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

Furthermore the OHL-TR model also asserts that individuals are the basic aim of practice. Throughout the OHL-TR model the onus is on the individual to change (a primary assumption is that people should become active agents in securing their well-being and maximizing individual capabilities and growth) and little attention is focused on collectivistic-based variables, such as the family or community. Although the OHL-TR model acknowledges interdependence, it is clear that interdependence is secondary to independence. Interdependence is an option or an ideal if independent leisure functioning is not possible (see Wilhite et al., 1999). The emphasis of individualism and independence is clearly expressed by Freysinger (1999):

... there is a tendency in the OHL-TR model to focus on the individual and individual change. Even though the authors acknowledge the role of the environment (e.g., families, communities, and health care providers) in constructing disability and "recovery," the model is essentially individualistic. It is the individual who needs to adapt and the individual who has choices. It is up to the individual (with the assistance of the TRS) to make choices about for healthy leisure lifestyle (p. 112).

As already mentioned in this paper, many cultures believe that the entire community is responsible for the functional improvements of a sole individual (Sue & Sue, 1990; Waldram, 1997). Hence, this model would have little or no relevance for collectivistic-oriented American-Indian clients who believe that the entire community is involved in his/her intervention plan (see LaFromboise et al., 1990). Further, the focus on independence and individualism also connects with the culturally biased assumption that independence is desirable. Other culturally biased assumptions of the OHL-TR model are that it depends upon linear thinking (linear components of selecting, optimizing, compensating, and evaluating) and that a cultural history is not relevant to therapeutic recreation practice.

Of the three therapeutic recreation models reviewed in this paper, the AGL model (Widmer & Ellis, 1998) is sensitive to the culturally biased assumptions outlined by Pedersen (1994). The SDEE model (Dattilo et al., 1998), and the OHL-TR model (see Wilhite, et al., 1999) have many culturally biased assumptions.

Future Directions and Recommendations

Although therapeutic recreation scholars and practitioners have developed three differing practice models in the past three to five years, two of the three newer therapeutic recreation practice models critiqued in this paper are premised upon Euro-North American culturally biased assumptions. That is to say, in regard to Pedersen's (1994) North American culturally biased assumption of human services, the SDEE model and the OHL-TR model maintain numerous dominant-oriented cultural biases and should not be used blindly across cultures unless cultural adaptations occur.4 Furthermore, combining the three therapeutic recreation practice models that were critiqued from a cross-cultural perspective in this paper with the three practice models previously critiqued by Dieser and Peregoy (1999),5 suggests that the only therapeutic recreation practice model which has relatively few culturally biased assumptions is the AGL model. 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 (see Peregoy & Dieser, 1997) and the AGL model has a high probability of fostering cross-cultural therapeutic recreation service delivery.