...experience. They also develop expectations standards for appropriate and exacting ways to perform the activity, and take on a level of commitment and identification with the activity. Can this process of progression, however, be generalized to all recreation participants, or is change in leisure participation more variable than the linear trajectory of progression hypothesized by the specialization literature (Scott & Shafer, 2001)? When interviewing several members of a 1975 panel of Apostle Islands boaters recently, one person articulated a different pattern of boating participation. We knew from the data that this individual had owned 3 boats since the early 1960s, but had sold the last boat in 1982 and had not boated since the early 1990s. When asked why he quit, the respondent said boating for him and his family had simply "run its course."

This anecdote raises at least four questions about the specialization framework. First, is the framework's focus on progression misguided when applied to a population of activity participants? How many people are also experiencing some process of regress in their participation trajectory? How many people in a population of participants are not on any trajectory at all, and are instead happy to be casual or occasional participants? Finally, are cross-sectional research designs obscuring variation in the history and trajectory of leisure participation?

Scott and Shafer (2001) were the first to formally address the problem of progression in the specialization literature. They acknowledge that the idea of progression has only been a background assumption in the specialization literature. Research has generally used the specialization framework in a more pragmatic way to help managers understand the variety of recreationists who visit a destination. The specialization concept has been an effective way to segment users based on dimensions such as past experience (Hammit, Knauf, & Noe, 1989; Schreyer, Lime, & Williams, 1984), commitment (Bricker 8c Kerstetter, 2000; Kuentzel & McDonald, 1992; McFarlane, 1994, 1996), involvement or lifestyle centrality (Block, Black & Lichstenstein, 1989; Chipman & Helfrich, 1988) and skill (Donnelly, Vaske, & Graefe, 1986; Hollenhorst, 1990). Once segmented, researchers then identify differences in users' attitudes (Shafer & Hammit, 1995; Virden & Schreyer, 1988; Wellman, Roggenbuck, & Smith, 1982) motives for participation (Chipman & Helfrich, 1988; Ditton, Loomis, & Choi, 1992, McFarlane, 1994), preferences for management initiatives (McIntyre & Pigram, 1992, Virden & Schreyer, 1988), or setting preferences (Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1994; Kuentzel & Heberlein, 1992; Scott & Godbey, 1994). If the management goal is to provide quality recreational experiences, the specialization framework offers one way to understand visitor differences, and to offer targeted programs to subgroups in the visitor population.

Scott and Shafer's (2001) goal in the review of the specialization literature was to bring the concept of progression and change in leisure participation to the forefront of specialization research. They elaborated three analytical dimensions of progression that overlap with current thinking about specialization. First they argued that progression involves a focusing of behavior, where individuals increasingly invest more time and energy in a lei sure activity at the expense of other activities. One's attention and social life become consumed by the activity and other leisure options fade in importance. Second, they stated that the development of skill and the acquisition of knowledge associated with the activity characterize progression. Skill and knowledge are typically the outcome of repeated engagements where performance is refined and expectations and standards about the activity are developed. Third, commitment to the activity is an indicator of progression. Those who progress in an activity have developed from casual participants to passionate experts who derive a sense of self-identity from the activity, and who commit substantial resources to their ongoing participation.

They acknowledged in their review that no research to date has "test[ed] the extent to which recreationists progress to more advanced levels of involvement over time (p. 321)." They cited limited evidence of progression from cross-sectional studies that incorporate a retrospective measure of past experience. Researchers have correlated years of experience with different styles of sailing (DonneUy et al., 1986), different paths of socialization into an activity (Kuentzel & Heberlein, 1997), skill (Virden & Schreyer, 1988), commitment and centrality to lifestyle (Kuentzel & McDonald, 1992), and intensity of involvement (Scott & Godbey, 1992). Scott and Shafer (2001) concluded that these studies offer only marginal support for the notion of progression, and that future research should analyze the antecedents and contingencies of the specialization process. What conditions predetermine an individual's ability to progress in a leisure activity, and what conditions short-circuit that ability? They also called for longitudinal designs that specifically test the notion of progression in leisure participation.

We agree that the first step in understanding change in the specialization process is the use of longitudinal designs. If recreation specialization is fundamentally a framework of change, then the exclusive use of cross-sectional data is problematic. Cross-sectional designs offer no critical test of specialization as a process of change. One will naturally find variation in measures of specialization in a cross-sectional survey. Some have participated more and some have stronger feelings about their participation. Identifying variation in a cross-sectional recreation sample, however, is no demonstration of progression, where the less specialized user has become more specialized over time. Neither can cross-sectional designs account for attrition. Instead, cross-sectional sampling may systematically bias the selection of respondents to exclude the population of occasional participants or drop-outs who were disinclined to follow a trajectory of progression. So while cross-sectional designs almost always provide evidence to support the specialization hypothesis, they are unable to provide evidence that would falsify the hypothesis.

The goal of this study is to determine how well the specialization framework characterizes a population of recreationists over 22 years. We used data from two panels of boaters at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. One three-wave panel was first contacted in 1975, again in 1985, and a third time in 1997. A different two-wave panel was first contacted in 1985 and again in 1997. The study will determine what proportion of boaters at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore became specialists over time and displayed trajectories of change consistent with specialization progression. The analysis was based on seven indicators of specialization including boat ownership, frequency of boating on other Great Lakes and oceans, racing, boating skill, change in boating interest, and whether or not one quit boating during the interval.

Boating Specialization

Two studies in the literature have considered boating specialization. Donnelly et al. (1986) compared the degree and range of specialization between sail boaters and power boaters in Maryland. Following Bryan (1979), they hypothesized a continuum of boating behaviors from day boaters, to long range and overnight cruisers, to racers. They assumed that racers would be more specialized than cruisers, who would be more specialized than day boaters. They also hypothesized that as the degree of specialization increased, the range of behaviors would become narrower and more focused. The results showed that sail boaters were more specialized than power boaters, but that the range of specialization did not differ between the two sub-activities....

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



More articles from Journal of Leisure Research
A tribute to Leo H. McAvoy, Jr.(Tribute)(Biography), September 22, 2006
Specialization and marine based environmental behaviors among SCUBA di..., September 22, 2006
A conjoint analysis of preference heterogeneity among day and overnigh..., September 22, 2006
Examining the effects of hypothetical modifications in permitting proc..., September 22, 2006
Girlie girls and manly men: children's stigma consciousness of gender ..., September 22, 2006

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.