School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station
Abstract
Earlier attempts at synthesizing research needs and priorities
were not fruitful. It became an exercise in which I subconsciously
tried to produce a document that was acceptable through peer review.
I styled my writing and format after other analyses that I
had read. It seemed the natural thing to do - to look just like the
others so mine would be accepted. At the same time, I tried to be
different. It became a matter of shifting chairs around the table,
but somehow the dinner still looked the same. I did not really realize
what I was doing until Drs. Workman and Becker, in separate
reviews, pointed out the problem. They simply said I was not
covering new ground or even looking critically at river-recreation
management. The second attempt was more progressive in
terms of reviewing previous research and management theory, and
proposing a new approach to river recreation management research;
but it was too disjointed to be effective in communicating
the problems of present research and means of overcoming those
problems.
At least one thing became clear - most of the research done in
recreation, particularly river recreation, was based on survey research
designs which required a lot of data-crunching and liberal
interpretation. As reproved by W. G. Workman, "Torture the data
until nature confesses." In fact, much of the belief in the process
of survey research appears to be related to the apparent ability to
overcome inadequacies of research design by simply increasing
sample size and then manipulating that data until some significant
relationship is noted .First I wish to say "thanks" to Dr. Ted Dyrness who had faith
in me and pushed for the original cooperative agreement with the
U. S. Forest Service, and who also offered two extensions of the
agreement so the final report might move in a different direction
than earlier versions. Dr. Roger Clark, who acted as the technical
advisor and reviewer for the agreement, helped immensely in the
molding of the direction of the project. Drs. Robert H. Becker and
William G. Workman diagnosed my problem in trying to prepare
an acceptable program. And Drs. Steve McCool, University of
Montana, and Mike Manfredo, Oregon State University, pointed to
the need for reorganization and a more comprehensive research
program.
Within my own bailiwick, Steve Cook's help in the development
of the original manuscript is recognized and appreciated.
And thanks to my wife, J o, who at least pretended to understand
when I brought home the manuscript, spread it out on the supper
table, and mumbled something about reviewers.
This project was funded jointly by the Pacific Northwest
Forest Experiment Station through the Institute of Northern
Forestry and W -13 3 Regional Hatch Project here at the Agriculture
Experiment Station, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
