40 - 49 7 Bachelor’s Degree 8
50 - 59 4 Masters or PhD. 7
60 - 69 2

Work Marital Status
Part-time 6 Single 13
Full-time 12 Married 8
No 3

Income (personal) Children
None 3 Yes 1 l
< $20,000 4 No 10
$20 - $40,000 2
$41 - $60,000 6
$61 - $80,000 3
$81 - $100,000 1
> $100,000 2

 

85

Sea Kayaking Participation Proﬁle

Each participant identiﬁed herself as a beginning sea kayaker to the course
instructors; however, actual experiences with sea kayaking varied greatly among
individuals. Six of the women had never sea kayaked before, while ﬁfteen had some
experience. Of those ﬁfteen, eleven had been in a sea kayak less than six times; three had
participated six or more times; and one participant indicated previous participation
without any other details. Ten participants indicated one year or less, three participants
two years, and one participant ﬁve years of sea kayaking involvement. Previous sea
kayaking experiences were either demo days (practice paddling kaykas) or day paddles of
three hours or less in length. For example,

I ﬁrst kayaked a year ago with friends, then took a class (pool) over the
winter and did some casual kayaking. (T.P.)

Seven women owned a sea kayak (>15' with ﬁxed bulkheads) and one woman
owned a recreational kayak (<15' without ﬁxed bulkheads). Thirteen did not own sea
kayaks. The women were most likely to have participated previously with friends or
relatives (22 instances) or in classes (5 instances). Two women had participated alone
(participants indicating multiple participation incidents also indicated multiple ‘others’
with whom they had participated).

I have been sea kayaking (touring boat) for one year with my husband. We

have paddled on the Huron River, on the very large pond next door, on

several local lakes and Lake Michigan and Lake Superior, mostly with my

husband but also a couple of women friends and my son. (Kayla)
Motivation Proﬁle for Beginning Sea Kayaking

Participants were asked to identify how they ﬁrst found out about sea kayaking

and what motivated them to begin the activity. Eighteen identiﬁed their ﬁrst experience

86

sea kayaking. Three themes emerged to reveal ways that the women ﬁrst found out about
sea kayaking, including indirect experiences with sea kayaking, prior experiences as a
child or teenager, and recent experiences as an adult. Indirect experiences with sea
kayaking — reading about or seeing it on TV, and watching other people participating —
were mentioned most frequently by participants.

It must have been the book by the woman from Duluth, MN who kayaked

the entire shore of Lake Superior, partly solo. I don’t remember her name

or the title, this was probably shortly before I chose to try kayaking.

(Felicia)

Probably seven years ago when I saw kayakers in the ocean surrounding

the San Juan Islands. National Geographic documentaries also showed

kayaks a lot. (Bumpy)

A friend of mine is into adventure racing, when she ﬁrst started she took a

kayaking class at Nantahala in North or South Carolina. She loved it and

developed an interest. (Kayla)

A friend was telling of some of her trips and brought me some great
books, magazines and videos. (Summer Rae)

Prior experiences with sea kayaking as a child or teenager were reported as actual
paddling experiences or an introduction to the activity by family members or in school.
I did river kayaking in my Vesper Dagger ﬁrst, that got me interested in
sea kayaking. I canoed as a teenager and kayaks always seemed slicker,

smoother, fast and graceful. (Fleece)

Parents’ involvement with kayaking also was a ﬁrst introduction to the activity.
When I was a kid my father raced whitewater kayaks, so I was exposed to
that sport many years ago. I did some paddling as a kid and I pulled the
equipment out of storage the summer of 2000 and paddled the whitewater

boats that summer. (Brae)

As a young girl I had seen friends and family kayaking, we also saw
kayakers when vacationing in Duluth. (Jen)

87

The third thematic area included recent experiences with kayaking and usually involved
participation with friends or family.

A person I dated was in kayaking and I tried it for fun and enjoyed it so
much I decided to continue in the future. (T.P.)

My mother and I rented kayaks on a whim to test them out and we were

impressed by the feeling of being in the water in a boat. More than

canoeing one can feel the surrounding water. (Special K)

A friend of the family was up north visiting and had 2 kayaks, got up very

early and went out for sunrise paddle, water was very calm, was able to

use boat/paddle immediately, very beautiful morning. (Uba)

Participants were asked to identify why they decided to begin sea kayaking. Most
described multiple reasons. Four themes emerged, including the opportunity to be
involved in sea kayaking with friends and family, enjoyment of the outdoors in an
environmentally responsible way, a need to seek challenge and new adventure, and the
ability to engage in the activity. Two themes - the opportunity to be involved in sea
kayaking with friends and family, and enjoyment of the outdoors in an environmentally
responsible way — were frequently mentioned together.

My husband had an interest and we tried different kayaks at a demo day in

Manistee. I really liked it so we purchased kayaks the following spring. I

like the peacefulness of being on the lake and I feel conﬁdent that I can do

this. My husband is a big outdoorsman and I have tried very hard to

follow along (mostly mountain biking), kayaking has been my favorite

activity. (Kayla)

I enjoy nature and it is a fun way to spend time with my family in a
relaxing, natural environment. (Special K)

My husband got into it, I enjoy being outdoors on the water. (Cilla)
In other cases the two themes emerged separately.

I enjoy the personalities and outlooks of people who kayak. (T.P.)

88

A friend is very into it and she mentioned this class, it spurred my interest.
(Summer Rae)

I own a lake cabin; want to kayak on my lake with my 9-year-old daughter.
(Branch)

To be as close/ into the water as possible yet still be in a boat. To be able

to explore less traveled coves, rivers, etc. To engage in environmental
friendly boating, no use of fossil fuels, and fairly quiet boating. (Tooter)
Examples of the other two themes — need to seek challenge and new adventure

and ability to engage in the activity - are provided by four women.

It’s challenging, or looks challenging, I want to do as many sports as
possible. (J-Bay)

I wanted to challenge myself, to learn something new. (Tooter)

I wanted to try a new physical activity that I thought I was capable of.
(Felicia)

I am able to paddle without being limited by my asthma. (Jen)

Motivations for Taking the Sea Kayaking Course

Participants identiﬁed their motivations for taking the sea kayaking course. All of
the women responded with multiple reasons. Four themes emerged, with the ﬁrst —
building knowledge and skills — most frequently mentioned (Table 4.2). This thematic
area contained four sub-themes: learn a new activity, expand present knowledge and
skills, gain conﬁdence, and increase the safety of self and others.

I want to learn proper paddling techniques. My biggest frustration last
year was not knowing proper stroke techniques. (Kayla)

I want to become more conﬁdent in my boat and on the water. (Brenda)

To learn better skills and improve safety for both paddling in groups and
alone; I want to be able to do it safely. (Summer Rae)

89

A refresher from what I’ve previously learned, hone skills, be able to do
trips by self or one or two others (non-commercial), and feel conﬁdent on
the water, know what to do in event of mishap. (Jo)

 

 

Table 4.2
Themes that Emerged as Participant Motivations for Taking the Sea Kayaking Course
Theme Sub-themes
Building knowledge and skills Beginning a new activity
Expand knowledge and skills

Gain conﬁdence
Increase safety of self and others

Building and changing interpersonal With family members and friends
relationships Group dynamics and women-only group

For personal challenge/satisfaction Physical challenge
For fun/to try new things

To negotiate time/money Affordable option
Course date/length/location acceptable

 

The second theme — use of the course to affect interpersonal relationships —
emerged as two sub-themes. The ﬁrst sub-theme was building and changing relationships
with family and friends: “something fun to do with my daughter” (Fleece); “spending
time with friends” (Trailhiker); and, “it’s a good chance to bond with my mother before I
become a boniﬁed, independent person” (Special K). The second sub-theme related to
group dynamics and the women-only designation of the course: “because it’s for women-
only, much less intimidating” (Kayla); “I enjoy paddling with an organized group, more
fun to paddle with others than alone” (Brae); and, “to be with only women” (N .S.).

The third theme emerged as the ability of the course to ﬁt with time or ﬁnancial

constraints. For example: “close to home, short weekend course, affordable price”

90

tSuinr

afford

\Kere

»

H it
did

that
pro
Ytt.‘
Sec

sub

(Summer Rae) and “I wanted to take this course because it’s close to home, it was
affordable” (Tooter).

The fourth theme emerged as a way for participants to seek a physical challenge
and personal satisfaction: “it seems challenging, want to do as many sports as possible”
(Jen); “to get in shape for my BWCA canoe trip the following week” (Stretch); “it will be
good to slowly ‘build’ my muscles for a whole day, to learn if I’m still up to the physical
challenge now that I’m 60 years old” (Felicia); “I also like paddling on Lake Michigan
and camping” (Kayla); and, “it’s a fun, relaxing sport that allows one to feel a part of

great bodies of water” (Special K).

Motivations for Taking A Women-Only Course

The sea kayaking courses were advertised as women-only courses. Participants
were asked if and how that inﬂuenced their choice of a course. Fourteen women were
inﬂuenced by the course designation of women-only; seven reported that the designation
did not inﬂuence them. Two themes emerged, the ﬁrst — seeking a learning environment
that was different — consisted of four sub-themes, including seeking a different learning
process, seeking more support and understanding, seeking a more comfortable and
relaxed environment, and seeking a less intimidating and competitive environment. The
second theme — building interpersonal relationships with other women — included two

sub-themes: build camaraderie / have fun and meet other leisure partners (Table 4.3).

91

Table 4.3
Themes Related to the Inﬂuence of the Women-only Course on Participation Choice

 

 

Theme Sub-themes
Seeking a learning environment that is Different learning process
different from a co-ed course More support and understanding

More comfortable/relaxed
Less intimidating/competitive

Seeking interpersonal relationships Camaraderie and fun with women
Meet other leisure partners

 

Nine women reported that they believed the course would provide a different
learning experience relative to women’s needs.

After trying to keep up with my husband (who excels at anything

physical!) I thought it would be much less intimidating with women only.

I also believe we are built differently, think differently, and learn

differently than men. (Kayla)

I am hoping that the instructors will be able to explain things in ways I can

relate to, be less competitive driven in their approach and more

understanding of and helpful with my limitations (lack of upper body

strength). (Cilla)
Many of the women were speciﬁcally seeking a less competitive learning environment:
“the support for learning is better in a women’s group, less competitive” (Felicia) and
“different learning process, not so much pressure to keep up with the guys” (Jo).

The opportunity to build interpersonal relationships with other women and to
experience new things inﬂuenced the choice of some women: “to meet the women who

are interested in sea kayaking” (Jo); “the camaraderie” (Felicia); and, “I do like the idea

of women-only classes and have enjoyed them in the past in other situations” (Jen).

92

I took a week-long sailing trip that was for women only and enjoyed it! If
it’s only women, we get to do everything. I have sailed with men and they
think you have limited abilities. (Frizz)

I love women-only canoe trips in the BWCA; all the women get to ‘tend
the campﬁre’. (Stretch)

Seven women indicated that the course designation for women only did not

inﬂuence their choice to participate. For example: “chose class based on dates that
worked with my schedule” (Brae); “we actually thought we had signed up for the co-ed
but it doesn’t matter to me” (Jen); and, “I didn’t know it was when I said I would go”

(Branch).

At the end of the course the participants were asked what beneﬁts, advantages, or

problems there were to a women-only course. Participants identiﬁed a variety of beneﬁts,
but most focused on the different learning environment. For them the course provided

more support and understanding, and a less intimidating and competitive experience.

Everyone was very supportive. You weren’t as afraid of ridicule or to
make a mistake. You weren’t afraid to push it either. (Summer Rae)

The communication between women is not competitive. We want to
understand, not challenge each other. We are not afraid to say ‘I need to
understand, please help me’. (T railhiker)

Not having to worry about keeping up and competing with the guys; not
having to worry about slowing the guys down; having to do everything

ourselves, no expectations that the guys will do the heavy work. (Jo)

Reported beneﬁts related to interpersonal relationships and the camaraderie that

developed within the group, “better interpersonal relationships among the group. The
group dynamics were better in the women-only course than a co-ed” (Brae). One
participant, who had been on other women-only courses, explained “I’ve been on several,

the camaraderie, patience, and understanding ((are beneﬁts))” (Felicia).

93

Nit
llOllil'Cl. t
andchallct
“sometim:
around pu
personalit

challenge

competit.
have bee

lllﬁ grou

course;
PCISOn;
Wild g

USUall)

“pens

cllnsrra

Nine women did not report any problems with being in a women-only course;
however, twelve women identiﬁed some problems. Most responses related to the pace
and challenge of the course or concerns about the dynamics of the group. For example:
“sometimes it’s to have a balance of male/female energy, and sometimes having men
around pushes me more to do well, try harder” (Reba); “not a balanced level of
personalities in the group, ‘too much estrogen’ at times” (Bumpy); and, “sometimes the
challenge of ‘keeping up’ with the guys gives me more motivation” (J 0).

Even though the beneﬁts for the course were reported as less intimidating and
competitive, some of the women also reported that as a problem. For example: “it may
have been a little less challenging” (Brenda); “no competition” (J -Bay); and, “diversity of
the group and no male perspective on skills and techniques” (Jen).

Two women reported the potential for interpersonal problems with a women-only
course: “if a male friend wanted to participate” (Fleece) or “it makes men jealous” (Uba).
Personal learning style preferences were reported by one participant: “I’m one of those
weird girls who actually tends to communicate easier and learn easier with men; so I

usually am more introverted around women” (Special K).

Constraints Experienced Before, During, and Following the Course
Results for the ﬁrst research question were to determine constraints women
experienced during each activity phase. These results are presented in subsections of

constraints that were experienced before, during, and following the course.

94

Before the Course

Nineteen participants identiﬁed constraints that had impacted or prevented their
participation from the time they had found out about sea kayaking. Two participants did
not identify any constraints. Ten women identiﬁed multiple constraints, nine identiﬁed
single constraints. Constraints emerged across three categories: structural, intrapersonal,

and interpersonal (Table 4.4).

 

 

Table 4.4

Constraints that Prevented Participation Aﬁer Women Found Out About Sea Kayaking
Structural Constraints Intrapersonal Constraints Interpersonal Constraints

Lack of time Ethic of care Lack of leisure companions

Lack of money Perceived low skill/ leisure choice controlled by

Lack of access knowledge others

Lack of opportunity Socially inappropriate

Lack of equipment activity

Physical/health limitations

 

Structural constraints. Structural constraints emerged as lack of time, money,
access, opportunity, equipment, and physical/health problems. Most frequently reported
were time constraints, identiﬁed simply as “time” (Brenda) and “only lack of time”
(Kayla). Two of the participants identiﬁed both lack of time and money as constraints:
“I’m a college student with little or no extra money or time” (Special K) and “time
constraints, most of my ‘free time’ has been spent canoeing and doing other activities;
money, I didn’t have the cash to pay for class” (Jen). Other structural constraints were
identiﬁed together as “lack of boat and accessories; lack of time; inability to handle a

kayak by myself; lack of water” (Cilla).

95

Four participants identiﬁed lack of access to water as a constraint. For example:
“just getting the time to do so, plus not a lot of water where I live” (J o); “geographic
location, I am landlocked in Minnesota” (Stretch); and, “time, not living where there is
easy access, money” (Reba). Eleven women did not have a sea kayak; one perceived that
as a constraint to participation.

Intrapersonal constraints. These constraints emerged as an ethic of care related
to the needs of others, perceived low skill/knowledge, and sea kayaking as a socially
inappropriate activity. Four participants reported intrapersonal constraints: “illness of my
mother, free weekends spent helping care for her” (Fleece); “my daughter wasn’t old
enough or good enough swimmer to try” (Branch); “didn’t have the knowledge”
(Summer Rae); and, “Mom’s fear of me doing anything too extreme” (Bumpy).

Interpersonal constraints. These constraints emerged as lack of leisure
companions and leisure choice controlled by others. For example: “didn’t have a friend
who was interested” (Summer Rae), and

Not knowing anyone else who owns one, or who belongs to a group who

use the Mississippi River, which ﬂows one mile from my house! I’ve

never quite pursued contacting the rowing club that has a boathouse one

mile away, or contacted ‘Women in the Wilderness’. I’d need strong

camaraderie to do it locally. (Felicia)

An additional intrapersonal constraint — leisure choice controlled by others — was reported
by this participant: “my husband isn’t interested in buying a two-person ((kayak))”
(Felicia).

Participants also were asked to respond to the question, Since you decided to take

this course, has anything happened that made you think you might not be able to

participate this weekend? Eighteen participants responded with ‘no’ and three

96

participants reported constraints after deciding to take the course. Constraints emerged
across structural, intrapersonal, and interpersonal categories (Table 4.5). All three

women identiﬁed a combination of constraints.

 

 

 

Table 4.5
Constraints Experienced by Participants Prior to Arrival at the Course
Activity Phase
Constraint
Category Following Registration Immediately Prior to Arrival
Structural Lack of time Lack of time
Lack of money Lack of money
Lack of equipment
Physical/health limitations
Intrapersonal Lack of entitlement Ethic of care
Perceived low skill/ knowledge
Interpersonal Sense of obligation Lack of leisure companions

 

One woman had lack of time and money constraints.
Financially I was thinking I wouldn’t be able to come up with the cash; I
was also having schedule conﬂicts but was ﬁnally able to get it worked
out. (Jen)
A second participant reported a structural constraint of lack of time and an intrapersonal

constraint of lack of entitlement.

Too many other things to ﬁnish at work and at home. Feelings of guilt
about not being productive in those two areas. (Trailhiker)

The third woman identiﬁed a combination of structural constraints - lack of time and

money — and an interpersonal constraint that emerged as a sense of obligation to others.

97

I thought the $200 was too much, my sister’s wedding shower got

scheduled for the same weekend, it ended up being my good friends’

family camping weekend and I was invited, my life is crazy right now.

So in other words was it worth the time and money? Was it important

enough? (Reba)

On the evening prior to the start of the course, participants were asked to identify
anything that made them think they might not be able to participate that weekend.
Fourteen women reported that nothing had happened to impact or prevent their
participation. Seven of the women identiﬁed constraints they had encountered
immediately prior to coming to the course that emerged across structural, intrapersonal,
and interpersonal categories (Table 4.5).

Time constraints were identiﬁed by two women and illustrated by one of the
participants.

Massive school work, research to do for independent study course, ﬁve

text chapters to read, ZOO-page book to read for three-week summer class.

(J -Bay)

Physical and health limitations were reported by three participants: “hurt wrist” (T.P.); “I
realized motion sickness may kick in” (Branch); and, “I have an injured left shoulder
which is healing slowly, not sure I would be able to paddle” (Cilla). One participant
identiﬁed money/ﬁnancial constraints in addition to the physical and health limitations

already mentioned.

Meeting with employer suggested job may go away, had legal problems
over pension problems related to divorce. (T .P.)

Money/ﬁnancial constraints and lack of equipment were reported in combination with an

intrapersonal constraint - ethic of care — by another participant.

98

My oldest daughter was in an accident Thursday night before coming, left
paddle at home, left purse in Wendy’s and $200 was stolen, cars were not

serviced correctly. (N .S.)

An interpersonal constraint — lack of leisure companions — was identiﬁed by one
participant as occurring immediately before the course began: “I had trouble ﬁnding a
woman friend to go with me” (Felicia).

Fourteen women identiﬁed concerns they had about participation in the course
itself. These concerns emerged from the data as activity-speciﬁc constraints across

structural and intrapersonal constraint categories (Table 4.6).

 

 

Table 4.6

Participant Concerns About the Sea Kayaking Course

Structural Constraints Intrapersonal Constraints Interpersonal Constraints
Physical/health limits Fear

Perceived low skill/knowledge
Perceptions of age limits
Perceptions of physical limits

 

Intrapersonal. Nine women identiﬁed intrapersonal constraints, including
internal fears, perceived low skill or knowledge levels, perceptions of age limitations, and
perceptions of physical ability limitations. Fear was expressed by four of the participants:
“will I be scared doing a wet exit?” (Tooter); “some of the rescue situations make me
nervous, not in control” (Brae); “fear of drowning” (Frizz); and,

I just ﬁnished a kayaking class at EMU and I was surprised at how scared I

was to capsize my boat and be underwater. By the end I was fairly

comfortable with wet exits and Eskimo rescues on my right side, but I

panicked trying to roll and do rescues on my left and all of this was in a
pool. I’m nervous about doing this in a lake! (Kayla)

99

Three women indicated concerns related to the perception of having low skills or
knowledge: “afraid I was too inexperienced” (Summer Rae); “not be able to complete the
course; not be able to learn the basic skill” (Frizz); and, “I’m not sure that concern is the
proper word, but I am thinking about my capabilities and learning about bracing, rolling,
and rescues in only two days” (Special K).

Two participants identiﬁed an intrapersonal constraint that emerged as
perceptions of physical ability limitations. These were not actual physical limitations, but
rather the perception that they could experience these as limitations: “will I be both
physically strong enough and ﬂexible enough” (Tooter) and “I remember the amount of
work required for the beginners class and I assume the amount of work for this class will
be equivalent” (Brenda).

Constraints concerning the perceptions of age limitations were identiﬁed by two
of the women: “being older than others in the group” (Frizz) and,

Because I did this essential course a few years ago here, I was somewhat

anxious that time. This time my concern is only that I’m now 60 years

old, so my physical capacities are less than the earlier experience. (Felicia)

Structural. Five women reported actual physical and health concerns that
emerged as structural constraints: “1 hate cold water, I am very tired” (J -Bay); “yes, a
little bit regarding my shoulders” (Cilla); “lack of sleep” (N .8); “bad back” (Uba); and,

I realized that motion sickness might kick in; when I decided to

participate, I was thinking this was a ‘learn to kayak’ weekend, not a ‘learn
to sea kayak’ weekend. (Branch)

100

During the Course

Observations were collected during critical activity periods. The purpose of the
observations was to provide a way to check on the experiences that participants identiﬁed
as challenging. The reader will be directed to the observation ﬁeld notes whenever they
add to a more complete understanding of participant experiences (Appendix F).

Women were asked to describe their best experiences and their most challenging
experiences at two points during the sea kayaking course, following completion of
activities on the ﬁrst day and immediately after the course ended. Data from these two
times were combined because the emergent themes and categories remained the same
throughout the two days of the course.

Best Experiences. Three categories emerged from best experiences: participating
in and performing wet exits, rescues, and other skills; the enjoyment of the experience as
an activity; and, the opportunity to lead the group paddle. Fourteen women reported that
participating in and performing wet exits, rescues, and other skills was their best
experience. For example: “I really felt good about accomplishing a solo-paddle ﬂoat
rescue” (Special K); “completing a paddle ﬂoat rescue on the ﬁrst try” (Kayla); and,
“learning the j-lean when doing a sweep stroke” (N.S.).

Best experiences for six women emerged as enjoyment of the experience of the
activity. For example: “I had a day I enjoyed all aspects of, gaining experience and
feeling more conﬁdent” (T.P.); “being in/on the lake kayaking” (Tooter); “getting out on
some bigger water and exploring the sea caves” (Jen); and,

. . . just paddling around, today we went initially out of the harbor and

around the pier towards another bay before the instructor called us back. It
was easier than I thought and I enjoyed getting the balance. (Branch)

101

For three women their best experience emerged as the opportunity to lead the
class on a paddle across the lake. One participant described this as “leading the pod back
to shore” (T railhiker).

When participants were asked to describe why the experiences they had selected
were their best experiences, two themes emerged as building conﬁdence in self and
competence in skills, and overcoming fears. Two women indicated that building
conﬁdence in themselves and their skills was the reason this was their best experience: “I
was putting together the skills I had learned; even though it was a group experience, I felt
like I was going solo!” (Frizz) and “I’m usually the slowest so it was very novel to be in
the lead. I had no one to watch out for so I didn’t bump into them” (Cilla). Other women
also reported reasons for their best experiences within this thematic area. Women who
identiﬁed rescues and wet exits as their best experiences described the reasons in the
following ways.

We had not gone over it in any detail ((Eskimo rescue)) and yet I was able

to ﬂip back up, success! We did it pretty informally as a demo to the rest

of the class, I kind of remembered how to do it from a previous class, but I

wasn’t positive, I just didn’t let myself worry about it, I ﬁgured I would try

it and worst case I would wet exit. The wet exit especially was easier as I

did it more times. (Brae)

I wasn’t sure I could do it ((paddle ﬂoat rescue)) because of my injured

shoulder; I am not always very coordinated but it was the best experience

because I was able to do it despite my shoulder and I was surprised by how

well I did it. It made me feel more competent. (Cilla)

It ((paddle ﬂoat rescue)) was relatively easy and I like the feeling of being
able to get back into my boat by myself. (Brenda)

The other theme to emerge from the data — overcoming fears - was described also

as a reason for an experience to be reported as the best during the course.

102

I had never done it before ((paddle ﬂoat rescue)) and I was very scared to

try it. ((The instructor)) was a wonderful, patient teacher, and my group

was very supportive. (Kayla)

I was very concerned about being able to do it ((wet exit)). But the

instructor was great and helped me through it. It was wonderful to do it a

second time and enjoy it. (Frizz)

Because the ﬁrst time I tipped ((wet exit)) I freaked out a bit underwater.

It was less intense the second time. (Bumpy)

Challenging Experiences. Activities described as most challenging closely
corresponded to the thematic areas of the women’s best experiences. Challenging
activities included rescues, wet exits, strokes and boat control, braces and rolling
progression, physical challenges (e.g., getting back into the kayak, paddling longer
distances), and frustration with other participants. Structural and intrapersonal constraints
emerged from the challenging experiences.

Structural. Structural constraints included lack of knowledge and skills, and
physical limitations or health problems. Lack of knowledge and skills was reported by
twelve of the participants. This was expressed primarily as a feeling of frustration as
participants worked to learn or improve their skills. For example: “paddling straight, I
felt frustrated while I was doing it, but it improved. I can paddle a canoe fairly straight
and changing to a kayak was a bit frustrating” (Reba).

Paddling straight. The sweeps, turns, backwards, side draws were easy.

Keeping my darn kayak from zigzaging, PHT!. I don’t think I can

concentrate on all the movements at once. I’ll get the push-pull down, but

forget to turn the paddle or have an easy grip. (Summer Rae)

Transforming my kayaking ideas from white-water to sea kayaking. Hard

to learn the forward stroke. It seemed different to me. It was actually hard

because my pride was hurt. I thought I knew how to paddle but I guess not

for sea kayaking. Then I got over myself and started really learning. (J -
Bay)

103

l

The high and low braces. The coordination of arm, leg, head movement
was difﬁcult for me. I felt frustrated and hot. (T railhiker)

Structural constraints were also identiﬁed by four women related to physical limitations
or health problems (Appendix E, p. 242, 250).

The braces. It hurt on my left side (injured shoulder) such that I couldn’t
do the braces on that side. It was also hard for me to concentrate on
multiple body positions at one time. Need to learn body stuff with lots and
lots of practice and repeated instruction. I am challenged. I do not have
strength or speed. (Cilla)

T-rescue. Could not get back into the boat and felt that I was holding the
group up. Did not have the upper body strength to lift myself over my
PFD and into or onto the boat. (Frizz)

Dealing with very unﬂexible legs and lower back. I felt frustrated at times
because I was feeling great in the kayak and wanted to push it but I was
having trouble with my legs falling asleep, felt like it was limiting my
abilities. (Jen)

Trying to get back into the kayak. I couldn’t pull/kick myself up onto the
kayak, getting onto the kayak was hard because I probably lack upper body
strength. My PFD doesn’t ﬁt well and seemed to push me in directions I
didn’t want my body to go. (Tooter)

Intrapersonal. An intrapersonal constraint — fear — was reported by seven women
(totals > 21, some women indicated multiple constraints). Most expressed fear in relation
to wet exits or rescues where they were underwater in their kayaks. Drowning or being
trapped in the kayak were mentioned frequently (Appendix E, pp. 239-242, 251-252).

The paddle ﬂoat rescue was the most challenging. I do not like to get out

of my boat in the water and this was a big hurdle I crossed. I don’t like

tipping my boat over and being under water. It’s never as bad as I think it

will be, but I still have the fear. (Kayla)

Wet exit in my new boat since the spray skirt is tight and you need to make

sure the skirt does not hang up on the back of the seat. I was nervous

during the experience. I was concerned I would get stuck in the boat.
(Brenda)

104

The wet exit. I was, quite frankly, scared before we did the roll but felt
great after because I really enjoy it! My concern prior to this course was
going over and being under the boat. I knew this procedure would be part
of the course and I spent far too much time thinking about it. (Frizz)

Being upside down underwater. I was nervous anticipating it and
panicked a bit before I pulled the skirt off. I am not used to feeling out of
control and wasn’t sure how to handle it. Technically I knew what to do,
but my emotions took over for a bit. (Bumpy)

Initially voluntarily going into the water to practice a rescue. I was afraid I
wouldn’t be able to get out of the cockpit fast enough before I ran out of
breath. After I did it (with cheating by removing my skirt before hitting
the water) it seemed easy, a piece of cake; afraid of drowning, being
pinned underwater. I’m very conﬁdent of my swimming ability, but had
never been secured in something, tied in, as it were, and then voluntarily
went into the water upside down, although it wasn’t the upside down part
that was scary, it was being secured in underwater. (Branch)

Constraints that emerged during the course were activity-based, related to sea
kayaking, and linked to speciﬁc skills. Structural and intrapersonal categories of
constraints were represented by the data but were not always mutually exclusive. For
example, one participant experienced both structural constraints — physical limitations
and health problems — and intrapersonal constraints — fear — during her most challenging
experience of the wet exit (Appendix E, p. 250).

Apparently panicking a little during my ‘tip-over’ and worrying about

getting my legs out before remembering to pull the skirt. Getting a little

HzO in my nose and car, not being able to hoist myself back in without

smpial support; embarrassed and a little panicked. Even while rescuing,
not being as strong as I’d like-embarrassing. Aching arms and shoulders,

occasional muscle cramps. I guess anxiety to one degree or another.
(Felicia)
Following the Course

Predicted Constraints. Immediately following course completion, participants

were asked to predict what they believed would negatively affect their participation in sea

105

kayaking during the next two months. Two women had no plans to kayak again during
the season and one woman did not respond with any constraints to participation.
Eighteen women identiﬁed constraints in structural, intrapersonal, and interpersonal
categories (Table 4.7).

Structural constraints included lack of time, lack of money, physical and health
limitations, lack of equipment, lack of opportunities, and lack of knowledge and skill.
Intrapersonal constraints emerged as a lack of entitlement to leisure, and interpersonal
constraints were reported as a lack of leisure companions. Eight participants predicted
single constraints. Time constraints were identiﬁed by ﬁve participants. Three
participants predicted either physical and health limitations, or lack of knowledge/skill, or
lack of leisure companions.

Table 4.7
Constraints Predicted to Affect Participation for Two Months Post-course

 

Structural Constraints Intrapersonal Constraints Interpersonal Constraints

 

Lack of time Lack of entitlement Lack of leisure companions
Lack of money

Health/physical limitations

Lack of equipment

Lack of opportunities

Lack of knowledge/skill

 

Ten participants identiﬁed multiple constraints: “1 have no equipment, no money,
and am in college taking classes” (J -Bay); “1 need a new boat and I need to ﬁnd the time”

(Kayla); “time constraints and acquiring a better, seaworthy boat” (Uba); and, “lack of

106

opportunity, no kayak, no one in my family who does it, lack of time/balance in life, I
don’t need another hobby no one else in my family does” (Branch).

Two Months Post- Course. Two months after course completion telephone
interviews were conducted with each participant. The women were asked to identify
constraints that had affected their sea kayaking participation since the course. Constraints
emerged in structural, intrapersonal, and interpersonal categories (Table 4.8).

Table 4.8
Constraints Experienced by Participants in the Two Months Following the Course

 

Structural Constraints Intrapersonal Constraints Interpersonal Constraints

 

Lack of time Ethic of care Lack of leisure companions
Lack of money
Physical limitations/health
problems
Lack of equipment
Lack of opportunity

 

Structural constraints included lack of time, lack of money, physical lhealth
limitations, lack of equipment, and lack of opportunity. One intrapersonal constraint —
ethic of care — and one interpersonal constraint — lack of leisure companions — also
emerged from the data.

Ten women reported time constraints that usually were associated with work,
family, school, or ﬁnancial obligations.

I don’t know if I will have the time. Getting the house ready to sell (. . .) I

was traveling for three weeks solid for business (. . .) so my job, and then

you know the new job, has made it virtually impossible to do anything I

want to do (. . .), not just kayaking (. . .) I’ve not gotten to do anything I
wanted to this summer. (Brenda)

107

The biggest thing would be time (. . .), I work on a lot of, um like school
during the day, and then classes at night, and work on weekends so (. . .)
I’ve had limited recreational time. I mean I’ve thought about it quite a bit,
it’s just the time thing (. . .) because I do have access to kayaks with work,
you know, free rental too, so! (Jen)

The major thing is money (. . .) um (. . .) the next thing would be time,
haven’t had much time, and I ﬁnd that it’s kind of difﬁcult, at least when
you are starting out to ﬁnd a group, somebody who might have the
equipment or at least knows where to get it and also has that same time
and money, you know, when everything matches that you could go.
(Bumpy)

Physical limitations and health problems were identiﬁed by three women as constraints.
The ability to physically lift and load a sea kayak or actual physical problems were

reported.

Well, there’s lots of times when I wasn’t able to participate. If I could get
my boat up on my car (. . .) if I could get my boat down out of the garage,
out of the hanger and up onto my van by myself I could go all the time, but
I have to rely on somebody else to help me do that because of the way our
boats are stored (. . .) that’s my biggest stumbling block. (Kayla)

I’m not a young woman you know. I kind of worry if I did a long trip, you
know, I would wonder if, like on a long crossing if it would bother my
back or my legs, that would be something to just be, you know, cognizant
of. (Stretch)

Not having a kayak was reported by four women as a constraint. One participant reported
this constraint as “the resources that I currently own, no kayak” (Reba). Another woman,
who currently owns a recreational kayak, expressed the need for a new sea kayak.

I would like a new boat; I would like a boat that I feel a little more

conﬁdent in and some (. . .) in more varied conditions. You know, and

maybe some (. . .) rougher water; I don’t have a terribly sea worthy boat. I

would tend to, you know, check out conditions and say ‘oh yeah, OK,

that’s doable’, as opposed to ‘no I shouldn’t take this boat out in that’.
(Uba)

108

Three participants identiﬁed a lack of opportunity to participate as a constraint. In some
cases this was combined with time constraints or other obligations.

I don’t live on a body of water that allows it, for one thing (. . .) I thought
it was a wonderful activity (. . .) but, you know, it has to be a concerted
effort to go do that somewhere. (Stretch)

We just have not had the opportunity this summer to do it as much as we
normally do. Plus we sometimes go on a camping trip and we haven’t
been able to do that (. . .) my husband got to when we were at class, but I
haven’t done that and I really want to do that. (N .S.)

An intrapersonal constraint — ethic of care — was identiﬁed by ﬁve women.
Usually this was related to family concerns and the need to take care of others before
participating in leisure activities.

O.K (. . .) um (. . .) let’s see (. . .) well one weekend when I might have,
maybe been able to do it, there was a family member became (. . .) an
extended family member became very ill and I had to help transport her
family to the hospital she was in. I guess there was actually a household
something that we had to do on the exterior of our house that I had to do
when my husband was available (. . .) and then I have a chronically ill
friend and I was overdue to take her a meal (. . .) so, you know, another
day I might have done it. So, I’m sorry, it sounds rather ridiculous, and

then I went walking to raise funds for an organization (. . .) it’s probably
nothing different than anyone else comes up with for things that get in the
way. (Felicia)

What I did was I went up to the symposium in hopes that I could take
some classes and demo some of the boats, maybe get into a boat that I’m
thinking I want to purchase and then that’s when my mom had her heart
attack so I had to leave so I never got to do it. Just because of personal
problems and because of my mom’s death and the wedding. (T.P.)

Because I’m busy (. . .) and there’s times when I come home and it’s like I
should go out for a paddle but it’s like I’m so tired. So I don’t. I would
say mostly family things, you know. Our kids are grown up so you
wouldn’t really think so but, I mean, they’re in and out, and then his
parents and my mom. And his brother is building a house so we’re trying

109

to help him and then we both work long hours and, you know, there’s stuff

(. . .) you have to grocery shop and do laundry and clean house and (. . .)

just that type of stuff. (Cilla)

The need to ﬁnd other people with whom to participate emerged as an
interpersonal constraint — lack of leisure companions — for three women. For example:
“just to get someone else to go out with. Another person” (Fleece) and “I would want to
go with someone, preferably more experienced than me; certainly if I were going to do
Lake Superior, it would have to be people more experienced than me” (Felicia).

Activity-Speciﬁc Constraints. Ten women reported having challenging
experiences two months following the course. Four thematic areas emerged from the
data. These included paddling in challenging environmental conditions, learning new
skills (rolling), equipment issues, and teaching new skills to others (total >10, participants
identiﬁed multiple experiences).

Paddling in challenging environmental conditions was identiﬁed by ﬁve of the
participants as their most challenging experience.

I went out with my husband and it was just very, very windy and there

were large waves and I think that we probably both felt that we didn’t have

the best boats for those conditions because we didn’t stay very long. (Uba)

Two women identiﬁed trying to learn new skills, speciﬁcally the roll, as their
most challenging experiences: “probably learning to roll (. . .) just because it was
something I’ve wanted to do (. . .) and it was a challenge and took a while to learn (N .S.)
and “yes, actually the roll was challenging” (J -Bay). Three women identiﬁed issues with
equipment that didn’t ﬁt as a challenge. For example “my most challenging thing is

trying to work on the forward stroke (. . .) the thing is that I just really feel that it’s

inﬂuenced a lot by the kayak itself" (T .P.).

110

Two women reported that being placed in the position of teaching someone else
sea kayaking skills was a challenge for them. One of them had also reported challenging
water conditions: “when I was out with my friend who had not kayaked before” (Kayla)
and

I’d say the most challenging part would have been actually me getting him

to be comfortable enough to go out, and just working with him, and kind

of helping teach him, and just making him feel like he could do it, even

though at the beginning he didn’t want to. (Bumpy)

Constraints emerged when the women described what made their experiences
challenging. Two structural constraints — lack of equipment and lack of knowledge/skills
— and one intrapersonal constraint - ethic of care — emerged (Table 4.9).

Table 4.9

Constraints Related to Challenging Experiences in the Two Months Following the
Course

 

 

Structural Constraints Intrapersonal Constraints Interpersonal Constraints
Lack of equipment Ethic of care
Lack of knowledge/skills

 

Four women reported structural constraints related to equipment that didn’t ﬁt
properly or was inappropriate for them. In some cases the ability to learn new skills was
limited by equipment, as was illustrated by two women.

Actually the roll was challenging (. . .) I don’t have my own kayak sized to

me. I was in my Dad’s kayak and so the size was, it was big on me and it

felt heavy to me. (J -Bay)

The only thing is that because of my size, and me being smaller, no one

has a boat that ﬁts me, my most challenging thing is trying to work on the

forward stroke (. . .) the thing is that I just really feel that it’s inﬂuenced a
lot by the kayak itself (. . .) if you’re not in one that ﬁts you, it’s just more

111

difﬁcult to try to work on anything. I mean you can’t work on rolls, can’t
work on forward strokes, because you have to hold your hands different,
you’re back too far (. . .) I don’t know, it’s just frustrating for me. (T .P.)

A lack of knowledge or skills was identiﬁed by ﬁve women, usually related to water and
weather conditions. For example,

I have to tell you, the Alaskan one was a little bit (. . .) you know it was

one of those experiences where you learn to paddle more in waves, so it

was a little more stressful (. . .) the waves weren’t quite white capping this

time, but just to the verge of white capping, which I think is around 3 feet

(. . .) and lots of wakes. (Brenda)

Ah (. . .) probably that was going out on Lake Michigan the other day

when it was windy. The waves, they weren’t really big but I was by

myself and, so I, you know, I’m not used to going out by myself. (Fleece)
Two women reported an intrapersonal constraint — ethic of care — related to providing
instruction in sea kayaking to friends.

The second most challenging would be when I was out with my friend

who had not kayaked before and trying to explain to her the importance of

all of the safety features and (. . .) things that she should be doing, and

constantly looking over my should to make sure she was OK, and not

getting in trouble. (Kayla)

I think the most challenging part as far as instructional, teaching and

learning, was to let go with what I wanted to do (. . .) kind of back up for a

second and go back to where he needed to be. (Bumpy)

Predicted Constraints for Following Year. Participants were asked to predict

what would affect their participation in the next year. Structural, intrapersonal, and

interpersonal categories emerged (Table 4.10).

112

Table 4.10
Constraints Predicted to Impact Participation Over the Next Year

 

 

Structural Constraints Intrapersonal Constraints Interpersonal Constraints
Lack of time Ethic of care Lack of leisure companions
Lack of money

Lack of equipment

Lack of knowledge/skill

 

Structural constraints included lack of time, money, equipment, knowledge/skill,
and opportunity. Five women identiﬁed time constraints. For example: “time is
probably number one” (Reba); “I don’t know ifI will have the time” (Brenda); and, “my
work schedule” (Tooter). Financial constraints alone, or time constraints in combination
with ﬁnancial constraints, were reported by ﬁve women. Two women provide
illustrations: “probably ﬁnancial, depending on how much it would cost would be the
only (. . .) would be the main consideration” (Stretch) and,

“probably the time frame (. . .) um (. . .) I am going back to school again

(. . .) I mean, I’m in school, and so the time is probably the big thing and

still, probably ﬁnancial”. (Jen)

A lack of knowledge and skill was identiﬁed by one participant as a constraint:
“yeah, the main thing is, is that practice, and I’d like to take some additional instruction”
(T .P.). Another participant reported a lack of equipment as a constraint: “I guess it’s just
a matter of where I work and whether I can bring my boat with me or not” (J 0).

An intrapersonal constraint — ethic of care - was reported by three participants.
For example: “well, probably family stuff, my mom’s not well so that’s, you know, that’s
a (. . .) yeah, the kids coming and going, and vacations, and (. . .) just life stuff” (Cilla)

and “kids going to college next year (. . .) I have one in college, but she wants to transfer

113

to California, and I have one that wants to go to California next year, so that may prevent
me” (N .S.).

An interpersonal constraint - lack of leisure companions — was identiﬁed by four
women and illustrated by three women: “I just don’t quite have the companionship piece
to push me into it” (Felicia); “a group of people who did it” (Frizz); and, “if I could ﬁnd a

female partner in the area or any kind of partner in the area to go with” (Kayla).

Constraint Negotiation

A basic assumption of the study was that, as participants encountered constraints,
some type of negotiation method could be used to allow for continued participation. All
twenty-one women reported experiencing constraints at some point before the start of the
weekend sea kayaking course. However, because all of the participants also began the
course, the data suggests that those constraints were negotiated to allow participation.
Results for the second research question were to determine the negotiation methods
women used to affect participation in each of the activity phases of the course. These
results will be presented in subsections of negotiation methods used before, during, and

following the course.

Before the Course

Before the course began, participants were asked to identify what made it possible
for them to begin or continue participation in sea kayaking if they had reported
constraints to participation or concerns with the course. First, the women were asked to
identify what had made it possible for them to participate in sea kayaking now if

something had impacted their participation in the past. Nineteen women reported ways

114

they had negotiated participation. Responses emerged in behavioral and cognitive

categories of negotiation methods (Table 4.11).

 

 

Table 4.11

Negotiation Methods Used to Begin or Continue Sea Kayaking Before the Course
Behavioral Negotiation Methods Cognitive Negotiation Methods
Modifying time and commitments Face up to problems

Changing interpersonal relationships
Relying on family and friends
Improving health status/physical ability
Improving ﬁnances

 

The behavioral methods identiﬁed were modifying time and commitments,
changing interpersonal relations, reliance on family and friends, improving ﬁnancial
situation, and improving health status or physical ability. Six women reported modifying
time and other commitments to negotiate participation. For example: “retirement”
(Frizz); “more time available” (Uba); and, “scheduling” (Tooter). For some, the
modiﬁcation of time or other commitments included making a change in life priorities:
“priority, a little more time and purchasing a home on Lake Michigan 3 years ago” (N.S.)
and “making the time, I’m not working as much and am able to travel more” (Jo). One
woman reported that participation required negotiating her schedule as well as her
friends’ schedules. '

This summer’s schedule for kayaking experiences arrived from Gail

Green’s organization, Adventures in Perspective; talking amongst women

friends for one who’d go to be my partner, and there were enough dates to
choose from so that it ﬁt our schedules. (Felicia)

115

Four women negotiated participation by changing interpersonal relations. Some
changes in interpersonal relations were speciﬁc: “my daughter is old enough now and my
husband was available to babysit this weekend” (Branch); “my mother no longer needs
help” (Fleece); and, “having a different mind set to spend time away from home and my
husband” (Trailhiker). One woman reported a more complicated negotiation process
integrated within the context of family relationships.

We used to canoe a lot as a family when our children were growing up.

Once we bought a canoe it was inexpensive and we could do it all

together. Sea kayaking would have been expensive and not as practical for

us as the canoeing. Now that our children are older we have time + money

for activities like kayaking. (Cilla)

Four women relied on family or friends to negotiate participation, illustrated here
by Fleece: “my spouse, friends, and kids have always been supportive, and the guys at
work like to talk about it”. The inﬂuence or support of friends, also attending the course,
was another way to negotiate constraints: “two friends were going on the trip and invited
me along” (Branch); “a friend’s suggestion for the program” (Stretch); and, “I met
((friend)) and her excitement ((for sea kayaking» is contagious” (Summer Rae).

Financial constraints were negotiated by four women to allow for participation:
“I’m ﬁnancially able to work part-time so I can get away” (Fleece); “mother’s cash” (J -
Bay); “my parents pay my way in the name of family quality time” (Special K); and, “I
am able to pay for the class and found that this program was affordable” (Jen). One
participant with shoulder problems had to improve her health status and physical ability
by undergoing “surgery and physical therapy” (Brae) before being able to participate.

A cognitive method of negotiation — facing up to problems — emerged for two

participants. “1 force myself to take classes each year” (Brenda) and “I just decided to

116

bite the bullet and take a course. I have been wanting to try for a while and decided it was
time” (Bumpy).

Behaviorally, the course itself appeared to be used to negotiate constraints. After
the decision to participate was made, the number of women reporting constraints
decreased from nineteen to three. The three women who reported additional constraints
after registering for the course used three behavioral negotiation methods and one

cognitive method to negotiate participation (Table 4.12).

 

 

Table 4.12

Negotiation Methods Used to Allow Participation in the Course Following Registration
Behavioral Negotiation Methods Cognitive Negotiation Methods
Modifying time and commitments Face up to problems

Relying on family and friends
Improving ﬁnances

 

One woman relied on family and friends as a negotiation method that made it
possible for her to participate.

My husband helping me get the camping gear together, and coming with a
friend to help with food and stuff. (T railhiker)

Another woman with time and ﬁnancial constraints negotiated participation through
improving her ﬁnances, and modifying time and other commitments: “I sacriﬁced other
trips and stretched the grocery budget” (Jen). One participant used both cognitive and
behavioral methods of negotiation: “I decided to make the choice. Primarily because of

my friend’s invitation and the $50 deposit” (Reba).

117

Seven women who reported constraints immediately prior to the start of the
course identiﬁed three behavioral and two cognitive negotiation methods that allowed

participation (Table 4.13).

 

 

Table 4.13

Negotiation Methods Used to Allow Participation Immediately Prior to the Course
Behavioral Negotiation Methods Cognitive Negotiation Methods
Modifying time and commitments Face up to problems
Relying on family and friends Ignore problems

Improving health status/physical ability

 

One participant used a combination of a behavioral and cognitive method —
modifying her time and commitments and ignoring problems — to negotiate participation:
“well the class is paid for so I gotta go! I brought readings with me, hope to get some
done” (J -Bay). One woman ignored problems to negotiate concerns about motion
sickness: “I pretended and hoped it wouldn’t be an issue” (Branch). Physical and health
problems, related to a shoulder injury, were identiﬁed by another participant as a
constraint. She negotiated this constraint behaviorally by improving her health status: “I
did my exercises for my shoulder faithfully, practiced kayaking overtime to make sure I
could do it, and brought a big bottle of Ibuprofen” (Cilla).

Three women relied on family and friends: “a friend and I needed to get away and
relax” (T.P.); “my husband helped me get all of the camping gear together; my friend who
came with me helping out with the food” (Trailhiker); and, “I did ﬁnd a friend and later
we added on another” (Felicia). One woman cognitively negotiated her participation by

facing up to problems: “persistence and the need to get away” (N .S.).

118

Immediately before the course began fourteen women identiﬁed concerns about
the course that emerged as constraints related to the activity of sea kayaking. Most of
these were in the intrapersonal constraint category and emerged as fear, perceived low
skill and knowledge, perceived age limitations, and perceptions of physical ability
limitations. Four women identiﬁed concerns that emerged as a structural constraint
related to physical and health problems. During this time period, participants reported
using two behavioral negotiation methods —- acquiring more skills and improving health
status/physical ability — and two cognitive negotiation methods - self-talk and facing up

to problems — to continue to participate in the course (Table 4.14).

 

 

Table 4.14

Methods Used to Negotiate Concerns About the Sea Kayaking Course
Behavioral Negotiation Methods Cognitive Negotiation Methods
Acquiring skills Self-talk

Improving health status/physical ability Face up to problems

 

Most participant concerns were negotiated by cognitively facing up to their
problems. One participant who identiﬁed perceived age limitations and fear as
constraints responded with, “nothing I can do about the age, but having gone through
other life experiences, you just step up and do it!” (Frizz). Participants who had reported
constraints related to fear and physical or health related constraints also negotiated
participation by facing up to their problems: “the more I force myself to do it the easier it
becomes” (Kayla); “just do it, quit my bitching and do it” (J -Bay); “Ibuprofen,

determination. I want to do this” (Cilla); and, “just try and see” (Uba). In two cases

119

participants used self-talk as a negotiation method related to fear: “worst that could
happen was I would capsize the boat, drown, not pass the class. Best that could happen, I
ﬁnd a new addiction” (Summer Rae). The other participant used self-talk to negotiate
age-related perceptions of physical limitations: “remember that Gail was a very
understanding instructor so I’m sure her attitude prevails” (Felicia).

Six women used behavioral negotiation methods. Fear of wet exits and rescues
prompted two participants to take the course to acquire more skills: “practice, practice,
practice” (Kayla) and “practice that leads to more conﬁdence” (Brae). Concerns with
physical limitations led to using the course as a negotiation method to acquire more skills
through “participation” (Brenda) and,

I plan to absorb enough information and knowledge to work on my skills

independently because I would like to move on to more ‘trip’ type

excursions with camping on different shores. (Special K)

Two participants negotiated health problems and physical limitations by
improving their health and physical status, as illustrated by Tooter: “I am currently doing
a workout program to build strength and ﬂexibility for future kayaking”. A woman with
concerns about sea sickness also negotiated her physical problem by trying to improve her
health: “followed instructors advice to try ginger, asked her to bring Dramamine along”
(Branch).

The use of varied behavioral and cognitive negotiation methods allowed all the
women to arrive at their respective courses and begin participation. For some, registering
for the course reduced the number of reported constraints. However, the need to

negotiate constraints related to concerns with actual participation in the course increased

after the participants arrived on site.

120

During the Course

Participants were asked to describe the reasons why they were able to continue to
participate during their most challenging experiences. Data were collected twice during
the course and results were combined in the ﬁnal analysis because the negotiation
methods used by the participants did not change. Constraint negotiation methods

emerged within behavioral and cognitive categories (Table 4.15).

 

 

Table 4.15

Constraint Negotiation Methods Used During the Course
Behavioral Negotiation Methods Cognitive Negotiation Methods
Acquiring skills Face up to problems

Relying on instructor or others
Improving health/physical ability

 

Behavioral negotiation methods included: acquiring skills; relying on the
instructors or other participants /group for support; and, improving health status / physical
ability. One behavioral negotiation method — acquiring skills — related to the continuous
process of participating during the course, and gaining additional skills that led to
increased conﬁdence levels.

On the Eskimo rescue, a little fearful. I was concerned that I could not ﬁnd

my partner’s boat. I had done it before and I know I could always get out

of my boat if I needed to. (Brenda)

Leaning on the sweeps, I was afraid I would ﬂip over, but I felt the effect
of using my knees and after a few tries, I felt I had some control. (Cilla)

Seven participants relied either partially or exclusively on the instructor and others in the

group to negotiate constraints. For example,

121

J -lean and bracing. Because it is intimidating to do something you don’t
feel you have control over, I still need to work on it, because ifI couldn’t
master it I would be disappointed. Patient instructor, group support.

(Fleece)

The high and low braces. The coordination of arm, leg, head movement
was difﬁcult for me. I felt frustrated and hot. The support that I received
from our group and from the instructor. (Trailhiker)

Doing an on-water transfer from one kayak to another. I was extremely
scared, physically tense, very apprehensive and anxious, but I did not cry.
I didn’t know what to expect even though (( the instructor)) patiently
explained what I and the others were going to do. I couldn’t control my
fear. The patient help of ((the instructor)) and the others. (Tooter)

A cognitive negotiation method — face up to problems — was used partially or exclusively
by twelve participants, four of whom provided illustrations.

Wet exit in my new boat since the spray skirt is tight and you need to make
sure the skirt does not hang up on the back of the seat. I was nervous
during the experience; concerned I would get stuck in the boat. I knew I
would be able to do it. I just had to make myself do it. Also I knew the
more I did it, the more conﬁdent I would be. (Brenda)

Realizing myself, when underwater, I need practice to feel 100%
comfortable staying underwater and not being scared of not surfacing
safely. I feel like I could become comfortable with time. I love to
improve; I like to practice. I like to get things right and not give up.

(Reba)

Trying to roll and trying again when I missed it. This is the thing I’ve
always had a lot of trouble with and there were a lot of people around to
see me miss it. I’m determined to get it by the end of the weekend. (Jo)

The braces, it hurt on my left side (injured shoulder) such that I couldn’t
do the braces on that side. It was also hard for me to concentrate on
multiple body positions at one time. Need to learn body stuff with lots and
lots of practice and repeated instruction. I am challenged. I do not have

strength or speed, but I have perseverance and I will eventually master the
skills. (Cilla)

Of the twenty participants who completed both days of the course, six used a

combination of constraint negotiation methods. The behavioral negotiation methods used

122

by one participant emerged as relying on instructor/others and improving health status/
physical ability.

Panicking a little during my ‘tip-over’; not being as strong as I’d like,
embarrassed. Aching arms and shoulders; occasional muscle cramps.
Taking aspirin, planning to ask for ice at the B&B; ultimate trust in the
others. (Felicia)

Two participants used behavioral methods — acquiring skills and relying on the instructor
or others — to negotiate constraints.

Bracing exercises. A lot to learn. Wind blowing into shore. Late in the
weekend; tired and uncomfortable in boat. Previous day’s successes;
company of group. Paddle ﬂoat rescue. Many things to remember;
determined to order; recall proper technique. Physical actions challenge
ability to recall; satisﬁed when ﬁnished. Previous successes; observation
of peers engaging/succeeding; conﬁdence in instructors. (Uba)

To be consistent in my strokes and achieve a cadence. I felt tired before
the day was ﬁnished. Everything in the experience was new to me, the
clothing, the equipment, the language, the movements on the water. I
received positive reinforcement from my instructors and I also achieved
the paddle ﬂoat rescue and the underwater exit. (Trailhiker)

A combination of behavioral and cognitive methods — relying on the instructor/others and
facing up to problems — was used by three participants to negotiate constraints.

Paddling through the refracting waves/clapotis. Didn’t know which way
the water was coming from, had to force myself to relax and go with the
ﬂow. Able to force myself to relax; l_(new th_£_tt if I had a big problem, ((the

instructor)) would be right there.(Jo)

Trying to get back into the kayak. I couldn’t pull/kick myself up onto the
kayak. Trying to get calm and loose enough to not be scared of ﬂipping
again. Getting onto the kayak was hard because I probably lack upper
body strength; because I want to do this, and I will learn to do this. (mtg

instructor)) was very calm and helpful. The other stpgents were
suppprtive. (Tooter)

Initially casting off into the surf in a new kayak, a double that I had never
tried before and using the rudder for the ﬁrst time with a partner I knew
was way more scared than I was. I was afraid her fear would translate into

123

dumping us both, which didn’t scare me, but I knew would scare her
terribly. I’m very conﬁdent of my own abilities to balance and was veg
conﬁdent of our instructor’s ability to pull us out of any disaster. (Branch)
During the course, participants primarily used either a behavioral negotiation
method - relying on the instructor or others in the group — or a cognitive negotiation

method — facing up to problems — to continue with participation. Six participants used a

combination of two negotiation methods to overcome constraints.

Following the Course

Following completion of the course, the participants were asked to identify
potential and actual negotiation methods they could use to affect their participation in sea
kayaking. Potential negotiation methods that could be used in the two months following
the course were predicted on the ﬁnal questionnaire section. Actual negotiation methods
used to continue challenging experiences and predicted methods for the next year were
identiﬁed during the interview.

Predicted Positive Impacts. Immediately following the completion of the course,
the women were asked to predict what might positively affect their participation in sea
kayaking over the next two months. Thirteen women responded and four thematic areas
emerged, including: participation in the course led to acquisition of new knowledge and
skills; the ability to access equipment and opportunities; ability to access leisure partners;
and attempting to improve health and physical status.

Seven women identiﬁed ways to negotiate participation through acquisition of
new knowledge and skills. For example: “the instructors positively affected my

participation. They were excellent. They have helped me become a more skilled

124

paddler” (N.S.); “I want to get out and practice my skills” (Kayla); and, “more
comfortable with all aspects of it ((sea kayaking» now, much easier to do again”
(BumPY)-

The ability to access equipment and opportunities to sea kayak were reported by
four women. For example: “I will be on Lake Michigan for 4th of July with kayaks and
kayakers” (J -Bay); “living on a warm lake, having my own boat and equipment” (Cilla);
and, “ﬁnd a trip to go on” (Brae). Two women indicated that the ability to access leisure
companions would positively affect their participation: “1 know of more people who are
interested” (Brae) and “I’ve just learned of 2 people I know who have a double, and at
least one gave me an eager invitation” (Felicia). One participant was planning on
improving her health or physical status: “I’m working on losing weight and getting
stronger” (Tooter).

Activity-Speciﬁc Negotiation Methods. Ten participants identiﬁed negotiation
methods they had used to continue to participate during challenging experiences
following the course. Two negotiation methods emerged in the behavioral category -
relying on family and friends and acquiring equipment - and one method in the cognitive
category — face up to problems — as ways to continue participation (Table 4.16).

Table 4.16

Negotiation Methods Used During Challenging Experiences in the Two Months
Following the Course

 

Behavioral Negotiation Methods Cognitive Negotiation Methods

 

Acquiring equipment Face up to problems
Relying on family and friends

 

125

One participant negotiated a constraint related to loading her kayak on her vehicle

by acquiring additional equipment: “I’ve got sort of a loader thing with wheels and I lift

up and then I can stand the kayak up and sort of roll it up and push it” (Jo). Three

participants relied on friends and family to behaviorally negotiate constraints. This

method was illustrated by one woman who was trying to learn to roll.

Being able to see both my sister-in-law and my daughter do it ((rolling)).
They both have a little bit different techniques (. . .) and then trying to put
their techniques together and then having my husband right in the water
with me (. . .) and (. . .) um (. . .) kind of showing me where the paddle
should be and that kind of thing. (N.S.)

Two women negotiated constraints by combining behavioral and cognitive methods —

relying on friends and family, and facing up to problems — to continue participation.

The one time we played in the three-to four-foot waves, that was
challenging, but I felt that 1 could do it because of the things I had learned
in the class and I think if I had done that like before the class I would have
been really scared (. . .) but I was able to enjoy it. I went out with Laurie
and Bonnie and there was another woman, Freda, that (. . .) um (. . .) the
four of us went out and (. . .) oh (. . .) we just did it together and had fun
and laughed and played. (Cilla)

The roll was challenging (. . .) I had a couple of people helping me (. . .) oh

(. . .) encouragement from the people that were helping me and
determination just to ‘get it’ because I’ve done it before, I know I can do

it. (J-Bay)

Four participants used a cognitive negotiation method — face up to problems -

exclusively. One participant, challenged by high wave conditions, stated, “making the

decision to turn around and be comfortable with where I was at, you know, as

comfortable as I could get in that situation and just trying to take control over it”

(Bumpy). Rough water, wind, and waves were identiﬁed as constraints for the other

three women.

126

Well, when we were out in rough water it was ‘I’m not going to let this
thing defeat me (. . .) I know I’ve got good basic skills, I may be still a
beginner but this is a good time to practice them (. . .) it’s like I know I can
keep my head calm (. . .) um (. . .) I know what to do ifI go over; I’m not
that far from shore and I know that I can handle this’, so it was mental.
(Kayla)

I am not letting a little wave or wake defeat me. And I know that the more

you do this and the more lessons you take and the more you get out there

and do it (. . .) um (. . .) the easier it’s going to be. (Brenda)

Well I have to say I have a lot more conﬁdence since taking that class (. . .)

I think the experience that I had (. . .) um (. . .) you know, being out of the

boat a lot (. . .) gave me more conﬁdence about being out of the water

around my boat and not being concerned about going over and (. . .) uh

(. . .) and just sort of feeling comfortable that if that happened, you know,

it wouldn’t be that big a deal and you’d cope with it. (Uba)

Predicted Negotiation Methods for Future Participation. Women were asked
what would help them to participate more in sea kayaking over the next year. Six
behavioral methods of negotiation emerged, including modifying time and commitments,

changing interpersonal relations, acquiring more skills, changing leisure behavior,

accepting a lower level of participation, and acquiring equipment (Table 4.17).

 

 

Table 4.17

Negotiation Methods Predicted to Allow Future Participation in Sea Kayaking
Behavioral Negotiation Methods Cognitive Negotiation Methods
Modifying time and commitments (none)

Changing interpersonal relationships
Acquiring more skills

Changing leisure behavior

Accept lower level of participation
Acquiring equipment

 

127

A behavioral method — changing interpersonal relations — was most frequently
reported as a way to negotiate constraints. Three women reported this method
exclusively. For example,

I do have an acquaintance now who has one ((sea kayak)). (. . .) If she’s
willing to still go (. . .) and on a lake (. . .) you know, I think near the
suburbs is where she lives, I would go (. . .), at least until I maybe ﬁnd
some other acquaintances (. . .) um (. . .) that would make the difference

(. . .) you know I just don’t have the companionship piece to push me into
it (. . .) well actually, the two ((friends)) that I got to go with me from here,
you know, we could rent too and go (. . .) yeah. (Felicia)

One woman planned to use two behavioral methods — changing interpersonal relations
and acquiring skills — to negotiate constraints related to ﬁnding a paddling partner.

Taking some more classes and meeting some more people who are
interested (. . . ) I really enjoyed the women’s symposium and if they have
another one next summer I’m sure I’ll go back to that, you know, I’d like
to hook up with someone going on a short trip like maybe a couple of days
and try that (. . .) basically, I’d just like to get out more and be more
conﬁdent in my skills and practice more rescues. If I could ﬁnd a female
partner in the area, or any kind of partner in the area, to go with more often
that would help (. . .) if I had a consistent paddling partner, who wanted to
go as much as I do. You know my husband will go but he has so many
other (. . .) I mean his job keeps him away from us too much and then he
has a lot of other things that he does, too so he’s not always available.
(Kayla)

Five women predicted they would use a combination of behavioral methods —
changing interpersonal relations and changing leisure behavior — to negotiate more
participation in sea kayaking through trips and vacations. For example,

I think we are going to do a family guided tour (. . .) you know I thought of

going with West Michigan Kayaking, not the symposium but like this

weekend they’re doing on the Platte River. I could buy a boat for a friend.

To have an extra one on hand but I won’t do that, it’s too expensive (. . .)

the girl I’ve been river kayaking with (. . .) I don’t know how much longer
she’s going to want to go with me, but, just cuz she’s in college and a lot

128

younger than I am but she’s taken the fundamental class (. . .) so one at
least, I mean, so she might be ready to go out on Lake Michigan too.

(Fleece)

If we make it to Alaska I will deﬁnitely be doing a trip and it might be a
bigger trip (. . .) um (. . .) if not, you know, I’m right on the ocean in
Virginia, you know, where I’m going to be moving and I fully intend to do
some kayaking out there (. . .) if I ﬁnd a group to paddle with (. . .). I

really need to ﬁnd a group when I get out there because my husband is
living in Ohio right now and it’s really hard to get yourself out there and I
need to ﬁnd a new kayaking partner and I’d like to ﬁnd a group because
then someone else is sort of planning things, then it’s hard to say no (. . .).
So where do you go to ﬁnd a group? Because I really feel like I need the
support to help me (. . .), it’s so difﬁcult to get the things planned, get
everything together, to get the kayaks loaded up, and to get out there. And
if you don’t have a group to do it with it’s easier to say ‘I’ll stay home and
sleep today’. My biggest thing is when I get out there I wanna ﬁnd a group
to be involved with. (Brenda)

I would deﬁnitely like to get out again sea kayaking in the spring. I think
right now, unless I can plan it with somebody it would just be a day thing
somewhere on the lakes or somewhere nearby in Minneapolis (. . .). I
would deﬁnitely like to get out and do a bigger trip, I think within the next
year my biggest problem is going to be the time and the money (. . .) I
would love to go, you know, join a tour group doing down to Mexico, the
Baja (. . .) I’ve actually thought about it before and so far it hasn’t come
true (. . .). Actively search out people who are willing to do that and who
are looking for that kind of an adventure. Maybe contact some of the
companies around and ﬁnd out if there are groups, that kind of thing (. . .)
kind of a network. (Bumpy)

A combination of two behavioral methods - changing leisure behavior and accepting a
lower level of participation — were reported as potential negotiation methods by three
women. For example,

We just talked to a friend of ours who is moving to Thailand and (. . .) um

(. . .) he’s telling us that we have to come over there and kayak (. . .).

We’ll probably go back to the Apostles, maybe next summer (. . .) but kids

are going to college next year, I have one in college but she wants to
transfer to California (. . .) so that might prevent me, I’ll be busy with

129

them, you know, getting them situated. If we didn’t have the travel we
would be up in Michigan kayaking (. . .) or going on trips with the kayaks
but it’s the travel ((for kids)) right now and the focus on the kids. (N .8.)

Well, I hope to do some kind of trip on the Great Lakes next year (. . .) you
know some kind of multi-day (. . .) probably not seven days but, you
know, two or three days (. . .) certainly some open water. I want to get an
open water trip in (. . .) um, you know (. . .) schedules are (. . .) I have two
kids, schedules are what schedules are (. . .) I’m not going to cut back on
their activities to make time for mine (. . .) you know (. . .). Last weekend
my daughter and I went to the lake and took turns paddling and, usually we
take a white water kayak but, the fact is that the white water kayak is tough
to paddle on the open lake. So it means I give her the sea kayak and I
paddle the white water (. . .) which I worry then too that I’m not really
working on my sea kayaking skills, because you do paddle differently.
(Brae)

Accepting a lower level of participation was identiﬁed by two women as their
primary negotiation method: “well, I have to graduate ﬁrst, get a job, that’s about it”
(Special K) and,

. . . well, actually next year I’ll be working (. . .) um (. . .) if I didn’t do

anything but save money I’d be able to but (. . .) no I don’t think so, I don’t

know because I’m going to be (. . .) it’ll be my ﬁrst year teaching, I’m

going to be (. . .) I know I’m going to be very overwhelmed, I’m not even

going to have the time, I mean that’s (. . .) I don’t know where I’m going

to be (. . .) what I’m going to be doing. (J-Bay)

A behavioral method — acquiring more skills - was reported by three participants
as their exclusive method of negotiation for the next year. Two women illustrate this
method: “I plan on looking into more classes, exactly like what we had because they are

so fun, and I could always try out different boats” (Summer Rae) and

Yeah, the main thing is, is that I think practice and I’d like to take some
additional instruction. And I like individual instruction (. . .) or smaller
group instruction. I don’t like large groups. Oh I want to roll, isn’t that
funny, but the thing is I think that if I would have the conﬁdence to roll
then that would take away some of the apprehensions that I might have of
going into (. . .) strong wave conditions and, because the more conﬁdence

130

I can build up in my ability to rescue myself or to right myself is only
going to make me feel more conﬁdent so I can kind of explore some
bigger (. . .) um (. . .) trips in open water. (T.P.)

One woman identiﬁed two behavioral methods — modifying time and commitments, and
acquiring more skills - as ways to negotiate constraints to participation.

I need to do, and what I want to do, is to just get in a kayak and to play

around and ﬁdget in it and shift my weight every way that I can imagine

(. . .) so I really want to focus on that as well as just to continue to practice

and improve the skills that I learned in the class (. . .). There’s an

organization that has classes throughout the year and they do it in a pool,

so I hope to continue to learn more about kayaking by maybe taking more

classes. I’m always tinkering with my teaching schedule (. . .) um (. . .)

even though I am an older person, I’m still relatively new as a professor,

but one of the things that’s hard for me, even the last couple years, is just

getting that balance between work and my private life. (Tooter)
For two women a behavioral method — acquiring equipment — was reported as a way of
negotiating constraints.

I’m sure if the right kayak presented itself in the future and I had sufﬁcient

money I would not be opposed to buying a kayak and messing around in

the lake (. . .) especially since I have a daughter and I want to kayak with

her. (Branch)

I live right on the shoreline of Lake Michigan. I would like a new boat, I

would like a new boat that I feel a little more conﬁdent in and some (. . .)

uh (. . .) in more varied conditions. You know, and maybe some (. . .)

some rougher water, I don’t have a terribly sea worthy boat. (Uba)

Constraint Patterns

Results across all phases of the study were used to answer the third research

question related to constraint patterns. Subsections review the results for three emergent

constraint patterns, including (1) the interactions of constraints across the three different

categories, (2) the emergence, disappearance, and re-emergence of constraints within

131

categories and across activity phases, and (3) constraints for participants and non-

participants following completion of the course.

Pattern I: Constraints Across Categories

Generally, constraints that impacted participation prior to the beginning of the
course emerged within structural, intrapersonal, and interpersonal categories. However,
the categories were not mutually exclusive; constraints frequently were related to each
other across and within categories. For example, this participant’s response demonstrates
the interrelationship of constraints across structural (lack of equipment) and interpersonal
categories (leisure choice controlled by others and lack of leisure companions).

Not knowing anyone else who owns one, or who belongs to a group

who use the Mississippi River, which ﬂows one mile from my house!

I’ve never quite pursued contacting the rowing club that has a boathouse

one mile away, or contacted “Women in the Wilderness”. My husband

isn ’t interested in buying a 2-person. I’d need strong camaraderie to do

it locally. (Felicia)

Participants also identiﬁed multiple constraints that had impacted their
participation. Two women experienced multiple constraints, in more than one constraint
category, immediately prior to the beginning of the course.

#l-meeting with employer suggested job may go away, #2 had legal

problems over pension problems related to divorce, #3 washing machine
broke-had ﬂood, #4 hurt wrist. (T.P.)

My oldest daughter was in an accident Thursday night before coming, left

paddle at home, left purse in Wendy’s and $200 was stolen, cars were not
serviced correctly. (N.S.)

132

Pattern 2: Emergence/Disappearance/Re-emergence of Constraints

Constraints tended to emerge, disappear, and re-emerge throughout the study.
Structural constraints were identiﬁed before the course, disappeared during the course,
and emerged again following the course. Intrapersonal constraints emerged most
frequently during the course. Interpersonal constraints, in particular a lack of leisure
companions, consistently emerged before and following the sea kayaking course.

Constraints Before the Course. Nineteen women identiﬁed constraints that had
affected their participation since they had ﬁrst found out about sea kayaking. Most
constraints emerged within the structural constraint category. Intrapersonal constraints
included an ethic of care, perceived low skill, and sea kayaking as socially inappropriate.
Interpersonal constraints emerged as lack of leisure companions and leisure controlled by
others. Once the decision to participate in the course had been made, the number of
women reporting constraints decreased to three, with structural constraints mentioned
most frequently. The number of participants reporting constraints immediately prior to
the course increased to seven, with most of those women reporting multiple constraints.

Structural constraints were reported most frequently during this time period (Table 4.18).

133

Table 4.18

Comparison of Constraint Emergence Within Structural, Intrapersonal, and

Interpersonal Categories During Activity Phases Before the Course

 

 

 

 

 

Activity Phases (Before)
Constraint Constraints prior Constraints following Constraints prior
category to registration registration to course
Structural Lack of time Lack of time Lack of time
Lack of money Lack of money Lack of money
Lack of equipment Lack of
equipment
Physical/health Physical/health
Lack of access
Lack of opportunity
Intrapersonal Ethic of care Lack of entitlement Ethic of care
Perceived low skill
Socially inappropriate
Interpersonal Lack of companions Sense of obligation Lack of leisure

Leisure controlled by
others

companions

 

Constraints During the Course. Fourteen women reported concerns that emerged

as activity-related constraints (Table 4.19). Most activity-related concerns emerged in the

intrapersonal constraint category and included fear, perceived low skill, perceived age

limitations, and perceived physical/health limitations. One third of the participants

reported actual physical or health limitations that emerged as structural constraints.

134

Table 4.19

Constraints that Emerged as Course Concerns, During Challenging Experiences, and

Predicted Following the Course

 

 

 

Constraint Concerns about Activity-related Constraints predicted
category the course constraints for next 2 months
Structural Lack of time
Lack of money
Lack of equipment
Lack of opportunity
Lack of knowledge! Lack of knowledge/
skill skill
Physical/health Physical/health Physical/health
Intrapersonal Fear Fear Lack of entitlement

Perceived low skill

Perceived age limits

Perceived physical/
limits

 

Interpersonal

Lack of leisure
companions

 

During the sea kayaking course, participants frequently reported multiple

constraints related to lack of skill (structural constraint) and fear (intrapersonal

constraint). At the completion of the course, the women predicted constraints that might

impact their participation in sea kayaking during the following two months. Structural

constraints, mainly lack of time, emerged as those most likely to impact participation. An

interpersonal constraint - lack of leisure companions — disappeared entirely as a concern

during the course but re-emerged when participants predicted constraints for the two

months following the course.

135

Constraints Following the Course. Structural constraints were reported the most
frequently two months after the course (Table 4.20). However, an intrapersonal
constraint — ethic of care — emerged more frequently than was originally predicted by the
participants. Eleven women reported activity-related constraints. These were reported
most frequently as the structural constraints lack of equipment and lack of skill.

Table 4.20

Comparison of Constraints that Emerged Following the Course, as Activity-related
Constraints, and as Predicted for the Following Year

 

Activity Phases (Following)

 

 

 

 

Constraint Constraints following Activity-related Constraints
category the course constraints predicted
Structural Lack of time Lack of time
Lack of money Lack of money
Lack of equipment Lack of equipment Lack of equipment
Lack of knowledge/ Lack of knowledge/ Lack of knowledge/
skill skill skill
Lack of opportunity
Physical/ health limits
Intrapersonal Ethic of care Ethic of care Ethic of care
Interpersonal Lack of leisure Lack of leisure
companions companions

 

Constraints predicted to affect participation in sea kayaking over the next year
mainly emerged as a structural constraint related to lack of time. An interpersonal

constraint — lack of leisure companions — emerged more frequently following the course

136

and was predicted to occur more frequently over the next year than at the end of the

course.

Pattern 3: Constraint Differences Between Post-course Participants and Non-
participants

During the interview women were asked if they had participated in sea kayaking
in the two months following the course. Ten women had not participated and identiﬁed
constraints that emerged within the structural and intrapersonal categories (Table 4.21).
Table 4.21

Comparison of Constraints Experienced by Post-course Sea Kayaking Participants and
Non-participants

 

Constraints Experienced'

 

 

 

 

Constraint
categories Participants n Non-participants 11
Structural Lack of time 2 Lack of time 7
Lack of money 1 Lack of money 1
Lack of equipment 1 Lack of equipment 1
Lack of opportunity 1 Lack of opportunity 1
Intrapersonal Ethic of care 4 Ethic of care 2
Interpersonal Lack of leisure
companions 4

 

‘Some women reported more than one constraint.

Eight women identiﬁed structural constraints that included lack of time, money,
equipment, and opportunity. Time constraints were identiﬁed by seven women and

usually were associated with work or other responsibilities, as illustrated by Trailhiker.

137

Yeah, free time (. . .) working and lots of it, I do a lot (. . .) not a lot (. . .)

but I’m involved with my professional organization and then (. . .) uh (. . .)

the recycling center and, you know, and so I have some commitments to

(. . .) to some non-proﬁts.

In some cases time constraints were also interrelated with a lack of opportunity, as
illustrated by one woman.

Well (. . .) I don’t live on a body of water that allows it, for one thing (. . .)

um (. . .) I thought it was a wonderful activity (. . .) um (. . .) but, you

know, it has to be a concerted effort to go do that ((sea kayaking))

somewhere. (Stretch)

Two women identiﬁed an intrapersonal constraint — ethic of care - that had prevented
them from participating in sea kayaking since the course. For example,

There was a family member became (. . .) an extended family member

became very ill and I had to help transport her family to the hospital (. . .)

and I have a chronically ill friend (. . .) and then I went walking to raise

funds for an organization so I don’t (. . .) it’s probably nothing different

than anyone else comes up with for things that get in the way. (Felicia)

The eleven women who had participated in sea kayaking since the course reported
that their participation had been at less than desired levels. Constraints that had impacted
their ability to participate emerged in structural, intrapersonal, and interpersonal
categories (Table 4.21). Structural constraints — lack of time, money, equipment,
opportunity, and physical/health limitations — were reported by six of these women.

Four women reported an intrapersonal constraint — ethic of care — as limiting their
ability to participate in sea kayaking as much as they desired. This constraint is
illustrated by two of the women.

We didn’t get to the symposium (. . .) um (. . .) because we were getting

kids (. . .) uh (. . .) ready for college, however I wish we could have made

that (. . .) um (. . .) no we just have not had the opportunity this summer to
do as much as we normally do. (N .S.)

138

I would say mostly family things, our kids are grown up so you wouldn’t

think so but, I mean, they’re in and out, and then his parents and my mom

(. . .) and his brother is building a house so we try to help him out. (Cilla)
Four women indicated an interpersonal constraint — lack of leisure companions — as
having an impact on their participation following the course, as illustrated by Kayla.

Well, if I could ﬁnd a female partner in the area or any kind of partner in

the area to go with more often (. . .) that I could get help with loading my

boat, I would go all the time. We have lots of lakes around here to go on.

Intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints were more likely to impact women
who perceived their level of participation as less than they desired. Lack of leisure
companions emerged as a difﬁcult constraint to negotiate.

With my friend (. . .) um (. . .) I wanted her to enjoy it. I wanted (. . .) you

know, I’m hoping that she, or maybe some of my other friends, will get

hooked so that I have some women to kayak with and I can get out more,

so I wanted to get somebody else involved in it and enjoy it. (Kayla)
However, structural constraints, especially lack of time, had a large impact on preventing
participation for women who had not been able to sea kayak since the course. Time

constraints were rarely reported as having an impact on women who had participated

since the course.

Constraint Negotiation Patterns
Results across all phases of the study were used to answer the third research
question related to constraint negotiation patterns. Subsections review the four
negotiation patterns: (1) changes in negotiation methods used by participants during each
activity phase, (2) changes in negotiation methods related to the constraints experienced

throughout the activity phases, (3) use of the sea kayaking course as a negotiation

139

method, and (4) the process of successful negotiation of challenging experiences into best
experiences.

The women demonstrated the ability to successfully negotiate constraints before
and during the sea kayaking course; following the course they were less successful.
Eleven women were not able to negotiate constraints following the course. Ten women
were successful in negotiating constraints to participation and during their challenging
experiences with sea kayaking. However, these women also reported experiencing

constraints that impacted their ability to participate at their desired activity level.

Pattern I: Negotiation Methods Used During Each Activity Phase

Before the course began, behavioral methods of negotiating constraints —
modifying time and commitments, and relying on family and friends — were used most
frequently (Table 4.22). Cognitive methods of negotiation were used rarely during this

time period.

140

Table 4.22

Comparison of Negotiation Methods Used Before the Sea Kayaking Course

 

Activity Phases (Before)

 

 

 

Negotiation Methods prior to Methods following Methods prior to
Category registration registration course
Behavioral Modifying time/ Modifying time/ Modifying time/
commitments commitments commitments
Rely on family/ Rely on family/ Rely on family/
friends friends friends
Improve ﬁnances Improve ﬁnances
Improve physical/ Improve physical/
health health
Change interpersonal
relationships
Cognitive Face up to problems Face up to problems Face up to problems

Ignore problems

 

During the course, participants frequently relied on the instructor or others in the

group as a behavioral negotiation method. However, they were most likely to use a

cognitive method of negotiation — face up to problems — when expressing concerns about

sea kayaking or participating in the activities of the course (Table 4.23).

I knew I would be able to do it. I just had to make myself do it. Also, I
knew the more I did it, the more conﬁdent I would be. (Brenda)

Well, when we were out in the rough water it was ‘I’m not going to let this
thing defeat me (. . .) I know I’ve got the basic skills, I may be still a
beginner but this is a good time to practice them (. . .) it’s like I know I can
keep my head calm (. . .) um (. . .) I know what to do if I go over, I’m not
that far from shore and I know that I can handle this’ so it was mental, you
know, reinforcing myself mentally. (Kayla)

141

Table 4.23
Negotiation Methods Used During the Course for Concerns and Constraints Related to
Challenging Experiences

 

 

 

 

Activity Phase (During)
Negotiation
categories Methods used for concerns Activity-related methods used
Behavioral Acquiring skills Acquiring skills
Improving physical/health Improving physical/health
Relying on instructor/others
Cognitive Face up to problems Face up to problems

Self-talk

 

Following the course, during challenging experiences, participants relied on
family or friends as a behavioral negotiation method or used a cognitive negotiation
method — face up to problems — to overcome constraints. Only behavioral negotiation
methods were reported as ways to negotiate predicted constraints during the two months

following the course and into the next year (Table 4.24).

142

Table 4.24
Negotiation Methods Used Following the Course and Predicted for the Future

 

Activity Phase (Following)

 

 

 

Negotiation

categories Activity-related methods Predicted methods for future

Behavioral Modify time/commitments
Change interpersonal relationships
Acquire skills
Change leisure behavior
Accept lower level of participation
Acquire equipment

Rely on family/friends
Cognitive Face up to problems

 

Pattern 2: Negotiation Methods Related to Constraint Category

Generally, over the course of the study, structural constraints were most likely to
be negotiated using behavioral methods to begin or continue participation. Interpersonal
and intrapersonal constraints, that were frequently related to structural constraints, were
usually negotiated using behavioral methods. Cognitive methods were most likely to be
used to negotiate constraints that emerged as an intrapersonal constraint - fear -
associated with activity—related constraints.

Before the Course: Negotiation of Constraints. Before the course began, the
constraints most frequently experienced emerged in the structural category. Behavioral
methods of negotiation —- modifying time and commitments, and relying on family and

friends — were most frequently used to negotiate structural constraints (Table 4.25).

143

Table 4.25
Constraints Experienced and Negotiation Methods Used Before Course Began

 

 

 

Constraint Category Constraints (before course) it“
Structural Lack of time 13
Lack of money 7
Lack of access 4
Lack of opportunity 1
Lack of equipment 1
Physical/health limitations 3
Intrapersonal Ethic of care 2
Perceived low skill/ knowledge 2
Socially inappropriate activity 1
Lack of entitlement l
Interpersonal Lack of leisure companions 3
Leisure controlled by others 2
Sense of obligation 2
Negotiation Category Negotiation Methods (before course) n‘
Behavioral Modify time and commitments 8
Change interpersonal relationships 4
Rely on family and friends 9
Improve health/physical status 2
Improve ﬁnances 5
Cognitive Face up to problems 4
Ignore problems 2

 

'Some women reported multiple constraints and negotiation methods.

During the Course: Negotiation of Constraints. Structural constraints related to
health and physical limitations emerged when participants were asked to identify their
concerns associated with the course. Intrapersonal constraints emerged as fear,

perceptions of low skill or knowledge, and age or physical limitations. Most concerns

144

were negotiated using cognitive methods — face up to problems or self-talk — or
behaviorally by acquiring skills or improving their health status (Table 4.26).

During the course, constraints were activity-related and focused on challenging
experiences. Most constraints emerged in the structural category as lack of knowledge/
skill and physical/health limitations, and in the intrapersonal category as fear. These
constraints were primarily negotiated using behavioral methods — acquiring skills and
improving health/physical status.

An intrapersonal constraint - fear — was associated exclusively with activities in
which the women were participating as part of the sea kayaking course. Fear was
negotiated primarily using a cognitive method — facing up to problems — or in
combination with a behavioral negotiation method — relying on the instructor and others

(Table 4.26).

145

Table 4.26
Constraints and Negotiation Methods Related to Course Concerns and the Activity

 

Course Concerns

 

 

 

 

Constraints Negotiation
Category Type n Category Method n
Structural Physical/health Behavioral Acquire skills 3
limitations 6 Improve health/

physical ability 3

Intrapersonal Fear 5 Cognitive Self-talk 2
Perceived low skill/ Face up to
knowledge 4 problems 9
Perceptions of age
limitations 2

Perceptions of
physical limits 2

 

 

 

 

 

Interpersonal
Activity-related During Course
Constraints Negotiation
Category Type n Category Method n
Structural Lack of knowledge/ Behavioral Acquire skills 10
skills 22 Rely on instructor/
Physical/health others 17
limitations 18 Improve health/
physical 2
Intrapersonal Fear 22
Cognitive Face up to
Interpersonal problems 26

 

Note. it = number of times constraint or negotiation method was reported; for activity-related constraints it
represents a combination of two collection periods during the two-day course

146

Following the Course: Negotiation of Constraints. In the two months following
the course, eleven participants were able to successfully negotiate activity-related
constraints associated with challenging experiences. Two structural constraints — lack of
knowledge/skill and lack of equipment - emerged. One intrapersonal constraint — ethic
of care - was also reported. Women who experienced a lack of knowledge/skill or an
ethic of care as constraints were most likely to rely on family or friends (behavioral
method) or face up to problems (cognitive method) to negotiate those constraints (Table
4.27).

Table 4.27

Activity-related Constraints and Negotiation Methods of Women Who Participated in Sea
Kayaking Following the Course

 

 

 

Constraints Negotiation
Category Type n Category Method n
Structural Lack of Behavioral Rely on family/
equipment 4 friends 5
Lack of skills 5 Acquire equipment 1
Intrapersonal Ethic of care 2 Cognitive Face up to problems 6
Interpersonal

 

Note. n represents the number of times a constraint or negotiation method was reported

Following the Course: Predicted Negotiation of Constraints. Two times during
the study the women were asked to predict the constraints that would affect their
participation in sea kayaking and what they could do to negotiate those constraints.

Constraints most frequently emerged as structural constraints, especially lack of time.

147

Predicted negotiation methods emerged exclusively in the behavioral category. No
cognitive methods were predicted for the two-month or year time frames (Table 4.28).
Table 4.28

Predicted Constraints and Negotiation Methods for Two Months and One Year
Following the Course

 

Predicted for Two Months Post-course

 

 

 

 

Constraints Negotiation
Category Type it Category Method n
Structural Lack of time 10 Behavioral Rely on new skills 7
Lack of money 3 Have access to
Lack of equipment 5 equipment 4
Lack of knowledge/ Improve physical/
Skill 1 health status 1
Lack of opportunities 1 Change relationships 2
Physical/health
limitations 1 Cognitive (none)

Intrapersonal Lack of entitlement l

Interpersonal Lack of leisure
companions l

 

Predicted for Year Post-course

 

 

 

 

Constraints Negotiation

Category Type 11 Category Method n
Structural Lack of time 10 Behavioral Acquire skills 5
Lack of money 5 Acquire equipment 2

Lack of equipment 1 Change leisure
Lack of knowledge/ behavior 8

skill 1 Accept less
participation 5
Modify time/

commitments 1

Change relationships 9

 

Note. It represents number of times constraint or negotiation method was predicted.

148

Pattern 3: Using the Sea Kayaking Course to Negotiate Constraints

When the theoretical framework of constraints and constraint negotiation was
applied to the thematic areas identiﬁed from the participants’ reasons for taking the sea
kayaking course, constraints and constraint negotiation methods emerged from the data
(Table 4.29).
Table 4.29

Reasons for Participation in the Course Related to Constraints and Negotiation
Participation Reason: To build knowledge and skills

 

 

 

 

 

Constraints Negotiation
Category Type Category Method
Structural Lack of knowledge/skill Behavioral Acquire skills
Intrapersonal Perceptions of age limits Cognitive Face up to problems
Interpersonal (none)

 

Participation Reason: To build/change interpersonal relations

 

 

 

 

Constraints Negotiation
Category Type Category Method
Structural (none) Behavioral Change interpersonal
. relations
Intrapersonal Ethic of care Cognitive (none)
Interpersonal Lack of leisure companions

Sense of obligation

 

149

Table 4.29 (cont.)

 

Participation Reason: Course ﬁts for time/money

 

 

 

 

Constraints Negotiation
Category Type Category Method
Structural Lack of time Behavioral Modify time/
Lack of money commitments
Lack of access Improve ﬁnances
Intrapersonal (none) Cognitive (none)
Interpersonal (none)

 

Participation Reason: For personal challenge/satisfaction

 

 

 

 

Constraints Negotiation
Category Type Category Method
Structural Physical/health limits Behavioral Acquire skills
Lack of knowledge/skill Improve health/
physical status
Intrapersonal (none) Cognitive (none)
Interpersonal (none)

 

Five structural constraints were identiﬁed, including lack of time, lack of money,
lack of access, physical and health limitations, and lack of knowledge and skill. Two
intrapersonal constraints - ethic of care and perceptions of age limitations - and two
interpersonal constraints — lack of leisure companions and sense of obligation — emerged
as constraints that were negotiated by participation in the course.

By registering and participating in the weekend course, women were able to
behaviorally negotiate constraints by modifying time and commitments, modifying

ﬁnancial constraints, seeking out further instruction, acquiring skills/knowledge,

150

improving physical/health status, and changing or modifying interpersonal relations. The
course was also used to cognitively negotiate constraints by facing up to problems. The
most frequently mentioned reason for taking the course was to learn new skills and
increase knowledge of sea kayaking; however, lack of knowledge or skill did not emerge
as a constraint prior to the beginning of the course.

The women-only designation of the course also inﬂuenced fourteen women in
their choice of courses. Most of the women reported they were seeking a learning
environment in which they would be provided with more support and understanding.
They believed a women-only course would be less intimidating, less competitive, more
comfortable, more relaxed, and offer a different learning process compared to a co-ed
course. Some women were seeking the opportunity to build camaraderie and participate
in a new activity in the company of other women. The ways in which the participants
were inﬂuenced to choose a women-only course are related to the use of the course to
negotiate constraints. The women-only course enabled participants to negotiate a
structural constraint - lack of knowledge and skill — in a way that met their needs for a
different learning environment. An interpersonal constraint — lack of leisure companions
— was also negotiated through the choice of a women-only course. Many of the women
participated in the course with friends or were seeking others with whom to participate in

sea kayaking; the course enabled this constraint to be negotiated, at least partially.

Pattern 4: Negotiating Challenging Experiences into Best Experiences
During the course, participants were asked to describe their best and most

challenging experiences. Most of these experiences were very similar to each other. Best

151

experiences emerged in three categories: participating in and performing on-water skills
(e.g., wet exits, rescues, other skills); enjoyment of the activity/course; and, leading the
group on the group paddle. Challenging experiences emerged as participating in on-water
skill areas (e.g., wet exits, rescues, strokes, braces) and overcoming physical challenges.
On-water skills were reported by most as their best and challenging experiences.

Reasons why an experience was ‘best’ emerged in two thematic areas as building
conﬁdence in self/competence in skills and overcoming fears. The constraints that
emerged from challenging experiences were both structural (lack of knowledge/skill and
physical/health limitations) and intrapersonal (fear). Fear was most frequently related to
the on-water skills of wet exits and rescues. The methods used to behaviorally negotiate
constraints during challenging experiences included acquiring skills, relying on the
instructor or others, and improving health/physical status. A cognitive method - face up
to problems — was used exclusively to negotiate fear.

Comparison of some of the participants’ best experiences with their most
challenging experiences illustrates the pattern of successful negotiation enabling
challenging experiences to become best experiences (best experiences are in italics,
challenging experiences are underlined, negotiation methods are in bold, and double
parentheses (( )) indicate researcher’s additions for clarity).

Completing a paddle ﬂoat rescue on the ﬁrst try. I had never done it

before and was very scared to try it. ((The instructor)) was a wonderful,

patient teacher, and my group was very supportive. The paddle ﬂoat

rescue was the most challenging. I do not like to get out of my boat in the

water and this was a big hurdle I crossed. I don’t like tipping my boat over

and being under water. It’s never as bad as I think it will be, but I still

have the fear. The support of Wendy and the group gave me the
conﬁdence and determination to complete the rescue. (Kayla)

152

I was very concerned about being able to do it ( ( wet exit) ). But the
instructor was great and helped me through it. It was wonderful to do
it a second time and enjoy it. The wet exit. I was, quite frankly, scared
before we did the roll but felt great after because I really enjoy it! My
concern prior to this course was going over and being under the boat, I
knew this procedure would be part of the course and I spent far too much
time thinking about it. I am the kind of person that once I decide to
take something on, I will stay with it. (Frizz)

Paddle over rescue ( ( bow rescue) ). We had not gone over it in any detail
and yet I was able to ﬂip back up, success! We did it pretty informally as
a demo to the rest of the class, I was kind of remembering how to do it
from a previous class, but I wasn’t positive, I just didn’t let myself worry
about it, I figured I would try it and worst case I would wet exit.

Paddle over rescue ((ppw rescue)), wasn’t sure how it would work out. I
just talked myself into not worrying about it. (Brae)

Best experiences were not always matched to the most challenging experiences.
However, the ability to overcome constraints by negotiating through fear, frustration, lack
of knowledge/skill, and physical/health limitations enabled many of the women to
continue to participate in their best or most challenging experiences.

((Best experience» Doing the paddle ﬂoat rescue. I wasn’t sure I could do

it because of my injured shoulder. I am not always very coordinated but it

was the best experience because I was able to do it, despite my shoulder

and I was surprised by how well I did it. It made me feel more competent.

(Cilla)

((Challenging experience» Wet exit in my new boat since the spray skirt is

tight and you need to make sure the skirt does not hang-up on the back of

the seat. I was nervous during the experience. I gained conﬁdence by

completing the exercise. I knew I would be able to do it. I just had to

make myself do it. Also, I knew the more I did it, the more confident

I would be. (Brenda)

Overcoming fear through negotiation resulted in increased feelings of competence

and conﬁdence for many of the participants, increasing their motivation to continue with

course activities.

153

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to investigate leisure constraints and constraint
negotiation by women who were beginning sea kayakers participating in a women-only
sea kayaking course. The study was guided by three research questions. The ﬁrst
examined the leisure constraints that women experience before, during, and following a
sea kayaking instructional course. Second, the methods the participants used to negotiate
the constraints they experienced before, during, and following the course were
investigated. Third, constraint and negotiation patterns were investigated for each of the
activity phases of the study.

This chapter sets forth the summary of procedures and ﬁndings, conclusions, and
discussion of the study. The following sections are included: summary of procedures,
summary of ﬁndings, conclusions, discussion and implications, and recommendations for
further study.

Summary of Procedures

Subjects were twenty-one adult women (18 years and older) from courses offered
by two companies, Black Parrot Paddling in Hamburg, Michigan and Adventures in
Perspective in Bayﬁeld, Wisconsin. The women participated in American Canoe
Association (ACA) two-day, Basic Coastal Kayaking women-only courses during the
summer of 2002. Data were collected in three phases: before (Phase 1) and during
(Phase 2) the course, and two months post-course. A researcher designed open-ended

questionnaire, supplemented with observations, was used before and during the courses.

154

Two months post-course, data were collected using a standardized, open-ended telephone
interview. Instruments were developed through use of an expert review and pilot study.
A cross-case design formed the framework for data analysis. Emerging themes,
patterns, and categories of constraints and negotiation methods were generated
inductively through content analysis. Constraint and constraint negotiation data were
analyzed within the context of analyst-constructed typologies. Analysis used to construct
the participant proﬁles used indigenous typology, allowing themes to emerge from the
perspective of the participants. Constant comparison technique was used to compare the
resultant themes and categories to search for patterns. An intercoder reliability check was
preformed on a sample of the data by two independent coders, resulting in an average of
89% reliability of the resultant themes and categories. Quotations from the participants,

who self-selected nicknames for identiﬁcation, are used to illustrate the results.

Summary of Findings
Findings are presented based on the guiding research questions and are grouped

into subsections of constraints, negotiation, constraint patterns, and negotiation patterns.

Constraints

Generally, constraints emerged in structural, intrapersonal, and interpersonal
categories. The three constraint categories were not mutually exclusive and interaction
occurred between constraints in different categories. Before the course, constraints
primarily were structural (e.g., lack of time, lack of access, lack of opportunity, and lack

of equipment). After the course began, structural constraints such as lack of time and

155

money disappeared. During the course constraints were activity-related and either
structural (lack of skill or knowledge), intrapersonal (fear), or a combination of both.
Following the course, most predicted constraints were structural, with lack of time
and money re-emerging. Some intrapersonal constraints (ethic of care and lack of
entitlement) and an interpersonal constraint (lack of leisure companions) were also
predicted to affect participation. Actual constraints corresponded to predicted constraints.
Activity-related constraints were structural (lack of equipment and lack of

skill/knowledge) and intrapersonal (ethic of care).

Negotiation

Behavioral methods were most often used to negotiate constraints that were not
activity-related and were the primary methods used to negotiate structural constraints
such as lack of time and money limitations. Facing up to problems (cognitive method)
and relying on others (behavioral method) were most often used to negotiate activity-
related constraints, especially fear. When activity-related constraints such as fear and
physical limitations were successfully negotiated, women experienced feelings of
increased conﬁdence and competence. Even when some constraints were negotiated to
allow participation, other constraints were encountered that limited participation to less
than desired levels. These constraints - ethic of care and a lack of leisure companions —
were difﬁcult to negotiate. Behavioral negotiation methods were most often predicted as

a way to affect future participation.

156

Constraint Patterns

Constraints interacted within and across structural, intrapersonal, and
interpersonal categories. Multiple constraints, from all three categories, were experienced
during each activity period. Constraints tended to emerge, disappear (through
negotiation), and re-emerge. Some constraints had to be negotiated every time
participation was desired. Generally, structural constraints emerged before the course
began, disappeared after course registration, and re-emerged following the course.
Intrapersonal constraints most frequently emerged during the course and were activity-
related. An interpersonal constraint - lack of leisure companions — most frequently
emerged following the course.

Non-participation was attributed to either a lack of motivation / desire to continue
or the structural constraints of lack of time and money, or a combination of both. Desired
levels of participation were negatively affected by an intrapersonal constraint (ethic of

care) and an interpersonal constraint (lack of leisure partners).

Negotiation Patterns

Before the course, behavioral methods were most frequently used for negotiation.
During and following the course, either a behavioral method (relying on the
instructor/others) or a cognitive method (facing up to problems) was used to negotiate
activity-related constraints. Following the course, only behavioral methods were
predicted for constraint negotiation.

Behavioral methods were used to negotiate structural constraints. Fear

(intrapersonal constraint) was negotiated by either relying on the instructor (behavioral

157

method) or facing up to the problem (cognitive method). Intrapersonal constraints
primarily were activity-related, with the exception of ethic of care, which was negotiated
using behavioral methods and occurred either before or following the course.

Some women decided to participate in the course as a way to negotiate constraints
and motivate participation. Structural (lack of time, lack of money, lack of access,
physical / health limitations, and lack of knowledge / skill), intrapersonal (ethic of care
and perceptions of age limitations) and interpersonal (lack of leisure companions and a
sense of obligation) constraints were behaviorally and cognitively negotiated through
course registration. When the perceived beneﬁts (e. g., building knowledge and skills,
building interpersonal relationships, allowing negotiation constraints, for personal
challenge and satisfaction) of an instructional course were desirable, women were
motivated to negotiate constraints to allow for participation. The perceived beneﬁts of a
women-only course, in terms of a different learning environment, were an important part

of negotiating participation.

Conclusions
Based on the ﬁndings and within the limits of this study, it was concluded that
women do encounter constraints during all phases of participation in a sea kayaking
course. Multiple constraints are encountered and occur in structural, intrapersonal, and
interpersonal categories. However, because of the interaction of constraints within and
across categories, mutual exclusivity of constraint categories is not supported.
Based on the emergence, negotiation, and re-emergence of constraints throughout

the study phases, it is concluded that constraints do not occur in a hierarchical or linear

158

pattern, but instead in a cyclical pattern. This supports the Expanded Model of Leisure
Constraints (Henderson and Bialeschki, 1993) rather than the Hierarchical Model of
leisure Constraints (Crawford et al., 1991).

In order to participate in the course, women did negotiate constraints. This
supports the assumption that negotiation occurs before, during, and following
participation in outdoor recreation activities. Some constraints are more difﬁcult for
women to negotiate than others, especially ethic of care and lack of leisure companions,
and are likely to result in less than desired levels of participation. Most negotiation
methods used are behavioral, especially for structural constraints. However, fear is
negotiated through both behavioral and cognitive methods.

Furthermore, if the perceived beneﬁts of an activity are important, women will
negotiate to participate. Comments indicated that there were beneﬁts to participation in a
women-only course. Therefore, it is concluded that, for some women, perceived beneﬁts
such as a different learning environment and decreased levels of competition help them to

negotiate participation in outdoor recreation activities.

Discussion and Implications
The following subsections discuss the study’s theoretical implications, qualitative
design implications, implications for outdoor experiences for women, and practical

applications of the research ﬁndings.

Theoretical Implications
As the patterns of constraints and constraint negotiation emerged, it became

apparent that separating constraints from the process of negotiation removed the results

159

from the lived experiences of the participants. For this reason, the six theoretical
implications address constraints and constraint negotiation together wherever possible.

Constraint Classiﬁcation. Neither of the constraint category classiﬁcations
proposed by Henderson and Bialeschki (1993) (antecedent and intervening constraints) or
Crawford and Godbey (1987) (structural, intrapersonal, and interpersonal constraints) was
determined to contain mutually exclusive categories. For this study, analyst typologies
were used to guide preliminary data reduction; however, constraint categories were not
predetermined. Instead, data were sorted into constraint groups and then a constraint
category framework was applied. Although not demonstrated to be mutually exclusive,
the constraint types best ﬁt into structural, intrapersonal, and interpersonal categories
(Crawford and Godbey, 1987) rather than the temporal categories of antecedent and
intervening constraints (Henderson and Bialeschki, 1993).

Participants experienced multiple constraints within and between constraint
categories. Some constraints, especially within the intrapersonal category, could have
been identiﬁed as more than one constraint depending on the life circumstances and
perspectives of that individual. Constraints tied to the activity tended to emerge
singularly; however, that was not the case with general leisure constraints because they
emerged in multiples. The results suggested that mutual exclusivity within any of the
constraint categories may not be possible to achieve.

Negotiation Classiﬁcation. Findings support the negotiation classiﬁcation system
proposed by Jackson et al. (1993), whereby negotiation methods or strategies were
classiﬁed as either behavioral (an observable change in behavior) or cognitive (a

reduction of cognitive dissonance). No new categories emerged from the data, and the

160

categories were consistent with previous ﬁndings. The results further support Jackson
and Ruck’s (1995) proposal that the majority of negotiation strategies used are
behavioral. However, those ﬁndings are supported only when related to negotiation of
structural constraints. Activity-related intrapersonal constraints associated with fear were
more likely to be negotiated with a cognitive, rather than a behavioral, method.

Constraint Models. Findings demonstrated a lack of support for the Hierarchical
Model of Leisure Constraints proposed by Crawford et a1. (1991) (Figure 1.1). Their
model is based on the concept that constraints are encountered hierarchically and linearly,
from intrapersonal to interpersonal to structural. Neither the concept of a hierarchy of
importance or linear movement through constraints to participation was supported.
Participants tended to report multiple rather than singular constraints, all of which had to
be negotiated for participation to occur. This emergence of multiple constraints did not
demonstrate a hierarchy of importance. However, for some women, ethic of care and lack
of leisure companions did appear to be more difﬁcult to negotiate than most structural
constraints. In addition, the concept of linear movement through negotiation of a single
constraint ignores the complexity of continued participation over time and the phenomena
of re-emergence of constraints after initial successful negotiation.

Findings more closely support Henderson and Bialeschki’s (1993) Expanded
Model of Leisure Constraints (Figure 1.2) rather than the hierarchical model. Results
indicated that constraints do inﬂuence one another and are acted on by activity
preference, participation, and negotiation processes. Henderson and Bialeschki describe
their model as representing a cyclical process of constraint and constraint negotiation.

Although the women in this study experienced constraints that tended to emerge,

161

disappear, and re-emerge throughout the activity phases it is difficult to determine if the
negotiation process is cyclical, unless a study is conducted longitudinally. Certainly, the
recurring need for participants to negotiate continuously over time supports the basic
premise of the expanded model that states,

. . . constraints are not sequential and hierarchical, but dynamic and

integrated . . . that the relationships among constraints, preferences, and

participation were more complex and interactive . . . and that negotiations

may occur over and over within the expanded model. . .this model is not

linear, but holistic and interactive in its basic tenets. (Henderson and

Bialeschki, 1993, p. 247)

Integrated Model of Leisure Constraints and Negotiation. The major ﬁnding in
this study was the pattern of emergence, disappearance (through negotiation), and re-
emergence of constraints throughout the activity phases. Negotiated constraints did not
disappear forever. Even when women had a preference and motivation for participation,
the same constraints could be encountered and re-negotiated again and again. Building
on Henderson and Bialeschkis’ model, this process is illustrated as the Integrated Model
of Constraints and Constraint Negotiation (Figure 5 .1).

Key characteristics of the model are:

1. Life experiences and leisure experiences are interrelated, and include
constraints and negotiation as part of the process of participation.

2. Constraints continuously emerge, are negotiated, and re-emerge throughout
participation phases.

3. The process of constraint negotiation is complex, acted upon by activity
preference, motivations, and investment.

4. Non-participation in an activity may occur at any point following the initial
participation phase.

5. Life and leisure experiences continuously interact across all three activity
phases.

162

 

 

Phase 2
Initial Participation

Phase 3
Continued Participation

 

 

 

 

 

l

_....__. ___________ l

l

LLife Experiencea 4———————)Eleisure EXperiencesa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C
O
3:. Awareness, Preference, and

,_, 3 Motivation for Activity

Q)

g .5 l

0. § LConstraints )4 No Further
.2 ‘ Partici ation
e r i K "
°" L Negotiation ]

 

 

 

r .. . . .
L Initial Partrcrpatronj

 

 

 

C Constraints jar N0.F.urth.erw
LPartrcrpatron )

 

 

[ Negotiation j

 

’ s

I I ' ~ \ \
, ’ W Increased Investment and W ‘ \
\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’1 Motivation 1 ‘\
I
\
f . \ K x I No Further
Continued [k Constraints J , ) [Pal-{Ci ation]
\\ Partrcrpatron ’ l p

 

 

\ \ A/ I
\ I /
‘ t [ Negotiation ] , , ’

N‘ ’
‘ ’

 

‘ f
‘- "
----—-

 

' Life and leisure experiences continuously interact across all phases of the activity.

Figure 5.1. Integrated Model of leisure Constraints and Negotiation

The Integrated Model is divided into participation phases with constraints

encountered and negotiated within each phase. Phase 1 encompasses the preliminary

decision to participate in a leisure activity. This decision is interrelated with a person’s

life and leisure experiences, awareness, preference, and motivation for the activity.

163

Constraints may be encountered at any time during this phase, with progression to the
next phase dependent upon successful negotiation.

Phase 2 represents initial participation in a leisure activity. Again, constraints
related to the activity may be encountered during this phase. If those constraints are not
successfully negotiated, then no further participation may occur and the process begins
again for another activity. If negotiation is successful, then the participant may move to
the next phase.

As a person becomes more involved in an activity, they may increase their
investment (e. g., purchase equipment, schedule time for participation, ﬁnd leisure
partners) and motivation for the activity, entering Phase 3 of the model. During this
phase constraints are encountered again, with successful negotiation the key to continued
participation. However, constraints continue to emerge and re-emerge, with negotiation
required each time for participation to occur. The process of continuous constraint
negotiation is integrated with a person’s life and leisure experiences. As life changes,
leisure preferences and motivations also may change. During this study, an ethic of care
(intrapersonal constraint) and lack of leisure companions (interpersonal constraint) are
examples of two constraints that emerged, were negotiated, and re-emerged each time
participation was desired. These constraints tended to have a negative impact on desired
participation levels.

The model process is illustrated further from the study results. Some structural
constraints experienced by the women, such as lack of equipment, were negotiated in
different ways, which tended to dictate if further negotiation would be needed. During

the participation decision phase (Phase 1, Figure 5.1), lack of equipment was negotiated

164

by renting from the sea kayaking companies. As the women moved into the initial
participation phase (Phase 2, Figure 5.1) they had equipment to use; however, not all of
the equipment ﬁt as well as the women may have desired (Appendix E, pp. 237, 244, 247,
250). Following initial participation, continued participation (Phase 3, Figure 5.1) usually
included having or purchasing a sea kayak, or the ability to access equipment (e.g., rentals
or borrowing from friends). Owning a sea kayak represents an investment in the activity.
For women who owned a sea kayak, lack of equipment tended to disappear as a
constraint. However, if renting or borrowing equipment was a negotiation strategy, then
lack of equipment would have to be negotiated each time participation was desired. Half
of the women in the study did not sea kayak during the two months following the course.
None of the non-participants owned sea kayaks. Of the women who continued to
participate, eight owned sea kayaks and two had access to rentals or borrowed from
friends. These women continued to negotiate constraints in an effort to actively
participate in sea kayaking. Further investigation, over time, of the emergence,
disappearance (through negotiation), and re-emergence of constraints is needed to
determine if this cycle continues, changes, or disappears throughout participation phases.
Participation Dependent on Constraint Negotiation. Results support Crawford et
al.’s (1991) proposition that participation in leisure activities is dependent upon
negotiation through constraints rather than the absence of constraints. All of the women
reported multiple constraints that had to be negotiated successfully to participate in the
course. They also predicted multiple constraints that could affect their future
participation, but were able to predict ways to negotiate those constraints to allow for

continued or greater participation in the future. Activity-related constraints, primarily

165

fear and lack of knowledge/skill, were negotiated successfully during the course using
both behavioral and cognitive methods.

Integration of Constraints and Life Experiences. Results supported Samdahl and
Jekubovich’s (1997) contention that examining constraints in the absence of constraint
negotiation, or failing to place them within the context of people’s lived experiences, is
an artiﬁcial representation of the leisure experience. Data collected over a period of time,
from people who were actually involved with the activity under study, provided a more
comprehensive view of the way constraints and negotiation impact participation. As the
women’s life experiences changed, the constraints they encountered also changed.
Activity-related constraints emerged and were identiﬁed because the study was occurring
as the women were participating in the activity. When activity-related constraints were
negotiated successfully, that process was described and the feelings of improved self-
conﬁdence and competence were expressed as they occurred.

Results revealed the multitude of constraints with which participants were
confronted, the ways in which they negotiated those constraints, and how the activity of
sea kayaking was experienced as skills were gained. A single questionnaire, with forced
responses on a check-off list for constraints and negotiation methods, would be unable to
provide an understanding of the depth and complexity experienced by these women
while beginning and participating in the activity. The use of qualitative methods, as has
been recommended repeatedly in the research literature, provided the opportunity to
make an in-depth examination of constraints and constraint negotiation over time.

Anticipated Beneﬁts and Constraint Negotiation. Findings support Nadirova and

Jackson’s (2000) proposal that anticipated beneﬁts of an activity encourage people to

166

attempt to negotiate constraints to enhance their leisure. The beneﬁts and motivations
women identiﬁed for taking the sea kayaking course assisted with constraint negotiation.
In addition, the women-only designation inﬂuenced some women to register for the
course. The desire for a different learning experience or the need to ﬁnd other women
with whom to participate were reported as beneﬁts that a women-only course could
provide. These expected beneﬁts provided an incentive to negotiate through constraints
to participation.

Understanding of constraint and constraint negotiation theory has developed and
expanded during more than a decade of research efforts. This study’s ﬁndings
demonstrate support for the expanded model of leisure constraints within the context of
examining leisure constraints and negotiation methods as cyclical in occurrence. Also,
the ﬁndings lend further support for continuing research efforts that examine leisure
constraints tied to constraint negotiation methods embedded within the context of

people’s lives.

Qualitative Design Implications and Discussion

Criticism about constraints research (Samdahl and Jekubuvich,l997) has resulted
in continued recommendations for a diversiﬁcation of research methods, in particular the
use of qualitative designs and techniques, to be applied to further leisure constraint
studies. Many researchers believe that the use of qualitative techniques increases
understanding of the richness and complexity of the leisure experience related to
constraints and constraints negotiation (Henderson and Bialeschki,l993; Samdahl and

J ekubovich, 1997; Jackson and Scott, 1999; Jackson, 2000). This study’s design allowed

167

the process of constraint negotiation to be examined over a period of time and within the
lived experiences of the participants. Through this process the complex nature of
interactions between constraints and negotiation methods emerged (Figure 5.1).

Past use of quantitative methods has been unable to fully investigate the
interrelationship between constraints and negotiation (J orgensen, 1998; Jackson and
Scott, 1999). In addition, use of qualitative methods has resulted in the discovery of
constraints such as an ethic of care and a lack of entitlement for leisure, especially for
women’s experiences (Henderson and Bialeschki, 1993). Use of an open-ended
questionnaire during participation in the course allowed the integrated nature of
constraints and negotiation to emerge. This resulted in a better understanding of the
negotiation process. How women negotiate fears behaviorally (rely on instructor and
others) and cognitively (face up to problems) as related to sea kayaking activities would
not have been discovered without using qualitative techniques.

The study ﬁndings give further support to advances in constraint and negotiation
theory that call for leisure experiences to be examined within the context of people’s lives
rather than separately. This implies the need for use of qualitative designs and methods
to allow researchers to move beyond the simple listing of categories and strategies to
examining the interactions of leisure negotiations within the larger context of life
experiences. Gathering data over a two-month period of time allowed a greater
understanding of women’s experiences in the outdoors. Leisure constraints and
negotiation theory proved to be a valuable framework within which to examine leisure
experiences. However, leisure constraints do not exist in a vacuum. Although constraint

and negotiation theory provided an excellent study framework, better integration of

168

participant motivations and preferences would have contributed to a greater
understanding of the women’s outdoor experiences. Constraints and the ways people
negotiate them will never be fully understood without placing leisure experiences within

the context of life experiences.

Women ’s Outdoor Experiences

The ways in which women view the outdoor experience, along with social and
gender-related differences found in the general constraint literature, made a study of a
women-only outdoor recreation program focused on the female experience important.
Few studies have focused on women in the outdoors, even though their participation in
outdoor recreation activities continues to grow. The following subsections detail issues
that emerged related to women in the outdoors. These issues are beyond the scope of the
original research questions and should be considered the researcher’s impressions of the
study results based on many years of experience working with women in the outdoors and
as a sea kayaking instructor.

No One To Sea Kayak With. One issue to emerge was the women’s search for
other people as activity partners. Although only a total of four women predicted that a
lack of leisure companions would be a constraint to participation in the two months
following the course, the reality of trying to ﬁnd someone else with whom to participate
in sea kayaking was much different. During the interview nine women predicted the need
to negotiate a lack of leisure companions for sea kayaking over the following year. The
most frequently mentioned negotiation methods were behavioral — changing interpersonal

relations and changing leisure behavior. The power of this constraint to affect

169

participation is reﬂected in the depth and detail of the women’s responses as they
discussed how to negotiate participation in the future. The following response serves as
an example.

I’m right on the ocean in Virginia, you know, where I’m going to be
moving and I fully intend to do some kayaking out there (. . .) if I ﬁnd a
group to paddle with (. . .). I really need to ﬁnd a group when I get out
there because my husband is living in Ohio right now and it’s really hard
to get yourself out there and I need to ﬁnd a new kayaking partner and I’d
like to ﬁnd a group, because then someone else is sort of planning things,
then it’s hard to say no (. . .). So where do you go to ﬁnd a group because
I really feel like I need the support to help me (. . .) it’s so difﬁcult to get
the things planned, get everything together, to get the kayaks loaded up,
and to get out there. And if you don’t have a group to do it with it’s easier
to say ‘I’ll stay home and sleep today’. My biggest thing is when I get out
there I wanna ﬁnd a group to be involved with. (Brenda)

Sea kayaking is an outdoor adventure activity that requires participants to accept a certain
degree of risk. Courses and symposia emphasize the need for knowledge and skills that
contribute to the safe enjoyment of the activity. One of the primary rules for safe sea
kayaking is to participate with at least one, preferably more, people during the activity.
This need for other people with whom to participate is illustrated here by one woman who
did not kayak after the course.

Um (. . .) well I guess I would say that I like the idea of (. . .) of doing a

longer instructional course that would, maybe include camping on some of

the islands and that’s something that I would be afraid to go do without an

experienced guide because of the nature of the weather on Lake Superior.

But I absolutely loved the sea caves and (. . .) you know, I like the idea

(. . .) and because I’ve done many, many Boundary Waters trips. I like the

idea of going and camping and, you know (. . .) but I would never dare to

do that without a guide. (Stretch)

Even women with a spouse who shares their desire to participate in sea kayaking

reported that a lack of leisure companions impacted their ability to participate as much as

they desired. The following is an illustration of one woman’s experience with a lack of

170

leisure companions during the study time frame. Kayla is married, has two children, and
works full-time. She owns a sea kayak and had done some paddling during the year
before the study began. Most of her paddling experiences were with her husband, a few
friends, and her son. Here she explains why she decided to start sea kayaking.

My husband had an interest and we tried different kayaks at a demo day in
Manistee. I really liked it so we purchased kayaks the following spring. I
like the peacefulness of being on the lake and I feel conﬁdent that I can do
this. My husband is a big outdoorsman and I have tried very hard to
follow along (mostly mountain biking), kayaking has been my favorite
activity.

She explains why she was taking the sea kayaking course and the inﬂuence the women-
only designation had on her decision.

I want to learn proper paddling techniques. My biggest frustration last
year was not knowing proper stroke techniques. I was excited about this
class because it is for women only, much less intimidating. I also like
paddling on Lake Michigan and camping. After trying to keep up with my
husband (who excels at anything physical) I thought it would be much less
intimidating with women only. I also believe we are built differently,
think differently, and learn differently than men.

During the course, Kayla described her most challenging and best experiences.

The paddle ﬂoat rescue was the most challenging. I do not like to get out
of the boat in the water and this was a big hurdle I crossed. It was
exhilarating to be able to do this! During the rescue I felt much calmer
and focused that I thought I would be. The support of ((the instructor))
and the group gave me the conﬁdence and determination to complete the
rescue. ((The best experience» Completing a paddle ﬂoat rescue on the
ﬁrst try. I had never done it before and was very scared to try it. Also
rescuing ((the instructor)) while on our paddle trip. I redeemed myself
from botching a rescue this morning and proved to myself that someone
really could get to a capsized boat fast enough to rescue before the rescuee
had to wet exit.

Kayla was one of the women who participated in sea kayaking following the course. She

provides the following description of her best and most challenging experiences.

171

Um (. . .) probably the day that my husband and I went out on Lake
Michigan when the water was calm (. . .) urn (. . .) that was what I had
been looking forward to all summer and ﬁnally got to do it. I was kind of
by myself because he always gets so far ahead of me ((laughter», but that
was a good experience. The most challenging would be when I was out
with my friend who had not kayaked before and trying to explain to her the
importance of all of the safety features. I wanted her to enjoy it, I wanted
(. . .) you know, I’m hoping that she, or maybe some of my other friends
will get hooked so that I have some women to kayak with and I can get out
more so I wanted to get somebody else involved in and enjoy it.

When Kayla was asked what had prevented her from sea kayaking as much as she wanted
to following the course, she reported that

Um (. . .) well there’s lots of times when I wasn’t able to participate. IfI
could get my boat up on my car (. . .) if I could get my boat down out of
the garage (. . .) out of the hanger and up onto my van by myself I could go
all the time (. . .) urn (. . .) but I have to rely on somebody else to help me
do that because of the way our boats are stored. If I could ﬁnd a female
partner in the area or any kind of partner in the area to go with more often
that I could get to help with loading my boat. I would go all the time. We
have lots of lakes around here to go on. Yes, if I had a consistent paddling
partner who wanted to go as much as I do. (. . .) You know, my husband
will go but he has so many other (. . .) I mean his job keeps him away from
us too much.

Kayla did have some ideas about how to negotiate the lack of a leisure companion.

Um (. . .) well, I guess probably taking some more classes and meeting

some more people who are interested (. . .) um (. . .) there was, I was trying

to remember (. . .) I think there was information from the symposium on

the local club down here and I did send in stuff to join it but I haven’t

heard from them yet so I have to dig that stuff out and ﬁnd out who I sent

it to and see if I can contact them and see what’s the deal, but I’d really

like to get involved with the club.
Even though she had indicated that she was unable to participate at desired levels, Kayla
provided some insight into why she wants to sea kayak and the beneﬁts she gains from

her participation.

Well(. . .) it was really my husband’s idea, he was the one who was
interested in it and (. . .) um (. . .) I’ve kind of just followed along with

172

some of the different activities that he does like mountain biking and
ﬁshing and things like that, so I was, like, OK sounds like fun (. . .) um
(. . .) you know, hadn’t really done it before except in little play boats and

(. . .) um (. . .) we went and we looked and we bought these boats and

really shopped for them the wrong way and, but have enjoyed those initial
boats anyway and once I got out there and started paddling I was like

‘Wow, this is really cool ((laughter» (. . .) I just really like this and this is

peaceful and it’s calm and it’s something I could do’ and, you know, even

if he’s a half mile ahead of me, I don’t care. I’m still enjoying it and going

at my own pace and I just really (. . .) I don’t know there’s just something

about it, I just like it. I just like being outside, the freedom of it (Kayla).

As illustrated by Kayla’s experiences, women’s outdoor experiences are shaped by the
dynamic nature of their lives. It is not enough simply to know that women lack leisure
companions; we must build a greater understanding of how they negotiate that constraint
within the context of their life experiences.

‘Sea Kayaking Had to Wait for the Kids to Grow Up Active Creators vs.
Passive Responders to Constraints. Before the course began, eighteen women indicated
that constraints had affected their ability to participate in sea kayaking. The ways that
they then negotiated participation tended to reﬂect either an active way to create
participation or a passive response (waiting for constraints to change or abate) to
constraints. Seven women were at the course because friends or family had suggested it
to them. Even though they indicated an interest in sea kayaking, they had not been
actively seeking ways to participate; instead they simply waited for life experiences to
change. For example: “my parents pay my way in the name of family quality time”
(Special K) and,

We used to canoe a lot as a family when our children were growing up.

Once we bought a canoe it was inexpensive and we could do it all

together. Sea kayaking would have been expensive and not as practical for

us as the canoeing. Now that our children are older we have time for
activities like kayaking. (Cilla)

173

Nine women took a more active approach to creating opportunities for
participation. “1 force myself to take classes each year” (Brenda) and “just decided to bite
the bullet and take a course. I have been wanting to try for a while and decided it was
time” (Bumpy). During the course, participant responses to constraints were active.
However, following the course, active creators predicted different ways in which their
participation in sea kayaking could be continued into the future compared to passive
responders. Thirteen women indicated a passive response to constraints negotiation that
usually involved hoping for a trip in the future, wishing for someone else to go with, or
waiting for family activities to allow participation.

I guess the only thing ( . . . ) is tojust keep it in ( . . . ) on the horizon as an

interest in my head and kind of keep opened up in terms of where I might

be able to do it again. (Reba)

Um ( . . . ) I would keep my eyes open for things, yeah, I mean I would

like to something like that again ((the course», I would like to have

additional instruction, when speciﬁcally it will ﬁt in it sort of depends on a

lot of factors. I considered ﬁnding a trip to take over Christmas break but

actually we just decided to book something else, no I’m not going to do

that but I did think about it ( . . . ) it was on the short list. (Uba)

Oh ( . . . ) I’ve actually met a few people that do sea kayaks so that will

probably help, as far as having someone to go with. And that’s the big

thing ( . . . ) maybe just planning my summer a little better next year. (Jo)

Eight women were more active in the ways they predicted future constraint
negotiation. Some of them had kayaks and equipment, good access to friends who
participated, or concrete plans for future trips and opportunities for participation.

Um ( . . . ) actively search out people who are willing to do that and who

are looking for that kind of adventure. Maybe contact some of the
companies around and ﬁnd out if there are groups, that kind of thing.

(Bumpy)

174

Uh ( . . . ) we’re going to do a family guided tour. And, you know, it

doesn’t matter, but I asked ((instructor» to do that whole Lake Superior

thing with my family. We could do it somewhere else too but that was so

gorgeous I want everybody to see it. (Fleece)

For some women, their motivation or preference for sea kayaking as an activity
may have affected whether their negotiation of constraints was actively created or a
passive response.

‘It Just Seemed Like a Fun Thing to Do Participation Motivations Other Than
Learning to Sea Kayak. One assumption made prior to beginning this study was that the
women who were participating in the course were doing so because they were interested
in sea kayaking as an outdoor activity. This assumption was true for some of the
participants; however, for almost half of the women, participation in sea kayaking was
not the primary motivation for attending the course. Instead they appeared to be
attempting to negotiate other constraints in their lives and had no intention of continuing
sea kayaking as an activity. The following responses describe what had prevented them
from continuing to sea kayak.

I really, you know, I did this kind of on the spur of the moment because

I’ve always wanted to do kayaking and I wanted to take a course because

next spring or early summer I’d like to go off the coast of North Carolina

where they go off the islands and stuff through the Elderhostel group and I

thought, you know, I don’t want to get out there having never put myself

in a kayak and whatnot, so that basically when ((my friend» suggested it

do me I said ‘Great’. (Frizz)

Um (. . .) no, you know it’s not really a priority in my life right now (. . .)

so it’s not like I’m itching to go all the time, I have other (. . .) um (. . .)

other interests. Um (. . .) well actually next year I’ll be working (. . .) um,

it’ll be my ﬁrst year of teaching, I’m going to be very overwhelmed. I
don’t know where I’m going to be (. . .) what I’m going to be doing. (Jbay)

175

The course provided the opportunity to spend time with friends or simply to do something
different for one weekend. Participation in the course or sea kayaking was not the
motivating force; rather, the social context of spending time with friends was more
important.

Uh (. . .) no desire to. Not ‘cuz I didn’t like kayaking but just because it

(. . .) I never intended to ﬁt it in my life (. . .) and um (. . .) I can’t ﬁt it into

my life right now (. . .) it’s not because I didn’t like it, I like it ﬁne. I also

don’t own a kayak and I would have no time right now to go ﬁshing after

somebody to say ‘let’s go kayaking’, I mean that was never my intent.

((So you attended the course because?» Uh (. . .) on the spur of the

moment I found there was an opening in the course with friends and so it

was doing something with friends which is fun and I always wanted to see

what it would be like to kayak (. . .) I wanted to do it sometime in my life.

(Branch)

Finding a Way Outdoors: Women as Outdoor Recreation Participants. Although
women’s involvement in sea kayaking was this study’s focus, the overall experiences of
women in the outdoors are more complex than a single activity. However, the active
involvement of women in outdoor recreation activities has been virtually ignored
(Bialeschki, 1992). Women have been and continue to participate in outdoor recreation.
During this study, ﬁfteen women indicated they had previous experiences in the outdoors
and- eight had previous canoeing experience. Some had participated extensively in

outdoor activities.

I’ve lead a couple of trips, yeah ( . . . ) and a couple of canoe trips down
rivers, one in the Ten-Thousand Islands, and one in Florida rivers.

(Bumpy)

I started doing it by myself ( . . . ), all my river kayaking I did by myself,
yeah, for like eight years. No whitewater just local rivers. (Fleece)

Many viewed sea kayaking as a way to extend their time outdoors and add a new

dimension to enhance their experiences.

176

I also like the fact, and look forward to, exploring places like little coves
and little bays and things that you, maybe couldn’t get a larger boat into,
you know, doing exploring and looking and being part of that in areas that
you couldn’t access either by foot ( . . . )I like it because it is outside and I
love hiking and being outdoors and this is another opportunity to do that

( . . . ) um ( . . . ) I think some of the things that I’ll be able to see are only
possible to be seen from a kayak, like going up to a glacier, really close, or
looking at the sea caves on the south shore of Lake Superior. (Tooter)

I love the outdoors! I just love it, um, I have spent my whole life

backpacking and camping when I was growing up and sea kayaking has all

of that. You’re outdoors all day ( . . . ) but it’s kind of nice not having

your backpack strapped to your back and having your head down the

whole time and when you’re outdoors ( . . . ) this way you get to see a little

more ‘cuz your head’s not looking at the trail. So, um, I think the

combination of being outside and the camping side of kayaking really

attracts me. (Brenda)

I love to be outside and I love to, um, you know, ride my bike, hike and all

that ( . . . ) I think being on the water you get a much different perspective

on things than you would, you know, hiking a trail or, whatever, just a

different perspective ( . . . ) a different way of looking at the work, I guess.

(Trail Hiker)
So, although sea kayaking was a new activity, participating in activities outdoors was a
familiar experience. Focusing on constraints and constraint negotiation, as this study did,
provided an effective theoretical framework. However, including motivations,
preferences, and previous experiences with outdoor activities, as suggested by Henderson
and Bialchieski (1993), would have added to the understanding of the overall experience
of these women. This further supports Samdahl and Jekubovich’s (1997) caution that

leisure research should not rely so heavily on constraints theory as to lose the insights

gained by integrating leisure experiences as part of people’s lives.

177

Practical Application and Implications for the Paddlesports Community

leisure constraints researchers consistently have recommended the development
of partnerships with practitioners as one way that leisure constraints research can have an
impact on professional practice (Jackson and Scott, 1999). This study provided a greater
understanding of the constraints that women face as they choose to participate in a sea
kayaking program and the continuation of their participation over time. It has several
implications for curricular design within the American Canoe Association (ACA).

The ACA continues to strive for improvement in the instructional services its
instructors provide for the safety and knowledge of participants in paddlesports activities
(ACA, 2001). The ACA has recognized the changing demographics of paddlesports
enthusiasts, speciﬁcally the growing number of women, older participants, and
recreational kayakers, and is currently revising its courses (G. Black, personal
communication, August 11, 2001). However, limited information is available concerning
the needs of beginning sea kayakers, including both men and women, the constraints they
encounter, and the negotiation strategies they use as they participate in the activity. The
results of this study have implications for the sequencing of speciﬁc skills within the
curriculum design and areas of concern related to female participants, especially
beginners.

‘Help, My Kayak Doesn ’t Fit’. Equipment Concerns. One area of concern that
emerged for many participants in the course was the frustration they experienced trying to
gain skills using equipment that did not ﬁt them or using kayaks that were too heavy.

I’ve had wonderful experiences with the people (. . .) um, that have been

helpful and nice in bringing kayaks for me (. . .) it’s just unbelievable. The
only thing is, that because of my size, and me being smaller no one has a

178

boat that ﬁts me ((laughter». My most challenging thing is trying to work
on the forward stroke and (. . .) um, the thing is that I just really feel that
it’s inﬂuenced a lot by the kayak itself. If you’re not in one that ﬁts you
it’s just more difﬁcult to try to work on anything. I mean you can’t work
on rolls, can’t work on forward strokes, because you have to hold your
hands different, you’re back too far, I don’t know (. . .), it’s just frustrating
for me. I think that if anyone is going to take up kayaking and they get
enough interest where they feel they really want to do the sport that the
most critical thing to do is to get in with the proper boat and the proper
equipment (. . .) I just feel really, really strongly about that. (T .P.)

You know the only thing I really struggled a little bit with is equipment

(. . .) you know (. . .) getting equipment to ﬁt me. The place in ((city»

(. . .) you know (. . .) lots of times I’ve been there they had no wetsuits,

no women’s wetsuits (. . .). I’m ﬁnding it a challenge to buy equipment. I
know it’s out there and I have the impression from things I’ve read and
stuff like that, that the manufacturers are making equipment for women
but I’m having trouble ﬁnding it in a place where I can touch and feel
before I buy. My kayak is actually ﬁne. I’m reasonably happy with it, it’s
um (. . .) I was complaining to a friend the other day (. . .) I haven’t been
lifting as much (. . .) and the other day I carried it down to the beach and
my god, this thing weighs a ton (. . .) um, you know I have trouble putting
it on and off the car, I don’t have trouble paddling it, I really like the boat
(. . .) but it’s one of the plastic ones so it’s heavy as a dog. (Brae)

Oh (. . .) the boat size for women. That’s another thing that we are going

to, we’re going to look at ((type of» boats (. . .) I’ve tried them two years

ago at the symposium (. . .) I have a ((kayak type», I’ve padded it out and

it still doesn’t ﬁt quite right (. . .) so, it’s just, um, you know, they try to

make the new ((kayak type» just the size for women (. . .) and not being

able to do it yourself (. . .) I think if you had a really light boat and a small

car you might be able to do it by yourself (. . .) but we have big vehicles

(. . .) so that’s impossible to do by myself. (N .S.)
Concerns about equipment for sea kayaking are echoed by women who are trying to
participate in other outdoor adventure activities. Even though women’s participation in
outdoor recreation activities has been identiﬁed as the second most important outdoor

recreational national trend and is increasing faster than men’s participation, women’s

needs for equipment are not being met (W ellner, 1997).

179

The American Canoe Association (ACA) is the largest paddlesports organization
in the United States. Increased recognition, on behalf of women’s issues in paddlesports
by the ACA, would have a signiﬁcant impact in raising awareness of equipment-related
problems women encounter. The addition of a kayak loading section to the two-day basic
course would serve to assist women with the particular challenge of lifting and loading
heavy kayaks, greatly increasing their ability to participate more frequently.

Gaining A Network: Lack of Leisure Companions. The difﬁculty women have
negotiating interpersonal constraints, speciﬁcally a lack of leisure companions, emerged
as a concern. Participating in sea kayaking instructional courses and symposia is one
important strategy that women use to negotiate constraints; seeking opportunities that
provide multiple beneﬁts helps with the negotiation process. Participation in a course or
symposium provides access to many people engaged in the same activity.

Anecdotal evidence from the various women’s clinics held at sea kayaking
symposia in the Midwest, and supported by the results of this study, suggest that large
numbers of women who are participating in the women-only clinics are using those
experiences to negotiate constraints. Just as with the courses during the study, women are
seeking opportunities to enhance their skills, gain knowledge, ﬁnd others with whom to
participate, and modify their time commitments.

The ACA and its instructor core are in the ideal position to advocate for the
importance of providing instructional opportunities that meet the learning needs of all
participants. Although women-only courses frequently have been the source of negative
discussion and comments at symposia and clinics, it is important to note that for some

women, gender-speciﬁc courses provide the learning environment they need to attain

180

my. - -.M *

skills. The ACA should embrace the needs of all participants in providing safety and skill
instruction.

Wet Exits Are Scary: Negotiation of F ear. The ﬁndings provided greater
understanding of the activity-related constraints and negotiation methods used by women
who are beginning sea kayakers. The majority of ACA instructors are aware, through
their own experiences as beginners, that many on-water skills sea kayakers need to learn
to be safe can create situations in which the participants experience fear and frustration.
Examining the study participants’ best and most challenging experiences provides a better
understanding of the fear and frustration that may be experienced during instructional
courses. These experiences also illustrate the feelings of competence and conﬁdence that
occur when fear and frustration are successfully negotiated.

Insights into the negotiation methods used by participants provide more detailed
information about the appropriateness of the skills progression in the course. The
negotiation process also points out individual differences and responses to fear and
frustration as participants seek to continue participation. The majority of participants
negotiated fear by relying on the instructor and others in the group, internally facing up to
their fears, or a combination of both methods.

Although the focus was on women as beginning sea kayakers, the insights gained
related to fear during on-water skill development have implications for all beginners. The
ACA Basic Coastal Kayaking course curriculum demonstrated an appropriate progression
of activities. Most of the participants expressed satisfaction with the way the courses
were conducted, the high level of teaching skill and support provided by the instructors,

and the skills progression throughout the courses. However, it is important to

181

acknowledge that the ways in which people are successful in overcoming fear during
activities such as wet exits and rescues have the potential to impact signiﬁcantly their
ability to continue an activity. Instructors must be aware of the tendency for women to
rely heavily on them and the others in the course for support during frightening and
stressful activities. While some women are able to internalize their fears and work
through them, others depend upon group support. This reliance on support from the
group to overcome fear and frustration is important. If a course is competitive rather than
supportive, the potential exists for some women to have less successful experiences.

‘The World Looks Diﬁ’erent from the Front’: A Chance to Lead. A group paddle
across the lake was one on-water activity in which the women participated. The
instructors asked for volunteers to lead the group. While this was not a long or
particularly difﬁcult activity, women were hesitant to volunteer (Appendix E, p. 243, 245,
245). One woman explained how being in a women-only class helped her.

Um ( . . . ) I think that the men are more assertive about things and so I

tend to wait, you know, wait my turn, I guess but that doesn’t bother me, I

tend to do that anyway, but sometimes with women it’s just a little easier

for me sometimes to say “oh, I’ll go ﬁrst”, when there’s men in the class I

( . . . ) I usually don’t, they usually go ﬁrst. (Cilla)
For those who did lead the group, this activity emerged as one of their best experiences.

leading the pod back to shore ((best experience». I had worked on high

and low braces without a feeling of real accomplishment. I felt like I had

accomplished something by the end of the day. (Trailhiker)

Going across the lake in the lead. I was putting together the skills I had

learned. Also even though it was a group experience, I felt like I was

going solo. (Frizz)

It is important for instructors to recognize that some women may hesitate to

volunteer in situations they are unsure of, or if they are culturally conditioned to wait for

182

men to go ﬁrst. One of the beneﬁts of a women—only course is that women get to do all
of the tasks, even those that may have been labeled for men as explained by Stretch. “I
love women-only canoe trips in the BWCA, all the women get to tend the campﬁre”, and
Frizz commented “I took a week-long sailing trip that was for women only and enjoyed
it! If it’s only women we get to do everything, I have sailed with men and they think you
have limited abilities”.

It is common for a beginning sea kayaker to ﬁnd themselves in the back of a
group of paddlers. The opportunity to be in front of the group rather than trailing behind
was an important part of these women’s experience.

I lead the class across the lake! I’m usually the slowest so it was very

novel to be in the lead. I had no one to watch out for so I didn’t bump into

them. (Cilla)

ACA Instructor Trainers should stress, during Instructor Development Workshops, the
importance and value of giving everyone a chance to lead the group.

The Point: Reasons to Participate in Sea Kayaking. Sea kayaking as an activity
provided a vehicle for studying constraints and constraint negotiation methods used by
women. However, understanding the reasons that women want to participate in an
outdoor adventure activity, which has the potential for high levels of risk, can provide a
better understanding of women’s experiences in the outdoors. The following examples
are representative of the primary reasons reported for participation in sea kayaking.

I like the physical challenge, especially the, you know, the longer trips or

(. . .) um, it can be exciting when it’s windy or wavy, I like that (. . .). I

like the idea of being outside and on the water with no motor ((laughter».

It’s quiet, environmentally friendly. (Jo)

Well, really and truly I wouldn’t have gotten into it if my husband wasn’t
into it (. . .) um, but I enjoy it very much, with or without him. I like being

183

out on the water, I like the proximity to the water because we used to do a

lot of canoeing and that was nice to but kayaking you’re even closer to the

water. I like the independence of it, even though I need help carrying my

boat and everything. Ilike to think I’m independent ((laughter». I just

like, yeah, the independence of it, I like the sport. (Cilla)

You know, it’s like a (. . .) um, a physical adventure that I can manage

(. . .) because I wasn’t, you know, a star athlete in any are but it’s just like

(. . .) it occurred to me about the time I did the course at ((an outﬁtter’s»

place a few years ago that was something (. . .), it was adventure that I

could manage (. . .) or that I was capable of physically. (Felicia)

The ACA is supportive of local clubs and symposia around the United States.
These types of paddlesport opportunities assist people in their efforts to build networks of
others with whom to participate. The ACA’s provision of insurance to instructors has
contributed to meeting demands for instruction. The ACA should be encouraged to

continue their efforts to provide highly trained, qualiﬁed instructors to the paddlesports

conununﬁy.

Recommendations for Further Study
The recommendation section is divided into four sections. These include
procedural and research recommendations, study limitations, and practical application

subsections.

Procedural Recommendations
Recommendations in this section relate to subject contact and observation

recording issues.

. The intrusiveness of telemarketers made the initial contact with study participants

very frustrating. However, e-mail contact was well received by the women. The

184

majority of them felt more comfortable with an e-mail contact ﬁrst and then were
willing to schedule a telephone contact. With studies that require prior participant
contact, it is recommended that e-mail, with a subject line that clearly indicates the

study purpose, be used for an initial contact with participants.

The use of a voice-activated recorder, while mechanically sound, was not effective
when used with a small group with whom the observer was attempting to be
unobtrusive. Study participants and instructors were able to hear the recordings being
made and they appeared to be uncomfortable and self-conscious. It is recommended
that observers take written notes in the ﬁeld when possible or write ﬁeld notes

immediately following activities to decrease the intrusiveness of observation.

Research Recommendations

Recommendations in this section address the need for further research efforts

investigating constraints, negotiation, and outdoor recreation activities. Also included are

recommendations for the use of qualitative methods and longitudinal data.

The emergence of a cyclical pattern of constraints and negotiation, as illustrated by
the Integrated Model of leisure Constraints and Negotiation (Figure 5.1), was based
on a small number of participants and with only one outdoor recreation activity. It is
recommended that further studies of the emergence, negotiation, and re-emergence
pattern of constraints be conducted to determine if constraints are cyclical or if other
patterns exist. These would include replication of this study, applications to a larger

sample, and replication with additional outdoor recreation activities.

185

The use of constraint and constraint negotiation theory was useful as a framework for
the investigation. It is recommended that participant motivations and preferences for
leisure experiences be integrated with the constraint negotiation process, and further
investigation be conducted to provide greater understanding of leisure experiences

within the context of people’s lives.

The use of a qualitative design and techniques to investigate leisure constraints and
negotiation proved to be very productive. The use of multiple data collection
techniques increased the richness and complexity of the data, allowing for a greater
understanding of women’s experiences to emerge. Dependent upon the research
questions being investigated, it is recommended that additional qualitative studies be

conducted to increase the understanding of all people’s leisure experiences.

Collecting longitudinal data from people who are actually involved in the activity
under study serves to increase our understanding of constraint and negotiation cycles
and complexities. This study collected data from a variety of time periods; however,
it only covered a span of two months, greater insight may have emerged with a
follow-up interview one year later. Increased use of longitudinal data collection
techniques are recommended to provide additional insight into constraints and

negotiation over time.

A lack of leisure companions was found to result in participation at less than desired

levels for the women in this study. Studies focused on the ability of women to

186

negotiate a lack of leisure companions are recommended to provide greater

understanding of how this constraint affects women’s leisure.

Although the issue of women’s previous outdoor experiences was beyond the scope
of this study there were indications that this affected participation levels and type of
involvement with sea kayaking. Women continue to increase their participation in
outdoor activities, yet research in this area is limited. It is recommended that
additional research be conducted about the effects and impacts of previous outdoor

experience on women’s recreation participation patterns.

This study focused on women as beginning sea kayakers. Further studies of women
who are intermediate and advanced sea kayakers are recommended to determine if
constraints and negotiation methods change as experience levels increase. Also
recommended are comparison studies of male sea kayakers to determine the

constraints they encounter and how they might negotiate those constraints.

Findings suggest that the beneﬁts people expect to gain from participation in an
activity are an important component of constraint negotiation. Therefore, further
investigation is recommended into the role of perceived beneﬁts and how those

beneﬁts affect leisure constraint negotiation strategies.

Comments from the women in this study indicate that people may employ different
methods of negotiation to constraints. Some women actively created and negotiated

participation while others passively responded to constraints. It is recommended that

187

the concept of active creators and passive responders to life and leisure experiences be

further investigated to increase understanding of the constraint negotiation process.

There continues to be a lack of empirical studies investigating the benefits,
motivations, and perceptions of women who choose to participate in gender-only
programs. Equally, there is little research that explores the reasons why some women
prefer not to participate in gender-speciﬁc programs. Therefore, it is recommended
that increased research efforts be made to more fully explore this area of women’s
outdoor experiences to increase understanding of who does and does not participate in

these programs.

Study Limitation Recommendations

Recommendations in this section address the limitations of the study design

related to the study participants.

One of the strengths and limitations of this study was the women-only design. It is
recommended that the study be replicated with comparison groups of men-only and
co-ed groups to increase our understanding of activity-related constraints related to
sea kayaking. In addition, other outdoor adventure activities should be investigated
and observations made about potential activity-speciﬁc constraints and negotiation

methods used by participants.

Participants self-selected for this study. Only those women who were able to
negotiate constraints were included in the study. Although the sea kayaking

companies may have been, and probably were, contacted by women who did not

188

participate, they were not part of the study. It is recommended that future studies
provide a way to contact people who decided not to participate to increase

understanding of the constraint negotiation process.

Although a large age range was represented by the study participants, this group of
women was not culturally diverse. Replication of this study is recommended to
increase the represented geographical area and include a more diverse population to

increase the generalizability of the results.

Practical Application Research Recommendations

Recommendations in this section address the needs of the general sea kayaking

community and the American Canoe Association.

The increase in sea kayaking participation over the last ﬁve years points to the need
for a greater understanding of the people who are participating in the activity. It is
recommended that the ACA conduct a user survey to determine the populations that
are participating in sea kayaking, their needs in terms of safety and instruction, and

how best to provide needed instruction and programs.

The number of people participating in kayaking with recreational kayaks (less than 15
feet long) has dramatically increased over the last ﬁve years. People are buying
kayaks, and have little to no safety gear — such as personal ﬂotation devices or ﬂoat
bags — or any type of instruction. They may also tend to participate with limited
understanding of the bodies of water appropriate for their watercraft. Recent

increases in kayaking deaths are being attributed to people using recreational kayaks

189

in situations that are not appropriate or safe. It is recommended that the ACA conduct
studies examining the use of recreational kayaks to determine the safety and

educational/instructional needs of this group.

190

APPENDICES

191

APPENDIX A

EXPERT REVIEW PANEL MATERIALS

(NOTE: See the actual questionnaires to be reviewed in Appendix C,
questionnaires for the “main study”)

192

 

MEMBERS OF THE EXPERT REVIEW PANEL
An Investigation of Constraints and Constraint Negotiation by Women
Sea Kayakers Participating in a Women-Only Course

Anne Keith

Ms. Keith is a member of the West Michigan Coastal Kayaking Association and the
Great Lakes Sea Kayaking Club. She is an intermediate sea kayaker with six years of
experience as a paddler and two years as an instructor with the ACA. She has been a
participant and an instructor of women-only coastal kayaking clinics and courses.

Suzie Smith

Ms. Smith is a member of the West Michigan Coastal Kayaking Association and the
Great Lakes Sea Kayaking Club. She is an intermediate sea kayaker with ﬁve years of
experience as a paddler and two years as an instructor with the ACA. She is co-owner of
Black Parrot Paddling. Suzie has paddled extensively throughout Michigan, including a
week-long trip along the north shore of Lake Superior as part of a women-only trip. She
has been a participant and an instructor of women-only coastal kayaking clinics and
courses.

Wendy Beckwith

Ms. Beckwith is a member of the West Michigan Coastal Kayaking Association and the
Great Lakes Sea Kayaking Club. She is an advanced sea kayaker with six years of
experience as a paddler and three years as an instructor with the ACA. She has taught
numerous women-only courses and clinics. Wendy has paddled extensively throughout
Michigan, including a week-long trip along the north shore of Lake Superior as part of a
women-only trip.

Gail Green

Ms. Green is a member of the West Michigan Coastal Kayaking Association and the
Great Lakes Sea Kayaking Club. She is an expert sea kayaker with ten years of
experience as a paddler and ﬁve years as an instructor with both the ACA and the British
Canoe Union (BCU). She is certiﬁed as a Regional Instructor Trainer Educator with the
ACA and owns Adventures in Perspective in Bayﬁeld, WI. Gail is in demand around the
country as an instructor and trip leader. She has extensive sea kayaking experience in the
Great Lakes, Mexico, Belize, and Russia.

193

44

'LL

Laurie Levknecht

Ms. levknecht is a member of the West Michigan Coastal Kayaking Association and the
Great Lakes Sea Kayaking Club. She is an advanced sea kayaker with eight years of
experience paddling and ﬁve years as an ACA instructor. She has been a participant and
instructor of women-only clinics and courses. Laurie has paddled extensively throughout
Michigan, including a week-long trip along the north shore of Lake Superior as part of a
women-only trip.

Nancy Vedder

Ms. Vedder is a member of the West Michigan Coastal Kayaking Association and the
Great Lakes Sea Kayaking Club. She is an advanced sea kayaker with six years of
experience paddling and three years as an ACA instructor. She has been a participant
and instructor of women-only clinics and courses. She currently leads sea kayaking trips
in the Chicago area and the Apostle Islands for an outﬁtter in Illinois.

194

April 21, 2002
Dear ( ).

Thank you for agreeing to participate on the expert review panel for the research study Building
Outdoor Experiences: An Investigation of Constraints and Constraint Negotiation by Women
Sea Kayakers Participating in a Women-Only Course. Your input concerning the questions to
be used on the questionnaires, and identiﬁcation of challenging experiences that beginning sea
kayakers could encounter during an ACA Basic Coastal Kayaking course, are critical to the
success of the research study. The comments, evaluations, and suggestions you provide will be
used in the further development of the data gathering instruments.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between, and negotiation of
constraints to participation as experienced by women participating in a women-only sea
kayaking course. The study will also examine the reasons that women chose to participate in sea
kayaking and their motivations for selecting a women-only program. Data for the study will be
collected during women-only sea kayaking courses offered during the summer of 2002 in the
midwestem United States. Participants will be asked to complete open-ended questions before,
during, and following the courses. At the completion of the primary paddling season, in-depth
telephone interviews will be conducted with the study participants.

The enclosed packet of materials contains the following:

an evaluation/comment sheet;

copies of the questionnaires to be used before and during the course;
a copy of the ACA Basic Coastal Kayaking course outline; and

a self-addressed, stamped envelope to return your responses.

PP’P?‘

Please follow the directions on the evaluation/comment sheet to conduct your review of the
materials. When you are ﬁnished, place the evaluation/comment sheet, questionnaire, and the
course outline in the return envelope and mail it back to me by ( ). If you have
any questions or need more information, please contact the investigators listed below.

Sincerely,

Lynn A. Dominguez Dr. Gail A.Vander Stoep, Michigan State University
1739 Stockman Dr. Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources Department
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858 131 Natural Resources Bldg.

(989) 774-7305 East Lansing, MI 48824

dominlLA@cmich.edu (517) 353-5190 ext. 117

 

vandersl @msu.edu

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any
time with any aspect of this study, you may contact-anonymously, if you wish - Ashir Kumar, M. 0., Chair
of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180;
fax: (517) 432-4503; e-mail: ucri/rs@rrrsrr.erlm or regular mail:202 Olds Hall East Lansing, MI 48824.

 

195

Building Outdoor Experiences: Reflections from Women Sea Kayakers

Expert Review Panel
Evaluation/Comment Worksheet

Reviewer:

 

1. Review of Survey Questions

Step I: Think about the ﬁrst experiences you had as a beginning sea kayaker. Then think about
experiences that women participants would have in your instructional courses.

Step 2: Read the narratives and questions on the enclosed questionnaire and answer them as completely
as possible. Some of them you will be able to answer from your own experiences, others you will need to
answer from the perspective of women who have participated in your courses. The questions are still
being developed, and we are interested in gaining an idea of how a participant might respond to them.
Even if you have not, personally had the experience a question asks for, please draw on the professional
experience you have instructing beginning sea kayakers.

Step 3: In addition to answering each question as a survey respondent, make any comments or suggestions
you have about individual questions (content, wording, structure) either directly on the questionnaire or in
the space provided below, and on the back of this page, if needed. Please indicate to which questionnaire

you are referring in your comments.

Comments or Suggestions:

This completes the review of the questions. Continue on next page.

196

II. Review of ACA Basic Coastal Kayaking Course curriculum

Step I: Take out and review the copy of the ACA Basic Coastal Kayaking Course curriculum.

Step 2: Using a pen/pencil or highlighter, circle (or highlight) the content area(s), based on your
experiences with beginning sea kayakers, that you believe are the most challenging for them.

Step 3: In the space provided below, list any other challenging experiences that you think a beginning sea
kayaker might encounter from the time they arrive at a course until they leave. These experiences will be
used to provide the framework for identifying critical observation periods on which the researcher will
focus during the courses.

Additional critical observation periods:

Return the evaluation/comment sheets and questionnaire, along with the
basic course outline, in the envelope provided.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge, expertise, and energy with this project.
Your contribution is greatly appreciated!

197

American Canoe Association
Basic Coastal Kayak

Goal: To provide beginners with a safe and fun introduction to the sport of coastal
kayaking.

Objectives: Participants will earn how to:

Properly ﬁt & adjust their kayak for effective control and comfort.

Safely portage their kayak to the water

Attach their sprayskirt

Properly & safely enter and exit their kayak from shore

Safely & effectively wet-exit their kayak

Demonstrate proper use & control of the paddle

Perform basic strokes and maneuvers

Perform a T- and Paddle Float Self-rescue

. Be oriented with essential safety equipment
10. Understand the importance & inﬂuence of weather and tides on the coastal kayaker
11. Identify marine hazards & safety concerns and explain strategies for dealing w/them
12. Demonstrate an understanding of some basic Rules of the Nautical Road
13. Understand personal limitations and skill level

Time: 7-8 hours

“WNQMPPP?

Place: Ideal teaching conditions are a protected freshwater lake or saltwater cove environment
where waves do not exceed 1 foot, winds do not exceed 10 knots and groups are kept within V2
mile from shore.

Course Content:

Introduction & Expectations-15 Minutes
Enrollment/registration/liability
Student & instructor expectation
Environment-underwater learning
Physical-ﬂexibility, fatigue
Emotional-fears
Cognitive-information overload
Course itinerary

Dryland Presentations-60 Minutes
Equipment orientation
-Personal clothing & gear
-PFD’s, wetsuits & sprayskirts
-Safety equipment (i.e., pump, paddle ﬂoat, sling)
-Kayak nomenclature & terminology
-Basic boat design (hull shape, length, beam, rocker vs. keel, initial vs. secondary
stability)
-Boat ﬁt & adjustment
-Boat/body weld
-Individuals get sized to boats
Sprayskirt attachment & use
Wet-exit explanation & dryland practice

198

Paddle orientation

-Parts & design

-Sizing, indexing, relaxed grip

-Feathered vs. non-feathered, paddle control
-Concept of torso rotation & paddler’s box

Launching & Landing/Wet-Exit Practice-30 Minutes
Carrying kayak to and from water
Proper entry & exit of boat from shore or dock
Boat control/stability exercises (supported boogie-woogie, j-leans using partner’s bow
for support)
Demonstrate and practice wet-exits (one-on—one supervision by instructor)
Allow students about 5 mins. to get oriented/familiar with their kayak

Introduction to Basic Strokes & Maneuvers - 60 Minutes
Sweep strokes (forward & reverse, spins)
Forward touring stroke
Reverse stroke & stopping
Draw stroke (draw-to-the-hip w / in-water recovery)

Lunch Break/Discussion - 45 Minutes
Signaling & safety devices discussion/show & tell

Introduction to Basic Rescues - 60 Minutes
Demonstrate & practice T-rescue (w/ & w/o stirrup)
Demonstrate & practice paddle ﬂoat self-rescue (w/ & w/o stirrup)

Group Safety Talk - 15 Minutes
Paddling as a group
Group signals
What to do in the event of an emergency

Afternoon Tour (xv/continued application & development of skills) — 2 hours
Continue to develop good forward stroke technique
Discuss & practice course correction techniques for windy conditions
Observation & explanation of on-water hazards
Observation & explanation of tides & currents (if applicable)
Observation & explanation of weather, wind, & wave dynamics
-Listen to NOAA weather radio
-Discuss current wind speed & direction concerns
-Discuss maximum limits for beginners

Additional Stroke & Skill Development - 30 Minutes
Low & high braces (w/ hip snap development/lower body boat control)
Low brace support underway for looking behind you
Rafting up for support demonstration & practice
Reinforce the idea of paddling with a partner/group

199

Conclusion/Course Wrap-up - 30 Minutes
Load boats showing proper tie-down techniques
Provide individual feedback if possible
Group debrief of how course went
Explain what is next in their learning progression
Course evaluation

Evaluation: Students will be evaluated on their ability to:

l. Properly adjust foot braces and attach spray skirt
2. Safely enter & exit their kayak from shore
3. Perform a wet-exit with comfort & control
4. Maintain good pasture and balance in their kayak
5. Perform the basic strokes, maneuvers & rescues with efﬁciency
6. Identify common coastal/marine hazards
7. Understand their physical abilities & limitations
8. Know when it is safe & appropriate to paddle
References:

1998 Buckner, M. Coastal Kayaking F latwater Touring Kayak Course Outline
1995 Kent Ford, Outdoor Pursuits Series Whitewater & Sea Kayaking

1998 Shelley Johnson, Woman’s Guide to Sea Kayaking

1992 David Seidmaanhe Essential Sea Kayaker

Equipment:

Properly sized & outﬁtted sea kayaks with front and rear ﬂotation and related paddling & safety
equipment (i.e., paddles, PFD’s, sprayskirts, paddle ﬂoats, bilge pumps, slings, & wetsuits if
necessary)

16 February 2001

200

APPENDIX B

PILOT STUDY MATERIALS:
CONSENT FORM, NARRATIVES, MODIFIED QUESTIONNAIRES

201

CONSENT TO SERVE AS A SUBJECT IN A RESEARCH PILOT STUDY

 

Building Outdoor Experiences: An Investigation of Constraints and Constraint
Negotiation by Women Sea Kayakers Participating in a Women-Only Course

The purpose of this pilot study is to investigate your experiences in a sea kayaking course. You
are being asked to provide information about your experience by answering open-ended
questions in written form and through observations by the researcher during the sea kayaking
course.

The total amount of time required to actively participate in this pilot study will be approximately
1 1/2 hours to answer written questions divided over three different time periods.

Your participation in this pilot study is voluntary and you may choose not to participate in any
segment or choose not to answer individual questions at any time. You may also choose to
discontinue your participation at any time during the pilot study. If you choose to withdraw
from the study, all of your written answers will be destroyed immediately.

All of your written responses to questions during this study will be held in conﬁdence, and your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. You will be asked to choose
a nickname to be used to identify parts of the data collection instruments so that all sections of
the questionnaire can be kept together.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigators listed below:

Lynn A. Dominguez Dr. Gail A. Vander Stoep

1739 Stockman Dr. Michigan State University,

Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858 Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources
Department

(989)774-7305 131 Natural Resources Bldg.

domin lLA @cmichedu East Lansing, MI 48824

 

(517) 353-5190 ext. 117
vandersl @msuedu

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact-anonymously, if you wish
- Ashir Kumar, M. D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS) by phone: (5 I 7)355-2180,° fax: (51 7)432-4503,' e-mail: ucrihs@msu. edu; or regular
mail:202 Olds Hall East Lansing, MI 48824.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

Signed: Date:

 

Printed Name:

 

202

Pilot Study: Narrative Script for 1“ Meeting - Data Collection Phase (1)
(evening prior to the start of the course)

 

Introduction: Welcome participants (Check on consent forms)

(Read to participants) Tonight I need to explain a few more things about the pilot study.
First of all, your participation in this pilot study is completely voluntary. No one is
required to participate and your decision to participate in the study or not has no
impact on your participation in the sea kayaking course itself or the class you are
taking. Even if you decide to participate in the pilot study tonight, you may decide to
stop participating in the pilot study at any time.

Your participation is important so that a better understanding of your experiences as a
sea kayaker can be gained. The best way to understand your experiences is to collect
your thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of the course while it is happening. This is
what will take place during the course.

You will be asked to choose a nickname for yourself to identify your questionnaire
sections. Your real name will never be used in the pilot study. All of the data
collected from the questionnaires will be conﬁdential and your identity will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Those of you who consent to participate in the pilot study will be given a
questionnaire to ﬁll out tonight. Tomorrow you will notice me observing the course
and talking into a recorder. All of the observations gathered will be conﬁdential; no
one will be personally identiﬁed on recordings. The reason for observing the course
is to make sure the right questions are being asked on the questionnaires, and as a
check for the answers you provide. Tomorrow evening each of you will be given
another short questionnaire to ﬁll out about your experiences during the day. The last
questionnaire you will receive will be on Sunday afternoon.

Your time commitment for the pilot study will be approximately 1 1/2 hours to ﬁll
out the questionnaire.

Does anyone have any questions about the pilot study and what you will be doing?
Answer any questions.
Make sure all participants have a signed consent form and a copy.

Distribute questionnaires for Phase (2a) data collection phase.

203

Pilot Study: Narrative Script for 1“ Meeting - Data Collection Phase (2a) cont.
(evening prior to the start of the course)

 

(Read to participants) Over the next two days you will be learning many new skills, such
as paddle strokes and navigation, and having new experiences, such as completing
wet exits and practicing rescues. Some of these experiences will be more challenging
for you than others and everyone will have different ideas about what they think is a
challenging experience. You may experience a wide range of emotions and feelings
during the weekend, which is normal for anyone starting a new outdoor pursuit. The
questionnaire will focus on the challenging experiences that you have and how you
feel about them.

Remember to write your nickname on the top of the questionnaire.

204

PILOT STUDY- QUESTIONNAIRE 2a
Building Outdoor Experiences: An Investigation of Constraints and Constraint
Negotiation by Women Sea Kayakers Participating in a Women-Only Course

 

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research project. Your
participation in the pilot study is voluntary and you may choose to discontinue
your participation at any time.

All responses to the questionnaire will be kept confidential. At this time,
you need to choose a nickname for yourself and write it in the space
provided below. Pick a nickname that you can remember easily.

Please read the following questions carefully and answer each as completely as
possible. If you need more room, you may write on the back of the sheet or
use the extra sheets of paper that have been provided.

 

 

My nickname is:

 

Section 1: Sea Kayaking
The questions in this section are about sea kayaking. Some of them will ask
you to recall and describe past events. Take as much time as you need to
think about the questions and answer them as completely as possible.

1 0) Have you ever been in a sea kayak before?
Cl NO - Go to Question 2 (next page)
Cl YES - Describe below when and where your previous experience(s)

with sea kayaking were and how many times you have
participated.

b) List below who (by relationship, not personal name) went with you in
each of the previous times you have gone sea kayaking.

c) Do you currently own a sea kayak?
Cl NO - Go to Question 2 (next page)
0 YES - List the: Make/Model:
Length: of your sea kayak.

 

205

 

2) Why did you decide to start sea kayaking? List all of the reasons that are
important to you.

 

0 Circle the most important reason that you decided to start sea
kayaking from those listed above.

 

 

 

30) Describe when you first found out about sea kayaking.

b) How did you find out about it?

c) Has anything prevented you from participating since then? If so,
what has prevented you from participating?

4) If there was something that prevented you from participating in sea
kayaking in the past, what has made it possible for you to participate
now?

5) Why are you taking this sea kayaking course? List all of the reasons
that you feel are important to your decision to participate.

. Circle the most important reason for your decision to take this
sea kayaking course.

 

 

 

 

60) Do you have any concerns about your participation in the course this
weekend?

Cl NO - Return your questionnaire to the researcher.
Cl YES - Describe any concerns you have below.

b) Describe the ways that you think you could overcome concerns you
have.

Thank for completing this section of the questionnaire.
Return your questionnaire to the researcher.

206

Pilot Study: Narrative Script - Data Collection Phase (2b)
(end of ﬁrst day of course -- evening)

 

Hi, how is everyone doing?
Let participants talk a bit about their experience during the day.

(Read to participants) Now that you have ﬁnished one full day of the course,
please think about the experiences you had today. The questionnaire
tonight will focus on those experiences. Some of the questions may seem
to be repeats from the other questionnaire. That’s OK. because some of
them are! Learning a new skill or activity is a progressive experience that
builds on previous learning; that’s why you are ﬁlling out this
questionnaire during the middle of the course.

Take your time to think about each of the questions. Don’t forget to write about your

feelings, perceptions, and other people who were involved in your experiences today.
If you need more room to answer a question, you can write on the back of the page.

207

PILOT S TUDY— QUESTIONNAIRE 2b
Building Outdoor Experiences: An Investigation of Constraints and Constraint
Negotiation by Women Sea Kayakers Participating in a Women-Only Course

 

 

Think about the experiences you have had today. Then read the questions
below and answer them as completely as possible. Be sure to write
about your feelings, perceptions, and any other people who were
involved with those experiences.

 

 

 

 

My nickname is:

7) What did you enjoy most about today's sessions?

80) What was the easiest thing for you to do today during the course?
b) Why was it easy?

90) Describe the most challenging experience(s) for you today.

b) Why was/were the experience(s) challenging?

100) How did you feel during your most challenging experience(s)?

b) How do you feel now that the experience(s) is/are finished?

11) What happened or what were the reasons that you were able to
continue to participate during the challenging experience(s).

 

Now, re-read your answers and add any other details that you
think would help us better understand your experiences during
the day.

 

 

 

Thank for completing this section of the questionnaire.
Remember to write your nickname in the space provided.
Return your questionnaire to the researcher.

208

Pilot Study: Narrative Script - Data Collection Phase (2c)
(end of course)

 

(Read to participants) First of all, congratulations to all of you for ﬁnishing the
course this weekend. Hopefully you have learned some new skills and have enjoyed
your time here. This is the last of the written questionnaires that you will be
answering. Think back over the entire weekend and picture in your mind the
experiences that you have had throughout the course.

Then read each question and answer it as thoroughly as you can. Remember to write
about your feelings, perceptions, and the other people involved in your experiences.
Again, some of the questions will seem to repeat themselves. That’s OK. because
your experiences may have changed.

When you are ﬁnished with the questionnaire, please return it to me.

209

PILOT STUDY- QUESTIONNAIRE 2c
Building Outdoor Experiences: An Investigation of Constraints and Constraint
Negotiation by Women Sea Kayakers Participating in a Women-Only Course

 

 

Think back over the last two days and about the experiences you have had
during the sea kayaking course. Then answer the following questions as
completely as possible. Remember to include your feelings,
perceptions, and anyone who was involved

with your experiences.

 

 

 

 

My nickname is:

120) Describe the best experience you had this weekend.

b) Why was it the best experience?

13a) Describe the experience that was the most challenging for you during
the entire weekend.

b) Why was it the most challenging experience?

14a) Is the experience you described in question 13 as your most
challenging experience the same experience that was the most
challenging for you during the first day of the course?
CI YES - Go to Question 15
O NO - Describe why your most challenging experience changed from
the first day to the second.

210

15) Describe the reasons why you were able to continue to participate
after your most challenging experience.

160) Was there anything that you were NOT able to do during the course?
Cl NO - Go to Question 17 (next page)
Cl YES - Describe what you were not able to do.

b) What stopped you from being able to do what you described above?

17) If there is anything else you would like to share about your
experience this weekend, please write it in the space below or on the
back of this page.

Thank you again for participating in this pilot study. Your answers to
the questions about your experiences this weekend have provided
valuable information about your experiences in the outdoors.
Return your questionnaire to the researcher.

211

APPENDIX C

INITIAL PHONE CONTACT SCRIPT, COVER LETTER, CONSENT FORM,

NARRATIVES, QUESTIONNAIRES FOR PHASES 1 & 2 DATA COLLECTION,
AND SEA KAYAK LOG

212

Initial Telephone Contact
(prior to the start of the course)

Hi, my name is Lynn Dominguez and I am calling you about the sea kayaking course that
you have signed up for with (Ron Smith and Black Parrot Paddling / Gail Green and
Adventures in Perspective) that is beginning (date).

When you registered for the course did they let you know you would be contacted? Do
you have a few minutes to talk about the course and a research project that will be
occurring during the course?

Over the last few years the number of people, and women in particular, that have started
sea kayaking is growing. But we don’t know a lot about the experiences that women
have when they are starting sea kayaking and the challenges they may encounter as they
participate in the activity.

During this summer, women who are in sea kayaking courses in Michigan and
Wisconsin, will be asked to help increase our understanding about their experiences by
taking part in a research study. Most of the study will be done during the time that you
are at the sea kayaking course. You would be ﬁlling out a few questionnaires and
talking to me in a telephone interview, that would be voice recorded, later this fall. Your
total time involvement would be approximately 3 hours and that would include the one
hour telephone interview two months after the course. As a thank you for your help you
would receive a t-shirt at the end of the course.

Your participation in the study would be voluntary and you could choose to end your
participation at any time. All of your written and oral responses would be kept
conﬁdential and your privacy would be protected to the maximum extent of the law.
You would be asked to pick a nickname that would be used to identify parts of the
questionnaire and interview. Your nickname could be used in the ﬁnal report for
quotations. Any voice tapes that are made would be destroyed at the end of three years,
following the completion of the study. Are you interested in helping out with this
research project?

(If YES) Thank you for agreeing to help! You will be receiving the ﬁrst questionnaire
in the mail along with a consent form. Please ﬁll out the questionnaire, read and sign the
consent form, and return them in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. If the
questionnaire gets to you with less than a week before the start of the course, please bring
it with you and it will be collected there. Do you have any questions for me? If you have
questions later, or need more information, phone numbers and email addresses will be on
the cover letter with the questionnaire. (Conﬁrm mailing address)

(If NO) Do you have any other questions? OK, thank you for your time. If you change
your mind and decide to participate later, I would be happy to talk with you again.

213

CONSENT TO SERVE AS A SUBJECT IN A RESEARCH STUDY

 

Building Outdoor Experiences: An Investigation of Constraints and Constraint Negotiation by Women Sea
Kayakers Participating in a Women-Only Course

The purpose of the study is to investigate your experiences in a sea kayaking course that is for women only.
You are being asked to provide information, about your experience, by answering open-ended questions in
written form, participating in a telephone interview that will be voice recorded, and through observations
by the researcher during the sea kayaking course.

The total amount of time required to actively participate in this study will be approximately 3 hours (2
hours to answer written questions divided over four different time periods and one hour for the telephone
interview to be conducted two months following the course). At the end of the sea kayaking course you
will receive a t-shirt as a thank you for participating in the study.

Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may choose not to participate in any segment or
choose not to answer individual questions at any time. You may also choose to discontinue your
participation at any time during the study. If you chose to withdraw from the study all of your written
answers and voice recorded interview will be immediately destroyed.

All of your written and oral responses to questions during this study will be held in conﬁdence and your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. You will be asked to choose a
nickname to be used to identify parts of the data collection instruments and the interview so that all sections
of the instruments can be kept together. Your nickname may be used in the ﬁnal report for quotations. All
voice tapes of the telephone interviews will be maintained in conﬁdence; the tapes will be destroyed after
three years, following the completion of the research project.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator listed below:

Lynn A. Dominguez Dr. Gail A. Vander Stoep

1739 Stockman Dr. Michigan State University,

Mt. Pleasant, Ml 48858 Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources
(989)774-7305 131 Natural Resources Bldg.

domin lLA@cmich.edu East Lansing, MI 48824

 

(517)353-5190 ext. 117

vandersl @msu.edu
If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any
time with any aspect of this study, you may contact-anonymously, if you wish - Ashir Kumar, M. 0., Chair
of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517)355-2180;
fax: (517)432-4503; e-mail: ucrilts@msucdu; or regular mail:202 Olds Hall East Lansing, MI 48824.

 

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.
Signed: Date:
Printed Name:

 

 

214

(DATE)
Dear ( ),

Every year increasing numbers of women are choosing to begin sea kayaking as a new outdoor
pursuit. This growth in participation by women has lead to the development of better
equipment, such as life jackets and sea kayaks, that have been designed to meet the needs of
female paddlers. However, even though we know that more women are sea kayaking, there is a
lack of understanding about why women are starting this activity and the kinds of challenges
they face to being able to continue to participate. The enclosed questionnaire has been designed
to help gather information about your experiences as a sea kayaker so that instructional programs
can be better designed to meet the needs of people who are beginning this exciting outdoor
pursurt.

As you know from the conversation we had on the telephone, the enclosed questionnaire is the
ﬁrst part of the research study. This questionnaire will be followed by three more, given to you,
during the course, plus a telephone interview two months after the completion of the sea
kayaking course. Your assistance in completing this questionnaire, before you come to the
course, would be greatly appreciated. Please answer each question as completely as possible,
using the back of the sheets or additional paper if needed. Return the completed questionnaire
and consent form in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope as soon as possible. If you
are receiving this questionnaire less than one week before the start of the course, please ﬁll it out
and bring it with you. The forms will be collected at the beginning of the course.

Your participation in the study is voluntary and you may choose to discontinue your
participation at any time. Your responses will be kept conﬁdential and your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. You will be asked to select a nickname that
will be used to keep each section of the questionnaire and interview together. Your nickname
also may be used to report the results of the study through quotations. As a thank you for
participating in the study you will receive a t-shirt at the end of the sea kayaking course. Thank
you in advance for your assistance with this study. If you have any questions about this study,
please contact one of the investigators listed below.

Sincerely,

Lynn A. Dominguez Dr. Gail A. Vander Stoep

1739 Stockman Dr. Michigan State University,

Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858 Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources
(989) 774-7305 131 Natural Resources Bldg.

domin lLA@cmiCh.edu East Lansing, MI 48824

 

(517) 353-5190 ext. 117
vandersl @msu.edu

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any
time with any aspect of this study, you may contact-anonymously, if you wish - Ashir Kumar, M. 0., Chair
of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517)355-2180;
fax: (517)432-4503; e-mail: ucri/rs@msu.edu; or regular mail:202 Olds Hall East Lansing, MI 48824.

215

QUESTIONNAIRE 1
Building Outdoor Experiences: An Investigation of Constraints and Constraint
Negotiation by Women Sea Kayakers Participating in a Women-Only Course

 

 

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research project. Your
participation in the study is voluntary and you may choose to discontinue your
participation at any time. All responses to the questionnaire will be kept
confidential. At this time, you need to choose a nickname for yourself and
write it in the space provided below. Pick a nickname that you can remember.

Please read the following questions carefully and answer each as completely as
possible. If you need more room, you may write on the back of the sheet or
use the extra sheets of paper that have been provided.

 

 

 

My nickname is:

 

Section 1: Sea Kayaking
The questions in this section are about sea kayaking. Some of them will ask
you to recall and describe past events. Take as much time as you need to think

about the questions and answer them as completely as possible.

1 a) Have you ever been in a sea kayak before?
Cl NO - Go to Question 2 (next page)
Cl YES - Describe below when and where your previous experience(s)
with sea kayaking were and how many times you have
participated.

b) List below who (by relationship, not personal name) went with you in
each of the previous times you have gone sea kayaking.

c) Do you currently own a sea kayak?
Cl NO - Go to Question 2 (next page)
Cl YES - List the: Make/Model:
Length: of your sea kayak.

 

216

2) Why did you decide to start sea kayaking? List all of the reasons that are
important to you.

 

Circle the most iInportant reason that you decided to start sea
kayaking from those listed above.

 

 

 

3) Describe when you first remember finding out about sea kayaking.

40) Has anything prevented you from participating in sea kayaking since
then? If so, what has prevented you from participating?

b) If there was something that prevented you from participating in sea
kayaking in the past, what has made it possible for you to participate
now?

217

Section 2: Sea Kayaking Course Information
The following questions refer specifically to the two-day sea kayaking
course for which you have registered.

5) Why are you taking this sea kayaking course? List all of the reasons
that you feel are important to your decision to participate.

 

Circle the most important reason for your decision to take this

sea kayaking course.

 

 

 

6) This class is advertised as a women-only course. Did that influence
your choice to take this class?

D NO - Go to Question 70
D YES - Why?

7a) Since you decided to take this course, has anything happened that made
you think you might not be able to participate this weekend?

D NO - Go to Question 8 (next page)

D YES - Describe what happened. Be sure to include any other people
who were involved (then go to question 7b on the next page).

218

b) What made it possible for you to still participate in the course?

Section 3: Demographic Information
Your answers to the following questions will help provide a clearer picture
about women who are choosing to begin sea kayaking as an outdoor pursuit.

18-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70 and older

choose not to answer

8) Your age is:

9) Your marital status is: single

single (living with a significant other)
single/widowed

single/divorced

married

choose not to answer

DDDDDD [30013000

10) Do you have children?
D NO - Go to Question 11 (next page)
D YES - How many children do you have?

 

Jr List their ages:

l

How many of your children are:

Living with you full-time?

 

Living with you part-time?

 

Living elsewhere full-time?

 

219

11) Do you have other household dependents living with you?
D N0 - Go to Question 12

D YES - List all other dependents living with you by their relationship
to you:

 

 

 

 

12) What is the highest level of education you have completed?
less than high school

high school

some college

college (Associate degree)

college (Bachelor's degree)
college (MA or PhD degree)

UDUDDD

13) Do you currently work outside your home?
D NO - Thank you for completing the questionnaire.
D YES - Do you work: D part-time
l D full-time
i
Your average income is: D less than $20,000 / year
D $20,000 to $40,000 / year
D $41,000 to $60,000 / year
D $61,000 to $80,000 / year
D $81,000 to $100,000 / year
D more than $100,000 / year
D choose not to answer

Thank you for taking the time to complete this phase of the research
project. Please return the questionnaire in the envelope provided or
take it with you to the first evening of the sea kayaking course,
where it will be collected by the researcher.

220

Main Study: Narrative Script for 1" Meeting - Data Collection Phase (I)
(evening prior to the start of the course)

 

Introduction: Welcome participants (Check on consent forms)

(Read to participants) I’d like to welcome all of you tonight to the sea kayaking course. My
name is Lynn Dominguez and we have already talked on the phone about the research study.
Did everyone receive their questionnaires and consent form in the mail? How many of you
brought them with you tonight? Who returned them in the mail? Does anyone need another
questionnaire?

(Gather any questionnaires returned in person; make contact with anyone who didn’t mail their
questionnaire or hasn’t ﬁlled it out yet, provide the initial questionnaires to anyone who needs
them; make sure all consent forms are signed)

(Read to participants) Tonight I need to explain a few more things about the study. First of all,
your participation in this study is completely voluntary. No one is required to participate
and your decision to participate in the study or not, has no impact on your participation in
the sea kayaking course itself. Even if you decide to participate in the study tonight, you
may decide to stop participating in the study at any time.

Your participation in the study is important so that a better understanding of your
experiences as a sea kayaker can be gained. The best way to understand your experiences is
to collect your thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of the course while it is happening. This
is what will take place during the course.

(Read to participants) You will be asked to choose a nickname for yourself to identify your
questionnaire sections and for possible use to identify quotations reported in the study
results. Your real name will never be used in the study. All of the data collected from the
questionnaires will be conﬁdential and your identity will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable by law.

Those of you who consent to participate in the study will be given another short questionnaire to
ﬁll out tonight. Tomorrow you will notice me observing the course and talking into a recorder.
All of the observations gathered will be conﬁdential, no one will be personally identiﬁed on
recordings. The reason for observing the course is to make sure the right questions are being
asked on the questionnaires, and as a check for the answers you provide. Tomorrow evening
each of you will be given another short questionnaire to ﬁll out about your experiences during
the day. The last questionnaire you will receive will be on Sunday afternoon, right before the
ﬁnal debrief session of the course. After you hand in that questionnaire, you will be given a log
sheet so you can keep track of your participation in sea kayaking over the next two months.

221

You will be asked to verify your address and phone number at that time. I will be calling you in
September (October) to set up a time for a telephone interview as a ﬁnal step in the study. Your
time commitment for the study following this weekend will be approximately two more hours as
you jot down your sea kayaking activities during the rest of the summer and complete the hour-
long telephone interview with me in two months.

Does anyone have any questions about the research study and what you will be doing?
Answer any questions.
Make sure all participants have a signed consent form.

Distribute questionnaires for Phase (2a) data collection phase.

 

Main Study: Narrative Script for 1st Meeting - Data Collection Phase (2a)
(evening prior to the start of the course)

 

(Read to participants) Over the next two days you will be learning many new skills, such as
paddle strokes and navigation, and having new experiences, such as completing wet exits
and practicing rescues. Some of these experiences will be more challenging for you than
others and everyone will have different ideas about what they think is a challenging
experience. You may experience a wide range of emotions and feelings during the weekend,
which is normal for anyone starting a new outdoor pursuit. The questionnaire will focus on
the challenging experiences that you have and how you feel about them.

Some of you may even have experienced some challenges just getting to the course this
weekend. The questions you are going to answer relate to the time period between when
you registered and made the decision to participate and right now, So, as you answer
these questions, please think about that time period. Remember to write your nickname on
the top of the questionnaire and let me know what it is when you return your questionnaire
to me.

222

QUESTIONNAIRE 2a
Building Outdoor Experiences: An Investigation of Constraints and Constraint
Negotiation by Women Sea Kayakers Participating in a Women-Only Course

 

My nickname is:

 

1 a) Think about the time period between when you answered the first
questionnaire and now. Did anything happen or were there any
reasons that made you think you might not be able to participate in
the course this weekend?

D NO - Go to Question 2

D YES - Describe what happened. Be sure to include any other people
who were involved.

b) What made it possible for you to still be able to participate this
weekend?

Za) Do you have any concerns about your participation in the course this
weekend?

D NO - Return your questionnaire to the researcher
D YES - Describe any concerns you have below.

b) Describe the ways you think you could overcome concerns you have.

Thank you for completing this portion of the study.
Return your questionnaire to the researcher.

223

Main Study: Narrative Script - Data Collection Phase (2b)
(end of ﬁrst day of course -— evening)

 

Hi, how is everyone doing?
Let participants talk a bit about their experience during the day.

(Read to participants) Now that you have ﬁnished one full day of the course, please
think about the experiences you had today. The questionnaire tonight will focus
on those experiences. Some of the questions may seem to be repeats from the
other questionnaire. That’s OK. because some of them are! Learning a new
skill or activity is a progressive experience that builds on previous learning;
that’s why you are ﬁlling out this questionnaire during the middle of the course.

Take your time to think about each of the questions. Don’t forget to write about your

feelings, perceptions, and other people who were involved in your experiences today. If you
need more room to answer a question, you can write on the back of the page.

224

QUESTIONNAIRE 2b
Building Outdoor Experiences: An Investigation of Constraints and Constraint
Negotiation by Women Sea Kayakers Participating in a Women-Only Course

 

 

Think about the experiences you have had today. Then read the questions
below and answer them as completely as possible. Be sure to write about
your feelings, perceptions, and any other people who were involved
with those experiences.

 

 

 

My nickname is:

 

3a) Describe the best experience you had today.

b) Why was it your best experience?

4a) Describe the experience(s) that were the most challenging for you
today. Be sure to include how you felt during and following the
experience(s).

b) Why was/were the experience(s) challenging?

c) Describe the reasons you were able to continue to participate during
the challenging experience(s).

 

Now, re-read your answers and add any other details that you think
would help us better understand your eXperiences during the day.
Thank for completing this section of the questionnaire. Remember to write
your nickname in the space provided. Return your questionnaire to the
researcher.

 

 

 

225

Main Study: Narrative Script - Data Collection Phase (2c)
(end of course)

 

(Read to participants) First of all, congratulations to all of you for ﬁnishing the course this
weekend. Hopefully you have learned some new skills and have enjoyed your time here.
This is the last of the written questionnaires that you will be answering. Think back over the
entire weekend and picture in your mind the experiences that you have had throughout the
course.

Then read each question and answer it as thoroughly as you can. Remember to write about
your feelings, perceptions, and the other people involved in your experiences. Again, some
of the questions will seem to repeat themselves. That’s OK. because your experiences may
have changed.

When you are ﬁnished with the questionnaire and return it to me I will need just a couple
minutes of your time to verify your address and phone number and provide you with a log to
keep track of your sea kayaking activities for the next two months.

226

QUESTIONNAIRE 20
Building Outdoor Experiences: An Investigation of Constraints and Constraint
Negotiation by Women Sea Kayakers Participating in a Women-Only Course

 

 

Think back over the last two days and about the experiences you have
had during the sea kayaking course. Then answer the following questions
as completely as possible. Remember to include your feelings,
perceptions, and anyone who was involved with your experiences.

 

 

 

 

My nickname is:

60) Describe the best experience you had today.

b) Why was it the best experience?

70) Describe the experience(s) that was/were the most challenging for
you today. Be sure to include your feelings during and following the
experience(s).

b) Why was/were experience(s) challenging?

c) Describe the reasons you were able to continue to participate during
the challenging experience(s).

8a) Describe the experience that was the most challenging for you during
the en tire weekend.

b) Why was this experience the most challenging?

c) Describe the reasons you were able to continue to participate after
your most challenging experience this weekend.

227

9a) Was there anything you were NOT able to do during the course?
D NO - Go to Question 10
D YES - Describe what you were not able to do.

b) What stopped you from being able to do what you described above?

10) What do you think were the benefits of participating in a women-only
course?

b) What do you think were the problems with participating in a women-
only course?

11) Describe what you think will positively and negatively affect your
participation in sea kayaking during the next two months.

12) What did you enjoy most about your experience this weekend?

Thank you again for participating in this study. Your answers to the questions
about your experiences this weekend have provided valuable information about
your experiences in the outdoors.

Expect a phone call in two months so we can talk about any other sea kayaking
experiences you have after this course.

Return your questionnaire to the researcher, verify your phone number/
address, and pick up your log sheets and thank you gift.

228

SEA KAYAKING PARTICIPATION LOG

Instructions: The purpose of the sea kayaking participation log is to help you
remember the kinds of activities you do that involve sea kayaking following the
course. Any time that you participate in something related to sea kayaking
make an entry in your log. Record the date, the type of sea kayaking activity
(e.g., going paddling: buying equipment: reading a book about sea kayaking:
viewing a video: taking another course), and any other comments that would
help you remember the activity. You will use your log when the researcher
calls you for the phone interview in two months.

 

Date Sea Kayaking Activity Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

229

APPENDIX D

POST—COURSE INTERVIEW

230

Main Study: Post-course Interview Narrative
(by phone approximately 2 months after the course)

 

Interview Instructions:

1. Establish contact with the participant.

2. Make sure a signed consent form is on ﬁle.

3. Ask about the participant’s log; make sure she has it with her, if possible.

4. After turning on the recorder, read the consent information and have the participant
verbally conﬁrm consent to participate.

5. If a subject indicates they have not been sea kayaking at all since the course, follow
the prompts to the correct questions.

6. Take notes on the interview form for checks against the recording.

Introduction:

Hi, . this is Lynn Dominguez calling for our interview that
we scheduled for today. The interview today will be recorded to make sure that I have
your complete answers. Your nickname of will be used to
identify your answers to the questions. Do you have your sea kayaking log with you?
Do you have any questions before we get started?

OK, I’m going to turn the recorder on and we will get started.
Read the following statement and gain verbal consent

Please listen to the following consent statement. At the end, you will be asked to
verbally agree or disagree to the statement.

Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may choose not to participate in any
segment, or choose not to answer individual questions at any time. You may also
choose to discontinue the telephone interview at any time.

Your responses to the interview questions are being voice recorded. All your responses
will be held as conﬁdential and your privacy will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable by law. The nickname you picked during the kayak course will be
used to identify your tape and may be used to identify quotations in the ﬁnal report.
All of the voice tapes will be maintained in conﬁdence and stored in a locked
cabinet. The tapes will be destroyed after three years, following the completion of
the research project.

Do you have any questions about the statements that were read to you .7
Do you consent to participate in the interview?

(Yes - continue) (No-thank the participant and end the interview)

231

Interview Schedule:

Interviewee’s nickname is:

 

We are going to be talking about your sea kayaking experiences since you completed the
sea kayaking course. You should use your log to help remember your experiences.

1a)

2a)

3a)

4)

Have you been sea kayaking since the course?
YES Tell me about those experiences:

Go to Question 1b
NO Have you done anything else related to sea kayaking since the course?
YES What kinds of things? NO - Go to Question 6a

b) How many times have you been sea kayaking since the course?

c) Who usually went with you?

*prompt: Alone? With friends? With family?

(1) Where have you paddled?

*prompt: inland lakes? Great Lakes?

e) What kinds of equipment have you purchased?

*prompt: New kayak? Safety equipment?

Tell me about the best experience you have had sea kayaking since the course.
b) Why was this the best experience?

Describe your most challenging experience sea kayaking since the end of the
course.

b) Why was this the most challenging?

What kinds of things helped you to continue to participate during your most
challenging experience?
*prompt: Were there other people that helped you? Explain.

5) Have you been able to participate in sea kayaking as much as you would like to?

DYES (go to Question 7) D NO - Tell me about the times you were unable to
participate?
Prompt: What has prevented you from participating? Go to Question 7

232

CONTINUE FOR SUBJECTS WHO HAVE NOT PARTICIPATED IN ANY SEA
KAYAKING SINCE THE COURSE:

6a)

7)

8)

9)

What has prevented you from sea kayaking since the course?
*prompt: Have you wanted to go but couldn’t? Describe those times.

b) Is there anything you have thought about doing or plan to do that will allow you

to participate in sea kayaking in the future?

Go to Question 7

CONTINUE WITH ALL SUBJECTS

What kinds of sea kayaking do you plan on doing in the next year?
*prompt: Places you are planning to go? Skills you want to develop?

Is there anything you think will prevent you from sea kayaking as much as you
want to in the next year? Explain?

Describe what you think you could do to assist with your participation next year?

FINISH WITH THESE QUESTIONS FOR SUBJECTS WHO HA VE BEEN PADDLING; ALL
OTHERS SKIP TO QUESTION 11 AND END WI I H QUESTION 13.

10)

ll)

12)

13)

Since the sea kayaking course have you participated in any other sea kayaking
instructional courses? Describe them.

a) Were the courses women-only D? Co-ed D?

Do you plan to participate in any other sea kayaking instructional courses next
year? Such as?

a) Would you prefer to participate in women-only courses D; co-ed courses D; or
a combination of both D? Why?

Tell me why you participate in sea kayaking.
*prompt: What beneﬁts do you get?

Is there anything else you would like to add to what we have talked about today?
Concerns, problems, good experiences?

233

Do you have any questions for me?

Thank you very much for your time and participation in this research study! Would
you like a copy of the executive summary of the study when it is completed?
D YES D NO
I hope to see you ‘on the water’ very soon.

234

APPENDIX E

OBSERVATION RECORDING FORM AND FIELD NOTES

235

Course Number
Critical Activity

Boat ﬁt and equipment
Entering/exiting kayaks
Wet exit demo on-land

Launched kayaks from
shore

Wet exit — on water
Paddle Float Rescue
Rescues — T and bow
Low and high braces
Strokes

Group paddle

Additional activities
as needed

Observation Recording Form

Objective Observation Subjective Comments

236

Course One
Critical Activity

Boat ﬁt and
entering exiting
kayaks

Observation Field Notes

Objective Observations
I - Instructor(s)

P- Participant(s)

Muskegon State Park 10:20am-June 29,
2002
Sunny; 65°; wind 5-10 knots

On-land activity:

Participants gathered around kayaks in a
semi-circle.

I: demonstrated entering kayak;
discussed idea of wearing boat; initial
lead-up activities for wet exit

Ps: gathered around kayak to examine it
as a group; looked inside kayak; moved
closer together

I: moved into kayak to demonstrate
kayak ﬁt

P: asked questions about heel pads;
questions about installing foam

Two P’s switched kayaks because one P
had shorter legs than the other and the
foot pegs wouldn’t go short enough

What didn 't happen:

No concerns were voiced by
participants about ﬁtting i_r_r_t_g

the kayak; no body image types of
concerns (e.g., large hips; large body
size)

237

Subjective
Comments

P: listening closely,
intently

P: listening closely,
intently

Critical Activity

Wet Exit demo on-
land

Launched Kayaks
from shore

Objective Observations Subjective
Moved to Duck Lake for on-water Comments
sessions

Sunny, 75°; wind 8-10 knots; sea state-

rifﬂes

I: got into kayak on land; p’s were asked
twice to move so they could see better;

Ps: gathered in semi-circle around 8 l),S appeared t0 be
instructor in kayak; 8 p’s that had not listening intently ‘0
done a wet exit before watched closely; 1’15““9‘10953 closely
5 p’s that had done wet exit moved to watching instructor

one side or behind other p’s. No
discussion or questions from p’s.

8 p’s w/o wet exit experience moved to
their own kayaks, practiced putting on
spray skirt; pounding kayak 3 times;
waving hands to signal rescue; releasing
spray skirt and exiting kayak- 3 times

each.

3 p’s with wet exit experience watched; Approximately half

2 got kayaks ready of the P s appeared
nervous about the

I: demo’ed wet exit in the water wet exit.

Discussion among participants about
how warm they were in their
wetsuits/pfd’s. 5 P’s had the instructors
re-adjust PFD’s

I’s: Directed P’s to their kayaks and
started loading process. P’s left shore in
small groups and individually; gathered
around two instructors 50 yards from
shore.(researcher assisted with
participants getting into kayaks and was
the last person off the beach)

Group paddled 400 yds. to wet exit area

What didn’t happen: no shore rolls or
problems with kayak ﬁt

238

Critical Activity

Wet Exit - on-
water

Objective Observations

12:25pm

Near a sandy beach with 3 ft. of
water; water tolO ft.-20 yards from
shore

31’s wet exited their kayaks and
asked for volunteers to go ﬁrst.

5 P’s clustered close to the
instructors and wet exit area;
maneuvered kayaks to observe; 5 P’s
formed a semi-circle outside of the
ﬁrst group; 3 P’s remained further
out away from each other and the
group. Watched without making eye
contact with I’s; played with lines on
kayaks; adjusted PFD’s; paddled
slowly back and forth.

10 P’s wet exited successfully (6
with spray skirts - 4 w/o); emptied
kayaks then watched from shore or in
their boats in small groups of 2 or 3

3 P’s were asked to come in by
instructors to wet exit (this was their
ﬁrst time to exit). All successfully
exited without spray skirts; required
longer time period and repeated
encouragement from 1’s and the

group.

4 P’s wet exited again using spray
skirts; last 3 P’s wet exited with
spray skirts.

Group responded by clapping each

time a person successfully wet
exited.

239

Subjective
comments

3P’s Appeared
hesitant and had to
be encouraged
more than the other
P’s

Paddling back to
the shore for lunch
lots of animated
conversations
within the group;
discussing how
scared they had
been; how relieved
they were, and how
fun wet exiting
was than they
thought it would
be.

What didn’t
happen: No one
refused to wet exit;
no one spent more
time than normal
under the water; no
one got stuck or
needed assistance
releasing their
spray skirts.

Critical Activity

Paddle Float
Rescue

Objective Observations
4:00pm; 800; sunny; light winds

P’s split up into three groups: 5, 4, 4
Mom and daughter teams split up; 2
older P’s that had come together-
stayed together in one group.

Observed group #1 primarily; partial
of group #2.

Group #1

I: demo’ed paddle float rescue for
each group. Asked for volunteers;
one volunteered immediately

3 P’s were successful on ﬁrst try; 1P
had to start over when kayak
capsized again. All participants
gathered closely around the person
doing the paddle-ﬂoat rescue;
clapped for each person when they
were successful; talked quietly
among selves or watched.

Group #2

2 older P’s stayed on outer edge of
group; both waited to be last; P that
had taken the longest to wet exit also
capsized a second time during the
rescue and had to start over.

Group was supportive and clapped
for each successful rescue. 2 older
P’s came together to talk frequently
and check on each other. One had
talked the other into attending (had
never been in kayaks before) they
were behind their group all afternoon
each time the group paddled to
another spot.

240

Subjective
comments

Appeared to have
upper body
strength problems
when trying to get
back in the kayaks.

What didn’t
happen: no one
was unsuccessful
doing the rescue

SP’s made requests
to the instructors
on the paddle back
to the take-out to
go beyond the
ACA basic course
and practice
Eskimo rolling
during the
weekend. I’s
talked among
selves seemed to
be deciding how to
say no to rolling.

Critical Activity

Rescues - T-rescue
and bow rescue

Objective Observations Subjective

June 30, 2002; 83°; wind 10 knots; comments

partly cloudy; sea state-light chop

Group worked together at put-in to One P that was late
unload kayaks; two P’s were late appeared surprised
breaking camp and one of their rental that no one had
boats needed to be carried to the put-in. carried her boat for
Discussion among P’s centered on how her.

heavy the kayaks were. [’5 tried to get
each P to be responsible for carrying
and loading their own kayaks.
Especially by 2nd day. P’s gathered
together in small groups (up to 4) and
talked about equipment; clothing they
had selected for the day; how warm the
day was with wetsuits on.

I: conducted session on group
communication. At put-in requested
volunteers for lead/sweep/ left ﬂank!
right ﬂank. Hesitation by group to
volunteer; once ﬁrst person volunteered
the rest followed. P’s entered kayaks
quickly; last P on the water was one of
the oldest (also was P that was late)

Paddled to middle of lake for T-rescue
demonstration by the 1’s. P’s paddled
up into a semi-circle around the demo
boats; rafted up in groups of 3 or 4;
conversation and laughter within each
group; [’5 divided group into same three
pods. Spread out on the lake.

Group #2 (w-2 oldest paddlers)

l of the older P’s volunteered to go ﬁrst
for T-rescue-her partner looked at her,
grimaced, shrugged her shoulders-they
paired off for the rescue; lots of talking
between them, they were successful but
one P had trouble lifting the kayak to
dump it.

241

Critical Activity

T-rescue/bow
rescue (cont.)

Objective Observations

Group #1: lSt pair had already done T-
rescue when researcher arrived; 2"d pair
had just started. Much conversation
going on between the rescue pair.
Talking about the steps to follow while
the others watched in pairs.

Group #3: lSt and 2"d pair had completed
T-rescue-3rd pair had waited to the end
and hung back on the outside of the

group.

Group #2: Oldest P’s switched roles and
oldest P (after much encouragement
from instructor and her friend) wet
exited the kayak. She forgot to pound
the sides to signal so swam back under
the kayak to pound-much laughter and
conversation from the rest of the group.
Emptied kayak OK; P tried and failed 4
times to re-enter; I’s towed her and the
kayak away from the weeds and shore
twice. I’s then demo’ed stirrup rescue; P
was able to re-enter kayak-lots of
cheering and hugging in the group.
Group 1 & 3 moved to bow rescues
ahead of Group 2

Group 3: conversations among P’s were
increasing; more laughter; some
singing-group gathered in semi-circle to
listen and watch bow rescue demo; 2
P’s volunteered immediately-others
watched and talked.

P’s practiced hip snaps off each others
bows; progressed to full bow rescues; lSt
pair was successful; 2nd pair-rescuee let
got of the kayak and had to wet exit-
came up coughing-re-entered kayak;
asked to try again was successful

242

Subjective
Sim-meats

Minimal
conversation
between this pair

P was visibly tired
and put less effort
into each try

Oldest P
immediately began
to talk about the
experience with her
friend

Critical Activity

Bow rescues
(cont.)

Objective Observations Subjective
QM

Group 1: followed same progression;
advanced slower than Group 3 but was
ahead of Group 2; spent more time on
hip snaps; all were successful at bow
rescues; conversation among members
was increasing

Group 2: practiced hip snaps off of
bows; two oldest were paired up-both
had problems controlling the kayaks and
coordinating their body movements;
This pair decided NOT to do full bow
rescues; Other pairs were successful.

Other Notes: wind/waves/temps.
increased throughout morning; large
boat trafﬁc and jet skis increased in
number; overall communications within
the group increased from the ﬁrst day to
the second. More conversations within
groups of two and three as kayaks drift
together; clapping and cheering for each
other as skills are attempted and
completed continue to increase.

What didn’t happen: no unexpected
capsizes; no equipment failures.

2:00pm; 92°; Wind 15 knots/gusty;
waves (wind and boat) 1ft. or less

Lakeside discussion of afternoon
session; 4 P’s continue to ask about
rolling; Decision by group to remain on
Duck Lake to avoid crowds at Lake
Michigan; 2 P’s voice disappointment
w/not going on Lake Michigan;

I: Ask for volunteers to lead group-no

volunteers - pick 4; uneventful launch
with 8 people watching from shore

243

Critical Activity

Low and high
braces

Objective Observations Subjective
comments

Researcher stationed between Groups 1
& 3-also able to observe Group 1

1’8 led low brace demo.; P’s practiced
one on one with instructor.

Group 3-moved ﬁrst to waist deep water
to play ‘bracing game’ (1 stands behind
kayak and rocks it from side-to-side and
P does low braces); increased laughter
and conversation within this group;
moves to high braces w/Group 1 just
beginning waist deep ‘bracing game’
and Group 2 continuing to work on
shallow water low braces.

Group 3 - I demo’s extreme high braces
and works one—on-one in waist deep
water - some P’s sit on top of their
kayaks to watch; two P’s converse and
then switch kayaks so that one could try
out the others smaller boat. (they remain
switched for the rest of the day);

One P in Group 3 progresses more
slowly with hip snaps; is the last to
volunteer and does not join in with
laughter and conversation; she also
hesitates each time instructor calls her
out to practice.

Group 1 - is progressing through low
braces; l P (youngest in group) capsizes
unexpectedly in waist deep water but
wet exits and tries again; another P
helps empty her kayak; Group moves on
to high braces; One P is always the ﬁrst
to try each new skill, she then moves off
to the side and continues to practice
braces and moves independently to
extreme high braces, she approached
the researcher and discussed rolling-
expressed interest in rolling before
the end of summer/ disappointment in
not rolling during weekend.

244

Critical Activity

Low and high
braces (cont.)

Objective Observations

Group 2 - progresses slowest through
low braces; spends extra time w/oldest
P; she expresses frustration to the
instructor that she ‘will never get it’;
she begins to capsize unexpectedly but
catches herself in the shallow water
with a hand on the bottom.

Group 2-spends limited time on high
braces-instructor moves them off shore

to demo. using a paddle ﬂoat to practice

braces and rolls
Instructors formed group and demo’ed
using a paddle ﬂoat to practice rolls for

the entire group.

P’s volunteered to lead/sweep/ﬂank for

§u_b.iec_ti!£
comments

Group dynamics:
Group 2: one of the
youngest and the
oldest P’s are in this
group. Youngest P
is beginning to
appear frustrated as
instructor has to
spend more time
with two older P’s

The three groups
seem to have distinct
personalities.

Group 1: most P’s
are evenly matched
by skill and

the group paddle across the lake. Group
needed to stay together because of
increased boat trafﬁc. Boat wakes of l-

progression with the
exception of one P
who spends time

2 ft. were common. After crossing main watching Group 3-
part of lake one instructor capsized- appears to be

three P’s immediately paddled over for interested in joining
a bow rescue which was completed them, they are

successfully. Clapping and cheering
from group.

Practiced draw strokes as a group.
Paddled as a group back to take-out. 3
P’s stopped on a sandbar with one
instructor to practice rolls. 2 P’s asked
to paddle other P’s kayaks. Group
worked together to load kayaks and
gear.

245

progressing quicker
than other two
groups.

Group 2: clearly
divided between the
two oldest P’s and
other pair in skills
and physical ability.
Longer amount of
time needed for
older pair to
complete skills.
Youngest P has not
kayaked before but
has athletic skills
and gets skills
quickly.

Critical Activity

Objective Observation

End of Course One

246

Subjective
comments

This group has
progressed slowest
and covered fewer
skills.

Group 3: has 3 P’s
that are more
advanced than the
other groups and
have pushed the
progression of
instruction for the
entire group. 1 P
was frustrated w/her
kayak but tried
everything with
enthusiasm, once she
switched kayaks her
skills began to
advance rapidly. 1P
advanced more
slowly; always was
last and appeared
uncomfortable with
the pace of
instruction. This
group was
introduced to more
advanced rescues by
the instructor and
progressed further in
skills.

Course Two
Critical Activity
Unloading of
kayaks at beach

and ﬁtting of
wetsuits

Boat ﬁt and
equipment

On-shore entry

Objective Observations Subjective
Red Cliff, WI; Lake Superior; Apostle comments

Island area.

Overcast; 70° (air) - 60° (water); winds
10-15 knots; sea state: calm to 1 ft.;
Buffalo Bay marina-sandy beach and
cove protected by a breakwater from the
main part of the lake.

Group make-up: two groups of three
women who came to course together; 2
P’s who came separately-don’t know
anyone else in the group.

P’s: unloaded kayaks at the beach;
worked together in groups of two.

During wetsuit ﬁtting-two tallest P’s P appeared
exchanged wetsuits for longer ones; 1P frustrated after
tried on four different wetsuits before ‘1')?“an two
ﬁnding one that was proportioned and WCtSUltS-

big enough to ﬁt.

Group gathered around instructor to
discuss boat ﬁt and to divide up the
equipment (Note: only one instructor
was with this group-they are three
paddlers over recommended ratio’s for
insurance purposes with the ACA.
Company carries own liability insurance
and allows a larger ratio. This is
different from the ﬁrst course-they
maintained recommended ratio of 1:5)

4 P’s chose to wear their wetsuits; All P’s seem

others do not-the P’s with ﬁt concerns concerned about

do not wear them for morning session. how warm the
wetsuits are.

P’s: group gathered around instructor

for boat outﬁtting and discussion. 3P’s

remain together during discussion.

P’s: all enter kayaks on shore to adjust
ﬁt; 1 P is placed in widest kayak with
largest cockpit-ﬁt of cockpit comes up
under her arms further

247

Critical Activity

On-shore entry
lBoat ﬁt (cont.)

Wet exit
demonstration

Objective Observations Subjective
comments

P’s continue to adjust ﬁt of kayaks on
beach. Gather around each kayak;
discussion about colors of kayaks;
different seats; size of cockpits; much
climbing in and out to adjust foot pegs;
P’s rock kayaks back and forth on the
sand.

Group prepares to go on water; All but
two P’s put on their wetsuits

Rain begins. 1: discusses and
demonstrates wet exit on shore; all P’s
sit in their kayaks (on-shore); practice
steps of wet exit; practice releasing
spray skirts; Two P’s have wet exited
before-six have not wet exited a kayak.

Last 2 P’s put on their wet suits.

One P stays with instructor to discuss
weather (wind/waves) rest go to ’
restroom.

Observation audit: Rather than paddling
with this group the researcher observed
from on top of a hill above the cove for
the following reasons:

I. Group size (8) made it difﬁcult to be
unobtrusive;

2. Instructor with this group was young
and VERY nervous about the researcher
observing;

3. Owner of the company had voiced
concerns about the effect that
observation would have on this group.

To maintain the integrity of the
experience for the group the researcher
made the choice to watch from land -
advantages: able to see the entire group
at once; able to make observations
notes during the course rather than
following each of the activities.

248

Critical Activity

On-water
activities begin-
launch from beach

Strokes

Afternoon launch
for on-water
activities

Objective Observations Subjective
Disadvantage: can’t hear all of the comments

conversations within the group.

Group moves to water’s edge and enters
kayaks; last P to enter had the most
problems with wetsuit ﬁt, is in largest
kayak, and was the last to put on wetsuit

4 P’s require instructors help to put on
spray skirts and launch; 4 P’s require no
help

Group gathers together short distance
from shore and forms a semi-circle
facing the instructor.

1: begins group instruction on forward
and reverse strokes; sweeps

Group remains together to practice
strokes; instructor demonstrates stroke
and then provides individual attention

Group paddled back to beach for lunch; What did" "ehgppem
one P did a shore roll (tipped over kayak no “Bali“.
while getting out) by accident - laughter capsrzes urrng

followed from the group :3: £2233: g

Mostly sunny to cloudy; winds 10-20
knots; waves- chop to 1 ft.

Group prepares to re-enter kayaks and
go on the water.

One P tips entering the kayak on the
beach (same P that shore rolled) and
requested help -another P assisted her.

I: assisted 4 P’s to get on water; 4 P’s
didn’t need help

249

Critical Activity

Afternoon launch
(cont.)

Wet exits

Objective Observations

P’s gathered together about 25 yards off
shore; ﬂoated around or practiced
strokes while in the instructor helped
everyone get on the water.

1: P’s gathered around instructor; 2 P’s
came back to shore to adjust foot pegs
and get sunglasses.

One P continues to paddle away from
the group while practicing her forward
stoke; I calls her back.

Unexpected capsize during practice on
strokes; P’s gather together; I performs
a t-rescue-P in water tries to get back in
the kayak three times. I uses stirrup
rescue to get her back in boat. P’s clap
when she is back in kayak.

I: demo’s wet exit on-water; talks P’s
through the steps; asks for volunteers. 2
P’s volunteer. Group gathers around
instructor and one P who successfully
wet exits. Group takes turns wet exiting
- all are successful; Group stays together
during this activity.

250

Subjective
comments

Appeared to have
problems with

upper—body strength

What didn ’t happen:
no one hesitated to

wet exit; no one was
under water for long

time; on one was
stuck in kayak

 

 

Critical Activity

T-rescue

Bow rescue/hip
snaps

Objective Observations

P’s pared off to practice T-rescue.
Groups tended to ﬂoat apart and pairs
had to be reminded to paddle away from
shore when wind blew them too close.
Each pair was successful with rescue. P
that accidently capsized did not do
another T—rescue.

What didn’t happen: no one else
required a stirrup to re-enter their kayak;
except for the ﬁrst P no one else failed
to get back in kayak on ﬁrst try

Some pairs practiced T-rescue more
than once.

1: demonstrated the progression for the
bow rescue including hip snaps.

P’s: stayed in their T-rescue pairs to
practice hip snaps on each others bows.
P’s talked quietly in pairs; and took
turns practicing. Moved to bow rescues.
Instructor worked with each pair
individually while others watch. Group
was blown toward shore and had to
paddle back out after each pair
performed rescue.

*Failed bow rescue: P with unexpected
capsizes failed to grab bow of her
partner’s kayak and had to wet exit.
Instructor performed a T-rescue. P was
unable to get back in without stirrup
after 2 failed attempts. Rescue required
a long period of time.

251

W
comments

T-rescue went very
smoothly for this
group. No one
appeared to hang
back or be reluctant
to participate. The
instructor moved
from group to group
to assist where
needed but everyone
seemed to be
moving along OK.

P’s appeared to be
concentrating
intently within each
pair as the skills
progressed.

 

P appeared to be
upset; was in the
water a long time;
instructor was
intently talking to
her.

Critical Activity

Bow rescues
(cont.)

Paddle ﬂoat
rescue

Take-out at beach

Objective Observations

During the rescue 2 P’s ﬂoated away
from the group and were talking
together; one wet exited and other came
in to do a T-rescue (away from the
group about 75 yards); rescue kayak
also capsized; two P’s rafted up to

help the other P that the instructor had
been rescuing. Instructor gathered
group together and had the two in the
water demonstrate an‘all—in T-rescue’.

I: demo’ed a paddle ﬂoat rescue for the
group. Only 4 P’s tried it.

Group paddled in together. 4 P’s came
immediately to the beach and exited
their kayaks then gathered together at
the water’s edge to watch the other P’s
and the instructor.

4 P’s (three of the youngest that came
together as a group) requested rolling
instruction. Group gathered in waist
deep water and instructor worked with
each of them individually.

One P told instructor she had rolled
before; she tried two rolls and missed
both, had to wet exit. Instructor worked
with each of the other 3 P’s on the roll
progression. None tried a complete roll.
P that had missed roll had instructor
spot for her again; missed again and
wet exited. Group moved to beach and
exited kayaks.

Loaded boats working in groups of two.
Much conversation about how tired they
were and how heavy the kayaks were.
Two P’s decided to ﬂoat their kayak to
the take-out ramp and trailer. They told
everyone about this method and over
half of the kayaks were ﬂoated to

trailer rather than carried.

252

Subjective
comments

After the rescue the
instructor pulled this
pair aside and talked
to them; they didn’t
wander away the rest
of the afternoon

The two P’s that
ﬂoated the ﬁrst
kayak were very
animated about this
method; they
excitedly talked to
everyone and
demonstrated the
method.

Critical Activity

Objective Observation

August 11, 2002 - Sunny; 80°; winds:
10-15 knots; sea state: 1-2 ft.

Observation Audit: This course
followed a different progression than
the ﬁrst course; the same activities were
covered but instead of mini-group
paddles scattered throughout the two
days, like the ﬁrst course, the second
course instructor covered all of the
critical activities identiﬁed for
observation on the ﬁrst day of the
course. During the second day the
group moved to Meyer’s beach and
launched into Lake Superior to paddle
for a longer period of time - during this
time they practiced strokes but didn’t do
any other activities identiﬁed from the
course outline as critical for
observation. The researcher met the
group back at the agency headquarters
to ﬁnish the last questionnaire section.
Continued observation was not done
during the second day of that course.

253

Subjective
comments

I was forced to
change the
observation protocol
during this course.
There were
advantages to
unobtrusive
observation
occurring away from
the participants-they
didn’t paddle up to
me and talk to me;
but I also didn’t feel
that the same
connections were
made with this group
as with the ﬁrst
course.

I was very
concerned about the
instructor’s reaction
to being observed
and how that could
affect the
participant’s
experience - so
rather than
negatively impacting
their course I chose
to adjust the
research observation
protocol. I felt that
the participant’s
experience was more
important than the
research study; and
that I had to protect
the integrity of the
course for both the
women and the
company.

End of observation

APPENDIX E

PRELIMINARY AND FINAL LIST OF CODES

254

Start List of Codes

 

 

Concept/Category Code Research Question
Constraints CT
Antecedent CT—an l, 3
Socially inappropriate/
unsuitable activity CT -an-soc
Female gender roles CT -an-fem
Social Discomfort CT -an-dis
Shy/shyness CT-an-shy
Self-conscious CT-an-sel
Body image concerns CT-an-bod
Low self-esteem CT -an-est
Low skill level (perceived) CT -an-ski
Lack of entitlement CT -an-ent
Ethic of care CT-an-eth
Lack of leisure companions CT-an-com
Sense of obligation CI-an-obl
Leisure choice controlled
by others CT -an-cho
Fear of violence CT -an-vio
Intervening CT-in l, 3
Time CT-in-tim
Money CT -in-mon
Facilities availability CT -in-fac
Lack of programs CT -in-pro
Stress/low energy levels CT-in-eng
Physical/health problems CT -in—phy
Lack of transportation CT -in-tra
No opportunities CT -in-opp
Negotiation Methods NM
Cognitive Strategies NM-co 2, 3
Ignore problems NM-co-ign
Facing up to problems NM-co-fac
Self-talk NM-co-sel
Behavioral NM-be 2, 3
Modifying time spent on
other activities NM-be-mod
Improve ﬁnancial situation NM-be-imp
Improve health status NM-be-hea
Change interpersonal rel. NM-be-int
Accept lower level of part. NM-be-low
Seek out further instruction NM-be-see
Rely on instructor/others NM-be-rel

 

255

Final List of Codes

 

 

Concept / Category Code Research Question
Constraints CT 1, 3
Structural CT -st
Time CT-st-time
Money/ﬁnances CT -st-mon
Lack of access CT -st-acc
Physical/health problems
limitations CT -st-phy
Lack of equipment CT -st-eqp
Lack of opportunity CT -st-opp
Lack of knowledge/skill CT -st-know
Intrapersonal CT-inta
Fear-internal CT -inta-fear
Perceptions of age limits CT ~inta-age/p
Perceptions of physical
ability limitations CT-inta-phy/p
Perceived low skill/
knowledge levels CT-inta-skill/p
Ethic of care CT -inta-eth
Lack of entitlement CT -inta-entil
Socially inappropriate
Activity CT-inta-soc
Interpersonal CT -intr
Lack of leisure companions CT -intr—comp
Sense of obligation CT -intr-obl
Leisure choice controlled
by others CT-intr—cho
Negotiation Methods NM 2, 3
Behavioral NM-be
Modifying time and/or
other commitments NM-be-time
Acquiring skills NM-be-skill
Changing interpersonal
relations NM-be-intper
Improving ﬁnances NM-be-ﬁn

256

Final List of Codes (continued)

 

 

Concept / Category Code Research Question
Negotiation Method (cont.) NM 2, 3
Behavioral (cont.) NM-be
Improving health status/
physical ability NM-be-phy
Changing leisure behavior NM-be-beh
Accept lower level of
participation NM-be-less/p
Seek out further instruction NM-be—inst
Rely on instructor NM-be-rely/inst
Rely on family/friends NM-be-rely/fam
Acquire equipment NM-be-equip
Cognitive NM-cog
Self-talk NM-cog-self
Ignore problems NM-cog-plan
Face-up to problems NM-cog-face

 

257

REFERENCES

258

REFERENCES

American Canoe Association. (2001). Fundamentals of Coastal Kayaking: ACA
Instructor’s Course Schedules. Retrieved September 19, 2001, from http://
www.acanet.org/acanet.htm

Backman, S. J. (1991). An investigation of the relationship between activity loyalty and
perceived constraints. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(4), 332-344.

Backman, S. J. & Wright, B. A. (1993). An exploratory study of the relationship of
attitude and the perception of constraints to hunting. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 11(2), 1-16.

Bell, M. (1997). Gendered experience: Social theory and experiential practice. Journal of
Experiential Education, 20(3), 143-151.

Bialeschki, M. D. (1992). We said, “Why Not?” - A historical perspective on women’s
outdoor pursuits. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 63(2), 52-
55.

Bialeschki, M. D. & Henderson, K. A. (1993). Expanding outdoor opportunities for
women. Parks and Recreation, 28(8), 36-40.

Bialeschki, M. D. & Michener, S. (1994). Re-entering leisure: Transition within the role
of motherhood. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(1), 57-74.

Bolla, P., Dawson, D., & Harrington, M. (1991). The leisure experience of women in
Ontario. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 16(4), 322-348.

Boothby, J ., Tungatt, M. F., & Townsend, A. R. (1981). Ceasing participation in sports

activity: Reported reasons and their implications. Journal of Leisure Research,
13(1), 1-14.

Chambers, D. A. (1986). The constraints of work and domestic schedules on women’s
leisure. Leisure Studies, 5, 309-325.

Cordell, K. H., Betz, C. J ., Bowker, J. M., English, D. B., Mou, S. H., Bergstrom, J. C.,
Teasley, R. J ., Tarrant, M. A., & Loomis, J. (1999). Outdoor recreation in
American life: A national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign,
IL: Sagamore Publishing

Crawford, D. W. & Godbey, G. (1987). Re-conceptualizing barriers to family leisure.
Leisure Sciences, 9, 119-127.

259

Crawford, D. W., Jackson, E. L., & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure
constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 309-320.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Culp, R. H. (1998). Adolescent girls and outdoor recreation: A case study examining
constraints and effective programming. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(3),
356-379.

Eells, E. (1986). History of organized camping: The ﬁrst hundred years. Martinsville, IN:
The American Camping Association.

Frederick, J. C. & Shaw, S. M. (1995). Body image as a leisure constraint: Examining the
experience of aerobic exercise classes for young women. Leisure Sciences, 17, 57-
73.

Godbey, G. (1985). Nonuse of public leisure services: A model. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 3, 1-13.

Goodale, T. L., & Witt, P. A. (1989). Recreation nonparticipation and barriers to leisure.
In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds), Understanding leisure and recreation:
Mapping the past, charting the future (pp. 421-449). State College, PA: Venture
Publishing, Inc.

Graves, G. (2000). Sea kayaking. Women ’s Sports and Fitness, 3(5), 56-58.

Harrington, M. (1991). Time after work: Constraints on the leisure of working women.
Society and Leisure, 14(1), 115-132.

Harrington, M. & Dawson, D. (1995). Who has it best? Women’s labor force
participation, perceptions of leisure and constraints to enjoyment of leisure.
Journal of Leisure Research, 27(1), 4-24.

Harrington, M., Dawson, D., & Bolla, P. (1992). Objective and subjective constraints on
women’s enjoyment of leisure. Society and Leisure, 15(1), 203-221.

Hawkins, B. A., Peng, J., Hsieh, C-M, & Eklund, S. J. (1999). Leisure constraints: A

replication and extension of construct development. Leisure Sciences, 21, 179-
192.

Henderson, K. A. (1991). The contribution of feminism to an understanding of leisure
constraints. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(4), 363-377.

260

Henderson, K. A. (1991). Dimensions of choice: A qualitative approach to recreation,
parks, and leisure research. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Henderson, K. A. (1994). Broadening an understanding of women, gender, and leisure.
Journal of Leisure Research, 26(1), l-7.

Henderson, K. A. (1994). Perspectives on analyzing gender, women, and leisure. Journal
of Leisure Research, 26(2), 119-137.

Henderson, K. A. (1997). A critique of constraints theory: A response. Journal of Leisure
Research, 29(4), 453-457.

Henderson, K. A. (1999). Should gender-speciﬁc programs, such as all-women courses be
offered in adventure education? Yes. In S. D.Wurdinger and T. G. Potter (Eds.),

Controversial Issues in Adventure Education: A Critical Examination (pp. 247-
253). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Henderson, K. A. & Allen, K. R. (1991). The ethic of care: Leisure possibilities and
constraints for women. Society and Leisure, 14(1), 97-113.

Henderson, K. A., Bedini, L. A., Hecht, L., & Schuler, R. (1995). Women with physical
disabilities and the negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Studies, 14, 17-31

Henderson, K. A. & Bialeschki, M. D. (1986). Outdoor experiential education (for women
only). In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Association for Experiential
Education, 14’”, Moodus, Connecticut. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N o.
ED274487)

Henderson, K. A. & Bialeschki, M. D. (1987). A qualitative evaluation of a women’s
week experience. Journal of Experiential Education, 19(6), 25-29.

Henderson, K. A. & Bialeschki, M. D. (1991). Girls’ and women’s recreation and
programming: Constraints and opportunities. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 62(1), 55-58.

Henderson, K. A. & Bialeschki, M. D. (1991). A sense of entitlement to leisure as
constraint and empowerment for women. Leisure Sciences, 13, 51-65.

Henderson, K. A. & Bialeschki, M. D. (1993). Exploring an expanded model of women’s
leisure constraints. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 18(4), 229-252.

Henderson, K. A., Bialeschki, M. D., Shaw, S. M., & Freysinger, V. J. (1996). Both gaps

and gains: Feminist perspectives on women ’s leisure. State College, PA: Venture
Publishing, Inc.

261

Henderson, K. A. & Roberts, N. S. (1998). An integrative review of the literature on
women in the outdoors. In Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Research
Symposium Proceedings, 4’”, Bradford Woods, IN. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED438979)

Henderson, K. A., Stalnaker, D., & Taylor, G. (1988). The relationship between barriers to

recreation and gender-role personality traits for women. Journal of Leisure
Research, 20(1), 69-80.

Henderson, K. A., Winn, S., & Roberts, N. S. (1996). “Kind of in the middle”: The
gendered meanings of the outdoors for women students. In Coalition for Education
in the Outdoors Research Symposium Proceedings, 3rd., Bradford Woods, IN.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED413129)

Homibrook, T., Brinkert, E., Parry, D., Seimens, R., Mitten, D., & Priest, S. (1997). The
beneﬁts and motivations of all women outdoor programs. Journal of Experiential
Education, 20(3), 152-158.

Howe, C. Z. (1985). Possibilities for using a qualitative research approach in the
sociological study of leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 17(3), 212-224.

Hultsman, W. Z. (1993). Is constrained leisure an internally homogeneous concept? An
extension. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(4), 319-334.

Hultsman, W. Z. (1995). Recognizing patterns of leisure constraints: An extension of the
exploration of dimensionality. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(3), 228-244.

Humberstone, B. & Lynch, P. (1991). Girls concepts of themselves and their experiences
in outdoor education programmes. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor
Leadership, 8(3), 27-31.

Hurlbut, D. C. (1996). The negotiation of constraints as an integral part of the leisure and
recreation experience. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Alberta,

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Ibrahim, H. & Cordes, K. A. (1993). Outdoor recreation. Dubuque, IA: Brown &
Benchmark Publishers.

Jackson, E. L. (1988). Leisure constraints: a survey of past research. Leisure Sciences, 10,
203-215.

Jackson, E. L. (1990a). Variations in the desire to begin a leisure activity: Evidence of
antecedent constraints? Journal of Leisure Research, 22(1), 55-70.

262

Jackson, E. L. (1990b). Trends in leisure preferences: Alternative constraints-related
explanations. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 15(3), 129-145.

Jackson, E. L. (1991). leisure constraints/constrained leisure: Special issue introduction.
Journal of Leisure Research, 23(4), 279-285.

Jackson, E. L. (1993). Recognizing patterns of leisure constraints: Results from alternative
analyses. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(2), 129-149.

Jackson, E. L. (1994). Activity-speciﬁc constraints on leisure participation. Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, 12(2), 33-49.

Jackson, E. L. (1997). In the eye of the beholder: A comment on Samdahl & Jekubovich
(1997), “A critique of leisure constraints: Comparative analyses and
understandings”. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(4), 458-468.

Jackson, E. L. (1999). Comment on Hawkins et al., “Leisure constraints: A replication and
extension of construct development”. Leisure Sciences, 21, 195-199.

Jackson, E. L. (2000). Will research on leisure constraints still be relevant in the twenty-
ﬁrst century? Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1), 62-68.

Jackson, E. L., Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1993). Negotiation of leisure constraints.
Leisure Sciences, 15(1), 1-11.

Jackson, E. L., & Dunn, E. (1991). Is constrained leisure an internally homogeneous
concept? Leisure Sciences, 19(3), 167-184)

Jackson, E. L. & Henderson, K. A. (1995). Gender-based analysis of leisure constraints.
Leisure Sciences, 1 7, 31-51.

Jackson, E. L. & Rucks, V. C. (1993). Reasons for ceasing participation and barriers to
participation: Further examination of constrained leisure as an internally
homogeneous concept. Leisure Sciences, 15, 217-230.

Jackson, E. L. & Rucks, V. C. (1995). Negotiation of leisure constraints by junior-high and

hi gh-school students: An exploratory study. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(1),
85-105.

Jackson, E. L. & Scott, D. (1999). Constraints to leisure. In E. L. Jackson, & T. L. Burton
(Eds.), Leisure Studies: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 299-321).
State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Jackson, E. L. & Searle, M. S. (1985). Recreation non-participation and barriers to
participation: Concepts and models. Society and Leisure, 8(2), 693-707.

263

Jackson, E. L. & Witt, P. (1994). Change and stability in leisure constraints: A comparison
of two surveys conducted four years apart. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(4),
322-336.

James, K. (2000). “You can feel them looking at you”: The experiences of adolescent girls
at swimming pools. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(2), 262-280.

Jordan, D. (1998). Learning outdoor recreation skills in a safe place: Lessons from a
single-sex program. In Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Research
Symposium Proceedings. Bradford Woods, IN. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED438984)

J orgensen, L. J. (1998). Coping with fear of violence: Women ’s negotiation through
leisure constraints during outdoor recreational activities. Unpublished master’s

thesis, California State University, Chico, California.

Kane, M. J. (1990). Female involvement in physical recreation-Gender role as a constraint.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 61(1), 52-56.

Kaufman, P. W. (1986). Early women claim park lands for adventure and aspiration.
Courier, 31( 10), 16-18.

Kaufman, P. W. (1996). National parks and the women ’s voice: A history.
Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press

Kay, T. & Jackson, G. (1991). Leisure despite constraint: The impact of leisure constraints ‘
on leisure participation. Journal of Leisure Research 23(4), 301-313.

Kraus, R. & Allen, L. R. (1997). Research and evaluation in recreation, parks & leisure
studies (2“‘1 ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick, Publishers.

LaBastille, A. (1980). Women and wilderness. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publishing.

Mannell, R. C. & Zuzanek, J. (1991). The nature and variability of leisure constraints in
daily life: The case of the physically active leisure of older adults. Leisure
Sciences, 13, 337-351.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

264

McCarville, R. E. & Smale, B. J. (1993). Perceived constraints to leisure participation

within ﬁve activity domains. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
1 1(2), 40-59.

McClintock, M. (1996). Why women’s outdoor trips? In K. Warren (Ed.), Women’s
Voices in Experiential Education (pp. 18-23). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company.

McQuarrie, F. & Jackson, E. L. (1996). Connections between negotiation of leisure
constraints and serious leisure: An exploratory study of adult amateur ice skaters.
Society and Leisure, 19(2), 459-483.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco, CA: J osey-Bass.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data
analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Miranda, W. (1987). The genteel radicals. Camping Magazine, 59(4), 12-15, 31.

Miranda, W. & Yerkes, R. (1982). The need for research in outdoor education programs
for women. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 53(4), 82-85.

Miranda, W. & Yerkes, R. (1996). The history of camping women in the
professionalization of experiential education. In K. Warren (Ed.), Women’s Voices
in Experiential Education (pp.63-77). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company.

Mitten, D. (1985). A philosophical basis for a women’s outdoor adventure program.
Journal of Experiential Education, 8(2), 20-24.

Mitten, D. (1992). Empowering girls and women in the outdoors. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation, and Dance, 63(2), 56-60.

Nadirova, A. & Jackson, E. L. (2000). Alternative criterion variables against which to
assess the impacts of constraints to leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(4),

396-405.

Nolan, T. L. & Priest, S. (1993). Outdoor programmes for women only? Journal of
Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 10(1), 14-17.

Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America (ORCA). (1997). State of the industry report.
Retrieved September 30, 2001, from http://www.orca.org/research/97SOL/

265

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, London: Sage Publications.

Priest, S. & Gass, M. A. (1997). Eﬂective leadership in adventure programming.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Price, B. H. (1991). Fundamentals of coastal kayaking manual for instructors. American
Canoe Association: National Coastal Kayaking Committee.

Pottinger, R. R. (1994). Mountain leader training: Why women only courses? Journal of
Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 11(1), 15-16.

Raymore, L. (1993). The transition from adolescence to young adulthood: Predictors of
leisure behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University
of University Park, PA.

Raymore, L., Godbey, G., & Crawford, D. (1994). Self-esteem, gender, and
socioeconomic status: Their relation to perceptions of constraint on leisure among
adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(2), 99-118.

Raymore, L., Godbey, G., Crawford, D., & von Eye, A. (1993). Nature and process of
leisure constraints: An empirical test. Leisure Sciences, 15, 99-113

Roberts, N. & Drogin, E. B. (1993). The outdoor recreation experience: Factors affecting
participation of African American women. Journal of Experiential Education,
16(1), 14-18.

Roberts, N. S. & Henderson, K. A. (1997). Women of color in the outdoors: Culture and
meanings. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(3), 134-142.

Samdahl, D. M. & Jekubovich, N. J. (1997). A critique of leisure constraints: Comparative
analyses and understandings. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(4), 430-471.

Scott, D. (1991). The problematic nature of participation in contract bridge: A qualitative
study of group-related constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 321-336.

Scott, D. & Jackson, E. L. (1996). Factors that limit and strategies that might encourage
people’s use of public parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
14(1), 1-17.

Shank, J. W. (1986). An exploration of leisure in the lives of dual career women. Journal
of Leisure Research, 18(4), 300-319.

Shaw, S. M. (1994). Gender, leisure, and constraint: Towards a framework for the analysis
of women’s leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(1), 8-22.

266

Shaw, S. M. (1999). Gender and leisure. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure
Studies: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century, (pp. 271-279). State College, PA:
Venture Publishing, Inc.

Shaw, S. M., Bonen, A., & McCabe, J. F. (1991). Do more constraints mean less leisure?

Examining the relationship between constraints and participation. Journal of
Leisure Research, 23(4), 286-300.

Shinew, K. J ., Floyd, M. F., McGuire, F. A., & Noe, F. P. (1995). Gender, race, and
subjective social class and their association with leisure preferences. Leisure
Sciences, 17, 75-89.

Stodolska, M. (1998). Assimilation and leisure constraints: dynamics of constraints on
leisure in immigrant populations. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(4), 521-551.

Stringer, L. A. (1997). Gender role conformity as a constraint on women ’s participation in
outdoor adventure activities. An unpublished dissertation, University of
Minnesota, Duluth, MN.

Thomas, C. L. & Peterson, T. A. (1995). Becoming an outdoors-woman. NYSOEA
Pathways to Outdoor Communication, 5(2), 10-14.

Warren, K. (1985). Women’s outdoor adventures: Myth or reality. Journal of Experiential
Education, 8(2), 10-14.

Warren, K. (1990). Women’s outdoor adventures. In J. C. Miles and S. Priest (Eds.),
Adventure Education (pp. 411-417). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Warren, K. (Ed.). (1996). Women ’s voices in experiential education. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall Hunt.

Wellner, A. S. (1997). Americans at play: Demographics of outdoor recreation & travel.
Ithaca, NY: New Strategist Publications, Inc.

Witt, P. A. & Goodale, T. L. (1981). The relationships between barriers to leisure
enjoyment and family stages. Leisure Sciences, 4(1), 2949.

Wright, B. A. & Goodale, T. L. (1991). Beyond non-participation: Validation of interest
and frequency of participation categories in constraints research. Journal of Leisure
Research, 23(4), 314-331.

Yeager, J. A. (1999). Paddle sport recreation in the United States. In Cordell, K. H., Betz,
C. J ., Bowker, J. M., English, D. B., Mou, & S. H., Bergstrom, J. C. et al. Outdoor

recreation in American life: A national assessment of demand and supply trends
(pp. 306-307). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing

267

Yerkes, R. & Miranda, W. (1982). Outdoor adventure courses for womenz: Implications
for new programming. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance,
53(4), 82-85.

Yerkes, R. & Miranda, W. (1985). Women outdoors: Who are they? Parks and
Recreation, 20(3), 48-51.

Young, A. B. & Ewert, A. (1992). Fear in outdoor education: The inﬂuence of gender and
program. In Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Research Symposium
Proceedings, Bradford Woods, IN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 352226)

268

lWilliiliiiliiiilWilli

6175