| Abstract: | The leisure research?leisure practice relation remains uncertain. Assuming leisure provides a preexisting link is not supported by research. Leisure research and leisure practice are independent professional paradigms between which a relation must be constructed. Three perspectives on constructing the research?practice relation are examined in this article: the traditional, the personal, and the critical. The benefits approach to leisure is a test case in each perspective. The traditional and personal perspectives subordinate one professional paradigm to the other or intensify their separation. The benefits approach fails to resolve these difficulties. The critical perspective emphasizes developmental activity and emancipation, facilitates research?practice interaction, and maintains the professional paradigms' integrity, and it reveals shortcomings in the benefits approach. The critical perspective enables the most dynamic research?practice relation. |
