Work and Leisure

118 A. J. Vealand thus complement the above work–leisure relationship studies andsocio-economic group research, which tend to focus on the individual as theunit of analysis. For some occupations, the physical and social workenvironment and/or the constraints imposed by the occupation lead tofriends and non-family associates of the worker being primarily from thesame workplace or profession. And for some this can lead to the adoption ofparticular patterns of leisure behaviour.Research on occupational communities is unlikely to displace socioeconomicgroup as the ‘standard’ way to take account of a person’s occupationin leisure studies. Such research does, however, raise a number ofinteresting issues of contemporary interest. First, the strength of the occupationalor workplace culture may be a relevant factor in examining trendstowards, and gradual acceptance of, working longer hours, particularlyunpaid hours. Second, one of the most common constraints on leisure notedby Salaman occurs among those occupations where shiftwork is common. Aswe move towards the ‘24-hour society’ (Kreitzman 1999) more and morepeople are working ‘unsocial hours’, and there has been some research on theimplications of shiftwork for leisure and leisure services (themselves largeemployers of ‘unsocial hours’ workers) (Roberts 1999: 58–60). Finally, toreturn to Wilensky’s concern with an alienated ‘mass’, and the widespreadperception of a decline in community (Putnam 2000), it would seem thatcertain occupational cultures are able to resist this trend, providing theindividual with social networks beyond the family.ConclusionContemporary social and economic trends suggest that the relationshipbetween work and leisure is as important as ever. This review has indicatedthat a careful examination of past research on work–leisure relationshipsreveals a body of material which can provide a basis for future research in thearea. In research on work–leisure typologies there was a supposition that paidwork influenced leisure and that the individual should seek to achieve a satisfactorybalance between the two spheres. In research on socio-economicgroup leisure activity is generally seen as a dependent variable with socioeconomicgroup and other variables, such as age, gender and education, beingthe independent, influencing, variables. In research on occupational communitiesa more rounded and flexible approach is taken to studying humanexperience, but the work relationship still takes pride of place. Each of theseapproaches offers important insights into the relationship between leisureparticipation and the rest of life, but each also has its limitations. It wouldseem that research combining aspects of each of these approaches may be theway forward. In the early 1980s Zuzanek and Mannell (1983: 340) called forresearch on occupational culture and ‘lifestyle orientation’, the latter beingconcerned with ‘active socio-cultural mechanisms of social and cultural