An Examination of Differences Between Academics and Practitioners in Frequency of Reading Research and Attitudes Toward Research

Abstract

Introduction A concern often raised by leisure services practitioners and academics is that a large number of articles published in professional journals and magazines are not being read or put into practical use, particularly those articles with a focus. In order to explore this often-discussed issue, a study was undertaken in the spring of 1997. Methods The study sought to determine who reads leisure-related periodicals and why they read them. The study also examined respondent attitudes toward the publication and dissemination of in the field of parks, recreation, and leisure services. A 41 item instrument was developed, which included items about reading habits, attitudes toward the publication and dissemination of research, and demographic items. Two hundred names were randomly selected from the NRPA database and the survey was mailed to those individuals. One set of reminder post cards was sent one week after the initial mailing. Results Of the 200 in the original sample, 71 completed surveys were returned for a response rate of 35.5%. The respondents included 71.8% practitioners and 28.2% who do some research (other possible role choices for academics were researcher, and professor/do no research). The respondents were heterogeneous for years of experiences and age, with roughly an even distribution across these variables. To determine who reads which periodicals, respondents were asked about their professional reading habits. The results of this question are seen in Table 1. As one might suspect, professors who do some (academics) read the research-based journals more frequently than did practitioners. The Therapeutic Recreation Journal was the most frequently read of the journals and Parks and Recreation Magazine was the most frequently read periodical overall. The reported reading habits of practitioners and academics differed. For example, t-tests revealed that academics were significantly more likely than practitioners to read Journal of Leisure Research, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Leisure Sciences, and Leisure Studies, the Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance and Camping Magazine. Practitioners and academics were equally likely to read Therapeutic Recreation Journal, Parks & Recreation Magazine, and their state association journal. In addition to the frequency of reading specific journals, respondents were also asked about the type of material read within the periodicals. The results of this item are found in Table 2. Academics reported that they read articles more frequently than other types of journal material, while practitioners were more likely to read practice-based articles. When survey respondents were asked to comment on why they read some material over other types of material, 57.7% indicated that they read only that material that had some direct application to their work place (e.g., program ideas, how-to information about dealing with conflict, product information that directly related to an upcoming purchase), 15.5% stated that what they read was dictated by their personal interests and time constraints; 12.7% of respondents read information in periodicals to keep up on news in the profession; and only 5.6% indicated that they were interested in new findings. Survey respondents were asked to express their agreement or disagreement with a variety of statements related to the publication and dissemination of research. These 25 items were rated on a five point Likert scale, from strongly agree to strongly disagree. For the present analysis, responses were collapsed into two categories-agree and disagree. …