Flow in Home-Based Leisure During the COVID-19 Lockdown: A Case Study for People Aged 65 and Over in Turkey

Abstract

This paper highlights flow in home-based leisure regarding people (aged 65 and over) who have to adapt their lives and behaviors while staying “safer at home” during the coronavirus outbreak. The purpose of this case study, based on qualitative interviews, observations and secondary data (including social media posts, news and videos), is to examine older people’s perceptions and experiences regarding COVID-19-based leisure. Further, it is intended to provide an understanding of how older people conceptualize and relate to leisure during the outbreak. Hence, this study explores the following research questions through semi structured interviews, observations and secondary data: (a) How do older people perceive restrictions regarding COVID-19? (b) How are the flow behavior of older people who must stay at home influenced by their gender, age, family size, and marital status? and (c) How do older people manage their time in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak? The findings of this research will provide insight into the evaluation of leisure during the time of the outbreak and track corresponding behavior and perception changes. As a result, the findings will contribute new knowledge about how contingency conditions (COVID-19 outbreak) influence flow and leisure perceptions.

Keywords

• leisure flow
• home-based leisure
• recreation
• COVID-19
• outbreak

COVID-19 İzolasyonu Sırasında Ev Temelli Boş Zaman Akışı: Türkiye'de 65 Yaş ve Üstü İnsanlar İçin Bir Vaka Çalışması

Öz

Bu makale, koronavirüs salgını sırasında “evde daha güvenli” kalırken yaşamlarını ve davranışlarını uyarlamak zorunda olan insanlara (65 yaş ve üstü) ilişkin ev tabanlı boş zaman akışını vurgulamaktadır. Nitel görüşmeler, gözlemler ve ikincil verilere (sosyal medya yayınları, haberler ve videolar dahil) dayanan bu vaka çalışmasının amacı, yaşlıların COVID-19 tabanlı boş zamanlara ilişkin algılarını ve deneyimlerini incelemektir. Ayrıca, yaşlı insanların salgın sırasında boş zamanları nasıl kavramsallaştırdıklarını ve ilişkilerini anlamalarını sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu nedenle, bu çalışma yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler, gözlemler ve ikincil veriler yoluyla aşağıdaki araştırma sorularını araştırmaktadır: (a) Yaşlı insanlar COVID-19 ile ilgili kısıtlamaları nasıl algılıyor? (b) Evde kalması gereken yaşlıların akış davranışları; cinsiyetleri, yaşları, aile büyüklükleri ve medeni durumlarından nasıl etkileniyor? ve (c) Yaşlı insanlar zamanlarını COVID-19 salgını bağlamında nasıl yönetiyor? Bu araştırmanın bulguları, salgın sırasında boş zaman değerlendirme hakkında bilgi sağlayacak ve buna karşılık gelen davranış ve algı değişikliklerini izleyecektir. Sonuç olarak, bulgular beklenmedik koşulların (COVID-19 salgını) akışı ve boş zaman algılarını nasıl etkilediği hakkında yeni bilgiler sağlayacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Boş zaman akışı
• Ev temelli boş zaman
• Rekreasyon
• Covid-19 salgını
• Kilitlenme

References

1. Anadolu Ajansı, (2020). “Türkiye'de yaşlı nüfus 5 yılda yüzde 21.9 arttı”. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/turkiyede-yasli-nufus-5-yilda-yuzde-21-9-artti/ (Accessed 24 June 2020).
2. Asakawa, K. (2004). Flow experience and autotelic personality in Japanese college students: How do they experience challenges in daily life? Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 123–154.
3. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
4. Chen, L. H., Ye, Y. C., Chen, M. Y., & Tung, I. W. (2010). Alegría! Flow in leisure and life satisfaction: The mediating role of event satisfaction using data from an acrobatics show. Social Indicators Research, 99(2), 301-313.
5. Chick, G., Dong, E., & Iarmolenko, S. (2014). Cultural consonance in leisure activities and self-rated health in six cities in China. World Leisure Journal, 56(2), 110-119.
6. Crawford, D. W.,Jackson, E. L., & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 309-320.
7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: The experience of play in work and games. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

9. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10. Dart, J. (2006). Home‐based work and leisure spaces: settee or work‐station?. Leisure Studies, 25(3), 313-328.
11. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2020). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. Hachette UK.
12. Flichy, P. (1995). Dynamics of modern communication: The shaping and impact of new communication Technologies. London: Sage.
13. Gershuny, J. (2003). Web use and net nerds: A neofunctionalist analysis of the impact of information technology in the home. Social Forces, 82, 141–168.
14. Giddens, A. (1991). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
15. Glyptis, S., McInnes, H. & Patmore, A. (1987) Leisure and the Home (London: Sports Council/ESRC).
16. Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
17. Havitz, M. E., & Mannell, R. C. (2005). Enduring involvement, situational involvement, and flow in leisure and non-leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(2), 152-177.
18. https://www.sozcu.com.tr/hayatim/yasam-haberleri/evlere-kapatilinca-ozgur-yasamanin-degeri-anlasildi/ (Accessed 11 June 2020).
19. Jackson, E. L. (2000). Will research on leisure constraints still be relevant in the twenty-first century? Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 62–68.
20. Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 18(1), 17-35.
21. Jackson, E. L., & Henderson, K. A. (1995). Gender based analysis of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 17, 31-51.
22. Knafl, K., & Breitmayer, B. J. (1989). Triangulation in qualitative research: Issues of conceptual clarity and purpose. In J. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue (pp. 193-203). Rockville, MD: Aspen.
23. Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 214-222.
24. Lally, E. (2002). At home with computers. Oxford: Berg. PMC.
25. Larson, R. W., Gillman, S. A., & Richards, M. H. (1997). Divergent experiences of family leisure: Fathers, mothers, and young adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 29, 78–97.
26. López-Sintas, J., Rojas-DeFrancisco, L., & García-Álvarez, E. (2017). Home-based digital leisure: Doing the same leisure activities, but digital. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1–14.
27. Lyon, D. (2018). What is rhythmanalysis?. Bloomsbury Publishing.
28. Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
29. Mosing, M. A., Butkovic, A., & Ullen, F. (2018). Can flow experiences be protective of workrelated depressive symptoms and burnout? A genetically informative approach. Journal of Affective Disorders, 226, 6-11.
30. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (p. xviii, 829 p). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32. Russell, C., Gregory, D., Ploeg, J., DiCenso, A., & Guyatt, G. (2005). Qualitative research. In A. DiCenso, G. Guyatt, & D. Ciliska (Eds.), Evidence-based nursing: A guide to clinical practice (pp. 120-135). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
33. Rankin, K., Walsh, L. C., & Sweeny, K. (2019). A better distraction: Exploring the benefits of flow during uncertain waiting periods. Emotion, 19(5), 1-38.
34. Rojas de Francisco, L., López-Sintas, J., & García-Álvarez, E. (2016). Social leisure in the digital age. Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure, 39, 258–273.
35. Samdahl, D. M., & Jekubovich, N. J. (1997). A critique of leisure constraints: Comparative analyses and understandings. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(4), 430-452.
36. Shaw, S. M., & Dawson, D. (2001). Purposive leisure: Examining parental discourses on family activities. Leisure Sciences, 23, 217–231.
37. Spinney, J. E., & Millward, H. (2011). Weather impacts on leisure activities in Halifax, Nova Scotia. International Journal of Biometeorology, 55(2), 133-145.
38. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Stevens-Ratchford, R., & Krause, A. (2004). Visually impaired older adults and home-based leisure activities: The effects of person-environment congruence. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98(1), 14-27.
40. Sweeny, K., Rankin, K., Cheng, X., Hou, L., Long, F., Meng, Y., ... & Zhang, W. (2020). Flow in the Time of COVID-19: Findings from China.
41. Tuik, (2020). “Yıllara, Yaş Grubu ve Cinsiyete Göre Nüfus, Genel Nüfus Sayımları – ADNKS”. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=temelist (Accessed 24 June 2020).
42. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic books.
43. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Zabriskie, R. B., & McCormick, B. P. (2003). Parent and child perspectives of family leisure involvement and satisfaction with family life. Journal of Leisure Research, 35, 163–189.