Running Head: THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 1

Therapeutic Recreation Philosophy Paper

Katie Hall

Student Number: 20543319

Rec 151: Intro to Therapeutic Recreation

Professor Lisbeth Berbary

February 27th 2015

THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 2

A. Introduction

The purpose of this assignment is to critically discuss the connection between

underlying philosophical traditions and foundations of social justice and health care

within the therapeutic recreation (TR) field. Making use of lecture discussions, the

readings we were supplied with, and other relevant outside sources, I will in turn

articulate my own TR philosophy. Following an explanation of my personal definition I

will discuss in detail the dispute between the medical and community inclusion models,

touching upon where I stand in the debate. Next I will explore a TR model I believe to be

parallel and most applicable to my own definition. Lastly, considerations of ethical issues

regarding social justice, diversity, and multiculturalism will be taken into account. In its

entirety, this assignment provided me with an opportunity to practice critical thinking,

and to truly gain an in depth awareness of my own beliefs, and how I define TR. Along

with this I feel I have absorbed a great deal of knowledge specifically imperative to this

field, which I anticipate will benefit me in many future endeavors in my life.

B. Defining Therapeutic Recreation

Therapeutic recreation is a concept that does not hold one distinct or formal

definition for all those who practice it. The underlying concepts and philosophies behind

TR are usually analogous, however tend to differ in slight instances between each

individuals personal definition. To me, therapeutic recreation is the purposeful

utilization of leisure modalities such as activity therapy, education, and recreation

services as a means to improve the functional living abilities of those with physical,

cognitive, emotional, social, or leisure needs. Further, it is a specialized application of a

treatment service critically co-created with participants, devised to facilitate a desired

THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 3

therapeutic change. The main ambition behind my personal philosophy is to enhance not

only a persons overall health, but also their overall well being and quality of life on

varying levels.

The reason why I fell in love with TR in the first place is that recreation has the

resilient ability to empower people of all kinds, no matter their capabilities. My beliefs

center more with a recreation for all mentality, which correlates with the community

model standpoint. This is opposed to the clinical model of using recreation as therapy

merely to attain health (Bullock, 1987). To me, leisure should not be considered just a

means to health; instead I think it is a right that people of all health statuses should, and

must experience throughout life.

I think Carruthers & Hood said it best when they state that TR practitioners

should be detectives of strength and solutions, rather than detectives of pathology and

problems (2007, p. 278). The medical model has been criticized as being deficit focused,

meaning it is more concerned with pathology and problems. Instead of appreciating what

people are capable of and building on those strengths, limitations are singled out in hopes

of curing or eradicating them. I believe in taking strengths based approaches, which takes

the context of a participants life in its entirety into consideration, and focuses on their

intact abilities. Further, I support the notion that quality of life is more than the reduction

or elimination of deficits, but also encompasses having meaningful, enjoyable

experiences that provide joy in ones life.

During my research process, something I made sure to be aware of was how I

reacted to and felt about certain language used in various definitions and viewpoints. This

enabled me to realize which ideas and models I gravitated more towards, and
THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 4

conclusively end up with a well rounded and informed personal philosophy. A solid

foundation of philosophy is something I believe provides practice with complete

intellectual substance and a firm moral direction. The main text utilized in this course

states outright there is nothing more important than a sound conceptual foundation for

any social endeavor (Ellis, Sylvester, Voelkl, 2001, p.3).

A stubborn conflict has plagued this field, which Peterson cleverly describes as

being our own internal, and at times appearing eternal, dilemma over philosophy

(1989, p.22). He is referring to the ongoing debate over whether therapeutic recreation, or

recreation therapy, should be either therapy or leisure oriented. Petersons statement

associates with my own thoughts, as I believe this divide is arbitrary and only brings

about negative bearings. The main concern raised regarding this debate is that it

diminishes recognition of the contributions our field provides, and the effectiveness in

marketing and advocating our field to society (Peterson, 1989).

Albeit, I believe both approaches have merit within society in different contexts,

and all points of view on TR have a right to be seriously considered. Naturally, the

alleviation of illnesses and ensuring people are of optimal health is and always will be

important. Nevertheless, I myself see TR as an opportunity for changing lives on a

multitude of levels, as opposed to being concerned with solely a persons medical health.

Consequently, I will raise a point that perhaps the issue should not be in deciding upon

one solid approach for the profession of TR. Instead consideration could be made that

there are two distinctly unique professions within the field. This would mean that

recreation therapy and therapeutic recreation would become two separate entities,

construing independent focuses of either the community, or medial model standpoint. I

THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 5

am not nave to the fact that it will take effort and time to create an exact philosophical

foundation, or to create two separate entities. However I strongly believe that arguments

should be left to larger entities and organizations in the TR field. Thus, leaving

practitioners to focus their energies solely on providing services that help participants in

the greatest ways possible.

C. Paradigms of Well-Being and Models

The field of TR has a plethora of different models, each with its own unique

blueprint. Each blueprint describes the action of services, and proposed outcomes of

following its course of action. The model which I feel best aligns with my own

philosophy is the Leisure Ability Model created by Peterson and Gunn. This model

declares that the outcome of TR services should be a satisfying leisure lifestyle hinging

on the independent functioning of the client in leisure experiences and activities of his or

her choosing (Hebblethwaite & Curley, 2015, p. 4). The reason why I align with this

model is that it focuses on the self-determination of an individual and helps them to

realize their full potential. Further, its main mission is fostering leisure participation,

which I believe is a right every person should experience as frequently as possible. The

model is comprised of three phases, oriented with hope that as a client progresses along

its continuum, they will become more independent and the involvement of the

practitioner will decrease (Hebblethwaite & Curley, 2015). The phases begin with

functional intervention, progressing into leisure education and finally concluding in

recreation participation. By helping a client improve their functioning in needed areas,

and empowering them with proper knowledge and education regarding various leisure

pursuits, it is assumed it will lead to progressions of health as well as quality of life.

THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 6

There are multiple strengths to the Leisure Ability Model, the biggest being its

clear, concise and inclusive design. The flexibility this model provides allows for its use

in a variety of settings and with virtually any population seeking improvement in aspects

of functional abilities, and leisure education. This model, while it is outlined precisely for

ease of use, still allows for enormous inventiveness by the TR specialist to develop

personalized programs fit for each individual (Carruthers & Hood, 2007).

The model also stresses the importance of educating participants about leisure

through research and investigation, rather than just deciding on leisure pursuits strictly by

preference (Datillo & Williams, 2012). By providing leisure education, it permits

participants to lead self-determined lifestyles to take what they have been taught and

implement it into other aspects of their lives outside the TR setting (Dattilo & Williams,

2012). I believe the Leisure Ability Model is vastly positive and strong, which is why it

continues to be expended time and time again.

Nevertheless, no model is entirely seamless, or stands without critique. One of the

main critiques brought to attention deals directly with the models main concentration. An

instance of this is Hebblethwaite and Curley identifying that while the model does

envision an advancement to self-determination in participants, it relies heavily on

identifying a persons deficits, rather than on ones strengths (2015). This case is most

apparent in the first stage of the model being functional intervention. The functional

ability of a participant in various aspects of their lives is determined, meaning areas

needing improvement are singled out and made aware of. This initiates criticisms from

those who believe a greater appreciation of participants strengths should to be attended

to within the model.

THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 7

A second critique of the model is its perceived lack of clarity in defining when a

participant has acquired enough skill or knowledge before being ready to carry on to the

next stage. Ellis, Sylvester and Voelkl raise a point that some medical settings tend to

concentrate on deficits therefore there is a risk that clients will be tethered to the

functional intervention component longer than is warranted (2001, p. 86). Admittedly,

there is some merit in these assertions, as the model does not have specific guidelines as

to when a participant should progress to other components. However, I believe such

claims are unsuitable in most regards as each participant is unique in their needs and

desired outcomes. Hence, it would be impossible for any TR model to have guidelines

that could be used in every situation a practitioner comes across. Thus, I regard that it is a

TR specialists responsibility to judge to the best of their ability the terms of when and

how each individual is ready to move on. From what I gather, this appears to be the

assumption the model is making in the first place nonetheless.

The flexibility of the Leisure Ability Model allows for it to be utilized in the

development of programs for a vast variety of clients. An example of a client who could

benefit from this model is Jim, a 32 year old man who acquired a spinal cord injury as a

result of an automobile accident. Before the injury he expressed his love for being active

and involved in all types of physical pursuits, especially sports. He has a large desire to

get some sort of physicality back into his life, and has stated that while playing basketball

is when he feels the most alive. His concerns are that his functional abilities are not

quite where he feels they need to be in order to participate in the activities he desires.

Also, adjusting to this new reality has been mentally difficult for Jim, and he has doubts

that he will ever find a place he feels completely accepted into, and not felt sorry for.
THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 8

Initially, functional intervention is the sole focus when working with Jim. The

main focus I would set out in order to ultimately get him back into sports would be in

improving his physical functional abilities. Firstly, his sitting tolerance in a wheelchair,

and ability to operate it on his own would be of main focus, as up until now he has spent

most of his time lying in a hospital bed. Thus, small rehab activities to strengthen various

muscles of his back and arms would be organized and initiated. Once his strength has

been restored to a large enough degree, improving his hand eye coordination would then

be the main focal point. These skills are all prerequisites to many leisure and recreation

activities, such as wheelchair basketball, being the reason why I have determined these

areas as the most crucial to focus on improving.

Next will come the leisure education programming. The main focus for Jim is

helping him adapt to and cope with his new lifestyle, and the new realities it entails.

Since his main goal is to play wheelchair basketball, he firstly needs to be educated in the

rules, procedures, and necessary skills of the game. It is absolutely crucial to ensure he is

equipped with the new skills required to play the game to the best of his ability. Making

Jim as comfortable and confident as possible in his abilities is vital since he has already

expressed that he is having a hard time coping with his new reality. Additionally,

resource allocation is another main priority I would set out for Jim. Making Jim aware of

the different resources accessible and available is key in order for him to feel comfortable

enough to become involved in these leisure experiences. Knowledge of leisure and the

importance it has in ones life is a foremost principle of the Leisure Ability Model, which

is why I would work to ensure that Jim has all the means and knowledge necessary to

bring the leisure he finds enjoyable back into his everyday life.
THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 9

Lastly I would focus on the recreation participation phase. This is where I would

ensure there is a safe, structured environment for Jim to practice his newly acquired

leisure skills in (Hebblethwaite & Curley, 2015). I would start by giving Jim an

opportunity to practice his basketball skills individually, then once he feels comfortable,

continue on to finding a more social setting he can engage in. This segment is all about

building and ensuring the successful administration of leisure experiences for Jim. The

conceptual basis of this model stems from the notion of providing participants with an

internal locus of control (Carter & Van Andel, 2011). By giving Jim a safe space where

he is the able to exercise complete control, he can continue to gain a sense of mastery,

and realize he is an extremely capable individual who has control over his life choices.

Furthermore it is my hope that he will realize he is still able to participate in the things

that he loves.

D. Ethics

It should come as no surprise that we live in a culturally diverse society that is

growing in range with each passing day. The premise behind the field TR has long been

that all individuals, regardless of race, socioeconomic status, gender, color, religion or

ability, possess the right to experience leisure (Dattilo, 1999). The American Therapeutic

Recreation Associations (ATRA) code of ethics states that all TR personnel have a

responsibility to ensure that individuals are served fairly, without regard to any diversities

or differences they embody (1998). Thus, when working as a TR specialist, the first

important ethical consideration that needs to be taken into account regarding diversity

and multiculturalism is that the services you provide are just and non-discriminatory. It is

unmistakable that all practitioners will encounter participants with beliefs, values, and
THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 10

cultural backgrounds that differ from their own. It is the responsibility of the professional

to be consciously aware that their clients values, race, gender, or any other aspect

relating to diversity do not factor negatively into the processes, but are simply honored

and respected (Pereogoy & Dieser, 1997).

Another ethical concern is regarding cultural competency. Being culturally

competent in unpretentious terms means having the ability to interact effectively within

the cultural context of whomever you are working with (Campinha-Bacote, 2007). For

example, communication styles within cultures vary greatly, and it is the practitioners

responsibility to adjust their services to fit what is compulsory of each participants

cultural norms. All practitioners have an obligation to remain culturally competent, as

they will undeniably work with clients from differing cultures (Peregoy & Dieser, 1997).

If a practitioner isnt capable of culturally competency, they must seek out educational

experiences to improve their understanding and effectiveness (Peregoy & Dieser, 1997).

Professionals need to recognize their limitations, and seek to reduce them by expanding

their expertise and remaining informed of professional and social trends, issues and

developments (Ellis, Sylvester, Voelkl, 2001, p.72). By recognizing ones limits in

competency levels, this allows for a practitioner to see where they can improve and

develop more culturally sound and sensitive programs (Peregoy & Dieser, 1997).

Since TR practices require close proximity with participants, and deal with

sensitive, private information, professional ethics need to be upheld incessantly. Parsons

ingeniously states that a code of ethics is not a cookbook to thumb through when youre

looking for the answer to a dilemma (2001, p.1), stressing that it is of the utmost

importance. Confidentiality of privileged information is a necessity in creating a trusting

THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 11

space between a participant and the professional (Ellis, Sylvester, Voelkl, 2001). It is

noted that professionals may encounter certain situations where they may desire to share

a story or moment in working with an individual (Ellis, Sylvester & Voelkl, 2001).

However, sharing confidential information with third parties must be evaded by all means

as it is a breach of not only confidentiality, but the bond of trust with the participant

(Carter & Van Andel, 2011).

Another fundamental ethical principle is the principle of informed consent.

ATRAs code of ethics (2015) defines it as when information needed to make a

reasoned decision is provided by the professional to competent persons seeking services

who then decide whether or not to accept the treatment. A participant needs to know

what the therapist is proposing to do and why, the possible consequences of the devised

plan, and also all the possible alternatives (Ellis, Sylvester, Voelkl, 2001). The entire TR

process must entail complete honesty and disclosure of information. Since the ultimate

goal of TR is to help clients become effective change agents in their own endeavors, it is

up to the professional to ensure that the participant is armed with all the knowledge and

information necessary to do so.

Finally, it is key to note that a TR specialists ethical morality should not fluctuate

under any circumstances. Depending upon factors such as whether one is practicing in a

community or private setting should have no impact on ensuring one follows ethical

principles. Every TR practitioner has a commitment to first and foremost serve the needs

of their participants while always being concerned with their well being (Spears, 1998).

E. Conclusion
THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 12

In researching and exploring different philosophies, and models integrated into

various TR practices, it became unequivocally obvious how important having a solid

foundation is. Therapeutic recreation is a diverse field, with multiple philosophies on the

ways it ought to be practiced and what services it should provide to participants. It is

crucial that a strong philosophical foundation is present so the best possible service

model can be built and practiced. Peterson again reiterates this thought by stating,

philosophy is the foundation of all other content (1989).

In discovering my own TR philosophy, I have become more aware of my own

beliefs and thus more mindful of how I want my future practice to look. The biggest

realization I had was in the significance of thinking critically. Dattillo and Williams

research highlights the importance in refusing to accept things presented at face value.

Instead, they encourage all to challenge prior assumptions and beliefs, and think critically

from all angles before deciding on what they7 believe (2012). Thinking critically is

something that I will strive to always do when practicing TR, but also in all other aspects

of my life as well. As I continue as a professional, I will seek to develop and redevelop

my own philosophy of TR from experiences I encounter, and through research I

complete. Applying my newly realized philosophy will allow me to enhance how I

develop programs and make better informed decisions in my practices. More importantly,

I now believe I possess an enhanced ability to advocate actively and more convincingly

for TR and all the amazing things it encompasses.

 THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 13

References

Alberta Therapeutic Recreation Association. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.alberta-

tr.org/pages/home/default.aspx

American Therapeutic Recreation Association. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.atra-

online.com

Bullock, C. C. (1987). Recreation and special populations. In A. Graefe & S. Parker (Eds.),

Recreation: An introductory handbook (pp. 203-208). State College, PA: Venture

Publishing.

Campinha-Bacote, J. (2007). Becoming culturally competent in ethnic psychopharmacology.

Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 45(9), 27-33.

Carruthers, C., & Hood, C. D. (2007). Building a life of meaning through therapeutic recreation:

The leisure and well-being model. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 41(4), 276-297.

Carter, M. J., Van Andel, G. E., (2011). Therapeutic recreation: A practical approach (4th ed.).

LongGrove, IL: Waveland Press.

Curley, L., & Hebblethwaite, S. (2015). Exploring the role of community recreation in stroke

recovery using participatory action research and photovoice. Therapeutic Recreation

Journal, 49(1). Retrieved from

http://js.sagamorepub.com.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/trj/article/view/5433
 THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PHILOSOPHY PAPER 14

Dattilo, J. (1999). Leisure education program planning: A systematic approach (2nd ed.). State

College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Dattilo, J., & Williams, R. (2012). Some thoughts about leisure education, therapeutic recreation,

and the philosophy of spiderman. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 46(1). Retrieved from

http://js.sagamorepub.com/trj/article/view/2545/2488

Dieser, R., & Peregoy, J. (1997). Multicultural awareness in therapeutic recreation: Hamlet

living. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 31(3). Retrieved from

http://js.sagamorepub.com/trj/article/view/1180

Ellis, G. D., Sylvester, C., Voelkl, J. E., (2001). Therapeutic recreation programming: Theory

and practice. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Parsons, R. D. (2001). The ethics of professional practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.

Peterson, C. A. (1989). The dilemma of philosophy. In D. M. Compton (Ed.), Issues in

therapeutic recreation: A profession in transition (pp. 21-33). Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Peterson, C. A., & Stumbo, N. J. (1998). The leisure ability model. Therapeutic Recreation

Journal, 32(2), 82-96.

Peterson, C. A., & Stumbo, N. J., & Peterson. (2009). Therapeutic recreation program design

(5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pearson.

Spears, L. C. (1998). Tracing the growing impact of servant leadership. In L. C. Spears (Ed.),

Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servantleadership (pp. 1-12).

New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.