Chapter 5 Tacit hierarchising in online communities of hillwalkers
Published: Sept 2021
Component type: chapter
Published in: Tourism Dynamics
Parent DOI: 10.23912/9781911635932-4921
This research explores how Munro-baggers – hillwalkers aiming to climb all 282 Scottish mountains over 3,000ft – hierarchise themselves and others as serious leisure participants. This increasingly popular hobby contributes to Scotland’s economy and profile, but its sparse literature insufficiently analyses the influence of Stebbins’ Serious Leisure Perspective (SLP), the recent reappraisal of Serious Leisure or the influence of online communities. Therefore, we critically revisit the SLP to re-evaluate Munro-bagging. Through phenomenological interviews, we explore how Munro-baggers hierarchise each other, tacitly and otherwise, offline and online, through their activities’ perceived characteristics. Ambiguities and overlaps are explored and the interplay of contexts analysed. We identify factors influencing Munro-baggers’ perceptions of seriousness amongst fellow hobbyists, taxonomising participants by their perceived characteristics of seriousness. Findings suggest that they draw upon quantitative and qualitative judgments of hobby-relevant activities and qualitative judgments of certain ad hominem characteristics. The expansion of the pastime beyond its temporospatial boundaries into online spaces is found to influence the extent to which actors categorise or hierarchise each other and the characteristics used to do so.
- David Brown, Northumbria University (Author)
- Sharon Wilson, Mobilities Futures Research Network (Author)
For the source title:
- Nikolaos Pappas, University of Sunderland (Editor) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8838-017X
- Anna Farmaki, Cyprus University of Technology (Editor) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9996-5632
Brown & Wilson, 2021
Brown, D. & Wilson, S. (2021) "Chapter 5 Tacit hierarchising in online communities of hillwalkers" In: Pappas, N. & Farmaki, A. (ed) . Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers http://dx.doi.org/10.23912/9781911635932-4946
Brown, C.A. (2007). The Carolina shaggers: Dance as serious leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(4), 623-647.
Chayko, M. (2008). Portable Communities: the social dynamics of online and mobile connectedness. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Cova, B., Kozinets, R.V., & Shankar, A. (Eds.). (2007). Consumer Tribes. London: Routledge.
Dilley, R.E., & Scraton, S.J. (2010) Women, climbing and serious leisure. Leisure Studies 29(2), 125-141.
Dumazedier, J. (1974). Sociology of Leisure. London: Elsevier Scientific
Elkington, S., & Stebbins, R.A. (2014). The serious leisure perspective: An introduction. Abingdon: Routledge.
Gallant, K., Arai, S., & Smale, B. (2013). Serious leisure as an avenue for nurturing community. Leisure Sciences, 35(4), 320-336.
Green, E. (1998). 'Women doing friendship': An analysis of women's leisure as a site of identity construction, empowerment and resistance. Leisure Studies, 17(3), 171-185.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.
Heddon, D. & Turner, C. (2012). Walking women: shifting the tales and scales of mobility. Contemporary Theatre Review, 22(2), 224-236.
Heidari, K., Heydarinejad, S., Saffari, M. & Khatibi, A. (2019). Investigating the leisure behavior of Iranians: the structural model of serious leisure, recreation specialization and place attachment. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 13, 77-93.
Hollett, T., Phillips, N.C., & Leander, K.M. (2017). Digital geographies. Handbook of Writing, Literacies, and Education in Digital Cultures, 148-160.
Iwasaki, Y., & Havitz, M.E. (2004). Examining relationships between leisure involvement, psychological commitment and loyalty to a recreation agency. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 45-72.
King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). An introduction to interview data analysis. Interviews in Qualitative Research, 142-174.
Lee, K., & Ewert, A. (2019). Understanding the motivations of serious leisure participation: A self-determination approach. Annals of Leisure Research, 22(1), 76-96.
Lyu, S.O., & Oh, C. (2015). Bridging the conceptual frameworks of constraints negotiation and serious leisure to understand leisure benefit realization. Leisure Sciences, 37, 176-193.
Møller, K., & Robards, B. (2019). Walking through, going along and scrolling back: Ephemeral mobilities in digital ethnography. Nordicom Review, 40(1), 95-109.
Rojek, C. (2000). Leisure and Culture. Basingstoke, England: Macmillan
Scottish Mountaineering Club (2018). The Scottish Mountaineering Club Journal 2018. Glasgow: SMC Publishing.
Shaw, S.M. (2001). Conceptualizing resistance: Women's leisure as political practice. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(2), 186-201.
Shen, X.S., & Yarnal, C. (2010). Blowing open the serious leisure-casual leisure dichotomy: What's in there? Leisure Sciences, 32, 162-179
Stebbins, R.A. (1982) Serious leisure: a conceptual statement. Sociological Perspectives, 25(2), 251-272.
Stebbins, R.A. (2007). Serious Leisure: A perspective for our time. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Stebbins, R.A. (2012) Comment on Scott: recreation specialization and the CL-SL continuum. Leisure Services: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 34(4), 372-374.
Stebbins, R.A. (2017). Introduction: Leisure's legacy - challenging the common-sense view of free time. In R.A. Stebbins (Ed.), Leisure's Legacy (pp. 1-6). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Taylor, J., & Kay, S. (2015). The construction of identities in narratives about serious leisure occupations. Journal of Occupational Science, 22(3), 260-276.
Unruh, D.R. (1980). The nature of social worlds. Pacific Sociological Review (now Sociological Perspectives), 23, 271-296
Veal, A.J. (2017). The serious leisure perspective and the experience of leisure. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 39 (3), 205-223.
Wearing, B. (1998). Leisure and Feminist Theory. London: Sage.