2016/06/01 by Felice Yuen, Amanda J. Johnson · 1 citation
Psychology · Social Sciences · #Computer science #Conceptualization #Cultural Industries and Urban Development #Diversity (politics) #Epistemology #Field (mathematics) #Isolation (microbiology) #Political science #Psychology #Public relations #Recreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management #Social psychology #Sociology #Urban Transport and Accessibility
paper · doi:10.1080/01490400.2016.1165638
crossref issued 2016/06/01 · crossref published 2016/06/01 · crossref published-online 2016/06/01 · openalex publication_date 2016/06/01 · crossref created 2016/06/02 · crossref published-print 2017/05/04 · crossref deposited 2019/09/09 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05 · crossref indexed 2026/08/05
After decades of highlighting the decline of social networks, leisure spaces as third places constitute a welcomed approach to mediate this loss. Third places are defined as public gathering places that ultimately contribute to the strength of community. We appreciate the concept and believe that it has and will continue to influence scholars in the field of leisure. For this reason, this research reflection argues Oldenburg's conceptualization of third places requires reconsideration. Specifically, we address the increasing prevalence of technology and question Oldenburg's claim that technology contributes to the isolation of individuals. We also encourage a more complex understanding of third places—one that is beyond the idealized notion of public places. Oldenburg's social dimensions of third places (enjoyment, regularity, pure sociability/social leveler, and diversity) are offered as a useful framework. More specifically, we argue that diversity is the most relevant characteristic when exploring third places as a platform for community.