Transcript An Analysis of the Perceived Competencies of Chief Executive

Faculty & Staff Constraints to Participation
in Campus Recreational Services
Amy R. Hurd, Ph.D., Illinois State University
Scott A. Forrester, Ph.D., Brock University
Purpose:
To identify leisure constraints to participation in campus recreational
services among faculty and staff members at a large midwestern
post secondary institution.
Research Questions:
1) Do faculty and staff experience different types of constraints to
their participation in recreational services, facilities and programs
based on gender, age, marital status, and how often they exercise?
2) Do different types of staff differ with respect to the types of
constraints they experience.
Literature:
Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints (Crawford, Jackson &
Godbey, 1991):
1) Structural Constraints – factors intervening between preference &
participation
2) Interpersonal Constraints - barriers arising from social interactions
with friends, family, and others. These constraints may impact
both an individual’s leisure preferences and leisure participation
3) Intrapersonal Constraints – individual psychological states that
interact with leisure preferences. These constraints exist when as
a result of abilities, personality needs, prior socialization, and
perceived reference group attitudes, individuals fail to develop
leisure preferences (ie. Lack of interest)
Methodology:
• Three part survey mailed to random sample of 1000 faculty & staff
at a large Midwestern university (Demographics, Constraints
questions, Participation patterns)
• N= 424 (42.4% response rate)
• Two-Factor ANOVAs used to address research questions
Results:
Interpersonal Constraints:
Statistically Higher Levels of
Constraints
Statistically Lower Levels of
Constraints
Faculty who exercised < 1 x /wk
Faculty who exercised 2+x /wk
Staff who exercised < 1 x /wk
Staff who exercised 3+ x /wk
Staff who exercised 2 x /wk
Staff who exercised 3 x /wk
Faculty who exercised <1 x /wk
Staff who exercised <1 x /wk
Structural Constraints:
Those who exercised < 1 x /wk
Those who exercised 3+ x /wk
Those who exercised 2 x /wk
Those who exercised 4+ x /wk
Intrapersonal Constraints:
 There were no significant differences between faculty and staff for
intrapersonal constraints.
Implications for Practice:
• Provide an environment where: (a) faculty & staff are comfortable
participating, (b) where they do not need high skills to participate, and (c)
where they do not feel they need to be in shape to get in shape.
• Consider faculty & staff as their own target market rather than just
students.
• Set program schedules that are complimentary to work schedules.
• Understanding what constraints faculty and staff face and establishing
programs and services for this specific market may be the first step in
increasing participation rates from this distinct group
• Future research should examine strategies used to negotiate or overcome
constraints and marketing efforts that can assist in this negotiation