What image does our society have of the professional engaged in the delivery of leisure services?

We as park, recreation and conservation professionals have sought to establish a clear identity of our function in the work place. We thought our work was important and should have a label, an image, an identification which when mentioned would project a universal image. How frustrating it has been at times to explain to our parents, peers, relatives and even our children, what we do and how our work is recognized or identified in the community, state or nation.

Many of our past images have been created by the observations of the tasks we performed such as pruning trees, managing swimming pools, organizing a community parade, caring for flowers, supervising summer playground programs. We have been perceived as foresters, gardeners, rangers, playground leaders, park shelter supervisors, recreation center directors, athletic directors, horticulturists, and social workers.

Today there is a greater diversity in the scope of professional and technical park, recreation and conservation positions. Specializations include resource management, environmental interpretation, park law enforcement, therapeutic recreation, park planning, leisure education, commercial recreation, outdoor education and myriad of other occupational specializations.

Park and recreation professionals must master an enormous volume of knowledge to enable them to function adequately and effectively in positions which involve so many varied programs, services and facilities.

Today we need knowledge in many fields to perform the functions of our profession. We must have a knowledge, background or training in accounting, marketing, merchandising, personnel training and management, financial planning, sales, public relations, planning, insurance and maintenance, to name a few.

But is that any different from the broad knowledge that other professions must have in today's work place? Can the educator, businessman, or engineer survive without some knowledge of the aforementioned areas plus a concept of the importance of constructive use of leisure time?

If we established a stereotype, would we be forced to behave in accordance with that image? There is always a danger of stereotypes being self-fulfilling prophecies. In our profession, the need for creativity is an ever present ingredient. If we had an image for which we were continually striving to maintain it would probably inhibit our imagination.

I would speculate that as some of us may strive to establish an identifiable image to make us more easily identifiable, many of our colleagues may be trying to break out of stereotypes. Do forest rangers want to be identified with Smokey the Bear hats, boots, and kakhi colored clothes, and recreation directors with a whistle, clipboard, T-shirt, suntan and only required to work in the summer?

Our tasks serve so many different interests that we must be many things to many people. If we ever are stereotyped, I think it would greatly limit our ability to grow, change directions, and be responsive to the service needs of the many people we serve in an ever-changing society.

We have presented ourselves to the public in so many ways and our work is so diverse that I would think it would be futile to try to establish a universal image.

Since the turn of the century, there have been many changes in the image of the recreation and parks profession, but it has continued to follow its basic mission of serving the leisure needs of mankind.

For years we have been looking for a common identity and now we realize the great strength of our purpose

(Continued on page 32)

Illinois Parks and Recreat 6 January/February

(Cont. from p. 6)

is the diversity among our positions.

The perception of our profession will ultimately be established by our individual and collective accomplishments and will come about without our guiding it into any preconceived or self-serving image or stereotype.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 32 January/February