{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024700415749572022, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009293225727561751, 'mean_word_length': 5.131934032983509, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
If Our Research is Relevant, Why is Nobody Listening?

The Problem In 1994 the American Leisure Research Symposium held a forum on the relevance of leisure research. All three speakers at the forum strongly defended the notion that relevance is, or should be, a central tenet of our research endeavors, although they suggested different pathways for ensuring adherence to this goal. For Sylvester (1995), relevance was seen as a question of values and morality. He highlighted the dangers inherent in an empirical science based solely on instrumental rationality and emphasized the need for "moral relevance". Pedlar (1995) focused on the potential for action research to facilitate social change, to enhance the quality of community and individual life, and thus to ensure the relevance of research on leisure. For Weissinger (1995), the central issue was that of theoretically based deductive research. She argued that the application and practicality of research is dependent, first and foremost, on solid theoretical development and refinement. The enthusiastic reception that the audience gave to these presentations, and the lively debate and discussion that followed, made it evident that leisure researchers (at least those present at the forum) do take the issue of relevance seriously, and do want to be involved in research that is applicable and useful, and that addresses issues that really matter (Allison, 1995). Several years after the forum on relevance, Samdahl and Kelly (1999) conducted a citation analysis of two key North American leisure research journals (Leisure Sciences and the Journal of Leisure Research). Looking at both the distribution of sources cited in these journals, and the extent to which articles in these journals were cited in publications outside the leisure field, the authors concluded that leisure research remains intellectually isolated from other important and related bodies of research, such as social psychology, sociology and environmental studies. Moreover, when leisure researchers do cite outside sources, as well as when leisure research is cited in non-leisure journals, such citations are frequently ten years old or more (Samdahl & Kelly, 1999). While the problem of the isolation of North American leisure research was noted over 15 years ago (Burdge & Beckers, 1984), it is disturbing to see that this gap has continued, and may even have widened in recent years. Moreover, it is not just leisure researchers on this side of the Atlantic who experience this isolation. Addressing a recent Leisure Studies Association conference in the UK, Deem (1999) talked about the ghettoization, not only of gender research within the field, but also of the leisure studies field as a whole. She noted the problems of marginalization, of lack of recognition, and of difficulties associated with funding. Linking together the discussion of relevance with evidence of the lack of intellectual dialogue between leisure studies and other fields, leads to the question of why so little attention is paid to our research. If indeed we are seeking to conduct relevant and meaningful research, why is nobody listening? There are, of course, two ways to answer to this question. First, perhaps researchers in other fields are simply not aware of, or knowledgeable about the research we do, or its application or relevance to a range of different issues. Alternatively, perhaps our research is not as relevant as we like to believe, and so is of little value or importance to researchers in other areas of social science. These two explanations for our isolated status will be explored further in the following sections. Lack of Awareness There are a number of reasons why researchers in other fields might have overlooked leisure research, despite its relevance. For example, there may be ongoing bias in some sections of academia where research on leisure is perceived to be non-serious, or frivolous, compared to the more "weighty" issues addressed in other areas of research such as economic development, medical advance, or political conflict. …