Content provided in partnership with
A cross-cultural critique of newer therapeutic recreation practice models: The self-determination and enjoyment enhancement model, Aristotelian good life model, and the optimizing lifelong health through therapeutic recreation model
Therapeutic Recreation Journal, Fourth Quarter 2002 by Dieser, Rodney B
Three years ago, Dieser and Peregoy (1999) provided a multicultural critique of the Leisure Ability model, the Health Protection/Health Promotion model, and the Therapeutic Recreation Service Delivery/Outcome model. Since then, three new practice models have been developed. These include the Self-Determination and Enjoyment Enhancement model, the Aristotelian Good Life (AGL) model, and the Optimizing Lifelong Health Through Therapeutic Recreation model. The purpose of this paper is to add to the discussion regarding cross-cultural appropriateness of therapeutic recreation practice models. In particular, building upon and paralleling the multicultural critique by Dieser and Peregoy (1999), this article used Pedersen's (1994) culturally biased assumption framework of human services to provide a multicultural critique of these three newer practice models. Of the three therapeutic recreation practice models reviewed in this paper, the Aristotelian Good Life model has few culturally biased assumptions. The Self-Determination and Enjoyment Enhancement model and the Optimizing Lifelong Health Through Therapeutic Recreation model have many culturally biased assumptions. In regard to cross-cultural therapeutic recreation service delivery, a partnership among a therapeutic recreation specialist who has a solid understanding of cross-cultural differences and the AGL model has a high probability of fostering multicultural therapeutic recreation service delivery. Future recommendations regarding cross-cultural therapeutic recreation practice models and service delivery are provided.
- More Articles of Interest
- Optimizing lifelong health and wellbeing: A health enhancing model of...
- leisure ability model: Implications for the researcher, The
- Ethics and the quest for professionalization
- Exploring cultural competencies of certified therapeutic recreation...
- New horizons in models of practice in therapeutic recreation
KEY WORDS: Culture, Culturally Biased Assumptions, Multiculturalism, Therapeutic Recreation Practice Models
A common element of a profession is a distinct body of knowledge that separates it from an occupation or other professions (Edginton, Jordan, DeGraaf, & Edginton, 2002; Greenwood, 1957; Sessoms, 1991; Wilensky, 1964). The following quotation from Sylvester (1989) describes the manner in which a profession develops from a body of knowledge: A profession, therefore, is based on a body of theory-knowledge, which is founded on and funded by ideas ... without a valid body of knowledge, practitioners would literally have no idea of what to do, how to do it, and most importantly, why they do it (p. 2).
Although the profession of therapeutic recreation has been developing a distinct body of knowledge for many years (e.g., Compton & Price, 1975; Frye & Peters, 1972; Peterson & Gunn, 1984), therapeutic recreation took a step toward professional clarity in 1998 when a special series issue of the Therapeutic Recreation Journal dedicated the second, third, and fourth journal to dialogue and development of differing therapeutic recreation practice models.' This discussion expanded beyond these three journal issues and included the development of new models (e.g., Wilhite, Keller, & Caldwell, 1999), personal response letters (Dieser, 1999; Witman, 1999) and an excellent summary article of therapeutic recreation pracrice models (Mobily, 1999). However, during this time period only one article, which appeared in the Annual of Therapeutic Recreation, was dedicated to understanding therapeutic recreation practice models from a multicultural perspective (Dieser & Peregoy, 1999). In that article, Dieser and Peregoy, building upon Pedersen's (1994) culturally biased assumption of human services, critiqued the leisure ability model (Stumbo & Peterson, 1998), the health protection/health promotion model (Austin, 1998) and the therapeutic recreation service delivery/outcome model (Van Andel, 1998). Dieser and Peregoy (1999) posited:
Of the models reviewed in this paper, all three have culturally biased assumptions. Both the leisurability and health protection/health promotion models assume that [Euro-North American] individualistic values are normal across culture ... The therapeutic recreation service delivery and outcome model does have some important multiculturally sensitive assumptions, but could become more multiculturally inclusive with adaptations (p. 64).
Dieser and Peregoy concluded their multicultural critique by suggesting that these three therapeutic recreation practice models should not be used blindly across culture. Rather, these practice models should be modified to meet the needs of differing cultural groups.
The purpose of this paper is to add to the discussion regarding cross-cultural appropriateness of therapeutic recreation practice models. Since Dieser and Peregoy's (1999) multicultural critique of therapeutic recreation practice models, three new practice models have been developed. These include the Self-- Determination and Enjoyment Enhancement model (Dattilo, Kleiber, & Williams, 1998), Aristotelian Good Life model (Widmer & Ellis, 1998), and the Optimizing Lifelong Health Through Therapeutic Recreation model (Wilhite et al., 1999). Building upon and paralleling the multicultural critique by Dieser and Peregoy (1999), this article will also use Pedersen's (1994) culturally biased assumption framework of human services to provide a multicultural critique of these three newer practice models. Understanding cross-cultural issues is paramount because a lack of culturally sensitivity and understanding can harm clients, rather than help them (Waldram, 1997; McIntosh, 1986; Sue & Sue, 1990). For example, Dieser's (2002) personal narrative highlighted how the lack of cross-cultural competencies among human service professionals, including therapeutic recreation intervention, ended with two clients from ethnic minority backgrounds prematurely terminating treatment. Hence, the first section of this paper will explain Pedersen's (1994) culturally biased assumptions. This will be followed by an overview of the three newer therapeutic recreation practice models and a multicultural critique of each model.
Find Research Guides for:
Most Popular Articles in Health
- Fuel your workout: exercisers who eat before they work out have more energy ...
- Soothe a dry, itchy scalp: 5 easy expert solutions
- Cocktails and calories: Beer, wine and liquor calories can really add up. ...
- The sour truth about apple cider vinegar - evaluation of therapeutic use
- The, six best supplements you've never heard of: these secret weapons can ...
- More »