Ethnicity As a Variable in Leisure Research‪.‬

Introduction Research interest in possible differences in leisure based on ethnic and/ or racial diversity has accelerated since Washburne's (1978) seminal article on underrepresentation of blacks in wildland recreation. While earlier authors (e.g., Jones, 1927) had addressed differences in recreation participation among racial and/or ethnic groups, Washburne's singular contribution was to provide a theoretical basis for examining such differences. He proposed two perspectives, marginality and ethnicity, as possible causes for observed variation in leisure participation among racial and/or ethnic groups. Many authors (e.g., Allison, 1988; Allison & Geiger, 1993; Bass, Ewert, & Chavez, 1993; Dragon, 1986; Dwyer, 1994; Dwyer & Hutchison, 1990; Kelly, 1980; Klobus-Edwards, 1981; O'Leary & Benjamin, 1982; Stamps & Stamps, 1985) have tested these hypotheses, usually with mixed results but perhaps somewhat more support for ethnicity than marginality (e.g., Floyd, Gramann, & Saenz, 1993; Floyd, Shinew, & McGuire, 1994; Hutchison, 1987; Irwin, Gartner, & Phelps, 1990; Jaakson, 1973; Williams & Carr, 1993). However, as noted by Gramann & Allison (1999), a problem with some studies is that rather small differences between groups are emphasized over their similarities. For example, Dwyer (1994) found that white Americans and Asian-Americans differed in participation in only 3 of 24 activities examined while whites and Hispanics differed in only 4 of the 24. In addition, we agree with Floyd's (1998) concern over "accepting ethnicity and subculture as given rather than as concepts in need of definition and explication" (p. 6).