{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028622540250447227, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006082289803220036, 'mean_word_length': 5.641330166270784, '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}}
Comment on Scott: Is Integration Better?

David Scott calls for “marrying” the specialization framework and the serious leisure perspective. However, I am not sure integrating the two approaches is necessary or prudent. When the article by Kuentzel and Heberlein (2008) was first submitted for publication, the reviewers asked us to incorporate the similarities of the two frameworks in the introduction and literature review. We struggled with this task, and in the end we only gave passing reference to the serious leisure perspective. I am only now beginning to understand why we struggled. In spite of overlapping concepts, the two frameworks reflect different theoretical orientations. Stebbins (2007) has characterized the serious leisure perspective as a “typological map of the world of leisure” (p. 3), and his book is filled with language such as “classify leisure activities,” “descriptive taxonomy,” “categories” of leisure behavior, and “discover the properties.” At its core, the serious leisure perspective employs a structural-functional approach to its study of leisure in society. Its goal is to observe patterns of leisure experience and to articulate the social and psychological outcomes they generate. In serious leisure, people persevere in their efforts, find leisure careers, and expend significant personal effort (patterns of experience) while realizing durable benefits, social support, and selfidentification with the activity (participation outcomes) (Stebbins, 1992). This approach is consistent with the prevailing rational actor, benefit maximization models of behavior. Leisure does good things for us, so we develop patterns of leisure behavior to repeatedly achieve those rewards. As long as the goal of specialization research is a descriptive typology of participation and benefit, I agree with Scott that the serious leisure framework has probably done a better job at describing “intense styles of leisure involvement” (Scott, this issue). I also agree with Stebbins (this issue) that an elaboration of the casual leisure/serious leisure continuum may also be an equally effective way to describe diversity in leisure participation. I acknowledge the methodological and empirical advantages of the specialization framework that Scott outlines. Nevertheless, I believe that when specialization research focuses on activity description, the serious leisure framework is probably a couple of steps ahead. The specialization framework, however, has attracted my research attention over the years because of its theoretical potential. Despite Bryan’s (1979) descriptive typological formulation, researchers in this tradition have found that the specialization framework offers a compelling theory of change. While understanding diversity among participants may