1996). 485. - ericanderson b. young and leo h. mcavoy. articles and abstracts. research in outdoor...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 413 123 RC 021 207

AUTHOR McAvoy, Leo H., Ed.; Stringer, L. Allison, Ed.; Bialeschki,M. Deborah, Ed.; Young, Anderson B., Ed.

TITLE Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Research SymposiumProceedings (3rd, Bradford Woods, Indiana, January 12-14,1996).

INSTITUTION Coalition for Education in the Outdoors, Cortland, NY.PUB DATE 1996-00-00NOTE 149p.; For selected individual papers, see RC 021 208-217.

For the second research symposium proceedings, see ED 383485.

PUB TYPE Collected Works Proceedings (021)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Adventure Education; Camping; Corporate Education;

*Educational Research; Elementary Secondary Education;*Ethics; *Experiential Learning; Females; Group Dynamics;Higher Education; Individual Development; *OutdoorEducation; Research Needs; Self Concept; Wilderness

IDENTIFIERS Adventure Therapy; *Environmental Attitudes; OutdoorLeadership; Spirituality

ABSTRACTThis proceedings include's 18 papers and abstracts of papers

presented at the third biennial research symposium of the Coalition forEducation in the Outdoors. Following an introduction, "Strengthening theFoundations of Outdoor Education" (Anderson B. Young, Leo H. McAvoy), thepapers and abstracts are: "Research in Outdoor Education: Our Place on thePorch" (edited transcript) (Alan Ewert); "Outdoor Education and the Schools"(Bert Horwood); "Outdoor Education and Spirituality" (Tom Smith); "EthicalFrameworks, Moral Practices and Outdoor Education" (Karen M. Fox, MickLautt); "Providing an Authentic Wilderness Experience? Thinking beyond theWilderness Act of 1964" (William T. Borrie, Joseph W. Roggenbuck);"Person-Place Engagement among Recreation Visitors" (abstract) (Iris B.Wilson); "Responsible Environmental Behavior: Metaphoric Transference ofMinimum-Impact Ideology" (abstract) (J. Porter Hammitt, Wayne A. Freimund);"Group Development and Group Dynamics in Outdoor Education" (Leo H. McAvoy,Denise S. Mitten, L. Allison Stringer, James P. Steckart, Kraig Sproles); "AResearch Summary for Corporate Adventure Training (CAT) and Experience-BasedTraining and Development (EBTD)" (Simon Priest); "A Research Update ofAdventure Therapy (1992-1995): Challenge Activities and Ropes Courses,Wilderness Expeditions, and Residential Camping Programs" (H. L. "Lee"Gillis, Donna Thomsen); "Integrating Outdoor Leadership Education into theAcademic Setting" (abstract) (Pamela E. Foti); "Interactive Behaviors betweenStudents and Instructors in the Outdoors" (abstract) (Christine Cashel);"'Kind of in the Middle': The Gendered Meanings of the Outdoors for WomenStudents" (Karla A. Henderson, Sherry Winn, Nina S. Roberts); "The CurrentStatus of Women's Employment in Outdoor Leadership" (T. A. Loeffler); "ThePermanency of a Specific Self-Concept" (Alan N. Wright); "Evaluating theImpact of Environmental Interpretation: A Review of Three Research Studies"(Doug Knapp); "Personality Preferences of Outdoor Participants" (ChristineCashel, Diane Montgomery, Suzie Lane); and "Teaching and Evaluating OutdoorEthics Programs: Setting a Research Agenda" (Bruce E. Matthews). Containsreferences in each paper. (SV)

Summer 1996A Publication of printed on recycled paper

The Coalition for Education in the Outdoors

COALITION FOR EDUCATION IN THE OUTDOORS

Third RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

WI -his document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

e_tvrk5(1.1)(&

January 12-14, 1996Bradford Woods, Indiana

LEO H. McAvoY, PH.D.L. ALLISON STRINGER, PH.D.

M. DEBORAH BIALESCHKI, PH.D.

ANDERSON B. YOUNG, PH.D.

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Editors

inthe

heoalition for

ducationutdoors

BEST COPY AVAILABLE


RESEARCH COMMITTEECAMILLE BUNTING (Texas A&M)

ALAN EWERT (University of Northern British Columbia)MICHAEL GASS (University Of New Hampshire)

KARLA HENDERSON (University Of North Carolina-Chapel Hill)GARY ROBB (Indiana University)

ANDERSON YouNo (SUNY College at Cortland)

SYMPOSIUM COMMITTEEM. DEBORAH BIALESCHKI (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill)

CHRIS CASHEL (Oklahoma State University)KAREN Fox (University of Manitoba)BERT HORWOOD (Queens University)

LEO H. MCAv0Y (University Of Minnesota)TOM SMITH (Raccoon Institute)

The Coalition for Education in the Outdoors initiated a Research Task Force in 1990 with the purpose

of supporting the conduct of research in the field and the dissemination of the results. The symposium at

Bradford Woods and these proceedings offer evidence of the success of this task force. At the firstsymposium in 1992, there was general agreement that the symposium be a regular occurrence. The 1994

and 1996 Symposia and these Proceedings are indicators of the Coalition's continued support of research

in outdoor education. Information on future events will be available through the Coalition office.


THIRD RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS

JANUARY 12-14, 1996

Bradford Woods, Indiana

The Coalition for Education in the Outdoors is a network of institutions, organizations, agencies, centers,businesses, and associations linked and communicating in support of the broad purposes of educating in,for, and about the outdoors. The Coalition assists in identifying the needs of its affiliates and the field ofoutdoor education and seeks to find ways to assist in meeting those needs. The Coalition attempts toempower its affiliates in meeting their various constituent needs, as well as advancing the mission ofoutdoor education globally.

For more information on the Coalition, contact:

Charles Yap leExecutive CoordinatorCoalition for Education in the OutdoorsDepartment of Recreation and Leisure StudiesState University of New York College at CortlandCortland, NY 13045(607) 753-4971(607) 753-5982 (fax)


THIRD RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS

1996

EDITORS

Leo McAvoy, University of MinnesotaL. Allison Stringer, University of MinnesotaM Deborah Bialeschki, University of North Carolina-Chapel HillAnderson B. Young, SUNY College at Cortland

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

M Deborah Bialeschki, University of North Carolina-Chapel HillCamille J. Bunting, Texas A & M UniversityChris Cashel, Oklahoma State UniversityAlan Ewert, University of Northern British ColumbiaKarla Henderson, University of North Carolina, Chapel HillBert Horwood, Queens UniversityAnderson Young, SUNY College at Cortland

EDITORIAL REVIEWERS

Aram Attarian, North Carolina State UniversityBob Henderson, McMaster UniversityEmma Gibbons, Texas A&M UniversityKaren Mattingly, Texas A&M UniversityMaurice Phipps, Western Carolina UniversityJames Raffan, Queens UniversityNina Roberts, Student Conservation AssociationSusie Ruby, Oklahoma State UniversityCurt Schatz, SUNY College at CortlandM Sennema, University of Northern British ColumbiaMelanie Thompson, University of Northern British ColumbiaKaren Warren, Hampshire CollegeCharles Yaple, SUNY College at Cortland

5ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACEStrengthening the Foundations of Outdoor Education 5

Anderson B. Young and Leo H. McAvoy

ARTICLES AND ABSTRACTS

Research in Outdoor Education: Our Place on the Porch 7

Alan Ewert

Outdoor Education and the Schools 9

Bert Horwood

Outdoor Education And Spirituality 14

Tom Smith

Ethical Frameworks, Moral Practices and Outdoor Education 18

Karen M Fox and Mick Lautt

Providing an Authentic Wilderness Experience? 34Thinking Beyond theWilderness Act of 1964

William T Borrie and Joseph W. Roggenbuck

Person-Place Engagement Among Recreation Visitors 45

Iris B. Wilson

Responsible Environmental Behavior: Metaphoric Transference 47of Minimum-Impact Ideology

J. Porter Hammitt and Wayne A. Freimund

Group Development and Group Dynamics in Outdoor Education 51

Leo H. McAvoy, Denise S. Mitten, L. Allison Stringer,James P. Steckart, and Kraig Sproles

A Research Summary for Corporate Adventure Training (CAT) 63and Experience-Based Training and Development (EBTD)

Simon Priest

A Research Update of Adventure Therapy (1992-1995): 77Challenge Activities and Ropes Courses, WildernessExpeditions, and Residential Camping Programs

H. L. "Lee" Gillis and Donna Thomsen

iii

Integrating Outdoor Leadership Education 91into the Academic Setting

Pamela E. Foti

Interactive Behaviors Between Students and 92Instructors in the Outdoors

Christine Cashel

of in the Middle": The Gendered Meanings of 94the Outdoors for Women Students

Karla A. Henderson, Sherry Winn, and Nina S. Roberts

The Current Status of Women's Employment in 107Outdoor Leadership

T A. Loeffler

The Permanency of a Specific Self-Concept 116

Alan N. Wright

Evaluating the Impact of Environmental Interpretation: 127A Review of Three Research Studies

Doug Knapp

Personality Preferences of Outdoor Participants 136

Christine Cashel, Diane Montgomery, and Suzie Lane

Teaching and Evaluating Outdoor Ethics Programs: 143Setting a Research Agenda

Bruce E. Matthews

7

iv

STRENGTHENING THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION

Anderson B. Young and Leo H. McAvoy

Third Biennial CEO Research Symposium

With the publication of the proceedings ofthe Third Biennial Coalition for Education inthe Outdoors Research Symposium, and withplans underway for the fourth symposium in1998, it is appropriate to record the backgroundand purposes of this initiative. In essence, theseresearch symposia are an extension of the Coa-lition's commitment to communication for theenhancement of education in the outdoors. Weseek to strengthen the field of outdoor educationand to empower those associated with it.

The Coalition for Education in the Outdoorswas established in 1987 as a means of improv-ing communication among those involved inoutdoor and environmental education. Ironi-cally, one of the strengths of outdoor educa-tionits interdisciplinary nature and its pursuitof multiple aimsis also one of its weaknesses.This multi-faceted nature of outdoor educationhas segmented the field into interest areas. Forexample, there are a host of national associa-tions that meet the needs of educators in theoutdoors. Among them are the Association forExperiential Education, the American CampingAssociation, the National Recreation and ParkAssociation, the Alliance for. EnvironmentalEducation, and the North American Associationfor Environmental Education, to name a few.All do good work. Many have parallel programsin other .countries and at the state or provinciallevel. Each of these organizations has donemuch to serve the needs and interests of itsmembers., and each tends to give primary em-phasis to particular dimensions of education in

5

the outdoors. Unfortunately, the proliferation oforganizations makes it almost impossible forboth individuals and organizations to keep trackof the full range of developments in outdoor andenvironmental education.

The Coalition for Education in the Outdoorswas created as an information clearinghouse toenable individuals and associations to keep intouch with one another. CEO is not an individ-ual membership organization, but a collection ofnearly a hundred associations, businesses, agen-cies, and educational institutions involved withoutdoor education. The Coalition seeks not toduplicate services of existing organizations, butto extend the reach of those organizations. It hasdone so principally through its quarterly maga-zine, Taproot, which reaches hundreds of sub-scribers, and secondarily through conferences.

CEO's research symposia are an extensionof its networking mission. Most national andstate outdoor education organizations are prac-titioner-oriented. While each tends to under-stand the importance of research and includes

_programs and services related to research, fewhave been able to sustain and nurture an ongo-ing research community. For this reason, thefounders of CEO established a research com-mittee that would help the Coalition to advancethe philosophical, empirical, and theoreticalbases of outdoor education. That committee,first chaired by Camille Bunting of Texas A &M, organized the inaugural symposium in 1992and laid the foundation for the two that have

Anderson B. Young, Ph.D., is professor and chair of Recreation and Leisure Studies at the State University of NewYork at Cortland. Leo, H. McAvoy, Ph.D., is 'professor of Recreation, Park, & Leisure Studies at the University ofMinnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Correspondence should be directed to Anderson Young, Department of Recreationand Leisure Studies: SUNY-Cortland, Cortland, NY, 13045, (607) 753-4941; fax (607) 753-5982; younga@ sny-corva.cortland.edu

8

6 PREFACE

followed, as well as for the ongoing work ofCEO in the area of research and scholarship.

To advance the philosophical, theoretical,and empirical bases of outdoor education, thesesymposia have three subordinate aims. First, asreflected by these proceedings, the symposiummarks an opportunity for scholars to presenttheir work to one another and, through the pro-ceedings, to the larger community of outdooreducators. Second, the symposium is designedto build a sense of community among those in-terested in outdoor education research andscholarship. Third, the symposium provides aforum where participants can explore othermeans of accomplishing their research andscholarly aims for outdoor education. Each ofthese subordinate aims merits some elaboration.

These proceedings, like the first, include agroup of research reports and essays on a widevariety of outdoor education-related topics.Several papers discuss the state of current re-search in various theme areas, such as corporateprograms, ethics, therapy, spirituality, groupdevelopment, school-based programs, and natu-ral resources. Also included are research paperson gender issues, environmental education andinterpretation, self-concept, wilderness values,personality and adventure program participants,and career development in outdoor education.The proceedings, like the symposium itself, re-flect the diversity of outdoor education. Theyare a group of papersand it was a group ofpeoplethat would not have been published orgathered by any single outdoor or environmentaleducation organization.

Although these proceedings are an impor-tant product of the symposium, the less formalcommunication at the symposium is an equallyimportant, though less tangible, outcome. Theparticipants at the symposium reflected the di-versity of outdoor education. As mentionedabove, this symposium attracted a group of peo-ple that would not have had the opportunity togather at the meetings of any of the many fineprofessional conferences throughout the year.The symposium was structured to be highly in-teractive and supportive. Participants soughteach other out for help in the design of futurestudies. Research partnerships were formed. Inessence, the symposium cultivated a sense ofcommunity and cooperation among its partici-pants.

Third, the symposium also provided a forumto address areas of ongoing concern to research-ers and scholars in the field. Topics under con-tinuing discussion included the relationship ofoutdoor education to (1) ethics, (2) spirituality,(3) public schools (4) natural resources, and (5)therapy.

Researchers, like their other colleagues inoutdoor education, represent a diversity ofbackgrounds and interests. They come from dif-.ferent academic backgrounds and write for dif-ferent literature sources. Through these biennialCEO research symposia, we are able to presentsome products of their work in a single pro-ceedings, and, equally important, we are build-ing a research community that can only help tostrengthen the field of outdoor education and thepeople and environment it serves.

RESEARCH IN OUTDOOR EDUCATION: OUR PLACE ON THE PORCH I

Alan Ewert

University of Northern British Columbia

In A Yaquie Way of Knowledge, CarlosCastenada talked about a person's "place on theporch"; that is, the constellation of skills,knowledge and past experiences that serve todefine who we are to both ourselves and others.My message today is simply this: What is ourplace on the porch and is it where we want tobe? Let me address this questions from two,perhaps overly simplistic, angles. But beforedoing that, let me digress a bit and state forth-right that I believe the most important job thosefortunate enough to participate in this ResearchSymposium have is to help define where re-search in outdoor education is and where itneeds to go. Historically, we are pretty good atthe former but not so effective at the direction-setting end of things.

This is an old story, and many of you haveheard me harp on this before, but we have notreally done it yet. It is difficult to imagine hav-ing a better situation in which to do some strate-gic thinking and planning than being at Brad-ford Woods surrounded by some of the bestoutdoor educators in the business. Having nowworked in several organizations involved in dif-ferent aspects of research, including private in-dustry, academics and the federal government,my perception has been that those programswith a research plan that was both tactical andstrategic invariably had a better chance at long-term success than those that did not.

Let me get back to our porch. From my per-spective, defining our place on the porch in-volves understanding where we are (i.e., ourbody of knowledge and past contributions tosociety) and where we need to be going (both inthe eyes of our colleagues in other disciplinesand within our own perception).

7

Working in a Natural Resources faculty, itis now becoming clear, sometimes painfully,that the "coin of the realm" is both an estab-lished body of knowledge and recognized con-tributions to various sectors of society. Thisleads me to think that we need to be able to fullyarticulate answers to questions such as, "Whatdoes education in the outdoors really do?""Who does it really help?" and "What social illsdoes it help address?"

We all have our own individual ideas aboutthis, but are there some commonalties in howwe address these issues? Furthermore, how canwe facilitate this understanding among not onlyourselves, but, just as importantly, other institu-tions and disciplines? With these questions inmind, I believe there are two factors we shouldconsider:

1. Outdoor education and recreation providesociety with one of the few ways largenumbers of people experience the naturalenvironment in very real, direct ways.

2. It is still true that for a substantial propor-tion of the public, summer camp, the out-door laboratory, or the field trip was a pow-erful and positive event in the life andsomething "good" happened from it. (Youcould say that about visiting the dentist, butmost of us would not voluntarily choose thatas a way to spend our educational re-sources.)

So, what should we be concerned with as wethink about some potential long-range researchstrategies? Consider, if you will, the followingrecommendations for research strategies, asshown in Table 1.

'This article is an edited version of the transcript from Dr. Ewert's videotaped presentation at the Symposium.Dr. Alan Ewert may be contacted at the Department of Recreation & Tourism, University of Northern British Co-lumbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, Canada, V2N 4Z9, (604) 960-5863; fax (604)960-5538; ewert®unbc.edu.

10

8 EWERT

TABLE 1

Recommendations for Future Research Strategies

Integration within and outside of disciplines

Mainstream our efforts

Visibility and distribution of findings

Link up with larger efforts, organizations, and problems

Capitalize on the linkage between human development and natural landscapes

Integration: By its very nature, outdoor educa-tion involves a variety of disciplines and educa-tional opportunities. While research efforts havehistorically often been unidisciplinary, our fu-ture efforts should emulate the complexity ofthe problem and involve a multitude of schol-arly disciplines.

Mainstreaming: Unless our research appearsmore often in well-recognized research outlets,the information our scientists generate can bemarginalized and not fully utilized or recog-nized.

Visibility and Distribution of Findings: Organi-zations and centers such as the Coalition forEducation in the Outdoors and Bradford Woodscan act as clearinghouses for information. ERIChas traditionally played this role, but its effec-tiveness drops off as one moves away from edu-cationally-focused institutions. Distributioncosts will always be a problem, but they are notusually insurmountable with some creativity andconcerted effort.

Connecting with Larger Efforts: Outdoor edu-cation research has traditionally used the effectof the camp (or similar experience) on the indi-vidual as the dependent variable. Our challengefor the future will be to demonstrate how thelife-changing experiences our programs offercan also impact larger issues such as crime,families under stress, and health related issues.In addition, there is an entire host of natural re-source issues that involve human perceptionsand behaviors, such as global climate change,timber harvesting, energy use, waste production,and environmental concern. How can outdooreducation impact these larger issues?

Capitalize on the Human Development/NaturalLinkages: Natural landscapes can have a power-ful effect on humans. Outdoor educators haveknown this for years and our research suggeststhis to be the case. For example, improved self-concept, reduced length of hospital stays, andlower recidivism rates are all examples of posi-tive impacts. Outdoor education is ideally situ-ated to capitalize on this interaction, somethingfew other disciplines can emulate or even envi-sion from a systematic perspective. But, weknow little about this human development/natu-ral landscape linkage.

THE TRIP TO ABILENE

In business and professional training pro-grams the "Trip to Abilene" is a metaphoricstatement implying that a group is heading to-ward a particular goal even though nobodyreally wants to go there. But, of course, nobodybothered to raise the issue. So I would challengeyou, the participants of the Third Biennial Sym-posium on Research in Outdoor Education, toconsider where we are going and how we shouldget there. You may not agree with the previousideas, but we need to work together and lay outa potential game plan. Where should we be allo-cating our precious and scarce research re-sources? How can studies be developed to buildon one another? What social ills can we targetwith our powerful outdoor education experi-ences? And finally, what types of endeavorsshould we collectively get involved in that willbe meaningful for the society of which we are apart, beneficial to our students, and fulfilling forus as practicing researchers?

OUTDOOR EDUCATION AND THE SCHOOLS

Bert HorwoodProfessor EmeritusQueen's University

The research reported to gatherings spon-sored by the Coalition for Education in the Out-doors has had relatively little connection withschool-based outdoor education. In this paper, Iwill explore the potentially fruitful interfacebetween education in the outdoors and theschools. The exploration is influenced by theuncertainty of our times, and I have organizedthis report to reflect two views. One is that thesocial ferment of the mid-1990s is normal andthat we can continue to conduct research in theway that Kuhn (1974) characterized as "normalscience." The second view is that the social fab-ric of the West may be undergoing revolution-ary, paradigmatic changes which are hard torecognize from inside and that to carry on asusual may be futile.

By outdoor education, I mean any attemptto educate people out-of-doors. Thus, a mappingexercise in the school yard and the practice ofbuilding trades while framing a house count asoutdoor education. For the purposes of this pa-per, "school" is taken to mean any public or pri-vate institution with a mandate to educate peo-ple over a reasonably long term. Public and pri-vate schools, colleges and universities are in-cluded, but I have excluded agencies with shortterm encounters (like Outward Bound Schools)and those with a primarily therapeutic or reha-bilitative practice, like programs for personswho are imprisoned or addicted. These exclu-sions are not meant to devalue such agencies,but only to acknowledge the need to limit thescope of this inquiry and to recognize that suchprograms have already been the subject of con-siderable investigation from the outdoor educa-tion research community.

Under these definitions, outdoor educationcould be interpreted as dealing with the schoolsubjectsmathematics, English, sciences and

9

the like. Alternatively, it could be interpreted asincluding characteristics of education that cutacross all subjects. Examples would include co-operation, creativity, fitness, craft-ship, com-munity, and so on. Both interpretations providemany researchable questions. The numerouspossibilities of setting, subject and characteristicare illustrated in Figure 1.

BUSINESS AS USUAL

Let us suppose that globalization and relatedsocial, economic, and environmental changes donot create a sufficiently serious set of uncer-tainties to cause us to change our basic ways oflooking at the world of outdoor education. Inshort, let's assume that it's business as usual.On that basis, I examined the ERIC database,current teachers' periodicals, and selected thesesin order to construct a picture of the state of re-search into outdoor education as it relates toschools.

Most of the literature is comprised of un-critical program descriptions: see Sattler andZalkin (1989) and Grantham (1995). There are afew overviews. For example, Ford (1986) givesa now somewhat outdated account of the rang&of meanings of outdoor education, and Knapp(1992) contrasts conventional and post-modernways of knowing in the practice of educationoutdoors. In a similar vein, Strano (1995) offersa compilation of research relating outdoor edu-cation and curriculum in Ontario, and, to extendthe international theme, New Zealand outdooreducators have conducted a survey of researchneeds and promulgated it on the Internet(Lynch, 995). One of the main conclusions fromthis literature is that schools are heavily in-volved with outdoor education. Another mainconclusion is that there is relatively little highquality research and relatively few critical

Dr. Bert Horwood is Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Education, Queen's University, 269 Blenheim Terrace,Kingston, Ontario, CANADA, K7M 4C8, (613) 389-2620; fax (613) 545-6584; [email protected]

12

10 HORWOOD

LI 4 ChE a w)w

cz 60CI.

co.0

....

6C0

I.

CP

riCsu

co0=ta

,++75

0=GO

vI-).3u,

-0,..'"

CA Cf3

SCIENCES

-4- SOCIAL STUDIES

MATHEMATICS

LANGUAGE

ARTS

Figure 1. A three-dimensional matrix showing the relationships among examples of cur-riculum concerns (school subjects and human growth and development) and outdoor edu-cation settings at the outdoor-school interface.

perspectives in the field. The lack of well ar-ticulated theory and epistemology is particularlyevident.

There are some exemplary research reports.Amongst these are Gough's (1993) critique ofthe readings used in outdoor education,Brookes's (1993) theoretical argument about thepurposes and nature of outdoor education, andseveral theses. I emphasize the theses because inmy small sample I found excellent research thatis not well disseminated. For example, Raffan's(1983) thesis brought new methods and insightsto the study of the curriculum tensions experi-enced by school . teachers teaching outdoors;Henderson's (1995a) thesis is a remarkablesynthesis of innovative method, education andenvironment. There is also evidence that schol-ars at the interface of schools and outdoor edu-cation are paying attention to the need for re-

search agendas and an extended view of re-search methodologies. O'Rourke (1995) andRobbins (1995) are examples of the former;Henderson (1995b) provides a readable exampleof the latter. It is not to detract from the value ofthese efforts to observe that there is little evi-dence that such research has any influence onpractice as portrayed in program descriptions.Indeed, it seems to me that the there is a persis-tent gulf between the communities of practiceand of research that requires urgent attention.

The two solitudes of research and educa-tional practice persist because research findingsare not perceived as meaningful or accessible topractitioners. Practitioners are rarely partners orcontributors to research. (Ants don't have muchtruck with entomologists.) In addition, signifi-cant research is rarely followed up. This is espe-cially true of master's and doctoral research. In

13

OUTDOOR EDUCATION AND THE SCHOOLS 11

the recommendations to follow, I will makesome suggestions for improving this situation.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR UNSTABLE TIMES

Let us now suppose that "business as usual"is an unsupportable assumption and that the so-cial, economic and environmental orders arechanging rapidly in uncertain directions. Thereare clear, sound voices that articulate our com-mon experience of drastic changes in the socialcontracts that have, in recent decades, been thestability of our times. Writers like Berman(1981), O'Brien (1994), Waks (1995) and Saul(1995) paint a chilling picture of social, eco-nomic and environmental degradation thatmakes normal educational research pointless.The force of these disturbing views is enough tosuggest that an entirely new and radical researchprogram is warranted.

Thinking about a research agenda for un-certain and unstable times provides an upbeatantidote for the pessimism that can ensue fromtoo much apocalyptic reading. For example, thestunning discoveries of Prigogine and others inself-organizing systems suggest a promisingevolutionary future for societies that choose toallow the natural processes of self-organizationfull play (Jantsch, 1980). Similarly, GregoryBateson's thought, as explicated by Berman(1981), represents another, related promisingfuture direction. But there is no research in out-door education that investigates how these radi-cal world views might take shape in either ourprograms or our research. For any person whothinks that outdoor education and the schoolswill not be able to continue along their presentlines for much longer, there is an urgent andexciting body of conceptual and developmentalwork to be done.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are two sets of recommendations. Thefirst involves extending and expanding practicesthat already exist but are too limited. Ewert(1996) has urged strategies that extend anddeepen the connection among outdoor educationresearchers and workers in related fields, andhis ideas are particularly cogent in relation to

the schools. There is a growing body of researchat the interface of outdoor education and theschools. That literature needs to be comprehen-sively and critically reviewed. This is especiallytrue of the excellent work that is buried in un-published theses and dissertations. The stan-dards for dissertation writing in many universi-ties, paradoxically, tend to make very dullreading. Somehow, the insights and discoveriesof graduate students need to be coherently andinterestingly brought into the light.

Researchers in outdoor education who arebased in departments of recreation or physicaleducation should seek collaborators withinschools of education. There is much to gain andto give. For example, it is clear from numerousprogram descriptions that outdoor education isoften delivered by recreational leaders to schoolchildren with minimum involvement by theclassroom teachers (for an exception, see Smith,1995). The two worlds of outdoor recreation andschool may have mutual admiration, but theyhave little real communication and little senseof shared purpose and common professionallanguage (Horwood & Raffan, 1988). Outdoorleaders need to be trained to better understandteachers and teaching, and teachers need to bebetter educated to make maximum use of out-door education opportunities. These changes ininstructor training and related research can hap-pen only by expanding collaboration.

Why is collaboration lacking? There is aneed to study the variety of barriers and inhibi-tions to collaborative work, both in programdelivery and in research. And there is a need tostudy the efforts to overcome them. Among themost serious inhibitors are school personnel'sdiscomfort in the outdoors, the systemic de-mands of the curriculum for high test scores inthe schools, and the system of academic rewardsin the research community. All of these point todisciplinary isolation and to the tendency forevaluation, or the fear thereof, to drive ourevery action. There is a need to critically assessevaluation in the context of outdoor educationand the schools.

14

12 HORWOO D

The second set of recommendations in-volves breaking nearly new ground. An old bar-rier exists between the communities of researchand professional practice in education. Re-searchers, for good reasons, tend to chooseproblems that are irrelevant to the concerns ofpractitioners, and publish findings in places andforms that practitioners rarely, if ever, explore.The gulf between research and practice needs tobe bridged. Several existing trends could help.Theory needs to be exercised more as dialoguewith practice and less as prescription. Teachersand outdoor leaders need to be recruited ascoinvestigators with researchers. Outdoor edu-cation research should be presented at teacherconferences, and schools researchers should beinvited to outdoor education gatherings. Multi-ple research perspectives positivist, naturalist,and dialecticalneed to be deployed.

If the social, economic and environmentalfabric of the last quarter of the 20th century isunravelling, then the call for research into newconcepts and relationships is pressing. For ex-ample, what has outdoor education in a schoolcontext to say to life after school? The conven-tional answer is that graduates use their educa-tions for employment, and their outdoor educa-tion experiences should lead to appreciation ofthe natural world and recreational opportunitiesas refreshment from work. But as fewer andfewer people come to have jobs, there is a clearneed to reconceptualize what we are about. Theintroduction of chaos theory into social systemsraises further demands for basic conceptual re-search into its implications for outdoor educa-tion structures. We are living in interestingtimes.

REFERENCES

Berman, M. (1981). The reenchantment of the world.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Brookes, A. (1993). Deep and shallow outdoor edu-cation. Can we tell the difference? The OutdoorEducator. Journal of the Victorian OutdoorEducation Association Incorporated, GPO Box1896R, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, June1993, 8-17.

Ewert, A. (1996). Research in outdoor education:Our place on the porch. In L. McAvoy, L. A.Stringer, Bialeschki, M. D., and Young, A. B.(Eds.), Coalition for Education in the Outdoorsthird research symposium proceedings, (pp. 7-8). Cortland, NY: Coalition for Education in theOutdoors.

Ford, P. (1986). Outdoor education: Definition andphilosophy. ERIC Digest. ERIC-CRESS. ED-267941.

Gough, N. (1993). Neuromancing the stones: Experi-ence, intertextuality, and cyberpumk science fic-tion. Journal of Experiential Education, 16 (3),9-17.

Grantham, A. (1995). Think active, think green.CAHPERD Journal, 61 (2), 30-31.

Henderson, B. (1995a). Outdoor Travel: Explorationfor change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Can-ada.

Henderson, B. (1995b). Orienting oneself to research.Pathways. The Ontario Journal of Outdoor Edu-cation 7 (2), 27-31.

Horwood, B., & Raffan, J. (1988). Recreation andeducation in the outdoors: Exploring the bounda-ries. CAHPERD Journal, 54 (3), 7-9.

Jantsch, E. (1980). The self-organizing universe. NewYork: Pergamon Press.

Knapp, C. E. (1992). Thinking in outdoor inquiry.ERIC Digest. ED348198.

Kuhn, T. S. (1974). The structure of scientific revo-lutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

Lynch, P. (Ed.). (1995). Outdoor Education ResearchNetwork Newsletter #8. Available on the outdooreducation list: [email protected]

O'Brien, C.C. (1994). On the eve of the millennium.Toronto: House of Anansi Press Limited.

O'Rourke, T. W. (1995). Creating capacity: A re-search agenda for school health education. Jour-nal of School Health Education, 65 (1), 33-37.

Raffan, J. (1983). Theory and practice in outdoorteaching: The indoor/outdoor dilemma. Unpub-lished master's thesis, Queen's University, King-ston, Ontario, Canada.

15

OUTDOOR EDUCATION AND THE SCHOOLS 13

Robbins, S. (1995). The status of school based re-search in Canada. CAHPERD Journal, 61 (3),10-12.

Sattler, E. D., & Zalkin, L. (1989). Get your feet wetscientifically: A guide to water testing as aschool science project. Outdoor Communicator,20 (2), 26-32.

Saul, J. R. (1995). The unconscious civilization. To-ronto: House of Anansi Press Limited.

Smith, T. (1995). An experiential adventure schoolfor sexually abused adolescents. In B. Horwood(Ed.), Experience and the curriculum (pp. 217-234). Boulder, CO. Association for ExperientialEducation.

Strano, D. (1995). The importance of outdoor educa-tion in school curriculum: A compilation of re-search. Toronto: Council of Outdoor Educatorsof Ontario, 1885 Eglinton Avenue East, NorthYork, Ontario, M3C 3C6.

Waks, L. (1995). Citizenship in transition: Globali-zation, postindustrial technology and education.In S. Hills (Ed.), Life after school: Education,globalization and the person. Proceedings of the1995 MSTE Spring Colloquium. (Availablefrom MSTE Group, Faculty of Education,Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L3N6.

16

14

OUTDOOR EDUCATION AND SPIRITUALITY

Tom SmithRaccoon Institute

Cazenovia, WI

Man is like a bird with two wings that potentially can lift him to the pathway-of-the-stars(spiritual life). Too often, however, he is like a bird with a broken wing. One wing isphysical consciousness thinking process, and the other is the spiritual, including the subconscious dream pattern. When both the wings are functioning with the rhythm of theBeauty path (spiritual path), they have mighty power, and can carry the soul to joyfulheights.

The question at hand is that of researchingthe impact of outdoor recreational and educa-tional experiences on the spiritual developmentof the individual. I approach that question fromthe perspective of a facilitator of personalgrowth who has long advocated the methodolo-gies considered as experiential outdoor/chal-lenge/adventure education. I must admit fromthe onset that I also approach that question withsome reservations, for I wonder if it is prema-ture to advocate research when the theory andpractice of experiential outdoor challenge/ad-venture education (hereafter referred to as chal-lenge/adventure education) have given so littleattention to the impact of their programs on thespiritual development of clients. One of the im-portant issues before experiential and outdoorprofessionals is that of appropriate focus on the"spiritual quest" of clients and the potentials ofthe evolving methodologies of challenge/adven-ture education for enhancing spiritual develop-ment.

One has to wonder why the spiritual journeyhas received so little attention in challenge edu-cation. In an assessment of the impact of experi-ential education on students, Conrad and Hedinconcluded that the methodology contributed topsychological, social, and intellectual/academicdevelopment of students (1981). There was noattention to, nor mention of, the impact of expe-

David Villasenor, Tapestries in Sand

riential programs on the spiritual developmentof the youth. One can only wonder, it they haddesigned their study to include assessment ofthe latter, would there be suggestion of a gain?A decade later, Stringer and McAvoy did findthat spiritual development was an important as-pect of the wilderness adventure for many peo-ple (1992).

Over 20 years ago, Rey Carlson, distin-guished professor of recreation and outdoor edu-cation at Indiana University, wrote on the valuesof camping experiences (1975). He noted thatone of the goals toward which many camp ac-tivities are directed was that of developingspiritual meanings and values. There is a longhistory of church camps (Graendorf & Mattson,1984), and challenge/adventure education the-ory and practice have strong roots in outdooreducation and camping education (Smith, Ro-land, Havens, & Hoyt, 1992), yet professionalshave seldom focused on the spiritual aspects ofthe challenge/adventure education sequence.

The goals of challenge/adventure educationprograms are most often stated in terms of de-veloping dimensions of self-concept (self-esteem, self-confidence, locus of control, em-powerment, etc.) and/or improvement of socialadjustment (communication skills, cooperation,sensitivity, etc.). Sometimes there are goals forteaching leisure skills, enhancing environmental

Dr. Tom Smith may be contacted at the Raccoon Institute, P.O. Box 695, Casenovia, WI, 53924, (608) 983-2327.

1,7

OUTDOOR EDUCATION AND SPIRITUALITY 15

awareness, -community service, or stimulatingacademic performance. In very few situations isa challenge/adventure education program of-fered with the stated goal of enhancing the"spiritual" dimensions of clients, although thismay well be a latent goal in some programs. Ibelieve it is time to bring this latter goal intogreater focus and to recognize the potential im-pact of the challenge/adventure education pro-gram on the spiritual development of clients.

Challenge/adventure education can be de-fined as a humanistic and holistic methodologyfor the facilitation of growth and learning, basedon innovative strategies that have roots in out-door education, adventure education, awarenesseducation, somatic education, humanistic edu-cation, and experiential education. The chal-lenge/adventure education methodology has alsobeen influenced by the concepts of cooperativegames, the practices of camping and outdoorrecreation, and the traditions of the rituals,ceremonies, and basic cosmological orientationof the Native Americans and other indigenouspeoples (Smith et. al., 1992).

THE SPIRITUAL QUEST

The spiritual quest can be defined as an in-dividual's attempt to clarify personal valuesabout life, death, the universe, a Supreme Being,and/or a search for understanding, meaning,purpose and direction. It is a human endeavorthat has always been part of the human experi-ence, but it seems to have increased in impor-tance and attention over the past decade as manypeople have attempted to make some sort ofsense out of what some see as the nonsense thatis about.

Life as a journey is a common metaphor insociety. Journey as adventure or adventure asjourney are often discussed by challenge/adven-ture education leaders and incorporated intomany programs. The journey is one of searchingabout the wilderness beyond and also the wil-derness within (Smith, 1990). The search is, inreality, a spiritual quest, as each person seekspersonal answers to questions of "Who am I?""Why am I?" "Where am I going?" and "Whatis my relationship to all that is?"

History is filled with cyclic trends awayfrom organized religions and concern for spiri-tual development and then back again. It maywell be that as the new millennium approaches,there is a re-awakening of the spiritual quest andthat more people are now concerned about bothpersonal and humankind spirituality. Many at-titudinal surveys suggest this trend. Sixteenyears ago, Ferguson (1980) reported on a GallupPoll that indicated that nearly 80% of collegestudents wanted to find "spiritual meaning." TheJournal of Holistic Education devoted a specialissue to spirituality education (Miller, 1993).One could also suggest that contemporary focuson the wisdom of Native American traditions isreflective of people's concern for finding a newcosmological orientation. This trend is rein-forced by the parallels between contemporaryfocus on earth ethics and spirituality.

A number of authors have addressed theissue of spiritual and religious development(e.g., Fowler, 1981; Heller, 1986; Kohlberg,1981; Meissner, 1974; Moran, 1983). Manyhave noted that developing young people havethe need for spirituality. Robert Coles (1986,1990) has suggested that all children are"seekers, as young pilgrims," with considerableconcern for making sense out of their life andfinding their place in the universe. He spenttime with young people of Christian, Jewish,Islamic, and Native American heritage andfound that most of them could verbalize theirown "journey of faith."

As mentioned above, the stated goals ofchallenge/adventure education programs aremost often concerned with aspects of self, oth-ers, and the self-other interdependence. Rarelyare there goals for enhancing awareness of theenvironment and the self-environment interde-pendence. Even more rarely do programs stategoals for enhancing awareness of The Other andthe self-other-environment-Other oneness (thespiritual quest). My point would be that even ifour stated program goals are basically psycho-logical, they are related to the holistic growthand development of the client and are, thus, in-fluential on the spiritual quest. Our clients often

18

16 SMITH

internally process and interpret the experiencesof challenge/adventure education in terms ofspiritual awareness. It is, therefore, impossiblefor challenge/adventure educators to avoid at-tending to issues of spirituality. Even if ourgoals are restricted to the psychological realm,more is happening for our clients. We can de-fine ourselves simply as facilitators of personalgrowth and learning, but we must recognize thatpersonal growth (development/transformation ofthe self) involves seeking awareness and under-standing of all that is in the web of life, includ-ing the spiritual quest.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Certainly, if challenge/adventure educationleaders pay heed to the needs, motivations, andpersonal goals of their clients, and to the appar-ent trends of societal attitude, then there will beincreasing attention to the spiritual quest as the21st century unfolds. As programs set goals toenhance the spiritual development of clients,three patterns of research on the topic will berequired:

1. Assessment of the needs and goals of vari-ous client populations. This will be impor-tant in helping programs set goals and de-sign appropriate experiential sequences toaddress the spiritual needs and goals of cli-ents.

2. Study of the contribution of various chal-lenge/adventure experiences to various di-mensions of the spiritual quest. Such re-search will involve study of program se-quences and also specific experiential ac-tivities.

3. Evaluation of program effectiveness. Animportant aspect of this research on pro-gram validity will be the longitudinal studyof the impact of outdoor programs on par-ticipants' spiritual discoveries and subse-quent personal and social adjustment.

Researchers will face a number of problemsand questions as they focus on spirituality inchallenge/adventure programs:

1. Defining the subject/process to be re-searched. Is the term "spirituality" or theprocess of the "spiritual quest" too broad?Does it mean all things and different thingsto everyone? Should we distinguish betweenreligion and spirituality? How can we do soin ways that will make spiritual quest-oriented programs acceptable to authoritiesand yet still serve the needs of clients?

2. Overcoming the bias of personal/culturalperspectives on spirituality. Challenge/ad-venture and outdoor educators are prone to a"nature spirituality" value system (thus theinterest in Native American spirituality), butthat is not the value orientation of mostpeople. As the subject of focus is so value-laden, how do researchers become attunedto multi-cultural and idiosyncratic orienta-tions?

3. Understanding and dealing with the bias ofwestern science and experimental method-ology. In psychology, for example, a be-haviorist would argue against positing un-necessary and unmeasurable hypotheticalconstructs such as "self," psyche," "soul,"or "spirit." Can research realistically iden-tify and address a concept as personalandat times ineffableas "spirituality"?

4. Appropriate assessment tools for evaluationof subjects' spirituality. Most of the writingto date on spirituality and spiritual educa-tion has been theoretical or curriculum in-spired. Moving to the research question willrequire assessment, and it may be that thequalitative methodologies (e.g., the use ofpersonal journals for evaluation) will be thebest choice.

5. How do we, can we, should we deal with theissues of separation of church and state? Isit possible for challenge/adventure educa-tors to program for spiritual developmentwithout facing this issue?

As researchers and leaders in chal-lenge/adventure education focus more on thespiritual quest of their clients, it is important forthe leaders to focus on their own spiritual de-

19

OUTDOOR EDUCATION AND SPIRITUALITY 17

velopment. This cannot be overstated, becausein the understanding of the self as physical be-ing, social being, psychological/emotional be-ing, and spiritual being, each challenge/adven-ture educator will become more effective in fa-cilitating the growth and learning of others. Asmore and more leaders focus on their personalspiritual quests, I believe they will understandand support this call for further exploration ofthe relationship between challenge/adventureeducation and spiritual education and for in-creased attention to the spiritual quest of clients.Challenge/adventure education has evolved intoa potentially powerful methodology for guidinghumankind's transition into the 21st century.The self-search recommended for others isequally important for each of us. Krishnamurti(1981) summarized it well: "To understand lifeis to understand ourselves...and that is both thebeginning and end of education."

REFERENCES

Coles, R. (1986). The moral life of children. Boston:Atlantic Monthly Press.

Coles, R. (1990). The spiritual life of children. Bos-ton: Houghton Mifflin.

Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1981). National assessmentof experiential education. Journal of Experien-tial Education, 4 (3), 1-20.

Carlson, R. (1975). The values of camping. Martins-ville, IN: American Camping Association.

Ferguson, M. (1980). The Aquarian conspiracy. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Fowler, J. (1981). Stages of faith. San Francisco:Harper & Row.

Greandorf, W., & Mattson, L. (1984). An introduc-tion to Christian camping. In Christian guide-posts. Martinsville, IN: American Camping As-sociation.

Heller, D. (1986). The children's god. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Philosophy of moral develop-ment. New York: Harper & Row.

Krishamurti, J. (1991). Education and the signifi-cance of life. New York: Harper & Row.

Meissner, W. (1974). Psychoanalysis and religiousexperience. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Miller, R. (1993). Journal of Holistic Education, 6(1)

Moran, G. (1983). Religious education development.Minneapolis: Winston Press.

Smith, T. (1990). Wilderness beyond...wildernesswithin (2nd ed.). Cazenovia, WI: Raccoon Insti-tute.

Smith, T, Roland, C., Havens, M., & Hoyt, J. (1992).The theory and practice of challenge education.Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Smith, T, Horwood, B., Proudman, S., McGowan,M., & Shepley, S. (in press). Issues of challengeeducation. Unpublished collection availablefrom Raccoon Institute, Cazenovia, WI.

Stringer, L. A., & McAvoy, L. (1992). The need forsomething different: Spirituality and wildernessadventure. Journal of Experiential Education, 15(1), 13-20.

Villasenor, D. (1966). Tapestries in sand. Hearlds-burg, PA: Naturegraph Publishers.

20

18

ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS, MORAL PRACTICES AND OUTDOOR EDUCATION

Karen M. Fox Mick Lautt

Associate ProfessorUniversity of Manitoba

B.R.S.University of Manitoba

Discoveries and insights from quantum physics and chaos theory help create new metaphors aboutethical frameworks and moral practices in outdoor education. Using concepts such as fractals,fields, and strange attractors, we explore new ways to view research results, scholarly writings,and creative endeavors related to outdoor education. In addition, we evaluate four themes relatedto the present ethical discourse in outdoor education and sketch new directions for moral practice.

KEYWORDS: Ethical frameworks, outdoor education, moral practice, chaos theory, mutualcritique.

INTRODUCTION

The image of fractals returned again andagain as we wrestled with the mounds of infor-mation related to ethical frameworks, moralpractices and outdoor education. Fractals aresurprisingly simple patterns replicating to pro-duce infinite levels of complexity. Shorelines,vegetation disbursement, crystal formations, andleaf patterns are natural demonstrations of thisphenomenon (Figure 1). We discovered that ourtopicethical frameworks and moral practicesof outdoor education followed a similar pattern;the more we looked, the more complexity anddetails we discovered. Like fractals, the com-plexity and details began to be the very essenceof the beauty, the strength, and the diversity aswell as the challenge. We discovered how diffi-cult it is not to be certain; how uncomfortablewe were with chaos. We quickly wanted to pro-vide structure and categories to the information.With time, shifting patterns and shapes emergedfrom the unending sources of information thatprovide initial views of the fractal nature of

ethical frameworks and moral practices in out-door education.

THE FRACTAL NATURE OF ETHICALFRAMEWORKS, MORAL PRACTICE

AND OUTDOOR EDUCATION

We suggest that the seemingly straightfor-ward concept of values is analogous to the ini-tial, simple, non-linear equation of a fractal.Values are ideals, customs or institutions of so-ciety toward which individuals or groups havean affective regard, and value claims are state-ments about worth (see Table 1). These valuesmay be positive, such as freedom or respect, ornegative such as greed and cruelty. The valueclaims of outdoor education are often inter-woven and implied within the very structure andoutcomes of programstrust, cooperation, en-vironmental awareness, self-awareness, free-dom, justice, character, community, and respect(Stern & Dietz, 1994).

The values woven into narratives and(auto)biographies of naturalists, explorers, ad-venturers, indigenous people (Carson, 1962;

Karen M. Fox, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor with the Recreation Studies Degree Programme and Research Asso-ciate at the Health, Leisure, and Human Performance Research Institute at the University of Manitoba. Her teachingand research focuses on ethical outdoor leadership and followership. Mick Lautt, B. R. S., is a graduate of the Rec-reation Studies Degree Programme with an expertise in outdoor recreation and education. His professional experi-ence includes instructing outdoor skills, leading outdoor trips, and managing university outdoor programs.

21

ETHICS & OUTDOOR EDUCATION

Grey Owl, 1975; Lopez, 1986; Muir, 1979)provide the basic sustenance for moral dis-course and practice in outdoor education.Values are often implied in the stories aboutpeople, expeditions, events, and places orthe directions to complete an outdoor skillor task. The guideposts and motivatingforces behind Kurt Hahn's work includegrowth, character, conflict resolution, andpositive social interactions (Richards,1990). Early childhood experiences with theoutdoors or moral practice emerge as vitalelements in developing life commitments tothe natural environment (Bennis, 1989;Beringer, 1995; Cohen & Horm-Wingerd,1993; Harvey, 1989-90; Miles, 1986;Palmer, 1993; Sebba, 1991). Climbing in-structions or raft guiding procedures rest onassumptions that people should change thenatural environment as little as possible(Long, 1993; McGinnis, 1981). The com-mon ground between outdoor recreation,outdoor education, environmental educationand experiential education can be found in avalue base of respect, social responsibility,self-actualization, justice, and freedom forall living beings and the Earth. Furthermore,these values guide the search for relevantknowledge and appropriate behaviours(Casken, 1992; Tel lnes, 1993). For example,the values of respecting the Earth and free-dom for individuals have underpinned ourefforts to increase the use of appropriatetechnology and minimum impact tech-niques, preserve wildlands, and design in-clusive outdoor education programs(Morgan, 1993; Schleien & McAvoy, 1989).

If there are repeated iterations of theinitial equation (values and value claims),the fractal shapes of ethical frameworksemerge. Ethical frameworks are complexsets of value claims, rationales, and rulesthat guide behaviour and include the cogni-tive processes (moral reasoning) that lead todecisions and actions (see Table 1). Leo-pold's (1949) Land Ethic, Dustin, McAvoy, &Schultz's (1995) philosophical foundation forthe park and recreation profession, Hunt's

19

Figure I. Example of natural fractal: fern leaves.This computer-generated fern is the product of Mi-chael Bamsley's Chaos Game. Random iterationsof a few simple equations work together to createthe overall shape of the fern. Complexity and detailemerge from simplicity as the result of chaos andorder working in concert together.

(1986) presentation of ethical dilemmas, andMitten's (1985) feminist critique are examplesof discussions about ethical frameworks. Giventhe challenges of a diverse and changing

22

20 Fox & LAUTT

TABLE 1

Examples of Value Claims, Ethical Frameworks, and Moral Practices

Values Value Claims(Statements of Worth)

Ethical Framework(System of Propositions

and Premises)

Moral Practice(Intersection of Behav-

iour and Reflection)

Trust

Virtuous Person

Nature Centers

Cooperation is the bestway.

Frogs have intrinsicvalue.

The land is valued at$2 million dollars.

Leopold's Land Ethic

Rawl's Concept of Justice

Utilitarian cost/benefitanalysis

Reflective action

Self-exploration

Making visible theunconscious

society, discussions about ethical frameworksare essential for moving toward a congruencybetween values and behaviour. Repeating theiterations once again leads us to moral practice,that which pertains to right conduct or behav-iour. Moral practice is the systematic applica-tion of values and ethical frameworks to one'slife, or the transition of values and ethicalframeworks into practice (see Table 1). Moralpractice implies an ability to reflect and adjustbehaviour in accordance with the ethical frame-works, "right thought with right action." Moralpractice, or ethically-based behaviour (Mat-thews, 1996), is a complex dynamic that in-volves awareness of ethical issues; contentknowledge; critical thinking skills and disposi-tions; psychological attributes related to locus ofcontrol, affective responses, responsibility, andgender roles (Redford, McPherson, Frankie-wicz, & Gaa, 1995; Samuels, 1990); knowledgeof strategies for change; mindfulness and re-flective abilities; and social networks (Sia, Hun-gerford & Tomera, 1986; Sochting, Skoe, &Marcia, 1994). Flanagan (1991) and Corral-Verguego (1993) suggest that ethical and moralideals need to be developed in accordance withsocial psychological realities and cognitiveabilities to think critically. Therefore, work inthe fields of psychology, philosophy, religionand education is relevant to our questions aboutethics and outdoor education (Buzzelli, 1993;Gessner et al, 1993; Gilligan, Ward, & Taylor,1988; Weingberg, Yacker, Orenstein, & De-

Sarbo, 1993; Wilson, 1995; Wygant & Wil-liams, 1995).

Ethical frameworks and moral practiceemerge from narratives and stories (e.g., TheLand Ethic or ecocentric worldviews) and fromcareful, philosophical inquiry (Dustin, McAvoy,& Schultz, 1995; Fox, 1994; McAvoy, 1990;Nash, 1987; Wurdinger, 1995). From similarexperiences, diverse and sometimes contradic-tory ethical frameworks evolve. Robert S. Mac-Arthur (1995Vin his Kurt Hahn Address, stated:"When we, who would see ourselves as intentupon creating a just and compassionate world,find ourselves polarized over issues of diversity,inclusion, awards, or anything else, for thatmatter, then we have not stepped beyond ourcomfort zones to explore new ground (p. 32)." Itis not that the intent of outdoor educators is notpure or our people not committed and good.Outdoor educators need to venture further ontopathways that explore, develop and clearly ar-ticulate the ethical frameworks that guide ourvarious moral practices, rather than just identifyappropriate behaviours. When such explorationsare structured to include meta-cognitive andcritical thinking content and skills, peer interac-tions, and mutual critique, outdoor educationpractitioners enhance moral practice (Weber,1993). It is not necessary to create a unified po-sition for all to belong or adhere to. In fact, wemust make a subtle distinction between be-longing to a group or adhering to a position,which implies certain restrictions and norms,

23

ETHICS & OUTDOOR EDUCATION 21

and inclusion, where people can function withinthe totality as individuals with self-respectgrounded in their differences, similarities andinterdependencies (Mitten, 1985).

Such complexity implies that a variety offorms, ranging from experiential activities andartistic creations to scholarly essays and re-search, are necessary to explore the ethicalframeworks and moral practices of outdoor edu-cation. First, there are value pieces that focus onvalues. These pieces are often personal reflec-tions, descriptions of program ideals, choreo-graphed movements, "talks" or presentations,belief systems, fictional and poetic accounts,outdoor experiences, or anecdotal accounts.Second, there are scholarly pieces that adhere tothe standards and requirements related to schol-arly discourse specifically in the areas of phi-losophy, history, social theory, critical theory,feminist critique, and critical thinking. Thesepieces are grounded in specific disciplines and/or structure requirements that allow the readersto judge the worth of the piece in relation to astandard as well as the position presented.Third, there are research pieces that adhere tothe specific requirements related to qualitativeand quantitative research processes and stan-dards. We do not wish to imply that any of theseare more valuable than the other; in fact, we seethem as different fractal shapes necessary fornurturing values, ethical frameworks and moralpractice, as well as preserving the creativity,diversity, complexity and beauty essential tooutdoor education. We do think that the level ofquality and multi-disciplinary interactions willaffect how these forms enhance ethical reason-ing, support moral practice, and encourage in-terdisciplinary alliances and mutual critique.

FRACTAL THEMES RELEVANT TO ETHICALDISCOURSE IN OUTDOOR EDUCATION

We suggest that there are six prominentthemes directly or indirectly related to ethicalframeworks and moral practices in outdoor edu-cation. First, research in outdoor education hasprimarily focused on individuals and discreteconnections between attitudes, knowledge, af-fect, and behaviour. Outdoor education pro-

24

grams can increase the outdoor knowledge ofthe participants (Mio, Thompson, & Givens,1990; O'Connor & Tindall, 1990; Peters, 1994).The studies have indicated that experiences inthe outdoors and experiential learning related tothe natural environment, with discussionsstructured for critical thinking and metacogni-tion, lead to an increase in knowledge and moralreasoning (Day, 1993; Swanson & Hill, 1993;Wainryb & Turiel, 1993). Attitudes, knowledge,affect and behaviour seem to be related, but theresearch has been unable to definitively identifya causal relationship (Arcury, 1990; Armstrong& Impara, 1991; Finger, 1994; Gudgion &Thomas, 1991; Knapp, 1995). The link with be-havioural change still eludes researchers, and itmay be that behaviour can be changed withoutan associated improvement in knowledge, inter-nalization of ethical frameworks, or moral rea-soning. (Benton, 1993; Blaikie, 1993; Gigliotti,1992; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987;Self, Schrader, Baldwin, & Wolinsky, 1993;Unger, 1994).

Second, the scholarship about ethicalframeworks relevant to outdoor education isbecoming more prominent. Dustin, McAvoy &Schultz (1995), Fox (1991), Hunt (1995), McA-voy (1990), Mitten (1995, and Phipps (1993)have been strong voices for articulating ration-ales relevant to our conceptual frameworks andmoral practice. Recent interviews of outdoorleaders and current discourse about outdooreducation values suggest that there is potentialfor enhancing and extending these discussionsamong ourselves and across disciplines (Evern-den, 1992; Gass, 1993; Gessner, et al., 1993;Herrera, 1992; Horowitz, 1994; Pilgrim, 1980;Priest & Baillie, 1987).

Third, the research on moral development inpsychology and education indicates that the de-velopment of moral reasoning is complex, in-volves various factors (e.g., discipline strategies,pedagogical techniques, peer interactions, edu-cational levels, and community connections),and is directly applicable to our research in out-door education (Dyck, 1993; Keef, 1993; Keen,1991; Lebuis, Schleifer, Caron, & Daniel, 1993;Miller, 1994; Schultz & Stone, 1994; Yount &

22 Fox & LAUTT

Horton, 1992). Furthermore, studies in otherfields suggest that typical components of out-door education programs (e.g., experientiallearning, peer interactions, direct experiences,group discussions, critical thinking and intel-lectual perspective taking) enhance moral rea-soning (Axelrod & Lehman, 1993; Batchelder &Root, 1994; Derksen & Gartrell, 1993; Green-wald-Robbins & Greenwald, 1994; Haste, 1993;Langford, 1992; Tudin, Straker, & Mendolsohn,1994). There is much work to be done to high-light moral reasoning associated with outdooreducation programs and ethically-based behav-iour in the outdoors. This work may be best ex-plored through collaborative research, mutualcritique, and critical dialogue about ethics andthe natural environment.

Fourth, moral practice also encompassesrelational characteristics: love, friendship, com-passion, caring, passion, and intuition. Insightsfrom the work of Gilligan (Helcman, 1995) andWillett (1995) suggest that moral practice isalso grounded in emotions, relationships, andnon-verbal interactions. Exploring avenues foridentifying these processes, communicating thephenomena, and creating opportunities for theinteractions are essential for understanding thetotality of moral practice.

Fifth, spiritual journeys, traditions, and in-sights are an important aspect of relating to oth-ers, developing ethical frameworks, and attain-ing ethically-based behaviours. For many, basicvalues are embedded in spiritual contexts andpractices (Gottlieb, 1995; Shapiro, 1989). Therecent surge in interest about various spiritualviews of the natural world are important to out-door education. Not only do these spiritual tra-ditions provide content for programs, but theyare highly relevant to constructing a concept ofthe natural world, refining moral reasoning, andimplementing moral practice.

Welch (1990) maintains that an individualor group can be ethical only when there is mu-tual material interaction and critique, the finaltheme. Feminist critiques, challenges from Afri-can-Americans, commentary by representativesof Indigenous communities, and initiatives rep-

resenting people with disabilities nourish thefield of outdoor education (Ashley, 1990; Ber-soff & Miller, 1993; Datil lo & Murphy, 1987;DiChiro, 1987; Diaz-Guerrero, 1992; Greer,1992; La Duke, 1991; Levy, Taylor, & Gelman,1995; Miller, 1994; McClintock, 1992; Oles,1992; Sheppard, 1995; Skoe & Diessner, 1994).Through revisiting core values and inviting con-flicts, critiques and contradictions to rise to thesurface, outdoor educators can strengthen ex-isting or create new ethical frameworks andmoral practices (Iwata, 1992; Ostrovsky, Parr,& Gradel, 1992). Many of the critiques focus onoutcomes or behaviours (e.g., exclusion, acces-sibility, or use of language). However, all ac-tions are driven by values, and people choose(although not always consciously) specific be-haviours and interactions dependent upon someconnection (e.g., through ethical frameworks)with their basic values. Behavioural change thatcan respond to individual contexts and changingenvironments requires attention to congruencebetween ethical frameworks and actions.

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

We would like to suggest that the fractals ofethical frameworks and moral practices in out-door education function as complex, dynamic,and changing open systems. Furthermore, webelieve that we do a disservice to the systems,ourselves, and outdoor education when we sim-plify the ethical frameworks and moral practicesof outdoor education without contextualizingand maintaining the complexity. For that reason,it is important to embrace the complexity, mak-ing visible the basic values, ethical frameworks,moral reasoning and behavioural outcomes re-lated to outdoor education, including relevantmulti-disciplinary and cross-cultural perspec-tives and research. The patterns that connecthumans with the natural world, with other hu-mans, and with ethical discourse and moralpractice are vital, sustaining processes. The"now-you-see-it, now-you-don't" quality of at-titudes, affect, knowledge and behaviour willcontinue to drive us crazy as long as we try todecipher cause and effect between well-boundedconcepts (i.e., attitudes, knowledge, self-esteem,and behavioural outcomes, among many). It

25


might be more helpful to explore different vari-ables (e.g., relationships over time, synergisticpatterns of behaviour, communities of diversity)in order to learn about the critical points andtransition phases in the evolution of ethicalframeworks and moral practice for outdoor edu-cation. The goal would be not to control, but toincrease our intuitions about how the variedsystems work and how we can interact withthem more harmoniously (Briggs & Peat, 1989).Figure 2 is our initial attempt at describingsome of the relationships and processes applica-ble to values, ethical frameworks and moralpractices of outdoor educatiori.

WHERE DO WE WANT OR NEEDTO Go FROM HERE?

Our search for understanding, control andpredictability has led us down numerous pathsof practice and research. We as authors arestruck with the sentiment expressed by DougKnapp at the 1996 Council on Outdoor Educa-tion Research Symposium: Even as his researchmoves closer to explaining and quantifyingchanges in environmentally responsible behav-iour that result from educational programs, hehas this sense that taking more groups to the topof a mountain at sunset and playing his guitar isjust as significant. We suggest that he is tappinginto a force or dynamic related to the space andrelationships surrounding the mountain, sunset,living beings, guitar, and music; the knowledgeabout the outdoors; the positive social interac-tions; the natural environment; and the personalvalue demonstrations.

Continuing with metaphors from physics,the concept of fields comes to mind (Wheatley,1992). Field theory was developed as an attemptto explain action-at-a-distance. Magnetic attrac-tion or Newton's and Einstein's different viewsof gravitational fields are examples of action-at-a-distance. Fields inhabit space, are invisible butnonetheless powerful, and encourage us to thinkof a universe that resembles an ocean filled withinterpenetrating influences and invisible con-necting structures. If we think of values, ethicalframeworks and moral practices as fields, webelieve we have an effective metaphor for un-

derstanding why concepts and programs in out-door education influence participants, leaders,and observers as well as they do. Simply talkingabout ethics, sharing values, and participating inactivities about ethical narratives and relation-ships creates fields and inspires action-at-a-distance. The metaphor also changes the natureof our attention in six areas:

1. Nurture the Human/Natural Connection:Fundamentally, outdoor education is aboutconnecting humans with the natural worldand each other. Outdoor education is oftenthe primary area for connecting humanswith the Earth. Science is continually en-hancing and deepening our understanding ofthe natural world, and there continues to bea need to explore, share and discuss how wewant to structure and enhance the quality ofthese relationships. Outdoor educators needto act as grand evocateurs of a reality thatenhances the potential for respectful andcompassionate interaction among humansand with the Earth. Whether it is connectingwith cyberspace (Brookes, 1993), workingwith inner city youth in the outdoors, pre-serving wilderness areas, or providing quiet,solitude experiences, outdoor educatorsmust strengthen current strategies and createnew strategies that enhance interactions,ongoing relationships, and compassion(Cooper, 1994; Kleymeyer, 1992; Knapp,1994). By focusing on relationships, re-searchers and practitioners may discover in-visible connections that structure moralpractice in the outdoors.

2. Making Visible and Sharing Ethical Frame-works and Moral Reasoning: There is anurgent need to articulate ethical frameworksand moral practices that respect the Earth.There is some indication that those indi-viduals who can competently apply criticalthinking content and processes to outdoorexperiences, embrace complexity and ambi-guity, and develop ecocentric ethical frame-works will engage in environmentally re-sponsible behaviour (Glassman, 1994;Thompson & Barton, 1994). We need to

26

24 Fox & LAUTT

Interpenetrating Influences and Invisible Structures Related to Values and

Moral Frain. eworks in Relation to Outdoor Education and Recreation.

An individual creates ethical frameworks and follows

if"..'.141.1166

moral practices based partially on:

1- Value propositions;

2- Knowledge about content, structure and process;

3- Personal systems and frameworks about meaning;

4- Behavioral strategies;

5 - Relationships.

Conscious and reflective

levels of awareness,

behaviours, and

knowledge.

Unconscious and

unreflective levels

of behaviours,

responses, and

knowledge.

(Interactions and relationships with self,

people, nature, objects, and systems.

Figure 2. Interpenetrating influences and invisible structures related to values, ethical frameworks, andmoral practices in outdoor education.

27


extend ourselves into scholarly writings, ar-ticulate ethical frameworks, enhance reflec-tive capabilities, participate in artistic andintuitive processes, wrestle with complexity,and support appropriate research. Thesepaths of inquiry will require us to developskills related to other disciplines (e.g., art,philosophy, environmental ethics, feministcritique, religion, ethical leadership, criticaltheory, history). Since there is some indica-tion that a commitment to ethical practice isa lifelong journey, hearing the stories andassessing the ethical frameworks and prac-tice of others helps us (1) identify the chal-lenges; (2) encounter boundaries of con-cepts, discourse, knowledge, and individu-als; (3) find inspiration and support for theethical and moral challenges facing outdooreducators; and (4) connect with energysources to sustain ethical behaviour overtime. As individuals share specific ethicalnarratives, invite others to critique and re-spond, an "ethical field" will be generatedthat engenders ethical reasoning and action-at-a-distance in outdoor education.

3. Spiritual Contexts for Outdoor Education:Integrating spiritual traditions and perspec-tives into outdoor education must be coor-dinated with respect for diversity, "epi-stemic privilege,' and power relationships(Greeley, 1993; Kanagy & Willits, 1993;Oles, 1992).

"Epistemic privilege" as used in this paper extendsthe work of Narayan (1988). It is the concept thatmembers of oppressed, marginalized or specificgroups have a more immediate, subtle and criticalknowledge about the nature of their group's culture,power relations, and experience than people who arenon-members of the oppressed group. This claimdoes not need to imply that the group has clearer orbetter knowledge. Epistemic privilege claims thatthese individuals have all the details of the ways inwhich their oppression and power relations are expe-rienced and of the ways in which the oppression andpower relations affect the major and minor details oftheir social and psychic lives.

4. Caring and Mindful Relationships AmongPeople and with the Earth: Some research(Dyck, 1993; Kochanska, 1994; Krebs &van Hesteren, 1994) suggests that the styleand discipline strategies of leaders are piv-otal for the participants' moral develop-ment. Therefore, both ethical leadership andfollowership in outdoor education becomesa vital enterprise related to sustaining out-door education, influencing others, and edu-cating the next generation. Ethical leader-ship and followership will require thatscholars and practitioners alike attend topersonal development and change (Chaleff,1995; Flannery & Mary, 1994; Fox, Par-sons, Barnett, & Reed, 1995; Grube, May-ton, & Ball-Rokeach, 1994; Kochanska,1994; Krebs & van Hesteren, 1994; Myers,1990). Fox and McAvoy's (1995) inter-views with outdoor leaders indicated that a"dynamic self-awareness" is a pivotal proc-ess. Dynamic self-awareness refers to thequality that an individual is able to reflectabout her or himself; to attend to multiplelevels of reality; to move between personaland other issues; to choose values of life,compassion and openness; and to makevisible the multiple levels of patterns,meanings, interpretations and realities.Through deliberate reflection and writingabout experiences, values, and rationales,outdoor educators foster understandingabout thinking and behaviour. Furthermore,shared reflections and research provide op-portunities for mutual critique and engen-ders moral practice. Through enhancing in-formation flow, dialogue and reflectionabout the guiding visions of outdoor educa-tion, we create a universe of experiences, in-formation, and relationships (e.g., a field)about ethical frameworks and moral prac-tices in the outdoors. When information andethical discourse are freely generated andexchanged among ours and other disci-plines, we spawn hope and potentials rele-vant to protecting natural areas and en-

2S

26 FOX & LAUTT

hancing humans' relationships with theEarth.

5. Mutually Critiqued Ethical Frameworks: If,as Welch (1990) suggests, we can be ethicalonly when we materially interact and en-gage in mutual critique, outdoor educatorsmust explore ethical issues with a multitudeof audiences (e.g., ourselves, advocates ofopposing positions, scholars from other dis-ciplines, representatives of other culturalback grounds, and people not normally rep-resented in the dialogues) (Gough, 1993;Miller, 1994). These explorations must at-tend to standards of critical thinking, respectfor diversity and opposition, philosophicalpropositions, historical analysis, researchstandards, and social theory among many.We believe that our literature search hasdemonstrated that many people are con-cerned about ethical frameworks and moralpractices related to the natural world. As anacademic field, we need to be a voice forethical discourse in the discussions of bothprofessionals and scholars. If moral rea-soning is nurtured by group interactions,personal experiences, meaningful relation-ships, structured dialogue, pedagogicalstrategies, and experiential learning formatssituated in the outdoors, outdoor educationand outdoor educators have a vital part toplay in current dialogues in psychology,critical theory, sociology, business andmanagement, environmental science, andeducation about ethical development andmoral practice in the outdoors.

6. A Complex Systems Approach: Finally, wewould like to propose that we keep our eyeson the complex nature of the systems ofvalues, ethical frameworks and moral prac-tice in outdoor education, even as we ex-plore individual parts and interactions. If re-search on moral development is applicable,maintaining complexity also supports thedevelopment and refinement of moral rea-soning (Tudin, et al., 1994). Again, a con-cept from quantum physics emerges: thephenomenon called "strange attractors"(Wheatley, 1992). The name is well-suited

for this phenomena of which we understand-so little. Strange attractors are basins of at-traction that pull a system into visible shape.The area "attracts" energies, potentials andmaterial from many sources and dimen-sions. Scientists know something will occurand can provide probabilities, but they can-not predict or control what will emerge. Wesuggest that it is imperative that we create"value attractors" in outdoor education withas many living beings from as many per-spectives as possible. The act of drawing in-formation and people into the basin initiatesthe process: applying research from otherareas, sharing outdoor education experi-ences and research, developing interdisci-plinary research teams, submitting outdooreducation research for critique in otherfields, and entering scholarly dialogues. Ta-ble 2 provides a partial list of relevant jour-nals that highlights the immense number ofopportunities for accessing "strange attrac-tors." We are indicating a direction to fol-low and trusting that the metaphors andprocesses inherent in a new understandingof the physical world will translate to a newunderstanding of ethical frameworks andmoral practices in outdoor education.

COMMITTING TO THE JOURNEY

We certainly struggle to avoid the powerfulpull of looking for right answers and certainty.We realize the need for right answers and cer-tainty is a reflection of old habits and para-digms. Trusting the field of outdoor educationto generate its own information and self-organize is not easy when you have been trainedto trust in the visible. It is disquietingly fasci-nating to embrace the invisible patterns of en-ergy and connections. We are suggesting a jour-ney of mutual and simultaneous explorations,where solutions are temporary events specific toa context and developed through relationships ofpersons and circumstances.

Values, ethical frameworks and moral prac-tices embrace the essence and the very best ofoutdoor education. They are holographs of adynamic and complex system that nurture both

29

ETHICS & OUTDOOR EDUCATION

TABLE 2

Partial List of Relevant Journals

27

OUTDOOR, ENVIRONMENTAL &EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION

ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS MORAL DEVELOPMENT &PRACTICE

Journal of Experiential Education Environmental Ethics Environment and Behavior

Journal of Environmental Trumpeter Journal of EnvironmentalEducation Interaction Psychology

Australian Journal of Winds of Change Human OrganizationEnvironmental Education Akwe'kon Journal Journal of Adolescence

Journal of Adventure Educationand Outdoor Leadership

Grassroots DevelopmentMerrill-Palmer Quarterly

Creativity Research JournalDevelopmental Psychology

Coalition for Education in theOutdoors Research

Hypatia Child and Youth Care Forum

Symposium Proceedings Environmental Values Communication Research Reports

Environmental Education and Canadian Journal of Philosophy Journal of Applied

Information Whole Terrain Communication Research

Legacy Terra Nova Journal of Research on

Buzzworm InquiryAdolescence

Early Education & DevelopmentPathways: The Ontario Journal of

Outdoor EducationJournal for Specialists in Group

WorkSouth African Journal of

Environmental EducationAmerican Sociological Review

Children's EnvironmentsTeaching of Psychology

International Journal of WildernessPsychology: A Journal of Human

BehaviorJournal of Natural Resources and Australian Psychologist

Society

Parks and RecreationJournal of Business Research

Recreation CanadaJournal of Social IssuesLeadership Quarterly

Environment Views

OrionHigh School Journal

BorealisJournal of Applied Social

PsychologyEnvironmentalist Social DevelopmentEcologist Alberta Journal of EducationalRestoration & Management Notes ResearchGeographical Education Child DevelopmentEarth Ethics Behavior AnalystTaproot Health Promotion InternationalHuman Ecology Review Cross-Cultural ResearchEarthways Youth and SocietyJournal of Ecoforestry Educational Psychologist

Canadian Review of Sociology andAnthropology

International Journal ofAdolescence and Youth

30

28 Fox & LAUTT

human beings and the natural world. Ourknowledge embraces parts, such as affect, atti-tudes, knowledge and behavior, as well aswholes, such as living beings, life-stories, nar-ratives, ethical frameworks, and ecological sys-tems. We return again and again to the conceptthat it is information that gives order, thatprompts growth, that defines what is alive. In-formation is both the underlying structure anddynamic process that ensures life (Wheatley,1992). Although we experience life, such as ourbodies, as stable forms, our bodies change fre-quently. Our skin renews itself every month, ourliver every six weeks, and our brain everytwelve months. In spite of this continual re-newal, our bodies remain constant, due to theorganizing function of the information con-tained in our DNA.

At any point in the bodymind, two thingscome togethera bit of information and abit of matter. Of the two, the informationhas a longer life span than the solid matterit is matched with. As the atoms of carbon,hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen swirlthrough our DNA, like birds of passage thatalight only to migrate on, the bit of matterchanges, yet there is always a structurewaiting for the next atoms. In fact, DNAnever budges so much as a thousandth of amillimeter in its precise structure, becausethe genomesthe bits of information inDNAremember where everything goes, all3 billion of them. This fact makes us realizethat memory must .be more permanent thanmatter. What is a cell, then? It is a memorythat has built some matter around itselfforming a specific pattern. Your body is justthe place your memory calls home (Chopra,1989, p. 87).

In outdoor education, we replace the mate-rial beings and programs around the values ofoutdoor education (i.e., the coding information)that seem to remain constant. The ongoing proc-esses of searching, constructing, and sharinginformation about outdoor education and ethi-cally-based behaviour is our very life. Specifi-cally, outdoor educators need to (1) embrace the

complexity and chaos of ethical frameworks andmoral practice in outdoor education, (2) nourisha dynamic self-awareness, (3) make visible di-verse ethical frameworks, (4) develop collabo-rative multi-disciplinary, and cross-culturalteams, and (5) invite mutual critique from peo-ple not normally part of the dialogue. Throughthese actions we will maintain our relationshipswith each other, with all living beings, and withthe Earth as we meet the challenges of a chang-ing world. Like all journeys, this one moves usthrough both mountains and canyons, the fearsof the unknown and the joys of deep recogni-tion. Some shapes and landmarks are alreadyapparent as we re-affirm and re-connect withareas we have traveled before. Others wait to beidentified like first descents or ascents. No one,especially us, can say where the journey isleading. But the companionship of us all prom-ises to be fruitful and we can feel the adven-turer's excitement rising in us. We look forwardto our discussions and working together withpeople who challenge us and bring new per-spectives. We are glad to feel in awe and hum-bled again.

REFERENCES

Arcury, T. A. (1990). Environmental attitude andenvironmental knowledge. Human Organization,49 (4), 300-304.

Armstrong, J. B., & Impara, J. C. (1991). The impactof an environmental education program onknowledge and attitude. Journal of Environ-mental Education, 22 (4), 36-40.

Ashley, F. B. (1990). Ethnic minorities' involvementwith outdoor experiential education. In J. C.Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure education.State College, PA: Venture.

Axelrod, L. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1993). Respondingto environmental concerns: What factors guideindividual action? Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 13 (2), 149-159.

Batchelder, T. H., & Root, S. (1994). Effects of anundergraduate program to integrate academiclearning and service: Cognitive, prosocial cogni-tive, and identity outcomes. Special issue:

31


school-based community service. Journal ofAdolescence, 17 (4), 341-355.

Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Benton, R. (1993). Does an environmental course inthe business school make a difference? Journalof Environmental Education, 24 (4), 37-43.

Beringer, A. (1995). Understanding moral develop-ment and environmental values. In K. Warren,M. Sakofs, & J. S. Hunt Jr. (Eds.), The theory ofexperiential education. (pp. 339-349) Dubuque,IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Bersoff, D. M., & Miller, J. G. (1993). Culture, con-text, and the development of moral account abil-ity judgments. Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 664-676.

Blaikie, N. (1993). Education and environmentalism:Ecological world views and environmentally re-sponsible behavior. Australian Journal of Envi-ronmental Education, 9, 1-20.

Briggs, J., & Peat, F. D. (1989). Turbulent mirror: Anillustrated guide to chaos theory and the scienceof wholeness. New York: Harper & Row.

Brookes, A. (1993). Is cyberspace the next frontierfor adventure-based counseling? Journal of Ex-periential Education, 16 (3), 18-24.

Buzzelli, C.A. (1993). Morality in context: A socio-cultural approach to enhancing young children'smoral development. Special Issue: A new per-spective for child and youth care practice: Vy-gotsky's theory in action. Child and Youth CareForum, 22 (5), 375-386.

Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Stand-ing up to and for our leaders. San Francisco,CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Chopra, D. (1989). Quantum healing: Exploring thefrontiers of mind and body science. New York:Bantam.

Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. San Francisco, CA:Houghton Mifflin.

Casken, J. (1992). Belinda Eriachoe: Respect under-lies an environmental career. Winds of Change, 7(3), 37-40.

Cohen, S., & Horm-Wingerd, D. M. (1993). Childrenand the environment: Ecological awarenessamong preschool children. Environment and Be-havior, 25 (1), 103-120.

Cooper, G. (1994). The role of outdoor education ineducation for the 21st century. Journal of Ad-venture Education and Outdoor Leadership, 11(2), 9-12.

Corral-Verguego, V. (1993). The effect of examplesand gender on third graders' ability to distin-guish environmental facts from opinions. Jour-nal of Environmental Education, 24 (4), 26-28.

Datillo, J., & Murphy, W. D. (1987). High adventurefor everyone: Implications for people with dis-abilities. In J. F. Meier, T. W. Morash & G. E.Welton (Eds.), High-adventure outdoor pursuits:Organization and leadership. (pp. 49-58) Co-lumbus, OH: Publishing Horizons.

Day, J. M. (1993). Moral development and small-group processes: Learning from research. Jour-nal for Specialists in Group Work, 18 (2), 55-66.

Derksen, L., & Gartrell, J. (1993). The social contextof recycling. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 434-442.

Di Chiro, G. (1987). Environmental education andthe question of gender: A feminist critique. In I.Robottom (Ed.), Environmental education:Practice and possibility. Geelong, Australia:Deakin University Press.

Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1992). The need for ethnopsy-chology of cognition and personality. Meeting ofpsychology for developing countries. Psychol-ogy: A Journal of Human Behavior, 29 (3-4),19-26.

Dustin, D., McAvoy, L., & Schultz, J. (1995). Stew-ards of access; Custodians of choice. Cham-paign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Dyck, M. R. (1993). Unethical developments inmoral reasoning. Australian Psychologist, 28 (1),60.

Evernden, N. (1992). The social creation of nature.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.

Finger, M. (1994). From knowledge to action? Ex-ploring the relationships between environmentalexperiences, learning, and behavior? Journal ofSocial Issues, 50 (3), 141-160.

Flanagan, 0. (1991). Varieties of moral personality:ethics and psychological realism. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Flannery, B. L., & Mary, D. R. (1994). Prominentfactors influencing environmental activities: Ap-

32

30 Fox & LAUTT

plication of the Environmental LeadershipModel (ELM). Special Issue: Leadership for en-vironmental and social change. LeadershipQuarterly, 5 (3-4), 201-221.

Fox, K. M. (1994). Negotiating in a world of change:Ecofeminist guideposts for leisure philosophyand praxis. Journal of Leisure Research: SpecialIssue on Gender, 26 (1), 39-56.

Fox, K. M. (1991). Environmental ethics and thefuture of parks and recreation. Recreation Can-ada, 49 (2), 23-25.

Fox, K. M., & McAvoy, L. H. (1995). Ethical leader-ship in outdoor recreation. Trends, 32 (3), 21-26.

Fox, K. M., & McAvoy, L. H. (1992). Outdoor lead-ership: A question of ethics. In K. A. Henderson(Ed.), Coalition for Education in the OutdoorsResearch Symposium Proceedings (91-92).Cortland, NY: Coalition for Education in theOutdoors.

Fox, K. M., Parsons, G., Barnett, I., & Reed, M.(1995). Teaching and learning about ethical out-door leadership. Trends, 32 (3), 27-33.

Gass, M. A. (1993). Ethical principles for the thera-peutic adventure professional group. In M. A.Gass (Ed.), Adventure therapy: Therapeutic ap-plications of adventure programming. Boulder,CO: Association for Experiential Education.

Gessner, T. L. et al. (1993). The development ofmoral beliefs: A retrospective study. CurrentPsychology Developmental, Learning, Personal-ity, Social 12 (3), 236-259.

Gigliotti, L. M. (1992). Environmental attitudes: 20years of change? Journal of Environmental Edu-cation, 24 (1), 15-26.

Gilligan, C., Ward, J. V., & Taylor, J. M. (1988).Mapping the moral domain. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Glassman, M. (1994). The ontological and ecologicalin the moral decision-making process. Genetic,Social, and General Psychology Monographs,120 (1), 5-29.

Gottlieb, R. S. (Ed.), (1995). This sacred Earth. NewYork: Routledge.

Gough, A. G. (1993). Globalizing environmentaleducation: What's language got to do with it?Journal of Experiential Education, 16 (3), 32-39.

Greeley, A. (1993). Religion and attitudes toward theenvironment. Journal for the Scientific Study ofReligion,32 (1), 19-28.

Greenwald-Robbins, J., & Greenwald, R. (1994).Environmental attitudes conceptualized throughdevelopmental theory: A qualitative analysis.Journal of Social Issues, 50 (3), 29-47.

Greer, S. (1992). Science: "It's not just a white man'sthing." Winds of Change, 7 (2), 12-18.

Grey Owl. (191975). Tales from an empty cabin.Toronto: Macmillan.

Grube, J. W., Mayton, D. M., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J.(1994). Inducing change in values, attitudes, andbehaviors: Belief system theory and the methodof value self-confrontation. Journal of Social Is-sues, 50 (4), 153-173.

Gudgion, T. J., & Thomas, M. P. (1991). Changingenvironmentally relevant behaviour. Environ-mental Education and Information, 10 (2), 101-112.

Harvey, M. R. (1989-90). The relationship betweenchildren's experiences with vegetation on schoolgrounds and their environmental attitudes. Jour-nal of Environmental Education, 21 (2). 9-15.

Haste, H. (1993). Moral creativity and education forcitizenship. Special Issue: Creativity in the moraldomain. Creativity Research Journal, 6 (1-2),153-164.

Heiman, S. J. (1995). Moral voices, moral selves:Carol Gilligan and feminist moral theory. Uni-versity Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State Uni-versity Press.

Herrera, M. (1992). Environmentalism and politicalparticipation: Toward a new system of social be-liefs and values? Journal of Applied Social Psy-chology, 22 (8), 657-676.

Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H.R., & Tomera, A. N.(1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on re-sponsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education,18 (2), 1-8.

Horowitz, W. (1994). Characteristics of environ-mental ethics: Environmental activists' accounts.Ethics and Behavior, 4 (4), 345-367.

Hunt, J. (1986). Ethical issues in experiential educa-tion. Boulder, CO: Association for ExperientialEducation.

33


Hunt, Jr., J. S. (1995). Ethics and experiential educa-tion as professional practice. In K. Warren, M.Sakofs, & J. S. Hunt Jr. (Eds.), The theory of ex-periential education (pp. 331-338). Dubuque,IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Iwata, 0. (1992). The relationship of social evalua-tion and subjective sensitivity to environmentalevaluation. Psychologia: An International Jour-nal of Psychology in the Orient, 35 (2), 69-75.

Johnson, M. (1). Documenting Dene traditional envi-ronmental knowledge. Akwe'kon Journal, 9 (22),72-79.

Kanagy, C. L., & Willits, F. K. (1993). A "greening"of religion? Some evidence from a Pennsylvaniasample. Social Science Quarterly, 74 (3), 674-683 .

Keef, S. P. (1993). Applying Kohlberg's theory ofmoral development to Pryor's (1989) case study.Australian Psychologist, 28 (1), 58-59.

Keen, M. (1991). The effect of the Sunship Earthprogram on knowledge and attitude develop-ment. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(3), 28-32.

Kleymeyer, C.D. (1992). Cultural energy and grassroots development. Grassroots Development, 16(1), 22-31.

Knapp, C. E. (1994). Progressivism never died-itjust moved outside: What can experiential edu-cators learn from the past? Journal of Experien-tial Education, 17 (2), 8-12.

Knapp, D. (1995). Moving beyond Tilden: Producingbehavior change goals for environmental inter-pretation. Legacy, 6 (1), 20-23.

Kochanska, G. (1994). Beyond cognition: Expandingthe search for the early roots of internalizationand conscience. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 20-22.

Krebs, D. L., & van Hesteren, F. (1994). The devel-opment of altruism: Toward an integrativemodel. Developmental Review, 14 (2), 103-158.

LaDuke, W. (1991). Environmental work: An In-digenous perspective. Northeast Indian Quar-terly, 8 (4), 16-19.

Langford, P. E. (1992). Depth of processing duringmoral judgment interviews. Genetic, Social, andGeneral Psychology Monographs, 118 (3), 221-247.

Lebuis, P., Schleifer, M., Caron, A., & Daniel, M. F.(1993). Learning to think: Philosophical instruc-tion and reflective educational practice. AlbertaJournal of Educational Research, 39 (1), 73-83.

Leopold, A. (1949). Sand country almanac.

Levy, G. D., Taylor, M. G., & Gelman, S. A. (1995).Traditional and evaluative aspects of flexibilityin gender roles, social conventions, moral rules,and physical laws. Child Development, 66 (2),515-531.

Long, J. (1993). How to rock climb. Evergreen, CO:Chockstone Press.

Lopez, B. (1986). Arctic dreams: Imagination anddesire in a northern landscape. New York:Charles Scribner's & Sons.

MacArthur, R. S. (1995). Excerpts from the 1994Kurt Hahn address: Tenacity in pursuit: Sus-taining personal and systemic change. Journal ofExperiential Education, 18 (1), 30-33.

Matthews, B. (1996). Personal communication.

McAvoy, L. (1990). An environmental ethic forparks and recreation. Parks and Recreation. 25(9), 68-72.

McClintock, M. (1992). Sharing lesbian, gay, andbisexual life experiences face to face. Journal ofExperiential Education, 15 (3), 51-55.

McGinnis, W. (1981). The guide 's guide: Reflectionson guiding professional river trips. El Sobrante,CA: Whitewater Voyages/River Exploration Ltd.

Miles, J. C. (1986). Wilderness as healing place. TheTrumpeter, 3 (1), 11-18.

Miller, J. G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the moralityof caring: Individually oriented versus duty-based interpersonal moral codes. Cross CulturalResearch: The Journal of Comparative SocialScience, 28 (1), 3-39.

Mio, J. S., Thompson, S. C., & Givens, G. H. (1993).The commons dilemma as metaphor: Memory,influence, and implications for environmentalconservation. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 8(1), 23-42.

Mitten, D. (1995). The value of feminist ethics inexperiential education teaching and leadership.In L. S. Frank (Ed.), International 1995 Confer-ence Proceedings for the Association for Experi-ential Education (pp. 175-181). Boulder, CO:Association for Experiential Education.

34

32 Fox & LAUTT

Mitten, D. (1985). A philosophical basis for awomen's outdoor adventure program. Journal ofExperiential Education, 8 (2), 20-24.

Morgan, G. (1993). The search for the green canoe.Pathways: The Ontario Journal of Outdoor Edu-cation, 5 (5), 15.

Muir, J. (1979). My first summer in the Sierras. Bos-ton, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Myers, R. J. (1990). An activist's perspective: Theinner nature of the environmental crisis. Quad-rant, 23 (2), 39-55.

Narayan, U. (1988). Working together across differ-ence: Some considerations on emotions and po-litical practice. Hypatia, 3 (2), 31-47.

Nash, R. (1967). Wilderness and the American mind.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

O'Connor, B. P., & Tindall, D. B. (1990). Attribu-tions and behavior in a commons dilemma.Journal of Psychology, 124 (5), 485-494.

Oles, G. W. A. (1992). "Borrowing" activities fromanother culture: A Native American's perspec-tive. Journal of Experiential Education, /5 (3),20-25.

Ostrovsky, M., Parr, G., & Gradel, A. (1992). Pro-moting moral development through social inter-est in children and adolescents. Individual Psy-chology Journal of Adlerian Theory, Researchand Practice, 48 (2), 218-225.

Palmer, J. A. (1993). Development of concern for theenvironment and formative experiences of edu-cators. Journal of Environmental Education, 24(3), 26-30.

Peters, R. (1994). Issues in Education: Nurturing anenvironmental and social ethic. Childhood Edu-cation, 70 (2), 72-73.

Phipps, M. (1993). Moral and ethical decision mak-ing. In M. L. Phipps (Ed). Proceedings of the1993 Wilderness Education Association NationalConference (90-94). TN: Tennessee Departmentof Environment and Conservation.

Pilgrim, J. J. (1980). Environmental implications oftourism development. Annals of Tourism Re-search, 7, 554-583.

Priest, S., & Baillie, R. (1987). Justifying the risk toothers: The real razor's edge. Journal of Experi-ential Education, 10 (1), 16-22.

Redford, J. L., McPherson, R. H., Frankiewicz, R. G.,& Gaa, J. (1995). Intuition and moral develop-ment. Journal of Psychology, 129 (1), 91-101.

Richards, A. (1990). Kurt Hahn. In J. C. Miles & S.Priest (Eds.), Adventure education (pp. 67-74).State College, PA: Venture.

Samuels, A. (1990). Education and ecology: Psy-chological reflections. Quadrant, 23 (2), 75-79.

Schleien, S. J., & McAvoy, L. H. (1989). Learningtogether: Integrating persons of varying abilitiesinto outdoor education centers. Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota.

Schultz, P. W., & Stone, W.F. (1994). Authoritarian-ism and attitudes toward the environment. Envi-ronment and Behavior, 26 (1), 25-37.

Sebba, R. (1991). The landscapes of childhood: Thereflection of childhood's environment in adultmemories and in children's attitudes. In Self, D.J., Schrader, D. E., Baldwin, D. C., & Wolinsky,F. D. (1993). The moral development of medicalstudents: A pilot study of the possible influenceof medical education. Medical Education, 27 (1),26-34.

Shapiro, G. (1989). Ethical leadership. Focus. Min-neapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Sheppard, J. A. C. (1995). The Black-White envi-ronmental concern gap: An examination of envi-ronmental paradigms. Journal of EnvironmentalEducation, 26 (2), 24-35.

Sia, A. P., Hungerford, H.R., & Tomera, A. N.(1986). Selected predictors of responsible envi-ronmental behavior: An analysis. Journal of En-vironmental Education, 17 (2), 31-40.

Skoe, E. E., & Diessner, R. (1994). Ethic of care,justice, identity, and gender: An extension andreplication. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 40 (2),272-289.

Sochting, I., Skoe, E. E., & Marcia, J. E. (1994).Care-oriented moral reasoning and prosocial be-havior: A question of gender or sex role orienta-tion. Sex Roles, 31 (3-4), 131-147.

Stern, P.C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis ofenvironmental concern. Journal of Social Issues,50 (3), 65-84.

Swanson, H. L., & Hill, G. (1993). Metacognitiveaspects of moral reasoning and behavior. Ado-lescence, 28 (111), 711-735.

35


Tel Ines, A. (1993). Friluftsliv: Outdoor nature life asa method to change attitudes. Journal of Adven-ture Education and Outdoor Leadership, 10 (3),12-15.

Thompson, S. C. G., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Eco-centric and anthropocentric attitudes toward theenvironment. Journal of Environmental Psy-chology, 14 (2), 149-157.

Tudin, P., Straker, G., & Mendolsohn, M. (1994).Social and political complexity and moral devel-opment. South African Journal of Psychology,24 (3), 163-168.

Unger, S. (1994). Apples and oranges: Probing theattitude-behavior relationship for the environ-ment. Special Issue: Environment. Canadian Re-view of Sociology and Anthropology, 31 (3),288-304.

Wainryb, C., & Turiel, E. (1993). Conceptual andinformational features in moral decision making.Special Issue: Learning and Development. Edu-cational Psychologist, 28 (3), 205-218.

Weber, J. (1993). Exploring the relationship betweenpersonal values and moral reasoning. HumanRelations, 46 (4), 435-463.

Weingberg, S. L., Yacker, N. L., Orenstein, S. H., &DeSarbo, W. (1993). Care and justice moral rea-

.2, -1

soning: A multidimensional scaling approach.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28 (4), 435-465.

Welch, S. (1990). A feminist ethic of risk. Minneapo-lis, MN: Fortress.

Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new sci-ence. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Willett, C. (1995). Maternal ethics and other slavemoralities. New York: Routledge.

Wilson, F. L. (1995). The effects of age, gender, andethnic/cultural background on moral reasoning.Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(1), 67-78.

Wurdinger, S. D. (1995). Philosophical issues in ad-venture education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Wygant, S. A., & Williams, R. N. (1995). Percep-tions of a principled personality: An interpreta-tive examination of the Defining Issues Test.Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(1), 53-66.

Yount, J. R., & Horton, P. B. (19992). Factors influ-encing environmental attitude: The relationshipbetween environmental attitude defensibility andcognitive reasoning level. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 29 (10), 1059-1078.

36

34

PROVIDING AN AUTHENTIC WILDERNESS EXPERIENCE?

THINKING BEYOND THE WILDERNESS ACT OF 1964

William T. Borrie Joseph W. RoggenbuckAssistant Professor Professor

University of Montana Virginia Tech

Six facets of a wilderness experience are suggested (oneness, humility, primitiveness, timelessness, soli-tude, and care) based on the writings of wilderness philosophers such as Henry David Thoreau and JohnMuir. In structuring our lessons in wilderness, we could do well to broaden our notion of wilderness be-yond the Wilderness Act.

KEYWORDS: Wilderness experience, experience sampling method, oneness, humility, primitiveness,timelessness, care

INTRODUCTION

It is tempting for educators taking studentsinto the outdoors to structure a component oftheir curricula based on the policies of the landowner. For instance, visiting a developed skiresort inspires lessons on skiing, resort man-agement, training and competition and otheractivities condoned and encourage by the landmanager. Similarly, visits to Forest Servicelands might suggest discussion of multiple-useforestry, sustainability, forest ecosystems andsuch. But are the policies enshrined in the Wil-derness Act of 1964 sufficient to capture theessence, fullness, and wonder of the receivedidea of wilderness? The Wilderness Act of 1964raises to prominence the goals of providing"outstanding opportunities for solitude or aprimitive and unconfined type of recreation."

Is this enough? Are we capturing the quali-ties of a wilderness experience that separate itfrom other outdoor recreation activities? Anargument can be made that not orienting out-door programs in wilderness to those uniquequalities is a misappropriation of wilderness,just as it would be inappropriate to in most casesto teach gymnastics in a cathedral. The question

remains, however, as to what it is that differen-tiates "authentic" wilderness experiences fromother uses of the wilderness environment. AsSigurd Olson (1966) suggests:

One of the great challenges confronting thosewho believe in the preservation of wilderness isto build a broader base of values than physicalrecreation, a base of sufficient depth and solidityto counter the charge that it exists for only aprivileged and hardy few. (p. 215)

Indeed, it is one of the theses of this paper thatsuch a solid ethic of wilderness had already ex-isted, and that our investigations of the wilder-ness experience should expand to include it.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL 88-577)has provided a stable and statutory basis uponwhich to manage and protect certain wildlandsof the United States. The language of the Actand the individuals involved in the writing ofthe Act are part of what could be called a wil-derness literary tradition. Each generation ofthese writers, conservation and preservation ac-tivists, and philosophers builds upon the work ofthose who went before it. The ideas and actionsof men like Henry David Thoreau, John Muir,and Aldo Leopold still inspire the writers and

Correspondence should be directed to: William T. Borrie, Assistant Professor, Outdoor Recreation Management,School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, (406) 243-4286, [email protected],and/or Joseph W. Roggenbuck, Professor, Forest Recreation, Department of Forestry, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg,VA 24061, (540) 231-7418, [email protected]. This research was supported in part by funds provided by the AldoLeopold Wilderness Research Institute, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

3?

THINKING BEYOND THE WILDERNESS ACT 35

activists of today. From these giants of Ameri-can environmental literature comes a commonthread of wilderness thought, a history and aphilosophy that tries to capture the importanceof wilderness and being in wilderness to themodern person.

Experiencing wilderness is more than"recreating." While the Wilderness Act of 1964focused primarily on the types of recreation ex-periences that should be provided for by man-agement, there is indication of deeper concernsthan the provision of opportunities for hiking,camping, fishing and so on. Two main criteriadistinguish areas defined as wilderness underthe 1964 Act: degree of naturalness and the po-tential for solitude (Hendee, Stankey and Lucas,1990). However, the so-called Eastern Wilder-ness Act of 1975 (PL 93-622) allows that areasof previous human activity could still be classi-fied as wilderness. This undermines any argu-ments of strict purity and acknowledges that thecriterion of naturalness is largely one of percep-tion and interpretation. Rather, the Act seems toencourage the idea that wilderness be seen as anopportunity to experience lands in which naturalprocesses are allowed to operate as freely aspossible. This approach emphasizes the impor-tance of wilderness as an intuitive, direct, andfree way of knowing nature. The Eastern Wil-derness Act is also the first time that 'inspir-ation', or reflection, is mentioned as a specificvalue of wilderness.

The six aspects of wilderness that follow arean attempt to group and categorize some of thedisparate ideas of wilderness. They are primar-ily inspired by the works of Henry David Tho-reau, John Muir, Aldo Leopold, Sigurd Olson,and other wilderness writers. Any categorizationattempt is necessarily artificial if, as is the casehere, the categories are not previously accepted.These six aspects do summarize aspects of thewilderness idea common to many writings aboutwilderness. The six aspects are not definitive,but rather serve to highlight ideas of wildernessthat have not received as much explicit attentionas they might. (It would be possible to developother categories such as savagery or harmony,but these were folded into the six aspectsin

this case into primtiveness and oneness, respec-tively.) The following discussion expounds anddemonstrates these six aspects of the idea ofwilderness: humility, oneness, primitiveness,timelessness, solitude, and care.

HUMILITY

I am lost-absorbed-captivated with the divine andunfathomable loveliness and grandeur of Nature.

(Muir, quoted in Fox, 1980, p. 7)

As Howard Zahniser put it, man's deepest needfor wilderness is as an aid in "forsaking humanarrogance and courting humility in a respect forthe community and with regard for the environ-ment."

(Nash, 1982, p. 256)

The beauty of the wilderness experience isone of the simple attractions that draws us to thewoods and open spaces. Wilderness amazes uswith its many forms and colors, its myriadshapes and tones. But it is more than just pretty;the range and abundance of beauty is almostoverwhelming. There is something humblingabout all this natural beauty and surprise. Feel-ings of insignificance and lack of superiority arenatural, given the lack of control visitors haveover the wilderness environment. Some mightfeel intimidated or afraid by the sheer scope ofwilderness and the lack of human-made con-veniences. It is a powerful message of wilder-ness that within it, humans are but a small partof a much larger community of beings. Wilder-ness is a great leveler, reminding us, perhaps, ofour rightful place within the natural world, andengendering an intellectual humility.

ONENESS

But let children walk with Nature, let them seethe beautiful blendings and communions ofdeath and life, their joyous inseparable unity, astaught in woods and meadow, plains and moun-tains.

38

(Muir, 1916, p. 71)

I wish to speak a word for Nature, for absolutefreedom and wildness, as contrasted with a free-dom and culture merely civil,to regard man as

36 BORRIE & ROGGENBUCK

an inhabitant, or a part and parcel of Nature,rather than a member of society.

(Thoreau, 1862)

Going into wilderness can be an over-whelming experience. Not only are there feel-ings of insignificance and wonder, but initiallyit is not unusual to feel an 'otherness' to every-thing that is out there. But as one begins to feelmore comfortable in this seemingly foreign en-vironment, this feeling of separation often di-minishes. Feelings of harmony, acceptance andcomfort arise. Many writers speak of feeling at-ease and at-home within the wilderness. Muir(1916), for instance, wrote:

To lovers of the wild, these mountains are nothundreds of miles away. Their spiritual powerand the gods of the sky make them near, as a cir-cle of friends. They rise as a portion of the hilledwalls of the Hollow. You cannot feel yourselfout of doors: plain, sky and mountains raybeauty which you feel. You bathe in these spirit-beams, turning round and round, as if warmingat a camp-fire. Presently you lose consciousnessof your own separate existence: you blend withthe landscape, and become part and parcel ofnature. (p. 212)

Wilderness allows a unique opportunity toestablish or re-establish close relationships withnature. Perhaps there is an instinctual need tofeel at ease and on an equal footing with nature.In contrast to a conquering, macho approach tonature, wilderness fosters harmony and immer-sion within nature. Rather than being separatefrom nature, a sense of oneness entails feelingan inter-related part of nature; for example,Westra (1994) wrote about kinship with ourfellow beings. Similarly, Ittelson (1978) andSixsmith (1986) highlighted feelings of be-longing and home as part of any environmentalexperience.

PRIMITIVENESS

You would like to emulate the pioneer explorers,... you would like independently to raft down thewild Colorado as John Wesley Powell did acentury ago. You would like to go it alone in themountain wilderness as John Muir did.

(Sax, 1980, p. 15)

I went to the woods because I wanted to live de-liberately, to front only the essential facts of life,... I wanted to live deep and suck out all the mar-row of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like asto put to route all that was not life ...

(Thoreau, 1854, p. 81-82)

Wilderness, because it has been preserved inits natural state, is close to being the way it waswhen Europeans came to this country. It is ourclosest reminder of the state of nature fromwhich we have evolved. In wilderness is achance to revisit nature as our ancestors wouldhave found it. It is a land of challenge, adven-ture, and for some, hardship. If the moral char-acter of the American people was forged in theexperiences of the frontier, then wilderness pro-vides the opportunity to relive it. A simpler wayof life awaits those who leave civilization be-hind, and set forth into the wilderness. Beyondthe constraints and responsibilities of societylies the freedom to be wild, perhaps more intune with the ancient rhythms of life. Americanshave valued both the pioneering spirit and thesimple lifestyles of their forbears. Wildernessoffers the chance to still feel part of the past, asOlson (1938) commented:

It is surprising how quickly a man sheds the ha-biliments of civilization and how soon he feels athome in the wilds. Before many days havepassed, he feels that the life he has been livingwas merely an interruption in a long wildernessexistence and that now again he is back at thereal business of living. And when we think of thecomparatively short time that we have been liv-ing and working as we do now, when we recallthat many of us are hardly a generation removedfrom the soil, and that a few scant thousand ofyears ago our ancestors roamed and hunted thevastness of Europe; it is not strange that thesmell of wood smoke and the lure of the primi-tive is with us yet. (p. 51)

TIMELESSNESS

My wilderness world has to do with the callingof loons, northern lights and the great silences ofa land lying north and northwest of Lake Supe-rior. It is concerned with the simple joys, time-lessness, and perspective found in a way of lifeclose to the past.

39

(Olson, 1972, p. xvii)


As I gazed every color seemed to deepen andglow as if the progress of the fresh sun-workwere visible from hour to hour ... A free manrevels in a scene like this and time goes by un-measured.

(Muir, 1901, p. 228)

Wilderness provides the opportunity toleave behind the frantic pace of modern life, andto experience a far less controlled and perhapsunmeasured pace. Some may find a natural af-finity with the ancient rhythms of life, the cyclesof the seasons, and the day/night patterns oflight, temperature, and activity. Indeed, somemay find the stillness and time to stop and con-template or reflect, an activity otherwise noteasily fitted into their lives. Within the stillnessof wilderness can be found the opportunity, andthe time, to contemplate and reflect. Within wil-derness, the demands for action may come morenaturally from the organic rhythms of nature.Olson, for example, was convinced that givensufficient time, all visitors to wilderness canexperience timelessness, and that as they

accept the time clock of wilderness, their livesbecome entirely different. It is one of the greatcompensations of primitive experience, andwhen one fmally reaches the point where daysare governed by daylight and dark, rather thanschedules, where one eats if hungry and sleepswhen tired, and becomes completely immersedin the ancient rhythms, then one begins to live(1976, p. 28).

Tinsley and Tinsley (1986) also suggested thatleisure experiences are to some extent charac-terized by a decreased awareness of the passageof time.

SOLITUDE

My runes have come from wilderness, for in itssolitude, silence and freedom, I can see moreclearly those values and influences that over thelong centuries has molded us as a race.

(Olson, 1963, p. 3)

Only by going alone in silence without baggage,can one truly get into the heart of wilderness.

(Muir, 1954, p. 314)

The association of the concept of wildernesswith the notion of solitude is particularly notice-

able in the writers of this century. Bob Marshall,who helped to draft the Forest Service roadlessarea regulations that predated federal legisla-tion, saw wilderness as a sanctuary of solitudeand silence. Oelschlaeger (1991) believed thatthrough a life of solitude at Walden Pond, Tho-reau achieved a special experience of unity withnature. And Olson (1976) felt that wildernesscould only be experienced fully when the con-trast of solitude could truly be felt. He wrotethat, "silence is one of the most important partsof a wilderness experience: without it the landwas nothing more than rocks, trees and water"(p. 41).

The opportunity for solitude is a relativelywell accepted component of the idea of wilder-ness. It is specifically enshrined in the Wilder-ness Act of 1964, and has received significantresearch attention. According to Hammitt (1982,p. 482), "Privacy, in its many forms, and free-dom of choice are what the wilderness user mayreally be seeking when referring to solitude."Hammitt and Madden (1989) found that "wild-erness solitude is much more complex a psy-chological concept than being alone or evenbeing alone with others. Wilderness privacy andthe many realms of freedom of choice that hu-mans seek in remote natural environments pro-vide a better concept of wilderness solitude than`being alone' (p. 299). Hammitt and Madden(1989), in their field test efforts to measure pri-vacy, and thereby solitude in wilderness, found"tranquillity and peacefulness of the remote en-vironment and an environment free of humangenerated noises to be the two most importantprivacy items" (p. 296).

CARE

Without love of the land, conservation lacksmeaning or purpose.

(Olson, 1976, p. 125)

Perhaps the greatest impact any wildernesbexperience can provide is a questioning, exten-sion, or alteration of an ethical stance. The wil-derness visit can induce profound changes inpeople's relationship to nature, and in theirvalue system. Karen Warren (1990), a centralfigure in the development of ecofeminist

40

38 BORRIE 44c ROGGENBUCK

thought, wrote of a lived experience that she hadin wild country:

I closed my eyes and began to feel the rock withmy hands.... At that moment I was bathed in se-renity.... I felt an overwhelming sense of grati-tude for what (the rock) offered mea chance toknow myself and the rock differently...to cometo know a sense of being in relationship with thenatural environment. It felt as if the rock and Iwere silent conversational partners in a long-standing friendship. I realized then that I hadcome to care about this cliff which was so differ-ent from me.... I felt myself caring for this rock.(pp. 134-135)

Many of the great wilderness writers sawthe logical extension of their admiration andenjoyment of wild places to be an ethical stancethat prioritized the preservation of wild nature.Indeed, some called for active stances that takeresponsibility for the welfare of nature. Thismay have developed from an onus of care orduty. Leopold, for example, wrote of the devel-opment of an ecological conscience to guideactions in following the dictates of a land ethic.Out of an intimate relationship with the wilder-ness environment can develop an actively caringresponse to nature. As Pigram (1993) wrote,"focusing on the human experiential opportuni-ties inherent in wilderness should enhance re-spect for the environments which make this ex-periential diversity and complexity possible" (p.418).

METHODOLOGY

This study considers applicability of thesesix aspects of the wilderness experience usingthe Experience Sampling Method, a relativelynew methodology utilized by leisure researchers(Samdahl, 1992, Unger & Kernan, 1983, Graef,Csikszentmihalyi, & Gianinno, 1983). The Ex-perience Sampling Method (ESM) was devel-oped to investigate moment-by-moment experi-ences 'of persons in normal settings (Csik-szentmihalyi, Larson & Prescott, 1977, Csik-szentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). It con-sists of asking individuals to carry electronicbeepers that signal pre-programmed randompoints of time at which subjects report or ratetheir immediate experiences by filling out a

brief questionnaire. The general purpose is to"study the subjective experience of persons in-teracting with natural environments" (Csik-szentmihalyi & Larson, 1987). Unlike post-hocquestionnaires and reflective journal entries, theanswering of the ESM form is designed not tobecome an experience in itself. By using ran-dom scheduling, the participant has less of anopportunity to anticipate and prepare for theself-report. Little cognitive effort or verbal skillis required to adequately tap and report the im-mediate conscious experience. The ESM is,therefore, ideally suited to the verbal report ofstates (feelings, opinions, and events) withoutthe accuracy difficulties typically associatedwith such self-report (Borrie, 1995; Borrie &Roggenbuck, 1995).

The study entailed sampling at OkefenokeeNational Wildlife Refuge during the months ofOctober and November, 1994. Canoe trailsthrough the Okefenokee wilderness may betraveled by campers holding permits for tripslasting two to five days. Respondents carried apacket of research materials that was suffi-ciently waterproof that the packet could sit inthe bottom of the canoe easily accessible andthe beeper easily heard. Each packet contained asufficient number of 8 1/2 x 11 inch question-naires printed on waterproof paper and foldedover, two pencils, a plastic backing board onwhich to write, and the beeper device inside itsown plastic bag. The entire package was smallin size (6 x 10 inches), brightly colored and in-dividually numbered for identification. Thebeepers were pre-programmed to sound ran-domly once in the morning (between 8.00 amand 12.30 pm) and once in the afternoon orearly evening (between 12.30 pm and 6.30 pm).Thus, an average group on a three day tripwould be beeped five times, since many groupsfinished their trip around lunch time on the thirdday. As an initial investigation of the use of ex-perience sampling methods in wilderness thisrepresented a less frequent sampling of experi-ences than is typically used (8-10 beeps per dayare common for urban settings), but seemedmore reasonable and less intrusive for the wil-derness environment.

4

THINKING BEYOND THE WILDERNESS ACT

Upon hearing the beep, respondents wereinstructed to turn off the alarm, pull over to astable location and complete a questionnaireasking them about their thoughts, feelings andexperiences at the time the beeper sounded. Thesurvey form took between two and five minutesto complete and aimed to be a 'snap shot' of themoment in time just before the beeper went off.Participants found the task interesting and re-warding and were willing to share their experi-ences in this way.

RESULTS

On each of 24 sample days (seven weekenddays, 16 weekdays), canoeists entering the Oke-fenokee Wilderness were approach-ed to assistin the study. The main priority was to contactovernight paddlers, but the opportunity to talkwith day visitors was also possible. A total of 56groups were approached, and all but one agreedto participate in the study. (An estimated 80over-night groups entered Okefenokee Wilder-ness on these sample days.) After this period ofsampling, a small group of visitors were re-cruited for the study through the mail. Thesesubjects were sent materials (preprogrammedbeeper, questionnaires, return envelope) alongwith their wilderness permit. An additionalseven respondents were gained in this manner.(Several groups approached through the mailcanceled their trips, misplaced the packet, orrefused to participate.) The breakdown of sam-ple days and respondents is shown in Table 1.

Of the 62 respondents who agreed to carrythe packet of beeper and questionnaires, allcompleted at least one questionnaire. Visitors

39

can have trips lasting from part of a day to fourand a half days, and were beeped twice daily.Thus, Table 2 shows the breakdown of respon-dents by the number of questionnaires com-pleted during their visit to Okefenokee Wilder-ness. As a result, a database of 221 completedquestionnaires was collected, from a total of 62visitor groups.

The six constructs of oneness, humility,primitiveness, timelessness, solitude, and careare an attempt to comprehensively describe thewilderness experience and broaden our investi-gations of wilderness. In this section we de-scribe and review the reliabilities of the mostlynew items, and the scales developed to measurethese wilderness constructs.

TABLE 1

These items, and the constructs they repre-sent, were developed through discussion withprofessional colleagues, reflection of the workof wilderness writers, and attempts to capturethe fullness of the wilderness experience. Some100 possible items were drawn together andthen distilled down into apparent categories. Insome cases, categories were merged; for exam-ple, primitiveness includes our original notionsof ancestral heritage (particularly of the pio-neers), simplicity of life, and savagery. Thewording of some items was changed, otheritems were combined, and other items were dis-carded entirely. In addition, some items werefound to be unsuccessful in a pre-test at JuniperPrairie Wilderness in Florida and were droppedfrom consideration.

The results of this scale development areshown in Table 3, which list means and standard

Sampling days and respondent numbers at Okefenokee Wilderness

Sample days

Number of visitors

Overnight visitors Day visitors Total visitors

Weekend day 7 13 9 22

Weekday 16 27 6 33

Mail 6 7 7

Total 30 47 15 62

42


TABLE 2

Number of questionnaires completed by visitors

# questionnaires com- # of visitorspleted / respondent

# questionnaires

9

only 6

only 5

only 4

only 3

only 2

only 1

1

5

11

16

13

8

8

9

30

55

64

39

16

8

Total 62 221

deviations observed (on a 0-9 scale, 0 beinglow) across all questionnaires. For each scale,items means were similar, with standard devia-tions around 2.5, suggesting adequate variationof response (e.g., the three oneness items hadmeans between 4.7 and 6.1, which might becompared to the means for the three solitudeitems of between 5.2 and 6.9). Inter-item cone-lations were high for each scale, indicating acommon underlying construct being tapped bythese items. For example, the inter-item corre-lations for the five primitiveness items rangedbetween .31 and .63, indicating neither perfectduplication between the items nor a completelack of co-variation. Cronbach's alpha was usedas a measure of the reliability of the items com-bined into a composite scale, such as oneness. Itis a statistic assessing the consistency of theitems performance in a scale. Cronbach's alphameasures both homogeneity and internal con-sistency among the items. Satisfactory levels ofalpha were shown for each of the scales of thewilderness experience. Another indication of thegoodness of each scale was shown by the de-crease in reported alphas should any of theitems be removed from an individual scale. Alsoshown in Table 3 is the fall in variance if any ofthe items were dropped from the scale (that is,adding items to the scales should increase totalscale variance up to the point where the increasein variance does not justify the extra burdenupon respondent and analysis).

We can conclude, therefore, that the sixcomposite scales were reliable measures of thesix aspects of a wilderness experience, thus pro-viding us with evidence of applicability of theconceptualization of six aspects. It is, however,recommended that the validity of these meas-ures, as well as of the six dimensions them-selves, should be further examined. This mightbe achieved through the further use of quantita-tive analysis (see Borne, 1995), or through theuse of qualitative methods. The ExperienceSampling Method allows the opportunity to ex-amine the dynamics of the wilderness experi-ence. For example, the impact of instructorguidance, particular activities, or special loca-tions can be examined since the research subjectis responding at a known time and place. Theexamination of the intellectual traditions of wil-derness should also continue, as we search foranswers as to what our relationship with wildnature should be.

DISCUSSION

By returning to the writings of wildernessphilosophers such as Henry David Thoreau,John Muir and Sigurd Olson, this project hashighlighted aspects of the idea of wilderness notfully encapsulated by the Wilderness Act. Thesix aspects that have been operationalized in thisstudy can provide further guidance to educatorsworking within the National Wilderness Preser-vation System. While wilderness programs

43


TABLE 3

Reliability analysis of six scales of the wilderness experience

Oneness Alpha = 0.83, Variance = 41.3

I feel a part of wild nature

I was feeling a special closeness with nature

I was feeling totally immersed in nature

Mean SD Inter-item correlation

4.7 2.6

6.1 2.5

5.6 2.4

.59

.54 .73

Item-total Variance if Alpha ifcorrelation deleted deleted

I feel a part of wild nature .60 20.3 .84

I was feeling a special closeness with nature .75 19.2 .70

I was feeling totally immersed in nature .71 20.2 .74

Humility Alpha = 0.77, Variance = 44.3 Mean SD Inter-item correlation

I was in awe of nature's creation 5.9 2.5

I felt humbled by all of nature around me 5.2 2.7 .59

I was feeling insignificant in the glory of nature 4.0 2.7 .54 .73


I was in awe of nature's creation .53 24.4 .75

I felt humbled by all of nature around me .57 21.9 .56

I was feeling insignificant in the glory of nature .70 19.6 .70

Primitiveness Alpha = 0.82, Variance = 96.2 Mean SD Inter-item correlation

I felt like I was living like a pioneer 2.2 2.2

I felt the simplicity of life on this trip 4.5 2.6 .31

I felt that life is simple 3.3 2.7 .44 .63

I felt connected with times lone ago 3.5 2.8 .50 .45 .60

I was feeling the heartbeat of the earth 3.5 2.8 .41 .47 .45 .60


I felt like I was living like a pioneer .51 71.7 .81

I felt the simplicity of life on this trip .60 65.8 .78

I felt that life is simple .66 62.4 .77

I felt connected with times lone ago .67 60.5 .76

I was feeling the heartbeat of the earth .61 61.6 .78

Timelessness Alpha = 0.72, Variance = 26.1 Mean SD Inter-item correlation

I care what time it is 1.3 2.0

I was worrying about the time 1.1 2.1 .76

I care what time it is when I eat 1.5 2.2 .28 .37

44

42 BORR1E & ROGGENBUCK

TABLE 3

Reliability analysis of six scales of the wilderness experience (Continued)

(Timelessness, cont.) Item-total Variance if Alpha ifcorrelation deleted deleted

I care what time it is .62 13.1 .53

1 was worrying about the time .68 11.6 .44

I care what time it is when I eat .34 15.1 .86

Solitude Alpha = 0.74, Variance = 42.8

The environment seems free of human-made noises

I feel the tranquillity and peacefulness of this place

I felt the silence of the environment

Mean SD Inter-item correlation

6.9 2.2

5.3 2.8

5.2 2.9

.53

.41 .63

Item-total Variance if Alpha if de-correlation deleted leted

The environment seems free of human-made noises .52 26.5 .77

I feel the tranquillity and peacefulness of this place .70 18.2 .56

I felt the silence of the environment .61 19.1 .68

Care Alpha = 0.67, Variance = 42.8

I feel I want to care for this place

I want to behave properly towards this place

I feel I want to care for this place

I want to behave properly towards this place

Mean SD

7.3 2.3

8.0 1.8 .52

Inter-item correlation

Item-total Variance ifcorrelation deleted

.52 3.2

.52 5.3

can be used for a variety of personal growth-related outcomes (Hendee & Brown, 1988), it isthe unique influences of wilderness that candistinguish it from classrooms, therapeutic set-tings, and other alternative locations. Given theuniqueness of these influences, it would besomewhat utilitarian not to focus some of ourattention to the very inspirations of wilderness.

It is tempting as an outdoor educator to fo-cus on the metaphor rather than the lessons thatit can teach. Therefore, we should go beyondsimply appreciating and using the wildernessenvironment to highlighting the profound in-sights that are intrinsic to the wilderness experi-ence. For example, while we must ensure safetyin our activities, we should consider shifting ourstudents' attention away from the activity itself,such as learning technical rock climbing skills,

onto the feelings of harmony, humility, and re-lationship with the natural environment. Whilemany outdoor activities can be taught in gymna-siums and sporting facilities, it is the wildernessenvironment that is not so easily replicated.Many of the lessons of wilderness, such astimelessness, primitiveness, and solitude aremore wilderness-dependent than are the activi-ties themselves. We should take care not to sac-rifice the unique values of wilderness for lesswilderness-dependent outcomes.

The six aspects of the wilderness experiencesuggested and tested in this study can serve notonly as a structure for lessons in the wilderness,but also as a reminder or balance to outdooreducators. The challenge remains as to how totruly integrate objectives such as these into anoutdoor program without these philosophies or

45


outcomes becoming supplementalist or secon-dary to more pressing or adrenaline-driven con-cerns. Structure, time, and guidance should begiven to the interactions with the wildernessenvironment itself and the unique opportunitiesit provides. While many will wish the wilder-ness to be the teacher, outdoor educators mustprovide equal opportunity for, and reinforce-ment of, the lessons it can teach. Simply as-suming these outcomes will automatically occuris not doing justice to the motivation for settingaside wilderness.

CONCLUSION

Throughout this discussion, various aspectsof the wilderness experience have been identi-fied from the writings of influential wildernessphilosophers and scholars. The concepts of one-ness, humility, primitiveness, timelessness,solitude, and care have been highlighted. Whilethese concepts are not all encompassing of thewilderness idea, and not all are to be directlyfound within wilderness legislation, they clearlysuggest that the wilderness experience is morethan a simple recreation visit. This is not to saythat all wilderness recreationists will seek orexperience these feelings. Rather, the six con-structs discussed above provide insight into themeaning and value of wildernessthey repre-sent some of the beliefs that are influential inpreserving and protecting wilderness areas.

In structuring our lessons in wilderness, weare beholden to make the most of the opportu-nities that wilderness provides. One way is toexpand our notion of wilderness, and the valuesit espouses beyond (but including) the policiesof the 1964 Wilderness Act. In doing so, we canactively engage our learners in authentic wil-derness experiences.

REFERENCES

Borne, W. T. (1995). Measuring the multiple, deepand unfolding aspects of the wilderness experi-ence using the Experience Sampling Method(Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic In-stitute and State University, 1995).

Borrie, W. T., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1995). The useof verbal reports in outdoor recreation research:Review, recommendations, and new directions.

48

In J. L. Thompson, D. W. Lime, B. Gartner &W. M. Sames (Compilers), Proceedings of theFourth International Outdoor Recreation andTourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 Na-tional Recreation Resource Planning Conference(pp. 357-361). St. Paul, MN: University ofMinnesota, College of Natural Resources andMinnesota Extension Service.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S.

(1988). Introduction to Part IV. In -M. Csik-szentmihalyi, & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.),Optimal experience: Psychological studies offlow in consciousness. (pp. 251-265). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R., & Prescott, S.(1977). The ecology of adolescent activity andexperience. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,6, 281-294.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validityand reliability of the experience-samplingmethod. The Journal of Nervous and MentalDisease, 175(9), 526-536.

Fox, S. (1980). The American conservation move-ment: John Muir and his legacy. Madison, WI:The University of Wisconsin Press.

Graef, R., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gianinno, S. M.(1983). Measuring intrinsic motivation in every-day life. Leisure Sciences, 2, 155-168.

Hammitt, W. E. (1982). Cognitive dimensions ofwilderness solitude. Environment and Behavior,14(4), 478-493.

Hammitt, W. E., & Madden, M. A. (1989). Cognitivedimensions of wilderness privacy: A field testand further explanation. Leisure Sciences, I I ,

293-301.

Hendee, J. C., & Brown, M. H. (1988). How wilder-ness experience programs work for personalgrowth, therapy and education: An explanatorymodel. In J. C. Hendee (Ed.), The highest use ofwilderness: Using wilderness experience pro-grams to develop human potential. (pp. 6-17).Moscow, ID: The Wilderness Research Center.

Hendee, J. C., Stankey, G. H., & Lucas, R. C. (1990).Wilderness management (2nd ed.) Golden, CO:Fulcrum Publishing.

Ittelson, W. H. (1978). Environmental perception andurban experience. Environment and Behavior,10(2), 193-213.


Muir, J. (1901). Our national parks. San Francisco:Sierra Club Books.

Muir, J. (1916). A thousand-mile walk to the Gulf.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Muir, J. (1954). The wilderness world of John Muir.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Nash, R. (1982). Wilderness and the American mind(3rd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Oelschlaeger, M. (1991). The idea of wilderness:From prehistory to the age of ecology. New Ha-ven, CT: Yale University Press.

Olson, S. F. (1938). Why wilderness ? AmericanForests, 100(11/12), 49-52.

Olson, S. F. (1963). Runes of the north. New York:Knopf.

Olson, S. F. (1966). The spiritual need. In B. M. Kil-gore (Ed.), Wilderness in the changing world.San Francisco: Sierra Club.

Olson, S. F. (1972). Wilderness days. New York:Knopf.

Olson, S. F. (1976). Reflections from the north coun-try. New York: Knopf.

Pigram, J. J. (1993). HumanNature relationships:Leisure environments and natural settings. In T.Garling, & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Behavior andenvironment: Psychological and geographicalapproaches. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Samdahl, D. M. (1992). Leisure in our lives: Ex-ploring the common leisure occasion. Journal ofLeisure Research, 24(1), 19-32.

Sax, J. L. (1980). Mountains without handrails: Re-flections on the national parks. Ann Arbor, MI:The University of Michigan Press.

Sixsmith, J. (1986). The meaning of home: An ex-ploratory study of environmental experience.Journal of Environmental Psychology, (281-298),

Thoreau, H. D. (1854). Walden. Boston: Ticknor &Fields.

Thoreau, H. D. (1862). Walking. In Civil disobedi-ence & other essays. Mineola, NY: Dover Publi-cations.

Tinsley, H. E. A., & Tinsley, D. J. (1986). A theoryof the attributes, benefits, and causes of leisureexperience. Leisure Sciences, 8(1), 1-45.

Unger, L. S., & Keman, J. B. (1983). On the meaningof leisure: An investigation of some determi-nants of the subjective experience. Journal ofConsumer Research, 9, 381-392.

Warren, K. (1990). The power and promise of eco-logical feminism. Environmental Ethics, 12(2),125-146.

Westra, L. (1994). An environmental proposal forethics: The principle of integrity. Lanham, MD:Rowman and Littlefield.

4?

PERSON-PLACE ENGAGEMENT AMONG RECREATION VISITORS

Iris B. Wilson

Environmental Sciences InstituteOklahoma State University

BACKGROUND

In the definition of leisure, outdoor recrea-tion in a natural setting may be a leisure experi-ence. Williams, Patterson and Roggenbuckl(1992) said that the outdoor recreation setting isthe context for a recreator's experience. Whilethe setting has a physical reality it is also emer-gent in the experience of each visitor. The con-text is not simply the setting. The present re-searcher views the context as the relationship,the interaction between person and place.

Out of this interactive relationship, the per-ceived setting emerges in the experience of theparticipant and is, therefore, a phenomenon ex-pressed uniquely in the individual. Self-referential data will further professional under-standing of place-facilitated leisure needs oper-ating among visitors.

METHODOLOGY

Q-Methodology was the vehicle of choice toexplore person-place interactions among rec-reation visitors to a rural lake-based park. A Q-Method approach was used because of its effec-tiveness in illuminating operant subjectivity, inthis case subjective response to a rural outdoorrecreation setting. The Q sort technique wasused to gather data from human subjects. Eachsubject accomplished a Q sort by rank-orderinga set of 42 statements (Q set) provided by theresearcher. The author constructed the Q set outof previously conducted in-depth interviewswith visitors to the selected study area (Wilson,1995). In the interviews, visitors to the studyarea vocalized subjective accounts of person-place experiences. The task of each subject inthe present study was to rank-order the 42 items

45

of the Q set from "most like me" to "most un-like me," forcing a self-referential, platykurticnormal curve for each subject. Responses werefactor analyzed using Stricklin's (1990) Qanalysis programs for personal computer.

RESULTS

Four centroids were extracted and Varimaxrotated to yield four factors (person types) con-structed out of analysis of all responses of thesubject sample (P set). The author gave thesefactors descriptive labels interpreted out of theanalyzed data. Person types that were analyti-cally constructed are:

purposive dawdlers, who draw energyfrom direct experience with physicalfeatures;

time-out escapists, who draw energyfrom a social context antithetical to theirdaily lives;

close-encounters escapists, who drawenergy from communing with non-human influences; and

place abstractors, who draw energy, ex-istentially, from a tranquil natural ambi-ance.

IMPLICATIONS

Characterization of visitor interactions withrural recreation sites using self-referential datacan provide essential information to managersand administrators who are stewards of ruralpark lands. Traditional management practicesthat base decisions on visitor demographics andactivity preferences can result in over develop-ment of sites and displacement of recreators for

Iris B. Wilson is a doctoral candidate at the Environmental Sciences Institute at Oklahoma State University, 1115 S.Stanley St., Stillwater, OK, (405) 377-6616; [email protected]

AO

46 WILSON

whom place is facility. A more ecologic man-agement environment would promote naturalfeatures as well as built features in nearby openspaces, thereby supporting depth of human ex-perience in recreation, leisure, learning, and ref-uge among visitors.

Leaders of groups participating in experien-tial programs in the outdoors, particularly inbackcountry expeditions, can increase groupmanagement effectiveness and enhance personalbenefit to participants by taking into account thevarious modes in which individuals engagethemselves with the physical setting.

REFERENCES

Stricklin, M. (1987-90). Factor analysis programsfor Q-technique, p.c.q., version 2.0. Lincoln, NB.

Williams, D., Patterson, M., & Roggenbuck, J.(1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Ex-amining emotional and symbolic attachment toplace. Leisure Sciences, 14, 29-46.

Wilson, I. (1995). Sense of place among recreationvisitors. Unpublished manuscript.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altman, I., & Low, S. (1992). Place attachment. NewYork: Plenum Press.

Altman, I., & Zube, E. (1989). Public places andspaces. New York: Plenum Press.

Carr,S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L., & Stone, A. (1992).Public space. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Entrikin, J. (1991). The betweenness of place: To-wards a geography of modernity. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.

Fishwick, L., & Vining, J. (1992). Toward a phe-nomenology of recreation place. Journal of En-vironmental Psychology, 12, 57-63.

Gee, M. (1994). Questioning the concept of the`user.' Journal of Environmental Psychology,14, 113-124.

Goodale, T., & Witt, P. (1991). Recreation and lei-sure: Issues in and era of change. State College,PA: Venture Publishing.

Greider, T., & Garkovich, L. (1994). Landscapes:The social construction of nature and the envi-ronment. Rural Sociology, 59 (1), 1-24.

Ihde, D., & Silverman, H. (1985). Descriptions. Al-bany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Jacob, G., & Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflict in outdoorrecreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal ofLeisure Research, 12, 368-380.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience ofnature: A psychological perspective. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Lee, R. (1971). The social definition of outdoor rec-reation places. In W. Burch, N. Cheek & L.Taylor (Eds.), Social behavior, natural re-sources, and the environment. New York:Harper and Row.

Lutts, R. (1985). Place, home, and story in environ-mental education. Journal of EnvironmentalEducation, 17 (1), 37-41.

Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built envi-ronment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Seamon, D. (1982). The phenomenological contribu-tion to environmental psychology. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 2, 119-140.

Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.

Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspectiveof experience. Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press.

Williams, D., Patterson, M., & Roggenbuck, J.(1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Ex-amining emotional and symbolic attachment toplace. Leisure Sciences, 14, 29-46.

49

RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR:METAPHORIC TRANSFERENCE OF MINIMUM-IMPACT IDEOLOGY

J. Porter Hammitt

University of Montana

Wayne A. Freimund

Assistant ProfessorUniversity of Montana

This abstract represents a thesis researchproject that studied changes in National OutdoorLeadership School (NOLS) students' attitudes,intentions; and behavior, as they pertain to theenvironment, resulting from participation inNOLS' Wind River Wilderness course.

It was hypothesized that an increase in theseconcerns would result from the metaphorictransference of minimum-impact ideology todaily life. Prominent theories from the fields ofsocial psychology and environmental educationrelating attitudes, intentions, behavior, and otherconsiderations were incorporated into the theo-retical framework of the study.

A survey instrument was administered tothe students (N = 288) immediately before, im-mediately after, and four to eight months aftertheir course. Students were asked first to reportcertain background demographic data, then torespond to 15 statements of the New EcologicalParadigm (NEP), measuring attitudes toward theenvironment in general. Students were thenasked to indicate how often they had been prac-ticing each of eight specific behaviors repre-sentative of responsible environmental behavior(REB), and how often they intended to in thefuture. Finally, for each of the eight specificbehaviors, students were asked to respond toseven constructs of a theoretical model of REB:belief, locus of control, personal responsibility,knowledge, situational factors, subjective norm,and concern for that norm.

A decidedly pro-environmental distributionwas found for behavior and attitudes prior toNOLS: Nearly 70 percent indicated that they

47

followed REB practices "frequently" or moreoften in their daily lives; over 80 percent"agreed" to some extent with the worldview ofthe NEP. Statistical analysis revealed that stu-dents' behavior (as reported) was significantlymore environmentally responsible after NOLS,although intentions toward REB and attitudes asmeasured by the NEP did not change signifi-cantly. It was also revealed that students re-sponded more positively after NOLS to allseven constructs of the theoretical model forREB. Changes in intentions and these con-structs, along with demographic variables,proved useful in predicting changes in behavior.

Those associated with outdoor programshave confirmation that incoming students tendto be relatively ecologically-minded to beginwith; however, notwithstanding this initial ori-entation, students can still be expected to expe-rience significant positive changes in certaincognitive domains relating to the environment.These changes tend to occur with regard to spe-cific attitudes and beliefs and appear to have aclose link to the expressed intent of the cur-riculum for the course.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understandingattitudes and predicting social behavior. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theoryof planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman(Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behav-ior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer.

Correspondence should be directed to J. Porter Hammitt and Wayne A. Freimund at the Recreation ManagementProgram, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812.

50

48 HAMMITT & FREIMUND

Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1992). Application of thetheory of planned behavior to leisure choice.Journal of Leisure Research, 24 (3), 207-224.

Albrecht, D., & Bultena, G., & Hoiberg, E., &Nowak, P. (1982). The new environmental para-digm scale. Journal of Environmental Education,13 (3), 39-43.

Allen, S., & McCool, S. F. (1982). Energy conserva-tion, recreation participation, and ecologically re-sponsible behavior. In Forest and river recrea-tion: Research update. St. Paul, Minnesota. Uni-versity of Minnesota Agricultural ExperimentStation, Miscellaneous Publication 18, 111-114.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughtand action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Burr, S. W. (1993). Outdoor recreation, environ-mental attitudes and environmentally responsiblebehavior: past and future directions for research.In G. A. Vander Stoep (Ed.), Proceedings of the1992 Northeastern recreation research sympo-sium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-176 Radnor, PA:USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Ex-periment Sta., 171 p.

Caduto, M. (1983). A review of environmental val-ues education. Journal of Environmental Educa-tion, 14 (3), 13-21.

Chadwick, B. A., Bahr, H. M., & Albrecht, S. L.(1984). Social science research methods. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cole, D. N. (1986). The N.O.L.S. backcountry con-servation practices. Lander, WY: National Out-door Leadership School.

Cole, D. N., Landres, P. B., & Watson, A. E. (1994).A monitoring strategy for the National WildernessPreservation System. In J. C. Hendee & V. G.Martin (Eds.), International wilderness allocation,management, and research. (p.p. 102-197). Ft.Collins, CO: International Wilderness Leadership(WILD) Foundation.

Cockrell, D. (1991). Environmental ethics and back-country conservation practices. In The wildernesseducator: The Wilderness Education Associationcurriculum guide (Chapter 4). Merrillville, IN:ICS Books.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys:The total design method. New York: Wiley.

Deaux, K., & Wrightsman, L .S. (1988). Social psy-chology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub-lishing Co.

Dowell, D. L., McCool, S. F., Huffman, M. G., &Williams, D. R. (1986). Evaluation of wildernessinformation dissemination program. GeneralTechnical Report, Intermountain Research Sta-tion, USDA Forest Service, (No. INT-212), 494-500.

Driver, B. L., Peterson, G. L., & Easley, A. T.(1990). Benefits perceived by past participants inthe NOLS Wind River Wilderness course: Amethodological inquiry. In A. T. Easley, J. Passi-neau, & B. L. Driver (Eds.) The use of wildernessfor personal growth, therapy, and education. Gen.Tech. Rep., USDA Forest Service, Rocky Moun-tain Forest and Range Experiment Sta., Fort Col-lins, CO. 42-53.

Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commit-ment to the dominant social paradigm and con-cern for environmentally quality. Social ScienceQuarterly, 65, 1013-1028.

Easley, A. T., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Ratz, J. (1986).Wilderness education at NOLS: Students out-comes and correlates of perceived instructor ef-fectiveness. In R. C. Lucas (comp.), Proceedings:National Wilderness Research Conference: Cur-rent Research. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212. Ogden,UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forestand Range Experiment Station, 377-384.

Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behav-ior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),The handbook of motivation and cognition (pp.204-253). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by whichattitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as anintegrative framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Ad-vances in experimental social psychology (pp. 75-108). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Fishbein, M., & Manfredo, M. J. (1992). A theory ofbehavior change. In M. J. Manfredo (Ed.), Influ-encing human behavior: Theory and applicationsin recreation, tourism, and natural resource man-agement (pp. 29-50). Champaign, IL: SagamorePublishing.

Gass, M. A. (1985). Programming the transfer oflearning in adventure education. Journal of Expe-riential Education, 8 (3), 18-24.

51

RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR 49

Gillett, D. P., Thomas, G. P., Skok, R. L., &McLaughlin, L. F. (1991). The effects of wilder-ness camping and hiking on the self-concept andthe environmental attitudes and knowledge oftwelfth graders. Journal of Environmental Educa-tion, 22 (3), 33-44.

Gray, D. B. (1985). Ecological beliefs and behaviors.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Hammitt, W. E., & Cole, D. N. (1987). Wildlandrecreation: Ecology and management. New York:Wiley.

Hampton, B., & Cole, D. N. (1988). Soft paths.Lander, WY: National Outdoor LeadershipSchool.

Henry, W. R., & Driver, B. L. (1974). Participants'reasons for attending the National Outdoor Lead-ership School's 1972 wilderness expeditioncourses. Journal of Outdoor Education, 9 (1), 6-13.

Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N.(1986/87). Analysis and synthesis of research onresponsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8.

Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changinglearner behavior through environmental educa-tion. Journal of Environmental Education, 21 (3),8-21.

Knapp, C. E. (1983). A curriculum model for envi-ronmental values education. Journal of Environ-mental Education, 14 (3), 30-34.

Koesler, R. (1994). Factors influencing leadershipdevelopment in wilderness education. East Lans-ing, MI: Michigan State University. Ph.D. Dis-sertation.

McRae, K. (1986). Developing an environmentalethic in outdoor programs. Journal of ExperientialEducation, 9 (3), 31-35.

Nash, R. (1980). Wilderness education principles andpractices. Journal of Environmental Education, 11(3), 2-3.

Miller, D. C. (1991). Handbook of research designand social measurement. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Oskamp, S. (1991). Attitudes and opinions. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Perdue, R. R., & Warder, D. S. (1981). Envi-ronmental education and attitude change. Journalof Environmental Education, 12 (3), 25-28.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes andpersuasion: classic and contemporary ap-proaches. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.

Petty, R. E., & Caccioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elabora-tion Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berk-owitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-chology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York, NY:Academic Press.

Petty, R. E., McMichael, S., & Brannon, L. A.(1992). The elaboration likelihood model of per-suasion: applications in recreation and tourism. InM. A. Manfredo (Ed.), Influencing human be-havior: Theory and applications in recreation,tourism, and natural resource management (pp.77-101). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Proudman, B. (1992). Experiential as emotionally-engaged learning. Journal of Experiential Educa-tion, 15 (2), 19-23.

Quinsland, L. K., & Van Ginkel, A. (1984). How toprocess experience. Journal of Experiential Edu-cation, 8 (3), 25-28.

Ramsey, J. M., et al. (1981). The effects of environ-mental action and environmental case study in-struction on the overt environmental behavior ofeighth-grade students. Journal of EnvironmentalEducation, 13 (1), 24-30.

Rest, J. R. (1993). Research on moral judgment incollege students. In A. Garrod (Ed.), Approachesto moral development: New research and emerg-ing themes (201-213). New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.

Royte, E. (1992). She knows if you've been bad orgood. Outside, April, 70-86, 177.

Shepard, C. L., & Speelman, L. R. (1986). Affectingenvironmental attitudes through outdoor educa-tion. Journal of Environmental Education, 17 (2),20-23.

Simpson, S. (1985). Short-term wilderness experi-ences and environmental ethics. Journal of Expe-riential Education, 8 (3), 25-28.

Shin, W. S. (1988). The influence of a wildernesscourse on the self- actualization of the students.Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada: Universityof New Brunswick. M. S. Thesis.

52

50 HAMMITT & FREIMUND

Simpson, S. (1993). The intrinsic value of minimumimpact. Journal of Experiential Education, 16 (2),34-37.

Smith-Sebasto, N. J. (1995). The effects of an envi-ronmental studies course on selected variables re-lated to environmentally responsible behavior.Journal of Environmental Education, 26 (4), 30-34.

Solomon, R. L. (1949). An extension of controlgroup design. Psychological Bulletin, 137-150.

Van Liere, K. D., & Noe, F. P. (1978). The 'newenvironmental paradigm': A proposed measuringinstrument and preliminary results. Journal of En-vironmental Education, 9 (2), 10-19.

Van Liere, K. D., & Noe, F. P. (1981). Outdoor rec-reation and environmental attitudes: Further ex-amination of the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. RuralSociology, 46 (3), 505-512.

Vincent, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (1992). Attitude ac-cessibility and its consequences for judgment andbehavior. In M. A. Manfredo (Ed.), Influencinghuman behavior: Theory and applications in rec-reation, tourism, and natural resource manage-ment (pp. 51-75). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Pub-lishing.

Williams, D. R., & Nickerson, N. (1984). Measuringsatisfaction of National Outdoor LeadershipSchool (NOLS) students. University of Utah

53

GROUP DEVELOPMENT AND GROUP DYNAMICS

IN OUTDOOR EDUCATION

Leo H. McAvoy

ProfessorUniversity of Minnesota

James P. Steckart

University of Minnesota

Denise S. Mitten L. Allison Stringer

Executive Director Teaching SpecialistWoodswomen University of Minnesota

Kraig Sproles

University of Minnesota

This paper presents an update of the research on group development and group dynamics in out-door education since the 1992 edition of these Proceedings. The research is presented within thesix categories of individual and personal dimensions: group process and structure, group functionsand tasks, leadership and power, environmental influences, and the impact of the group on the in-dividual. The paper includes a discussion of pertinent research in the fields of social work, com-munications, and management. Specific recommendations are made for future research in outdooreducation focusing on group development and dynamics.

KEYWORDS: Outdoor education, group development, group dynamics.

INTRODUCTION

In the first edition of the Coalition for Edu-cation in the Outdoors Symposium Proceedings,we presented a discussion and summary of theresearch that then existed addressing group dy-namics and development in the context of out-door education (McAvoy, Mitten, Steckart, &Stringer, 1992). Much of the research in ourfield has concentrated on individual and per-sonal growth dimensions of outdoor educationprocesses and experience. But those of us wholead outdoor programs know how important thegroup dynamics element is in the success orfailure of these programs, and we also intui-tively know these programs can be powerfulincubators of group development. In our 1992review of the research, we stated that there hadbeen little research on group dynamics andgroup development in our field, and this dearthhas not changed significantly over the past four

51

years. There have been a number of articles,conference sessions, and book chapters in ourfield on various aspects of groups and our lit-erature is full of references regarding how im-portant the group is to the outdoor educationprocess. But there still has been precious littleresearch to pry open the black box of the out-door education group and to describe and dis-cover what is really going on there.

The purposes of this paper are to give anupdate on the status of research in outdoor edu-cation that relates to group dynamics and groupdevelopment, to present some research andpractice directions we see in closely allied dis-ciplines (social work, communications andmanagement), and to recommend some researchdirections we believe are important for the fieldof outdoor education. Because this paper doesnot repeat the information contained in our ear-lier article. The reader is advised to refer to that

Correspondence should be directed to Leo. H. McAvoy, Ph.D., Division of Recreation, Park , and Leisure Studies,University of Minnesota, 209 Cooke Hall, 1900 University Ave. SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, (612) 625-5887; fax(612) 626-7700; [email protected]

54

52 MCAVOY ET AL.

paper for a discussion of the literature found upto 1992, a more in-depth discussion of some ofthe classic texts and theories that relate to groupdynamics and development, and the non-research literature in our field that discussesgroup processes.

A number of authors give definitions of thekey concepts used in this paper, but we havechosen to stay with the definitions by Forsyththat we used in our 1992 paper. Forsyth (1990)defines a group as two or more individuals whoinfluence one another through social interaction.Group dynamics is the study of the behavior ofgroups. And group development is the pattern ofgrowth and change that occur in groupsthroughout their lives from formation to disso-lution.

There is a great amount of diverse literature,research, and theoretical material on group dy-namics and group development. This creates achallenge to anyone trying to organize even therelatively small amount of research in outdooreducation into a presentation that is understand-able and illustrative. As in the 1992 paper, wehave adapted a classification system developedby Weber (1982) and modified it to fit the topicsfor outdoor/adventure/experiential/wilderness/environmental education. This adaptation re-sulted in a list of general dimensions or topicareas of research and information. We then usedthe group literature to generate a list of specifictopic areas within each dimension area and wentto the literature to see if research was availableon those topics in the context of outdoor educa-tion. Some of the topic areas and dimensionsoverlap, and some research articles addressmore than one topic. We tried to reduce any du-plication, so the focus here is on the main stud-ies found in each topic area. In this paper wepresent the primary dimension areas and thetopics in each area, and we present the researchwe found in outdoor education that has beenreported since 1992 in each of those dimensionand topic areas. In some cases we also presentresearch from others fields in the dimensionareasresearch that we believe relates to someof the issues and topics relative to groups inoutdoor education. This research may serve as a

guide for researchers in our field who want toaddress these topics in the context of outdooreducation.

The general dimension categories we estab-lished to present the research are:

1. Individual and Personal: How do the per-sonal characteristics individuals bring togroups influence group dynamics and groupdevelopment?

2. Group, Process and Structure: How dogroups develop and operate, and how doprocess and structure influence groups?

3. Group Functions and Tasks: What is therelationship between functions and tasks ingroups? Do groups operate differently ac-cording to functions and tasks?

4. Leadership and Power: How do leaders andleadership influence group dynamics anddevelopment?

5. Environmental: How do forces outside thegroup influence a group's development anddynamics?

6. Group Impact on the Individual: What im-pact does the group have on the individualmembers of the group?

The first five dimensions are all adaptations ofWeber's classification system. We have addedthe last dimension after seeing an increasedamount of discussion in the literature (socialwork and communications) about the impactsthat the group and its processes can have on in-dividual members of the group.

INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL DIMENSIONS

The individual and personal dimensionsarea includes studies that consider how personalcharacteristics individuals bring to a group in-fluence group dynamics and development. Spe-cific topics in this dimension are personal fac-tors (past experience, family of origin, gender,class, ethnicity, diversity, ability/disability, so-cial skills, age, and coping skills); role choice;and intrapersonal/introspective capabilities ofgroup members.

55

GROUP DEVELOPMENT AND GROUP DYNAMICS 53

There has been little research in outdooreducation in this dimension category. Ewert(1992) measured self reported levels of groupdevelopment on a variety of Outward Boundcourses according to age and gender. He foundno differences according to age and only onedifference according to gender (females weremore dependent on group leaders).

Anderson (1994) used the experience sam-pling method, sociograms, and analysis of jour-nals and interviews to study integrated groupson a wilderness trip program. She hypothesizedthat social inclusion would be enhanced by in-creasing the outdoor skill levels of persons withdisabilities, thereby increasing the social statusof these individuals. The results did not upholdthis hypothesis. Instead, she found that opportu-nities for cooperation/ mutual goals and interde-pendence were the best predictors of social in-clusion.

The ecological-systems approach is usedwith modern group work (Toseland & Rivas,1995), which involves an integration of con-cerns among individual, group, and organiza-tional/community collectives and situations. Thesystem of social work is now a basic feature ofour society, and group work has an institutionalcontext. There is increased recognition of howinfluential the larger organizational or commu-nity contexts are and how their rewarding, lim-iting, and reinforcing aspects need to be dealtwith in order to facilitate effective helping. Thisapproach relates well to outdoor educationgroups. Our profession now better understandsthat we have to "know" our clientele and recog-nize, in the most positive sense, special popula-tions. Each individual who comes to an outdooreducation group brings personal characteristicsand life experiences that makes that personunique. These characteristics will probably in-fluence the dynamics and development proc-esses of that group. Thus, in order to be effec-tive helping, for example, women who havebeen sexually abused, we need to understandmore about their experience, including how ourcultural norms influence their experience.Likewise, if we work with clients from eco-

nomically disadvantaged backgrounds, we needto understand their experience and the influenceof the larger culture on that experience in orderto use our outdoor programs in a positive, help-ing way (Mitten, 1995b).

GROUP PROCESS AND STRUCTURE

The group process and structure dimensionhas received some attention in the outdoor edu-cation literature, but much of that attention hasbeen on proposed models for practice ratherthan on research. The research topics includedin this dimension are norms, conflict, roles,communication, special groups, problem solv-ing ability, cohesion/non-cohesion, author-ity/hierarchy structure, processing, grouplearning and group development stages/cycles.Research in this dimension has often concen-trated on documenting the influence outdoorprograms have on these elements of group proc-ess or, alternatively, that these elements have ongroup development.

The topics of cohesion/non-cohesion andteam building have been the major emphases ofthe work done in the area variously termed cor-porate adventure training, experience basedtraining and development, or outdoor manage-ment education. Priest and his colleagues at theCorporate Adventure Training Institute havebeen the primary researchers in this topic area.Please refer to his paper in this Proceedings foran extensive summary of their findings. Priest,Attarian, and Schubert (1993) also provide anexcellent review of research on the effectivenessof corporate adventure training programs re-garding cohesion and team building. Group de-velopment is one of the focus points in themodel they use to frame their discussion. An-other paper by Priest (1995) provides a sum-mary of a series of studies that indicate that cor-porate adventure programs can be effectivemeans of group development, that team buildingthat occurs within adventure programs can betransferred back to the work environment ifconducted with intact groups and accompaniedwith follow-up, and that certain group methodsresult in greatest team building. He also warnsagainst over generalization of these findings due

54 MCAVOY ET AL.

to research design flaws that are often inherentto the process of evaluating the impact of thesetypes of programs.

McEvoy (1995) used a randomized groupexperimental design combined with qualitativeresearch and three-year follow-up interviews toassess the outcomes of an outdoor managementeducation program in one organization. Hefound that the participants were very positiveabout the experience; that they learned signifi-cant amounts about effective communication,group problem-solving, and teamwork; and thatthey exhibited higher levels of organizationalcommitment, organization-based self-esteem,and intentions to apply learning from trainingfollowing their experience in the program.Qualitative, anecdotal evidence suggest that atleast some participants changed their behavioras a result of the experience. Two indicators oforganizational outcomes (Total Quality Man-agement implementation and sick leave usage)improved after the training, and the organizationreceiving recognition for increased task accom-plishments and process achievements. The par-ticipant reactions to the training failed to dete-riorate much over time. The research did notfind a significant increase in trust levels amongparticipants. The author attributes this to aproblem in measurement of trust in this study,as well as a perhaps unrealistic expectation thata four-day experience can actually improvetrust, which is a long-term process.

Wagner and Weigand (1993) studied agroup of managers who participated in an out-door management education program. Usingself reporting before and after measures, theyfound improvements in group communications,team spirit, interpersonal relations, and groupeffectiveness.

Baldwin, Wagner, and Roland (1991) stud-ied the effects of outdoor challenge training ongroup and individual outcomes of 358 employ-ees who participated in a one-day outdoor man-agement education program with self report be-fore and after measures. They found self-reported improvements in group effectivenessand individual problem solving. Wagner and

Roland (1992) summarized results of 80 one-day outdoor management education programsthat served 1200 employees. Self-reporting be-fore and after measures found the training ap-peared to have had a positive impact on groupawareness and group effectiveness.

West (1994) used the case study approach toexamine the perspectives and discourse of agroup of at-risk adolescent students and theirteachers in a junior high school program thatincorporated wilderness activities in order toidentify the communicative dimensions of teambuilding and socialization. The author identifiedfour categories that contributed to team buildingand socialization for the participants: identify-ing as a group, making personal contributions,recognizing the symbiotic nature of the relation-ships, and acknowledging the temporal aspectsof team building and socialization. There werefour characteristics of communication thatemerged from the data: the presence of crossdiscussion; the disclosure of personal informa-tion; the reflective nature of the topics, as wellas the process of communicating; and the use ofstories. There were also seven communicativefunctions identified that contributed to teambuilding and socialization: informing, integrat-ing, regulating, exploring, coaching, acknowl-edging, and affirming.

Group cohesion is an especially importantresearch topic for the outdoor education field.Group cohesion is the result of all forces actingon members to remain in a group (Festinger,1950), and cohesive groups generally satisfy theneeds that prompted members to join the group(Toseland & Rivas, 1995). Cohesive groupshave positive effects on task accomplishment. Ina meta-analysis of 16 studies focusing on groupcohesion and performances, Evans and Dion(1991) found that cohesive groups performedsignificantly better than non-cohesive groups.Cohesive groups have also been found to havepositive effects on members' satisfaction andpersonal adjustment. For example, Pepitone andReichling (1995) found that members of cohe-sive groups felt more comfortable in engagingin hostile remarks and more secure when con-fronted with an "insult." In an extensive look at

57


the effects of cohesiveness on members of ther-apy groups, Yalom (1985) found cohesivenessleads to increased self-esteem, more willingnessto listen to others, freer expression of feeling,better reality testing, greater self-confidence,and members' effective use of other members'evaluations in enhancing their own develop-ment. These are all important elements of out-door education groups and deserve more atten-tion in our research.

Group development processes, in particularthe sequential stage models, have received at-tention in the outdoor education literature for anumber of years. Kerr and Gass (1987) pro-posed an application of the five stage model ofGarland, Jones and Kolodny (1973) to varioussettings in adventure education. Ewert andHeywood (1991) and Phipps (1991) have con-ducted preliminary research on these topics. Thesequential stage model of group developmentproposed by Bales and his associates (1950) laidthe foundation for future research on phasemodels. Since the model was first presented, alarge body of researchers have concurred thatgroups do indeed move through sequentialstages or phases as they progress toward a goal(Fisher, 1970; Tuckman, 1965); however, thespecific order of these phases has been ques-tioned by a host of social scientists (e.g., Bion,1961; Poole & Roth, 1989; Schultz, 1958). Re-search has also shown that some groups do notaccomplish their work by progressing graduallythrough a universal series of stages. Gersickfound in her study that work groups progressedin a pattern of what she called "punctuatedequilibrium" (1988, p.9) which included alter-nating inertia, revolution, and activity. Shefound that the groups' progress was determinedmore by the members' awareness of time anddeadlines than on the amount of work needed tobe completed in a specific developmental stage.

Most group development phase researchersdo agree that during the initial phase of devel-opment members attempt to address issues ofinclusion and dependency as they identify be-haviors and roles that are acceptable to thegroup (Bennis & Shepard, 1956; Fisher, 1970).This initial period is often stressful for members

58

as they seek to understand what type of groupthey are involved with and where they may fit.In the second phase, the dual issues of counter-dependence and negativity toward the leader areoften addressed. Power and authority issues of-ten lead to conflict (Tuckman, 1965) as individ-ual members compete for leadership (Bormann& Bormann, 1992). Once the roles and normshave become relatively stable, the group entersa third phase that is characterized by increasedtrust and interdependence (Mann, 1966). Thisphase often creates an opportunity for groupmembers to discuss the group itself, verbalizingconcerns about roles, norms, leadership, or divi-sion of labor (Wheelan, 1990). The fourth phaseis characterized by an increase in task-directedinteractions as the group begins to focus less onitself and more on the task at hand ( Tuckman,1965). Finally, in groups that have a specifictermination date, members start focusing on theupcoming termination of the group. This finalphase may cause a disruption and a resurgenceof conflict (Mills, 1964), although expressionsof positive feelings toward the group and indi-vidual members may also occur (Tubbs, 1988).

There is a clear need for a situated model ofgroup development as it pertains to outdooreducation. Within the past ten years, smallgroup researchers have made numerous pleasfor researchers to move beyond the zero-history,laboratory groups that many of the current theo-ries are based on and study real-life groups thatexist outside of the university setting (Frey,1994; Poole, 1990; Sykes, 1990). Many of thepreviously-studied groups were either explicitdecision-making groups or therapy groups. Out-door education groups usually defy these tradi-tional classification schemes, having elementsof both types of groups at different phases in thegroup's development. Outdoor groups also areoften in a situation where there are evidentramifications of group actions and negativegroup development. The outdoor group oftengets immediate feedback from the physical en-vironment regarding these actions. The differ-ences between outdoor education groups, bothin types of participants and classification of thegroup itself, and traditional groups studied war-

56 McAvoY ET AL.

rant more group development research in out-door education. A better understanding of theoutdoor group development process would helpleaders and others facilitate the positive groupdevelopment that research tells us leads to im-proved group performance and positive feelingsamong the group members.

GROUP FUNCTIONS AND TASKS

This dimension area concentrates on theinfluences that group functions and tasks haveon group development and dynamics. Does whata group is doing affect how well it works? Aswith many of the other dimension areas, therehas been little research in our field in this area.The research topics in this dimension area in-clude: goals, tasks, action plans, problem solv-ing, relationships, decision making, and out-comes/results.

A_ s discussed in the previous section, out-door education groups are often a combinationof task and therapy/treatment groups. Tose landand Rivas (1995) use two main categories fordividing group work, task groups, and treatmentgroups. Outdoor education, in a traditionalsense, would fit into socialization groups ac-cording to these authors, a subsection of treat-ment groups. The primary purposes of taskgroups (according to Tose land and Rivas) aremeeting client needs, meeting organizationalneeds, and meeting community needs. Outdoorprograms sometimes label their programs astreatment (this category includes groups thathave a purpose of support, education, growth,therapy, and socialization). Other outdoor pro-grams are far more task oriented. The category agroup ends up in is related to the balance of at-tention paid to task accomplishment verses thesocio-emotional needs of the group members.Both task and socio-emotional needs have to beattended to; the difference is the proportion ofenergy spent with one or the other. In the out-door field, the balance may be even more con-fusing, since the groups are often self-containedliving groups spending 24 hours a day together.

Two studies in our field have considered theoutcomes of group functions and tasks. Estes(1994) studied Outward Bound (O.B.) partici-

pants to determine which elements of an O.B.course best conveyed the principles of O.B. Shefound that according to the participants, dailyliving activities with group members and thegroup expedition (group task and problem) bestconveyed the primary principles of an OutwardBound course. Mc Fee (1993) studied collegestudents in a freshman Outward Bound type ori-entation program to determine the effects ofgroup dynamics on the perception of positivelearning experiences. Using an analysis of criti-cal incident responses, Mc Fee found that groupdevelopment was very important to individuallearning. Participation in a group that had pro-gressed into the working phase was significantto increased learning.

There is a trend in the group literature to-ward a balance of group goals and individualgoals (Tose land & Rivas, 1995). Early groupwork said that individual goals need to be putaside for the group goal(s) and, likewise, thatindividual goals were not compatible with groupwork. An important shift in the '90s is the focusgiven by corporations, as well as the govern-ment on empowering task groups. The goal isfor these groups to function effectively and torecognize the importance of individual andgroup performance in the achievement of bothindividual and group objectives. We are seeingthis same trend in outdoor groups. That is why,in part, we see so many workshops at profes-sional conferences on ethics and on emotionalsafety in outdoor groups. However, we (theauthors) believe our profession is behind in thisarea. As an example, in corporate adventuretraining programs, our profession for the mostpart still teaches that group goals are the desiredoutcome and teamwork means focusing ongroup goals.

Interestingly, these two conceptsthat thelarger society has a major influence on indi-viduals' development, and that individual andgroup goals are not automatically mutually ex-clusivehave their roots in feminism. Feministtherapists (Lerman & Porter, 1990) have ex-plored the concept of the influence of the largersociety, especially as it relates to the develop-ment of women, including the oppression of

59


women and people of color. Mitten's writinghas addressed the concept that individual andgroup goals do not have to be mutually exclu-sive (1995a, 1995c). Individuals and, therefore,groups are much healthier if both individual andgroup goals can be accomplished. Research intothe role that group tasks and functions have ingroup development and dynamics would help usbetter understand this dimension.

LEADERSHIP AND POWER

The leadership and power dimension con-cerns research directed toward how leaders andleadership influence group development anddynamics. This is the area that has generated themost literature in our field related to groups, butlittle of that literature is research. Instead, muchof our leadership literature is best-professional-practice-oriented writing, aimed at developingeffective, safe, and ethical leadership ap-proaches to facilitating individual and groupdevelopment within the context of outdoor edu-cation programs. As with many of the other di-mension areas, while there is a great deal ofmaterial on leadership and power in our field,there is little research that documents or ex-plains the influence of leadership and powerdimensions on group development and dynam-ics. The research topics within this dimensionare ethics, leadership emergence, effective lead-ership, leadership traits, dependence/counter-dependence/interdependence, managing groupdynamics, and leadership models. Leadershipmodels, in particular, have generated a numberof articles in our field. The reader is advised torefer to the 1992 Proceedings paper on groups(McAvoy, et al.) for a discussion of these mod-els.

Some of the leadership models that havebeen applied to outdoor education have been thetask-oriented models of the management litera-ture, such as the Situational Leadership Model.As we discussed in the above section on tasksand functions, perhaps the typical outdoor edu-cation group is more a treatment or therapygroup rather than a task group. Thus, applyingtask-oriented leadership models may not be ap-propriate for most outdoor education groups.

Authors in group work and practice (Tose land& Rivas, 1995) have seen a shift in preferredleadership models in recent years. Oppressive,controlling, exploitative models that have lim-ited the individual's interests and autonomy arebeing replaced by models of facilitative, socio-emotional, and practical task leadership that arebetter geared to democratic styles and to ac-complishment of group purposes. These authorsdescribe leaders as legitimate representatives ofthe group members, the community, and societywho can motivate, inspire, guide, and empowerpeople and, thus, influence constructive attitudi-nal and behavioral change. Two leadershipmodels developed in our field since 1992 thatfocus more on the well being of group membersrather than the accomplishment of group tasksare Mitten's personal affirming model (Mitten,1995a) and the Fox and McAvoy ethical leader-ship model (1995). Research is currently un-derway to describe the effect the Mitten modelhas on group development and dynamics.

Irwin and Phipps (1994) developed an as-sessment tool to measure changes in group dy-namics over time in response to leadershipstyles. Doherty (1995), in the context of a ropescourse setting, studied the effects of facilitationstyles on group dynamics and group develop-ment. Patterns in that data indicated that ateaching/ leadership style that incorporated theuse of metaphors led to increased positivechanges in the groups; however, follow-uptesting showed a significant loss of these effectsafter 30 days. Meyer and Wenger (1995), in aqualitative research study focused on highschool students, found that participation in aropes course program increased group cohesionand team building. Gains included increasedtrust, confidence, concentration, and the use ofgoal setting principles. They also found that theadult facilitators who were present influencedthe outcome by modeling appropriate group be-haviors, by distributing attention equally amonggroup members, and by their involvement.

ENVIRONMENTAL

The environmental dimension concerns theinfluence outside forces have on group devel-

60

58 McAvoY ET AL.

opment and dynamics. The topics in the dimen-sion include the outdoor environment (wild-erness, camps, ropes course, etc.) and all of itsvarious forces, program components, territorial-ity, spatial behavior, environmental stress, timedemands, and fear/anxiety. As with the otherdimension areas, our field has done little re-search on how these factors influence group de-velopment and dynamics. There is, however,some research on the issues of spatiality, territo-riality, and crowding in the recreation resourcemanagement literature. Within the outdoor edu-cation field, Anderson (1994), in her study ofsocial inclusion between persons with and with-out disabilities on a wilderness adventure trip,did find that the main predictor of social inclu-sion within the group was the fact that the groupwas in a wilderness environment. The partici-pants in her study indicated that two character-istics of a wilderness experienceperspectivetaking and simplified transactionscontributedto the social inclusion (positive group dynam-ics) within the group. Priest (see article in theseProceedings) has some preliminary study resultsshowing that in corporate training, the resultsare the same regardless of the environment(indoors or outdoors) where the experiencetakes place.

Much of the research on how a group dealswith its surrounding environment is being re-ported in the management literature, includingresearch that looks at the dynamics betweenwork teams and their management environment.Ancona (1993) studied 50 consultant and newproduct teams in five high-technology organi-zations and found that a) teams develop activi-ties and strategies toward their external envi-ronment, and b) that these activities are posi-tively related to group performance. Environ-ments present a set of constraints to which thegroup must react, they set limits on activity, andgroups help "create" their environments. Theexternal environment also plays the role of echochamber: It amplifies information about thegroup. Ancona also found that if the group isdeemed successful early (by management orother external evaluators), it tends to continue to

be deemed as such, and visa versa. Thus, earlylabeling creates a self-fulfilling prophesy.

In order to be successful, according to An-cona's findings, groups must be in step withboth the organizational environment and theexternal environment. Groups that follow anopen model are more successful in dealing withtheir external environment. That is, groups thatare more open to external input, to incorporatingnew member schema, and to incorporating newmembers are more successful. Ancona con-cludes, "Teams are effective to the extent thatthey engage in the types of permeability thatallows them to predict, adapt to, and shape envi-ronmental change" (p. 240). The outdoor edu-cation field should increase its efforts to conductresearch into this important area of the impactthe external environment has on group dynamicsand group development. Our field often consid-ers the natural environment (wilderness) and thesocial environment only as interesting back-drops to what we often concentrate on, which iswhat is happening within the outdoor educationgroup. We may do well to concentrate more ofour attention on how these environments areinfluencing what is happening within the groupswith which we work.

GROUP IMPACTS ON THE INDIVIDUAL

Groupstheir dynamics and processeshave an impact on the individual members ofthe group. As practitioners, we often hear indi-vidual outdoor education participants remarkthat the group processes are often the mostmemorable elements of an outdoor educationexperience. Our field places a great amount ofattention on facilitating a group to develop ac-cording to certain expectations we and our or-ganizations have about, how and to what extentthat development should happen. Does this em-phasis we place on group development lessenor, in some cases, negate the value of the devel-opment and situation of the individual withinthe group?

We found no research in our field that ad-dressed this issue directly. Glassman and Kates(1990), in the field of social work, have pro-posed a humanistic group development model

61


that includes and values the individual withinthe group. They encourage group facilitators totake care not to manipulate, coerce, or controlmembers. A humanistic approach to leadershipduring the beginning stage is especially appro-priate in support groups, social action groups,and coalitions where the empowerment ofmembers and the mobilization of their collectiveenergy and wisdom are primary goals. However,elements of a humanistic approach, such as re-spect for the dignity and individuality of eachmember and belief in each member's potentialfor growth and development, are essential in allgroup work efforts.

An area of this research topic of special in-terest to outdoor education programs is the pos-sibility of the group and the group process ofserving as a framework for effecting attitudinalchange of individuals within the group. Thispossibility has relevance if the organization'sgoal is to change group members' attitudes. Asan example, one goal of an adventure programmay be to instill and encourage minimum im-pact camping attitudes and skills in participants.Bormann's Symbolic Convergence Theory isone approach to understanding how group proc-ess can affect individual attitudes. In this theorythe group establishes norms and roles emerge.The group sees itself as whole. Members sharefantasies and rhetorical visions (symbolic con-vergence) regarding numerous subjects. Therhetorical skill of individual group members(including leaders) to persuade other membersis important, as is the use of consciousnessraising to influence group members to partici-pate in the "appropriate way." The end resultcan be a change in beliefs and attitudes regard-ing certain subjects. This procedure may appearquite manipulative at first glance. However,most outdoor education programs are attemptingto change participants' attitudes and beliefs in anumber of areas. It thus appears that Bormann issimply trying to explain the process many out-door organizations have been using for decades.

As Mitten states (1995a), there is the poten-tial on wilderness adventure trips and in otheroutdoor education contexts to create a societythat values the group at the expense of the indi-

62

vidual. Leaders must not only understand theprocess of group development; we must alsounderstand how the individual is affected by thegroup.

SOME RESEARCH QUESTIONS ANDRECOMMENDED DIRECTIONS

We have included many of our recommen-dations for future research directions in thegroup dynamics and group development area inour discussions of the individual research di-mensions above. The entire area of group devel-opment and dynamics in outdoor education is alittle-researched area. We recommend that re-searchers try to pry back the top of the blackbox that is the group in outdoor education andbegin to see what is really going on in this cen-tral element of our programs. In addition, we dohave some further recommendations for re-search directions, including:

1. More qualitative research is needed to un-derstand better the components of the out-door experience, especially the componentsthat have positive or negative influence ongroup development. We need to know howand why group development happens inoutdoor education, rather than just concen-trating on whether it happens.

2. What are the influences of an outdoorleader/facilitator on group development?How facilitative does the leader have to beto help create or foster change or develop-ment?

3. How effective are different group models(e.g., group support model, confrontationmodel, relationship centered model, per-sonal growth model)? Do models used inour field fit "standard" group work modelsused in other fields

4. Researchers need to track the group devel-opment that actually takes place in outdoorgroups. We need to concentrate research onthe process as well as the results in a varietyof populations, including clinical popula-tions. As with the components of group de-velopment, we need to know how and whychange occurs, rather than simply whether it

60 MCAVOY ET AL.

occurs. We need to identify variables andprogram components that cause change.

5. We need to compare productivity betweenlow-cohesion (individual centered) groupsand high cohesion (group centered) groups.

6 Research is needed on the impact of genderratios on group success.

7. Is the group development potential of aropes course equivalent to that of a canoetrip? Equivalent to that of a rock climbingprogram? Equivalent to that of a whitewaterprogram?

8. There is a need for longitudinal studies thatlook at the long-term influences of outdoorprograms, including the influences of fol-low-up strategies to reinforce changes thatresult from these experiences.

9. There is a need for empirical, multi-facetedstudies that use multiple measures to deter-mine program impacts on team building,trust, and group problem solving, as well asthe long-term impacts these enhanced groupdimensions can have on productivity andgroup outputs.

REFERENCES

Anderson, L. (1994) Outdoor adventure and socialintegration: A social-psychological perspective.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University ofMinnesota, Minneapolis.

Ancona, D. G. (1993). The classics and the contem-porary: A new blend of small group theory. In J.K. Murningham (Ed.), Social psychology in or-ganizations: Advances in theory and research.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baldwin, T. T., Wagner, R. J., & Roland, C. C.(1991) Effects of outdoor challenge training ongroup and individual outcomes. Paper presentedat the 6th Annual Conference of the Society ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, St.Louis, MO.

Bales, R. (1950). Interaction process analysis: Amethod of the study of small groups. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bennis, W., & Shepard, H. (1956). A theory of groupdevelopment. Human Relations, 9, 415-417.

Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in groups. New York:Basic Books.

Bormann, E. G. (1982). The symbolic convergencetheory of communication and creation, raising,and sustaining of public consciousness. In J.Sisico (Ed.), The Jensen lectures: Contemporarycommunication studies (pp. 71-90). Tampa, FL:University of South Florida Department ofCommunication.

Bormann, E. G. (1990). Small group communicationtheory and practice. New York: Harper andRow.

Bormann, E., & Bormann, N. (1992). Effective smallgroup communication. Minneapolis: GordonPress.

Doherty, K. (1995). A qualitative analysis of threeteaching styles. Journal of Experiential Educa-tion, 18 (1), 12-19.

Estes, C. A.(1994). Outward bound: The congruenceof principles and practice. In L. McAvoy, L. A.Stringer, & A. Ewert, (Eds.), Coalition for Edu-cation in the Outdoors research symposium pro-ceedings (pp. 22-32). Cortland, NY: Coalitionfor Education in the Out-doors.

Ewert, A. (1992). Group development through expe-riential education: Does it happen? Journal ofExperiential Education, /5 (2), 56.

Ewert, A., & Heywood, J. (1991). Group develop-ment in the natural environment: Expectations,outcomes and techniques. Environment and Be-havior, 23 (5), 592-615.

Evans, C., & Dion, K. (1991). Group cohesion andperformance. Small Group Research, 22 (2),175-186.

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication.Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.

Fisher, A. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases ingroup decision making. Speech Monographs, 37,53-66.

Forsyth, D. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). Pa-cific Grove, CA: Brooks and Cole.

Fox, K., & McAvoy, L. (1995). Ethical practices inthe field of outdoor leadership. In L. S. Frank(Ed.), Association for Experiential EducationInternational Conference Proceedings (pp. 70-

63


72). Boulder, CO: Association for ExperientialEducation.

Frey, L. (1994). The call of the field: Studying com-munication in natural groups. In L. Frey (Ed.),Group communication in context: Studies ofnatural groups (ix-xiv). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Garland, J., Jones, H., & Kolodny, R. (1973). Amodel for stages of development in social workgroups. In S. Berstein (Ed), Explorations ingroup work (pp. 12-53). Boston: Milford House.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in workteams: Toward a new model of group develop-ment. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.

Glassman, U., & Kates, L. (1990). Group work: Ahumanistic approach. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications.

Irwin, C., & Phipps, M. (1994) The great outdoorsand beyond: Common threads in leadershiptraining on land, in the air, and in space. In L.McAvoy, L. A. Stringer, & A. Ewert (Eds.),Coalition for Education in the Outdoors re-search symposium proceedings (pp. 43-52).Cortland, NY: Coalition for Education in theOutdoors.

Kerr, P., & Gass, M. (1987). A group developmentmodel for adventure education. Journal of Expe-riential Education, 10 (3), 39-46.

Lerman, H., & Porter, N. (1990). Feminist ethics inpsychotherapy. NY: Springer Publishing.

Mann, R. (1966). The development of member andmember-trainer relationships on self-analyticgroups. Human Relations, 19, 85-115.

McAvoy, L., Mitten, D., Steckart, J., & Stringer, L.A. (1992). Research in outdoor education: Groupdevelopment and group dynamics. In K. A.Henderson (Ed.), Coalition for Education in theOutdoors research symposium proceedings (pp.23-33). Cortland, NY: Coalition for Education inthe Outdoors.

McEvoy, G. M. (1995). Organizational change andoutdoor management education: A training pro-gram evaluation.. Unpublished paper presentedat the Academy of Management Conference,September, 1995. Available at the Department ofManagement and Human Resources, UT StateUniversity, Logan, UT.

McFee, M. R. (1993). The effect of group dynamicson the perception of a positive learning experi-ence in the Outward Bound process. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation. Forest Institute ofProfessional Psychology. Wheeling, IL.

Meyer, B., & Wenger, M. (1995). The ropes courseexperience: Longitudinal examination of the be-havior change process. In L. S. Frank (Ed.), As-sociation for Experiential Education Interna-tional Conference Proceedings (pp. 172-173).Boulder, CO: Association for Experiential Edu-cation.

Mills, T. (1964). Group transformations: An analysisof a learning group. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Mitten, D. (1995a). Building the group: Using per-sonal affirming to create healthy group process.Journal of Experiential Education, 18 (2), 82-90.

Mitten, D. S. (1995b). Healthy expressions of diver-sity lead to positive group experiences. In K.Warren, M. Sakofs & J. S. Hunt (Eds.), The the-ory of experiential education (pp. 187-194). Du-buque, IA: Kendall/ Hunt.

Mitten, D. (1995c). The value of feminist ethics inexperiential education, teaching and leadership.In Seeds for change: Proceedings for the Asso-ciation for Experiential Education 23rd AnnualInternational Conference (pp. 175-181). Boul-der, CO: Association for Experiential Education.

Pepitone, A., & Reichling, G. (1955). Group cohe-siveness and the expression of hostility. HumanRelations 8, 327-337.

Phipps, M. (1991). Group dynamics in the outdoors:A model for teaching outdoor leaders. In D.Cockrell (Ed.), The wilderness educator: TheWilderness Education Association curriculumguide. Merrillville, IN: ICS Books.

Poole, M. S. (1990). Do we have any theories ofsmall group communication? CommunicationStudies, 41, 237-248.

Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989). Decision develop-ment in small groups IV: A typology of groupdecision paths. Human Communications Re-search, 15 (3), 323-356.

Priest, S. (1995). Research for EDTD and CAT pro-gramming. In L. S. Frank (Ed.), Association forExperiential Education International Conference

64

62 McAvoY ET AL.

Proceedings (pp. 215-219). Boulder, CO: Asso-ciation for Experiential Education.

Priest, S., Attarian, A., & Schubert, S. (1993). Con-ducting research in experience-based trainingand development programs: Pass keys to lockeddoors. Journal of Experiential Education, 16 (2),11-20.

Schultz, W. (1958). FIRO: A three dimensional the-ory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Sykes, R. (1990). Imagining what we might study ifwe really studied small groups from a speechperspective. Communication Studies, 41, 200-211.

Tubbs, S. (1988). A systems approach to small groupinteraction (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.

Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequences insmall groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.

Toseland, R. W., & Rivas, R. F. 1995, An introduc-tion to group work and practice (2nd ed.). Need-ham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Wagner, R. J., & Roland, C. C.(1992). Facilitators:One key factor in implementing successful expe-rience-based training and development pro-grams (ERIC No. ED 345911). Madison, Wis-consin: University of Wisconsin. (ERIC No. ED345911, Clearinghouse No. RC08688).

Wagner, R. J., & Weigand, R. (1993). How effectiveis outdoor-based training in improving manage-ment behaviors: A health care application. Jour-nal of Healthcare Education and Training, 7 (3),1-4.

West, J. (1994). The communicative dimensions ofteam building and socialization in a nontradi-tional instructional setting. Dissertation Ab-stracts International, 54 (8), p. 2800A.

Weber, R. (1982). The group: A cycle from birth todeath. In NTL Institute (Ed). NTL reading bookfor human relations training (pp. 68-71). NTLInstitute (location unknown).

Wheelan, S. (1990). Facilitating training groups: Aguide to leadership and verbal interaction skills.New York: Praeger.

Yalom, I. (1985). The theory and practice of grouppsychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.

5

A RESEARCH SUMMARY FOR CORPORATE ADVENTURE TRAINING (CAT)AND EXPERIENCE-BASED TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT (EBTD)

Simon Priest

ProfessorBrock University

This paper is a review of research in Corporate Adventure Training (CAT) and Experience-Based Trainingand Development (EBTD); a summary of a number of research studies in CAT and EBTD conductedthrough the Corporate Adventure Training Institute and other researchers; and, recommendations for futureresearch in this growing field of outdoor education. The research results indicate corporate adventuretraining programs can be effective means of team building and other group development outcomes. Theauthor gives a number of recommendations for future research including the need to investigate the pro-gram elements that contribute to overall program effectiveness.

KEYWORDS: Corporate adventure training, experience-based training and development, team building, groupdevelopment, research recommendations.

BACKGROUND

Every year American corporations investbillions of dollars in general training and devel-opment programs for employees (Lawler, 1988).Millions of these dollars are being spent onCorporate Adventure Training (CAT) and Expe-rience-Based Training and Development(EBTD) programs alone, and the growing num-bers of providers and consumers of these pro-grams are expected to increase steadily into thenext century (Latteir, 1989). EBTD is theAmerican term for this field in our related pro-fessions. It is also known as Outdoor Manage-ment Development (OMD) in Britain, as CATin Canada and Australia, and by additional la-bels in many more nations around the world.These terms jointly describe a field which usesindoor and outdoor adventure activities to bringbeneficial change to organizations (Gass, Gold-man, & Priest, 1992). While the corporate client

63

defines the majority, profit and non-profit agen-cies are also minority customers.

Activities used in EBTD and CAT programstend to be classified into one of five groups: so-cialization games, group initiatives, ropescourses, outdoor pursuits, or other adventures(Agran, Garvey, Miner, & Priest, 1993). So-cialization games are "ice-breakers" used todeinhibit people and familiarize them with oneanother. Group initiative tasks can be focusedon team tools (one element of teamwork ob-tained by a simple task) or team tests (multipleelements of teamwork demonstrated in synergyby a complex task). Ropes or challenge coursescan be high (belayed well above ground level)or low (spotted at ground level or just above).Outdoor pursuits can be activity-based (con-ducted anywhere) or setting-based (depended ona special location). Other adventures encompassthose simulations or non-traditional exercisesdistantly associated with our related professions.

Simon Priest, Ph.D. is Professor of Outdoor Adventure Recreation/Education and Founding Director of the Corpo-rate Adventure Training Institute at Brock.University, St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1, (905) 688-5550ext. 4099, fax (905) 688-0541; [email protected]

66

64 PRIEST

These five classifications and their ten sub-groups form the collective treatments that havebeen studied by researchers. Unfortunately, am-biguity over activity classifications (i.e., wheresome researchers have conflated ropes coursesand group initiatives) has led to confused studyoutcomes and generalizations.

Benefits accrued from EBTD and CAT pro-grams tend to be classified into one of threetypes: individual employees, management workunits, and parent companies (Priest, Attarian, &Schubert, 1993). Intrapersonal workplace corn-petencies such as enhanced self-confidence,leadership style, risk taking propensity, copingwith fear and stress, decision making, and per-sonal inspiration or commitment are examplesof individual benefits (Beeby & Rathborn, 1982;Gahin & Chesteen, 1988; Williams, 1980). In-terpersonal improvements in goal setting, teambuilding, time management, conflict resolution,group problem solving, collaboration and coop-eration are examples of work unit benefits(Creswick & Williams, 1979; Long, 1987;Kadel, 1988). Organizational upgrades to sys-tems, structure, values and ethics, vision andmission, corporate climate, and motivationalatmosphere benefit the company and result inthe bottom line of bettering productivity, ab-senteeism and profits (Brathay Hall Trust, 1986;Fleming, 1987). Interactions of these three canfurther benefit the person, group or culture byincreasing empowerment, trust and integrity,effective communication, environmental safety,judgment based on experience, and dealing withchange and uncertainty (Mossman, 1982).

Like other outdoor adventure programs,EBTD and CAT tend to be classified into one offour kinds: recreation, education, development,and therapy. Recreational programs change theway people feel, by giving them fun or new en-ergy through entertainment or enjoyment (e.g., abrief program offered as part of a company pic-nic) Educational programs change the waypeople think and feel, by providing them withnew knowledge, awareness, or understanding ofneeds, concepts or perspectives (e.g., a shortprogram at a retreat intended to demonstrate theimportance of teamwork). Developmental pro-

grams change the way people act, think, andfeel, by increasing their functional behaviorsand offering- new ways to conduct themselves(e.g., a general program aimed at building cer-tain teams as part of organizational commitmentto teamwork. Therapeutic programs change theway people cope, act, think, and feel, by de-creasing dysfunctional behaviors and offeringattractive alternatives to managing conflict anddifficulty (e.g., a specific program aimed at re-pairing the negative interactions of particularteam members who do not get along).

Unlike other fields, EBTD and CAT havedone an extremely poor job of servicing our pa-trons. For years, we have failed to meet theirneeds. Corporations in search of therapeuticchange for their dysfunctional teams react withreservation when given educational programs.Their oft heard comments are quoted in thepopular press: "All this adventure stuff doesn'treally work!" (Zemke, 1988). On the other hand,corporations seeking recreational fun and gamesare frequently irritated by the constant interrup-tions for developmental discussions. Partici-pants commonly respond with "You're alwaystrying to psychoanalyze us!" (Falvey, 1988). Insummary, the CAT and EBTD field has a credi-bility crisis. This crisis stems from an ongoingfailure to match providers' programs with cus-tomers' needs.

To add insult to injury, these failures arefrequently repeated by well meaning but ill-equipped practitioners who lack the depth offacilitation competence to deliver an appropriateprogram. This is further compounded bychoosing inappropriate activities to meet goals.By way of illustration, consider the overuse ofunmodified high ropes or challenge courses(only an individual development tool) as theincorrect industry preference for team building(Priest, 1991). The result is that professionalimage suffers and good programs simply getlumped in with bad ones.

With all the money that is spent on CATand EBTD, one would expect some scrutiny andskepticism. However, since these programswere first highlighted in the practitioner litera-

6.7

RESEARCH SUMMARY FOR CAT AND EBTD 65

ture (Long, 1984; Long, 1987; Galagan, 1987;Gall, 1987), a growing opposition has beenmounted against CAT and EBTD. Antagonistshave claimed that these programs lack safetyand quality control (Garvey, 1989; Miner,1991), have questionable instructor qualifica-tions (Knecht, 1983; Bank, 1985), and fail totransfer learning to the workplace (Roland,1985; Zemke, 1988; Falvey, 1988).

To make matters worse, we are unable toargue to the contrary because our evidence issorely limited. We have very little research, andthe little we have holds poor generalizability(Rice, 1979; Roland, 1985; Rice, 1988; Darby,1989). The remainder of this article summarizesa few of the early studies, conducted in the mid-1980s and 1990s, shares two dozen recent stud-ies from one research center and concludes witha discussion of the future directions and con-cerns associated with researching CAT andEBTD program efficacy.

PAST RESEARCH

Fletcher (1957, p. 137) noted "726 indus-trial firms supported Outward Bound" in Brit-ain, by sponsoring employees' and other stu-dents' participation in programs. These sponsorsreported that 19% of their employees and stu-dents had received a promotion as a result oftheir participation in Outward Bound, and 22%of the employees and students confirmed thisclaim. Patterson (1969, p. 1) in a qualitativestudy of programs for industries at OutwardBound Australia found that "55% of sponsorsbelieve that it lasts for life, 38% that it lasts forseveral years and only 7% that the influence isshort lived."

Roland (1981) attempted to measure theimpact of adventure training with 58 middlemanagers from two companies engaged in athree-day outdoor program focusing on teambuilding and group problem solving through aropes course experience. Three questionnairesmeasured managerial change in the participantsas perceived by themselves, and as perceived bytheir 68 subordinates and 37 superiors. A fourthquestionnaire measured participant learning.Subjects were pre-tested and then post-tested an

68

average of 71 days later. The program tookplace between pre-test and post-test. Findingsindicated that change took place on a number ofmanagerial constructs, including time, planning,suggestions, human relations, trust, goals, groupprocess, supervision, and feedback. Changeswere speculated to have resulted from high lev-els of participant commitment and emotionalinvolvement.

King and Harmon (1981) evaluated an earlyadventure course for an aerospace company.The purpose was to analyze personal beliefs,behaviors and professional attitudes of employ-ees as a result of participating in the program.Graduates of a two-day in-house course called"Managing Personal Growth" (MPG) attended afour day Outward Bound (OB) course. Inter-views were conducted with 33 employees se-lected from a stratified random sample of MPGgraduates who attended the OB course. The re-searchers concluded that three major benefitswere evident: greater self-confidence, increasein morale, and an enhanced a sense of team-work, friendship and respect for coworkers inthe company as a result of the experience. Amajor finding indicated that those who attendedboth the MPG and OB courses had lower turn-over rates (1.7%) when compared to MPG onlyturnover rates (6.0%) and company-wide turn-over rates (8.4%).

A few years later, Isenhart (1983) adminis-tered a 22 item questionnaire to 350 OutwardBound professional development programgraduates. Of these, 140 (40%) were returnedwith findings that revealed that participants felttheir personal behavior had changed (76.4%),their work behavior had improved as a result ofhaving participated in their course (78.6%), andthey were better able to handle work responsi-bilities as a result of their participation (88.6%).A more recent survey (Colorado OutwardBound School, 1988) of 274 alumni of thecourse, contacted to determine the effectivenessof their experience, suggested that a positiveimpact on professional and personal aspects ofthe participants was obtained. Responses con-cluded that the program was valuable in teambuilding (96%), that it gave new insights into

66PRIEST

leadership (86%), and that participants gainedincreased closeness to teammates (92%). Per-sonal gains were evidenced in the areas of per-sonal growth (92%), and extension of one's per-sonal limits (86%). The program also was foundto have value in building professional relation-ships (80%) and providing a fuller understand-ing of self (80%).

Galpin (1989) implemented a study to in-vestigate the effects of a 3-day Outward Boundcourse for managers on a number of self-perceptions, including self-concept, hardiness,trust of others and involvement in group proc-ess. Sixty-four middle managers from a largehospital completed an impact survey and thePersonal Views Survey. Data were gathered onemonth prior to the course, immediately at thestart, upon completion, and one month after thecourse. Analysis of data revealed that participa-tion in the adventure training program had apositive impact on the manager's self-conceptand hardiness, with females affected to a greaterdegree than males, and with older managers af-fected more than younger ones. Changes weremaintained during the follow-up month, withfemales retaining changes to a greater extentthan males.

PRESENT RESEARCH

Baldwin, Wagner, and Roland (1991) con-ducted an evaluation on the effects of an out-door challenge training program. The programincluded a- series of group problem-solving ini-tiatives common to most adventure-basedtraining programs. Subjects in this study in-cluded 458 civilian employees and 13 supervi-sors from a military base. Two questionnaireswere developed to collect relevant data on a va-riety of group and individual measures. Findingsfrom the study suggested that outdoor challengetraining had a moderate affect on group aware-ness and effectiveness and individual problemsolving, as measured three months after thetraining. No significant changes were observedin trust or self-concept.

Dutkiewicz and Chase (1991) undertook astudy of MBA students to measure empiricallythe changes that participants undergo following

participation in an outdoor-based leadershiptraining experience. A control group of 43 stu-dents and an experimental group of 41 studentsparticipated in the study, with the experimentalgroup receiving treatment. Results indicated thatthe MBA students who participated in the out-door-based training exhibited change in the do-mains of trust, confidence in peers, group clar-ity, group cohesiveness, group awareness, andgroup homogeneity. Lesser changes were notedin the measures of self-assessment and problemsolving.

Attarian (1992) examined the effects of ad-venture training on the risk-taking propensity ofcorporate managers. A total of 57 managers rep-resenting service, manufacturing, and retail dis-tributing companies participated in three, 5-daymanagement training courses administered byOutward Bound. Subjects completed the ChoiceDilemmas Questionnaire immediately beforeparticipation and 30 days after completion of thetraining program, with 87.6% returned. Datawere subjected to product moment correlationsin order to examine the relationships between amanager's age, experience, and risk-taking pro-pensity; and to Analysis of Covariance (pretestas the covariate) to determine outcome differ-ences across gender, management level, com-pany type, and job role. The following wereconcluded: (a) a manager's age, years of em-ployment, and risk-taking propensity were nothighly correlated; (b) male and female managersdid not differ in risk-taking propensity; (c) nodifferences in risk-taking propensity were evi-dent among any management levels; and (d) nosignificant differences in risk-taking propensitywere observed between the service company,manufacturing concern, and retail organization.Overall, subjects showed greater risk-takingpropensity after the course through mean scorecomparisons; however, differences were notstatistically significant at the .05 level of prob-ability.

Quinn and Vogl (1992) examined the shortterm perceived benefits of a 20-hour programfor 125 accounting firm employees. Clear im-provements in communication with colleaguesand conflict management were noted, along

69


with some gain in self-confidence and limitedincreases in trust, handling stress, and commu-nication ability.

Wagner and Roland (1992) noted that thefacilitator of these programs is a pivotal elementof program quality. They compared the impactof "hard" versus "soft" skill facilitator compe-tence on outcomes from a one day program for369 civilian employees of a military agency.During the delivery of programs, facilitators(already holding appropriate hard skills) under-went additional soft skill development. Subjectsparticipating in the latter days of programs hadgreater gains in group effectiveness than thoseparticipating prior to the soft skill upgrading offacilitators.

Miner (1993) conducted a study to comparethe effectiveness of an isomorphic model ofprocessing with a generic one on the team de-velopment of 50 employees, the entire work-force of a service sector company. Differenceswere also sought across the independent vari-ables of gender and hierarchical position in thecorporation. Although no significant differenceswere found between the two processing meth-ods, teamwork did improve over the trainingperiod. Although small sample sizes preventedinferences among hierarchy levels, some differ-ences in perceptions of teamwork were notedbetween men and women.

Bronson, Gibson, Kichar, and Priest (1992)compared two intact work groups (with equiva-lent levels of responsibility or function) clustersampled from all divisions within an aerospacecompany. A control group of 11 managers re-ceived no treatment, while an experimentalgroup of 17 managers underwent a three-dayoff-site adventure training program composedmostly of challenge course events and groupinitiative activities. Both groups completed theshort version of the Team Development Inven-tory (TDI-s) about two months before and twomonths after the training. Both groups, rela-tively equivalent before, were significantly dif-ferent after the program. While the controlfailed to show change over the study period, theexperimental group improved on teamwork

a.

70

items related to group goals, genuine concern,effective listening, decision making, respect fordiversity, high standards, recognition of ideas,encouragement for feedback. No improvementswere noted for conflict resolution or offeringassistance. Manager's comments supported theconclusion that team developments were due tothe training program. Researchers recommendedfurther study to examine trends in team devel-opment that take place over time and the effec-tiveness of teamwork transfer in corporate ad-venture training.

Smith and Priest (in press) determined thatin order for team building programs to be effec-tively utilized back at the office, they should beconducted on intact work units, rather than onrandom samples of employees, and that com-pany resources should be dedicated to encour-aging practice of teamwork. Subjects (53 middlemanagers of a Canadian commercial distributionfirm) were randomly selected and assigned tofive groups. These groups rotated through 10team building activities (trolleys, line-ups, allaboard, trust triads, trust falls, spider web, teamtriangle, cantilever, nitro crossing and trafficjam) during a one-day program. Subjects weretested three times with the medium version ofthe Team Development Inventory (TDI-m)during the program. The five groups showedsignificant improvement on all 25 items of theTDI-m, indicating that the program was effec-tive in building functional teams from randomindividuals. Although the groups started withdifferent perceptions of teamwork and evolvedat different rates, by the end of the day theywere relatively equivalent in their levels ofteamwork. The varying rates of increase wereattributed to the styles of the groups' respectivefacilitators. Recognizing that the treatment waseffective, a 25% sub-sample of 15 subjects waspurposely selected for interview, with propor-tionate representation of 3 subjects from eachgroup (including advocates and skeptics alike).The open ended, half-hour long, tape recordedinterviews were held a month later and askedabout demographics, program highlights,learning applications, barriers to transfer oflearning, and strategies for overcoming the bar-

68PRIEST

riers. Fourteen subjects (7 male and 7 female)participated in the interviews. With a range of 5to 10 years of experience in this company, sub-jects commonly responded that their learninghighlight was that they could accomplish morethan initially anticipated. They gained anawareness of cooperation, trust, conflict andcommunication, noted the importance of keep-ing everyone involved in a project, and recog-nized their own role in contributing to a teamtask. Subjects provided examples of applyingnew learning at work, but mentioned two prin-ciple barriers to transference: lack of participa-tion by all employees in the program and lack oftime for practicing new learning. In short, theyattempted to practice functional team behaviors,but ran into resistance and opposition from co-workers who had not experienced the same pro-gram. In order to overcome these barriers in thefuture, they suggested involving intact units andproviding time or other resources for practicingteamwork.

Priest and Lesperance (1994) conducted astudy to examine the role of follow-up proce-dures in transfer and retention of teamwork. Theupper management (vice-president, directorsand area managers) from four intact work units(computing systems/data analysis or financialrisk management) of a financial institution and abank participated in an intensive 48 hour resi-dential program (conducted over 3 days). Acontrol group (n = 20), did not receive anytraining, and three experimental groups (n = 20,15, and 20) received the program and three dif-ferent follow-up procedures (no follow-up, self-chosen follow-up, and self-facilitating). Sub-jects were tested with the short version of theTeam Development Inventory (TDI-s) duringthe program and four times afterwards (2 weeks,4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months). All fourgroups were relatively equivalent in the type ofparent company, organizational functions, hier-archical structure, and scores on the TDI-smeasured prior to the program. Afterwards, sig-nificant increases were evident on all ten itemson the TDI-s for all three experimental groups,but not for the control group, indicating that theprogram brought about positive changes in

teamwork. All three experimental groups expe-rienced an immediate and slight drop in team-work levels (measured two weeks later), whichwas attributed to the well-known "Post GroupEuphoria" effect common to many adventureexperiences. In relation to the three differentfollow-ups, the group not receiving any suppor-tive procedures reverted to baseline control lev-els by the end of six months. After the sametime period, the group involved with self-chosenstrategies such as team meetings, refreshertraining, social gatherings, staff luncheons, andcoaching sub-teams, maintained their levels ofteamwork. Finally, the self-facilitating groupwas able to increase the levels of their team be-haviors, building on successes and learningfrom setbacks at work, by the techniques offunnelling and guided reflection. The pointabout transfer or longevity of learning is drivenhome by this longitudinal research which sug-gests that any teamwork improvements fromtraining may be lost after six months withoutsupport in the form of follow-up procedures.

Changes in the corporate culture of an Aus-tralian public service delivery company weremeasured by surveying a stratified (gender andmanagement level) random sample of 100 man-agers from about 500 managers in a company ofabout 5,000 employees. A final total of 4,516employees (everyone) participated in a five-dayprogram consisting of group initiative tasks,high ropes courses, and evening lectures. Alltraining was conducted over a one year period(JulyJune), and no other training schemeswere underway at the time of study (Dec. 89Dec. '91). Eighty three out of 100 managers re-sponded to Section III of the Individual-Team-Organization (ITO) survey and the short form ofthe Organizational-Health (OH) survey threetimes (six months before the program, in themiddle of the program, and six months after theprogram). Responses of the 83 managers, fromall areas and levels of the organization, indi-cated that this particular company improved itsplanning utility, structure flexibility, systemsfunctioning, sensible and supportive roles, posi-tive relationships, excessive delays in workflow,reflection time, and mission and goal clarity

71


during the first year. Concern for getting the jobdone (rather than accounting for time and cost),alignment, marketplace impact, and profit ver-sus growth decreased over the same period, al-though decreases were not seen as necessarilydetrimental in this case, since the companymoved through a desired period of well neededreadjustment. During the second year, reflectiontime decreased, but work enjoyment improved,even though workloads increased over bothyears as a result of necessary readjustments. Theexperiential training program was attributed bycompany executive to have positively resultedin these cultural changes (Priest, 1992).

Motivational climate changes were alsomeasured for the same Australian public servicedelivery company by surveying 81 out of 100managers with two tests (six months before andsix months after the year of training) of the Mo-tivational Analysis of Organizations-Climate(MAO-C) survey. Overall, the organization be-came more flexible around rules, more willingto embrace or accept chaos as a valuable cata-lyst for change, more concerned with the needsor well being of employees and more relaxedaround the concept of empowerment of indi-viduals and teams. To some extent the organi-zation became open around the disclosure ofinformation or opinions and employees becamecomfortable around the idea of interacting withone another. Overall, managers perceived thecompany to have undergone dramatic changes,resulting in a new and completely different wayof motivating its employees. In summary, thiscompany was characterized as an organizationmotivated by "control-expert influence" and"control-dependency" orientations, before thetraining program. After the one year of corpo-rate adventure training, in which all employeesparticipated, those descriptors had shifted to"achievement-affiliation" and "achievement-extension" orientations. In other words, thecompany was transformed from an autocraticbureaucracy where rules reigned supreme to anempowered and team-oriented environmentwhere people were valued. This was both thedesire and intent of the company executivewhen they undertook the program. Although the

entire transformation cannot be attributed solelyto the adventure training (change may have bedriven by environmental factors and financialnecessity), the executive were convinced thatthe program was a powerful and supportive ad-junct to their own efforts at making motivationalclimate changes (Priest, 1992).

Goldman and Priest (1991) examined thetransfer of risk taking behaviors from adventuretraining to the workplace for 27 financial man-agers of a Canadian credit card corporation whowere involved in the one day risk taking exer-cise of rappelling (the controlled descent of acliff face by using ropes and rock climbingequipment). The hypothesis being tested waswhether a brief, but powerful, adventure trainingsession would alter the work-related perceptionsof risk and propensity to take risks for thesemanagers. The results of the study showed thatthe session did indeed positively affect employ-ees' risk taking behaviors in the business set-ting. As would be expected with repeated rap-pelling descents, propensity levels began low,but increased as people became more comfort-able with the descents and willing to try morerisky ones. Perception of risk began high butdecreased as experience was gained. These out-comes indicated that the treatment worked,probably by reducing anxiety and enhancing thedesire to take risks. Subjects remarked that theirnew sense of self-confidence (acquired fromrappelling) had been useful in changing theirrisk taking behaviors at work. Managers re-marked that they felt supported by their peersand more willing to risk as a result of their"belay and backup." The terms used during theadventure session were being used in the cultureof the organization to describe work situationswhich were metaphoric representations of theiradventure.

A team of researchers (Mac Rea, Moore,Savage, Soehner & Priest, 1993) compared theeffect of a standard ropes course experience andan isomorphic one on the risk taking behavioursof already high risk takers (male firefighters).The isomorphic experience was a modificationof the standard one to be more "job-like" and anaccurate metaphoric representation of real-life

72

70 PRIEST

fire fighting. For example, the high ropes courseexperience consisted of 8 elements built withina circle of six 40' tall utility poles (Two LineBridge, Beam Walk, Criss Cross, Hebe Jebe,Swinging Log, Tension Traverse, Burma Bridgeand Multivine). The standard program involvedcompleting these elements in the order listedwithout structural alteration. The isomorphicprogram involved a different order with keymodifications made to mirror the everydaysituation faced by fire fighters: time limits tomimic limited oxygen supply pack, blindfoldsrepresenting a smoke filled room, and workingclosely with a safety buddy. Subjects were ran-domly assigned to 8 groups of 12. Four controlgroups (n = 37) did not receive a ropes course,two groups (n = 20) enjoyed the standard one,and two groups (n = 17) experienced the iso-morphic modifications. All subjects were pre-and post-tested with the Choice Dilemma Sur-vey, which outlined 10 scenarios associatedwith risk taking opportunities and asked sub-jects to disclose the odds (out of a possible 10)that they would consider acceptable before tak-ing each risk. The control groups were notfound to change significantly in their risk takingpropensity. The standard and isomorphic ropescourse groups significantly decreased their ac-ceptable odds, indicating that their risk takingpropensity had increased as a result of the ropescourse program. However, no experimentalgroups were found to differ significantly ontheir post-test means, suggesting that neithertype of ropes course experience was more ef-fective than the other in changing risk takingpropensity. Perhaps the ropes course was sopowerful that the isomorphs were overshad-owed, or the particular isomorphs were so weakas to make little difference in the fire fighters'risk taking.

Three years prior to participating in the pro-gram studied by Klint and Priest (in press), amajor Canadian manufacturer formed severalbusiness planning teams called B-PLANs. B-PLANs were charged with the task of involvingcompany employees in the running of the com-pany, shifting the responsibility of the day-to-day operations and decisions from a higher

management level to those who were closer tothe actual operation and performance of thejobs. A cross-section or horizontal slice of 11male employees on one B-PLAN participated ina single day program consisting of simple so-cialization games and typical group initiativetasks. Subjects were observed during the pro-gram and debriefs and were twice interviewed attheir workplace (four days and four monthslater). Qualitative data were triangulated(seeking multiple and corroborative opinionsabout the same topic or issue), member checked(asking subjects to confirm that what was writ-ten about them was indeed accurate), andaudited (by a second researcher). Subjectsstarted the day as members of a very dysfunc-tional group, unable to accomplish many simpletasks, which grew into a group who felt' thatcould handle any problem thrown at them. Theymoved from a starting point of not being able toorganize themselves into lineups to a finishingpoint of being able to identify their own levelsof challenge and successfully move everyoneover "the wall" with concern for one another.By the end of the day, they were truly workingtogether with a feeling of pride, and this contin-ued on the job for up to four months. The singleday of training was perceived by the subjects tobe a strong metaphor for their efforts in formu-lating a business plan for the company. As aresult of their brief but educational experience,the group realized better teamwork, improvedinteractions, increased trust, effective communi-cation, and became willing to share in the rolesand responsibilities of solving problems in smallgroups at work.

Priest (1995) found that using clients to be-lay one another in rock climbing develops trustbetween partners better than employing facili-tators or technicians for this role (which mayreduce partnership trust). An American manu-facturing company was interested in developinga new partnership arrangement for workers bypairing them up to share responsibilities on as-sembly lines. A total of 192 workers (involvedin parallel line functions of a four shift manu-facturing process) were arranged into eightgroups of 24 employees containing three ran-

73


domly assigned pairs of workers from each ofthe shifts. All eight groups participated in a oneday program of rock climbing, where twogroups were belayed by facilitators, two groupswere belayed by technicians, two groups werebelayed by clients (their partners), and the re-maining two groups acted as controls. The In-terpersonal Trust Inventory-partner version(ITI-p) was given four times: one month beforetreatment, one week before, one week after, andthree months later. To account for possible pre-test effects, one group from the two groups ineach of the four treatments completed an addi-tional ITI-p instrument at the start and finish ofthe treatment. No pre-test effects or differenceswere found between groups with the same be-layer type, therefore these two groups werecombined into one for analysis. For overall trustand four of its five subscales, means for the cli-ent (self) belay groups rose significantly afterthe program and remained elevated threemonths later. However, means for the facilitatorand technician belay groups dropped signifi-cantly after the program and remained loweredthree months later. Obviously, having, clientsbelay one another enhanced trust between part-ners, while employing others to belay dimin-ished trust. No parallel patterns were found forbelievability. Apparently, these subjects per-ceived their partners to behave genuinely, re-gardless of belayer type used.

Priest (in press) found that ropes coursesand group initiatives develop different trustsubscales by different means. A Canadian en-tertainment company was interested in changingthe view employees held toward the corpora-tion, since recent events had created the poten-tial for some angry and distrustful feelings be-tween the organization and its membership. Fivesingle day sessions (once a week with the samefacilitators) of either group initiatives (nitrocrossing, nuclear reactor, acid river, etc.) or highand low ropes course elements (multivine, crisscross, swinging log, etc.) were designed to re-store trust within the corporate whole. The en-tire company work force (156 employees) wasrandomly assigned into three groups of 52. Onegroup was a control, another received group ini-

tiatives only, and the last participated in highand low ropes only. The Interpersonal Trust In-ventory-organizational version (ITI-o) was ad-ministered five times: one month before theprogram began, at the program start, middle,and end, and two months after the program fin-ished. Both group initiatives and ropes courseswere effective in improving overall trustworthi-ness toward the organization, and neither wasfound to be more effective than the other. Par-allel increases were noted for believability, con-fidentiality and dependability sub-scales. How-ever, the ropes course appeared to diminish ac-ceptance of others' ideas, while group initiativesbuilt acceptance. This may be due to the sharedresponsibility of problem solving in group ini-tiative versus the possible avoidance of advicefrom others while individually engaged with theropes course. Furthermore, the ropes course ap-peared to enhance encouragement of others'efforts, while group initiatives didn't influenceencouragement. This may be due to the ten-dency of groups to offer support either fromtheir empathy of having tried the ropes courseor from their sympathy in imagining what it islike to attempt in front of others. Program pro-viders interested in creating gains in trust to-ward an organization can apply either groupinitiatives, ropes courses or a combination ofapproaches to the need. If gains in acceptingnew ideas are preferred, then a design heavy ingroup initiatives is called for. On the other hand,if gains in encouraging effort are desired, then adesign heavy in ropes courses is recommended.

In response to half a dozen fatal heart attacks inmales over the age of 40 while on high ropescourses, Priest and Montelpare (1995) were ableto predict (64% explained variance) the highestheart rates attained by middle aged males onone high ropes course, from their age, height,weight, body girths, the time it takes them towalk a mile and their heart rate after walkingthat mile. Eight groups of 12 subjects from aCanadian financial corporation engaged in onehour of physical measurement (basal heart rate,blood pressure, height, weight, body girths,cholesterol, maximum number of push-up, andthe Rockport walking test). A three-hour high

74

72PRIEST

ropes course session with 10 elements (two linebridge, beam walk, criss cross, heeby jeebyswinging log, tension traverse, burma bridge,multivine, pamper platform and pamper pole)followed. Subjects' heart rates on the ropescourse were electronically monitored by a de-tector band placed around the chest and teleme-tered to a recording wrist watch. The highestheart rates attained ranged from 126 to 197,with an average of 167.1 beats per minute.Sixty-eight subjects (36 male, 32 female) com-pleted all aspects of the study; however, a pre-dictive formula was achieved only for males.This equation included six variables (entered infive regression steps), with a combined correla-tion coefficient of R = 0.80. The researchersbelieved that this approach should not take theplace of medical screening procedures. Seden-tary, middle-aged people and persons of any agewith coronary risk factors (prior history or riskfactors such as smoking, obesity, high bloodpressure, sedentary lifestyle, etc.) are advised tohave a physical examination if they intend tobegin any exercise routine more vigorous thanwalking. However, this procedure can be an in-expensive and simple intermediary step to iden-tifying possible problems prior to sending everyparticipant for a maximum exercise or stresstest.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONSAND CONCERNS

In the past, most evidence supporting the ef-ficacy of CAT and EBTD was testimonial andanecdotal description (Keslake & Radcliff,1980). Recent research has established that suchprograms can be effective, but business authori-ties question the quality of many programs. Fu-ture studies must investigate the program ele-ments that contribute to overall effectiveness.Given the breadth of benefits, scope of activi-ties, and depth of program foci, these variationswill be difficult to control. One recommendationfor constancy is that programs should involveselecting a single construct (e.g., teamwork, themost common training and development goal),while varying other elements of the programsuch as length, facilitation, location, design,content, assessment, follow-up, etc. These proj-

ects ought to consider transfer of learning bybeing longitudinal, thus examining the mainte-nance as well as acquisition of benefits overtime.

Several concerns exist when studying CATor EBTD programs (Priest, Attarian, &Schubert, 1993). First, credible programs oper-ate under the ethic of challenge by choice,which means subjects will always be voluntary(and possibly predisposed to change). The con-sequential lack of cynics and critics may limitthe study's application. Second, an effectiveprogram is used with intact work units, so sam-pling cannot be random (random assignment orselection limits program quality). The best onecan hope for is quasi-experimentation.

Third, having small groups of eight totwelve people, typical of CAT or EBTD pro-grams, means that variable distributions willlikely be abnormal or discrete and require non-parametric procedures (distribution-free tests),which are generally less well accepted thanparametric statistics. Fourth, this concern ofsmall sample sizes cannot be overcome by com-bining several groups with the exact same ad-venture, because effective programs customizecontent to best meet the clients needs. If theprogram gets modified to suit the research, thenthe program suffers; if the reverse is true, thenthe research suffers.

Fifth, obtaining clean control groups (thosenot engaged in a program) is extremely difficult,because the experimental groups (those in-volved with the adventure) can often"contaminate" the purity of the controls bysharing experiences outside the study. Since thebest controls are selected from the same situa-tion as the experimentals, one can expect themto interact at work and thus change the way theyrespond to measurement methods. Sixth, thephenomena studied in adventure programs areprimarily human qualities and are not easilymeasured in a quantitative manner. Since fewvalid and reliable instruments exist, the use ofqualitative methods to measure qualities appearsmore logical.

75


Seventh, some programs and their clients donot want to be studied, in case someone shoulddiscover that they are ineffective in some wayand spending lots of money for nothing. Eighth,research and evaluation can interfere with run-ning a smooth program by interrupting learningprocesses, -by preventing full participation, andby costing additional time or money (Cacioppe& Adamson, 1988). Few ethical research studieson CAT and EBTD programs can be made to-tally unobtrusive.

In addition to these eight concerns, thisauthor and other researchers are worried aboutthe amount of poor research that gets communi-cated to an ignorant public, now hungry for anyresults that help them prove their points. With-out a sound grounding in research theory, phi-losophy, or practice, they accept everything asgospel, without critically examining its meritand application. Many consumers of researchbegin to distrust most studies. Some producersof research become reluctant to share theirfindings for fear of misinterpretation or exag-geration. A few academics try to widen the gapaway from practitioners as a means to protectthe sanctity of their work. In an effort to par-tially bridge this gap, the following are four rec-ommended ethical guidelines for conductingresearch on CAT and EBTD programs.

First, ethical research operates with in-formed consent under a "challenge by choice"philosophy, just like ethical adventure pro-grams. In almost all cases (except where decep-tion or concealment are both justified and nec-essary), subjects must have the risks and re-sponsibilities of the study explained to themverbally or in writing. Subjects should providesigned consent (verbal agreement to participateis acceptable in general public surveys, but notin experiments where subjects are assigned totreatment or control groups). Warning and in-forming prior to signature, ought to include thesponsoring institution, project title, researcher'snames and contacts, a description of the study,inherent risks, benefits expected and safeguardsemployed.

Second, researchers should protect subjects'rights. The two rights of "only answering ques-tion they wish to" and "being able to withdrawfrom the study at any time without penalty"must be clearly communicated to all subjects. Acopy of the results should be given to thosesubjects who request one. Guarantee of confi-dentiality must be made by stating that individ-ual responses will not be named, but instead willbe reported in aggregate or averaged forms.Real names will be changed to protect subjectsand the names of organizations (such as pro-vider and consumer names, even with their per-mission) will be withheld for reasons of ano-nymity. These rights are important in all humansubject research, but are similarly critical inCAT and EBTD programs where some subjectsmay be concerned about potential career limit-ing situations.

Third, researchers should resist the tempta-tion to over-generalize. Generalization is fre-quently delimited to a particular program ortraining treatment and limited by flaws in thestudy. All research or evaluation is flawed tosome extent, and people who fail to acknowl-edge the obvious flaws in their work are claim-ing credibility of research and evaluation whichsimply does not exist and may even be willinglymisrepresenting the authenticity of their studies.

Fourth, the purpose of a peer review or refe-reeing process, prior to publication in scholarlyor academic journals, is to draw attention tothese possible flaws and to either improve mar-ginal studies or prevent poor studies from get-ting published. Therefore, researchers would beunwise to release research or evaluation in pre-publication manuscript form to anyone otherthan producers of research and evaluation. Thelatter are assumed to have the abilities to discernflaws and limitations, while novice consumersof research and evaluation (such as practitionersor the media) may not have such competence.To prevent this, researchers have the ethical ob-ligation to correctly interpret their work in orderto make it understandable for the layperson.Lastly, if a study fails to find significant change,differences or relationships, this should never beinterpreted as the fact that none ever existed.

76

74PRIEST

They simply were not detected in this particularinstance. Hopefully, these recommendations canhelp guide the future of research on CAT andEBTD programs.

REFERENCES

Agran, D., Garvey, D., Miner, T., & Priest, S. (1993).Experience-based training and development: Di-rectory of programs. Boulder, CO: Associationfor Experiential Education.

Attarian, A. (1992). The effects of Outward Boundtraining on the risk-taking propensity of corpo-rate managers. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

Baldwin, T. T., Wagner, R. J., & Roland, C. C.(1991). Effects of outdoor challenge training onSgroup and individual outcomes. Unpublishedmanuscript. Indiana University, School of Busi-ness: Bloomington.

Bank, J. (1985). Outdoor development for managers.London, England: Gower.

Beeby, M., & Rathbom, S. (1982). Developmenttraining: Using the outdoors in management de-velopment. Management Education and Devel-opment, 14 (3), 170-181.

Brathay Hall Trust. (1986). Leadership and develop-ment training. Promotional brochure.

Bronson, J., Gibson, S., Kichar, R., & Priest, S.(1992). Evaluation of team development in acorporate adventure training program, Journal ofExperiential Education, 15 (2), 50-53.

Cacioppe, R., & Adamson, P. (1988). Stepping overthe edge: Outdoor development and programsfor management and staff. Human ResourceManagement Australia, 77-91.

Colorado Outward Bound School. (1988). Survey ofprofessional development program participants,1988. Unpublished manuscript.

Creswick, C., & Williams, R. (1979). Using the out-doors for management development and teambuilding: The Food, Drink and Tobacco I.T.B.Unpublished manuscript.

Darby, M. (June, 1989). Adventure training. Austra-lian Institute of Training and Development, 8.

Dutkiewicz, J. S., & Chase, D. B. (1991, October).Behavioral impact of outdoor based leadershiptraining on University of Denver's MBA stu-dents: 1990-1991. Paper presented at the Inter-

national Assoc. of Experiential Education Con-ference, Lake Junaluska, NC.

Falvey, J. (1988, October 3). Before spending $3million on leadership, read this. Wall StreetJournal.

Fleming, J. (1987, September). Roughing it in thebush. Business Magazine, 40-48.

Fletcher, B. (1957). The challenge of OutwardBound. London: Heinemann.

Gahin, F. S., & Chesteen, S. A. (1988). Executivescontemplate the call of the wild. Risk Manage-ment, 35 (1), 44-51.

Galagan, P. (1987). Between two trapezes. Training& Development Journal, 41 (3), 40-50.

Gall, A. (1987). You can take the manager out of thewoods, but.... Training and Development Jour-nal, 41, 54-58.

Galpin, T. J. (1989). The impact of a three-day out-door management development course on se-lected self-perceptions of the participants. Un-published doctoral dissertation. University ofCalifornia, at Los Angeles.

Garvey, (1989). The corporate connection: Frombowlines to bowties. Journal of ExperientialEducation, 12 (1), 13-15.

Gass, M., Goldman K., & Priest, S. (1992). Con-structing Effective Corporate Adventure Train-ing Programs. Journal of Experiential Educa-tion, 15 (1), 35-42.

Goldman, K., & Priest, S. (1991). Risk taking trans-fer in development training. Journal of Adven-ture Education and Outdoor Leadership, 7 (4),32-35.

Isenhart, M. W. (1983). Report to the Colorado Out-ward Bound School. Author.

Kadel, S. (1988, May 3). Executives grasp goals,teamwork in outdoors. The Business Journal, 3.

Keslake, P. S., & Radcliff, P. J. (1980). Inwardbound A new direction for Outward Bound: To-wards a holistic approach to management devel-opment. In J. Beck & C. Cox (Eds.), Advances inmanagement education, (pp. 41-54). Chichester:John Wiley & Sons.

King, D., & Harmon, P. (1981). Evaluation of theColorado Outward Bound School's career de-velopment course offered in collaboration withthe training, education, and employee develop-

77


ment department of Martin-Marietta Aerospace.Colorado Outward Bound School.

Klint, K., & Priest, S. (in press). A qualitative re-search study on transfer effectiveness in CATprogramming. Journal of Adventure Educationand Outdoor Leadership.

Knecht, G. B. (1983, July). Executives go OutwardBound. Dun 's Business Month, 56-58.

Latteier, C. (1989). Learning to lead. United StatesAir Magazine.

Lawler, E. E. (1988, January). Human resourcesmanagement: Meeting the challenges. Personnel,22-27.

Long, J. (1984). The wilderness lab. Training andDevelopment Journal, 38 (5), 58-69.

Long, J. W. (1987). The wilderness lab comes of age.Training and Development Journal, 41 (3), 30-39 .

MacRea, S., Moore, C., Savage, G., Soehner, D., &Priest, S. (1993). Changes in risk taking propen-sity due to ropes course challenges. Journal ofAdventure Education and Outdoor Leadership,10 (2), 10-12.

Miner, T. A. (1991). A descriptive analysis of theexperience-based training and developmentfield. In C. Birmingham (Ed.), Association forExperiential Education: 1991 conference pro-ceedings and workshop summaries book, pp. 59-66. Boulder, CO: Association for ExperientialEducation.

Miner, T. A. (1993). A comparison of isomorphicand generic processing approaches for teambuilding through experience-based training anddevelopment: A quantitative and qualitativeanalysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Boston University.

Mossman, A. (1982). Management training for real.Unpublished manuscript.

Patterson, G. (1969). Study of attitudes and reactions.Sydney: Consensus Communication.

Priest, S. (1991). Simon Priest's response [to 'De-bunking the mystique of the ropes course' byJackson]. The Oklahoma Therapeutic Ropes As-sociation Journal, 1 (1), 6-9.

Priest, S. (1992). The impact of total employee par-ticipation in an experiential training and devel-opment program or corporate adventure training

program on the corporate work climate. In K. A.Henderson (Ed.), Coalition for Education in theOutdoors research symposium proceedings (pp.103-104). Bradford Woods, Martinsville, Indi-ana: Coalition for Education in the Outdoors.

Priest, S. (1995). The effect of belaying and belayertype on the development of interpersonal part-nership trust in rock climbing. Journal of Expe-riential Education, 18 (2), 107-109.

Priest, S. (in press). Developing organizational trust:Comparing the effects of ropes course and ini-tiatives. Journal of Experiential Education, 19(2).

Priest, S., Attarian, A., & Schubert, S. (1993). Con-ducting Research in Experience-based Trainingand Development Programs: Passkeys to lockeddoors. Journal of Experiential Education, 16 (2),11-20.

Priest, S., & Lesperance, M. A. (1994). Time SeriesTrend Analysis in corporate team development.Journal of Experiential Education, 17 (1), 34-39.

Priest, S., & Montelpare, W. (1995). Prediction ofheart rates on a ropes course from simple physi-cal measures. Journal of Experiential Education,18 (1), 25-29.

Quinn, W. J., & Vogl, R. (1992). The impact of acorporate adventure program. In K. A. Hender-son (Ed.), Coalition for Education in the Out-doors research symposium proceedings (pp. 97-98). Bradford Woods, Martinsville, Indiana:Coalition for Education in the Outdoors.

Rice, B. (1979). Going to the mountain. PsychologyToday, 13 (7), 65-81.

Rice, B. (1988). Work or perk? Psychology Today,22 (6), 26-28.

Roland, C. C. (1981). The transfer of an outdoormanagerial training program to the workplace.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston Uni-versity.

Roland, C. C. (1985). Outdoor managerial trainingprograms: Do they work? Bradford Papers, 5,69-77.

Smith, R. P., & Priest, S. (in press). Team develop-ment from a Corporate Adventure Training pro-gram and barriers to workplace transference.Journal of Adventure Education and OutdoorLeadership.

78

76PRIEST

Wagner, R. J., & Roland, C. C. (1992). Facilitators:One key in implementing successful experience-based training and development programs. In K.A. Henderson (Ed.), Coalition for Education inthe Outdoors research symposium -proceedings(pp. 99-100). Bradford Woods, Martinsville, In-diana: Coalition for Education in the Outdoors.

Williams, D. H. (1980). Adventure with a purpose.The Training Officier, 16 (10), 259-261.

Zemke, R. (1988, April). Raiders of the lost meta-phor. Training, 8.

79

A RESEARCH UPDATE OF ADVENTURE THERAPY (1992-1995):CHALLENGE ACTIVITIES AND ROPES COURSES, WILDERNESS EXPEDITIONS,

AND RESIDENTIAL CAMPING PROGRAMS

H. L. "Lee" Gillis

Georgia CollegeMilledgeville, GA

Project AdventureCovington, GA

Donna Thomsen

Georgia CollegeMilledgeville, GA

In 1992 a review of research in adventure therapy offered a perspective that utilized work in psy-chotherapy as a lens to view the current state of the field. From that review, several recommenda-tions were made to gain respect within the field of traditional mental health. This update examinesthe recommendations made in 1992 and updates them utilizing research that has taken place inadventure therapy and borrowing liberally from suggestions made for enhancing the field of psy-chotherapy. The article makes the following points. First, the field of adventure therapy must cre-ate a collective document that addresses its accomplishments and effectiveness. Technology al-lows world wide web connections that can facilitate the process of communication at levels wewere unaware of in 1992. Second, the clinically significant events of adventure therapy need to beexamined through a massive survey of consumers of our service in order to achieve credibilitywith mental health and those who hold the purse strings. If we do not do so, we risk benefiting ourpotential consumers, those who may not be able to access adventure therapy as a viable approachto treatment. Finally, the time is ripe with possibilities for researchers and several avenues are ex-plored for shaping the future of the field.

INTRODUCTION

In 1992 a request was made to overview thefield of adventure therapy with regard to its re-search. In that study models and recommenda-tions from psychotherapy research were used aslenses to view the current state of the field. Theproblems with language was highlighted to theextent that numerous words were used to de-scribe what might generically be called"adventure therapy." Difficulties with trying toresearch a field as diverse as adventure therapywere also noted and suggestions were made asto how we might benefit more from correctionalwork than from pre-post testing of such vari-ables as self concept. The issue of clinical sig-nificance was introduced as it related to movingclients from level of pathology to levels of

77

health, regardless of the level of statistical sig-nificance achieved. Such a goal was thought tobe more noble. Finally, much of the discussionthat ensued from the presentation of the 1992study highlighted the need for the field to beclearer as to what was happening when we tookfolks on 'adventures' as therapy.

In this update of the overview (Gillis, 1992)on the therapeutic uses of adventure program-ming, three major points are covered. The initialpart of this article examines recommendationsmade at the Coalition for Education in the Out-doors Research Symposium in 1992. Each rec-ommendation is followed by an update on prog-ress toward fulfilling the recommendation. Tooffer some analysis of the 1992 recommenda-tions a download of documents from ERIC,

Correspondence should be directed to: H. L. .t1Lee" Gillis, Ph.D., Psychology Department, Georgia College,Milledgeville, GA 31061, (912) 453-4574, [email protected]. The authors wish to thank the "friendly" re-views offered by Jude Hirsch, Martin Rinder, Mike Gass, and Simon Priest.

so

78 GILLIS & THOMSEN

Psych Lit and Dissertations Abstracts (via Dia-log) from 1992-1995 was utilized and comparedwith a similar download of articles from 1980-1992. Second, in keeping with the 1992 themeof standing on other researcher's shoulders, thisreview utilized findings from a recent psycho-therapy research critique by Martin Seligman(Seligman, 1995). There, he examined the mer-its of a Consumer Reports (1995) survey on theeffectiveness of mental health services. Selig-man's ideas about the validity of efficacy stud-ies and effectiveness studies are very relevant toa path adventure therapy might consider. Finallyit would be difficult to resist the opportunity tochart potential research avenues and recommen-dations that might clarify the territory we calladventure therapy. This task may help illumi-nate our path through the larger field of mentalhealth and beckon others to follow.

NEED FOR A META-ANALYSIS

Someone needs to conduct a meta-analysis on therapeutic aspect of ad-venture-challenge-outdoor-wildernessthat includes the criteria of clinical sig-nificance along with traditional meth-ods of effect size.

Dana Cason's thesis provided meta-analysissupport for the efficacy of adventure program-ming with adolescents (reported in (Cason &Gillis, 1993). She found a summary effect size'of .314 from 43 accessible studies. Interpreted,this figure indicates that the average adolescentwho participated in an adventure program wasbetter off than 62.2% of adolescents who did notparticipate. No big surprise here, some adven-ture programming is better than none; nowthere's a number to go with this knowledge.

Other findings of this initial meta-analysisfor adventure therapy are listed below.

'The effect sizes were determined by subtractingeach study's post test scores from the pretest scoresand dividing by the post test standard deviation.Summary effect sizes were means of all the effectsizes for a particular variable.

Twenty-six percent of all outcome meas-urements were self-reported self-conceptscales. Their combined data support the as-sertion that adventure activities have a posi-tive effect on self-concept. We still do notknow how long the positive changes last.Most likely there is an initial regression topretest measured levels before clients returnto the original posttest change levels as hasbeen found elsewhere (Davis, Berman, &Berman, 1994)

Effect sizes from studies using outcomemeasurements other than self concept dif-fered significantly.

The average effect size for self-reportevaluations was lower than the average ef-fect size for evaluations done by others.Maybe "others" see changes of which theadolescents are not aware.

As research designs approached the ideal,effect sizes were smaller. The less rigorousresearch, mostly ERIC documents, appearedto show the greatest gains.

The length of programs ranged from 36 to5400 hours (ten months), with a medianlength of 54 hours (three weeks). Forty-onepercent (41%) of the outcome measure-ments were from Outward Bound expedi-tion programs; shorter programs represented27%, and longer programs represented 32%of the sample.

Age and diagnosis of the participants foundyounger participants demonstrating largereffect sizes. Adjudicated youth were thepredominant population studied though nosignificant differences were found betweenadjudicated, "normal," or emotionally dis-turbed and physically challenged adolescentparticipants.

Cason was unable to obtain copies of severaldissertation studies that might have been con-sidered for her meta-analysis. As a result, shecould not specifically address what the impactof adventure therapy was separate from adven-ture programming. In addition, what is the va-lidity of the .314 effect size. How might the

81

ADVENTURE THERAPY RESEARCH UPDATE (1992-1995) 79

figure be increased or decreased if we had pre-post data from studies that were not publishedor contained negative data? Since most of theresearch cited was contained in dissertations, isthis research the "best" the field has to offer?We think not. There is not the priority beingplaced on research by practitioners that allowsfor the level of sharing needed to make a meta-analysis in adventure therapy meaningful at thispoint.

The central research question, mentioned inthe 1992 article, still asks "What treatment, bywhom, is most effective for this population withthat specific problem, under which set of cir-cumstances?" (Paul, cited in Kazdin, 1991, p.786). Right now we can say that adventure pro-gramming in general is effective with adoles-cents. We need to be able to know more specifi-cally what type of adventure therapy is mosteffective with which populations and problems.A new recommendation is that a comprehensivemeta-analysis is needed that can address the ef-ficacy of adventure therapy across populations,problems, and settings.

As Gass (1993) observed, three adventuretherapy areas exist. They include adventurebased therapy, wilderness therapy and long termresidential camping. These types of program-ming are characterized by where adventure ther-apy is taking place, for what length of time, andthe type of programming being utilized. Usingonly the abstracts available from PsychLit andERIC CD-ROM downloads plus a search ofDissertation Abstracts International (via Dia-log), available research was roughly placed un-der the following headings.

The activity-based group work, or whatGass calls "adventure based therapy," cen-ters on team games and problem-solvinginitiatives, either alone or in combinationwith low and high challenge ropes courseactivities. This approach takes place near afacility and rarely in "remote" settings. Ta-ble 1 indicates some representative researchin this area.

Wilderness therapy appears to come in bothshort and long term expedition formats. The

short term formats are often associated withOutward Bound's model. These programsutilize a 7-31 day expedition format that haselements of teaching and practicing wilder-ness skills. The setting is often remote, asthe name wilderness implies. Table 2 showssome representative research in this area.

Longer wilderness expeditions (60 days orlonger) appear to differ from the OutwardBound model but have not been studiedwith as much clarity to be able to clearlyhighlight their differences here. From ob-servation, it would appear that many ofthese programs focus on survival skills. Ta-ble 3 indicates some representative researchin this area.

The long-term residential camping pro-grams appear to be flourishing in the south-east and mid Atlantic regions of the UnitedStates through programs designed by Eck-erd Family Wilderness and Three Springs,Inc. It would appear from the downloadedliterature that published efficacy studieshave not been as abundant as the reportedgrowth of these programs, as shown in Ta-ble 4.

Results from the studies represented in thetables indicate that outcomes are still mixed. Itremains difficult to tell just what is taking placein these various settings that falls under the la-bel of adventure therapy. Also it was difficult todefinitively categorize studies exclusively intothe three various tables. Indeed most programsare a mixture of an activity base that highlightsropes course activities and some form of an ex-pedition.

To answer the question of which approachworks best with which population, researchersmust make better attempts to clearly describeactivities they are assessing, for how long, andwith what population. A good place to start suchdefinitions is within the titles and abstracts thatwill initially appear to researchers over accessi-ble databases.

The downloaded abstracts did not clearlyindicate the population or problem in many

82

80 GILLIS & THOMSEN

TABLE 1

Research on Activity-Based Group Work

AUTHOR POPULATION DEPENDENT VARIABLE(S) OUTCOME

Blanchard (1993) AdolescentPsychiatric Inpatients

Coopersmith Self-EsteemInventory

California PsychologicalInventory, Child BehaviorChecklist Teacher Report Form

Increase in self-esteem andimprovements in interpersonalbehavior

Hickmon (1993) Married couples fromthe Protestant religion

Waring Intimacy Questionnaire,Self-Rating of Intimacy Scale,Intimacy Change Scale and anopen-ended questionnaire

Adventure-based marriageenrichment programs enhancemarital intimacy.

Hughes (1993) Chemically dependentadult males intreatment

Sensation-Seeking Scale,Situational ConfidenceQuestionnaire

Increased self-efficacy levelsespecially with high sensationseekers.

Jacobson (1992) Families seekingfamily therapy

Family Crisis Oriented PersonalEvaluation Scale, Hudson Indexof Family Relations, ProgramQuestionnaires

Positive results and positivefeedback from families.

Ulrich (1992) Students in analternative highschool

Unable to ascertain from abstract No significant change in theexperimental group of studentswho participated in the two dayropes course experience.

Witman (1992) Adolescents inpsychiatric treatment

Interviews with participants Adventure program participationboth complements andsupplements psychiatrictreatment in changing attitudes,affect, and behavior ofadolescents in psychiatrictreatment.

cases nor did they clearly state the outcome ofthe research. Trying to determine the differencebetween the use of therapeutic challenge activi-ties, wilderness activities, and expeditions isdifficult at best. Clearer and "cleaner" stan-dardization of nomenclature will allow us tomore clearly refine our ability to discuss bene-fits of different approaches to therapeutic ad-venture programming.

In 1992 the group present at the researchsymposium held at Bradford Woods took apledge to make specific methodology availableto those who asked. This pledge was an attempt

to help researchers understand and delineate thetype of programming being done in the field.While it is difficult to assess how well research-ers have done at upholding this pledge, a rec-ommendation from this update is that a commonset of information be specified in abstracts.Such information should include, but not belimited to: specifics about the type of program-ming (activity based, expedition based, campingbased), demographics of the population(including their age, gender, and problem ordiagnosis), the measurement instruments em-ployed, and a clearly written outcome statement.

83

ADVENTURE THERAPY RESEARCH UPDATE (1992-1995)

TABLE 2

Representative Research on Short-Term Wilderness Therapy

81

AUTHOR POPULATION DEPENDENT VARIABLE(S) OUTCOME

Aubrey &MacLeod(1994)

Single mothers onwelfare

Client and facilitator reports. Suggests that feelings of powerand achievement emerge in thecamp setting.

Bandoroff &Scherer (1994)

Families with troubledadolescents in therapy.

Adolescent self-esteem, adoles-cent behavior, Family WheelEvaluation

Positive outcomes for partici-pants. Parent ratings of prob-lem behavior improved.

Duindam(1993)

Adolescents with emo-tional and behavioralproblems.

Journal writing and other meas-ures difficult to ascertain fromabstract

Positive results

Kessell (1994) Women with depres-sion, PTSD, anxietyand adjustment disor-ders

Unable to ascertain from abstract This experience empoweredwomen to make changes inlifestyle and attitudes.

Kleiber (1993) Middle school studentsat-risk of failing.

The Social and Personal Respon-sibility Scale, The Self-PerceptionProfile for Adolescents, and TheProblem Solving Inventory

Positive results for attitudes onresponsibility, close friend-ships, and physical appearanceand lesser on athletic compe-tence and global self-worth.

Minor & Elrod(1994)

12-17 year old juvenileprobationers

Recidivism No significant difference be-tween those who participated inexperimental program whichincluded a short-term outdooradventure.

Parker (1992) Adolescents with be-havioral and adjustmentdifficulties

Locus of Control, Self-esteem,Behavioral improvements

Results provide little supportfor the use of adventure inter-ventions to enhance traditionalcounseling approaches.

Pawlowski,Holme, &Hafner (1993)

Hospitalized patientswith schizophrenia orbipolar disorder

Brief Symptom Inventory, hos-pital re-admission rates

Both groups benefited from theprogram.

Pitstick (1995) Youth at risk in theFederal Job Corpsprogram

Journals, Interviews, Field Ob-servations, and Staff Assessments

Statistically no significance,but qualitative study indicatedthe program had a positive ef-fect.

Pommier(1994)

Adolescent statusoffenders

Harter's Self-Perception Profilefor Adolescents and Self-Perception Profile for Parents,Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory,Olsen's Family Adaptability andCohesion Evaluation Scale-II

Program was effective in re-ducing problem behavior andproblem behavior intensity,increasing family adaptabilityand cohesiveness and increas-ing adolescent self-perception.

84

82 GILLIS & THOMSEN

TABLE 3

Research on Longer Wilderness Expeditions

AUTHOR POPULATION DEPENDENT VARIABLES OUTCOME

Davis Berman& Berman(1994)

Emotionallydisturbed adoles-cents

Self-efficacy, behav-ioral symptoms, locusof control

Regression to pretestlevels at 4 months, 1year, and 2 years afterthe original program.

McNutt(1994)

15-18 year oldswho are in thecare of the socialservices depart-ment

Recidivism Rates Program is effective inaltering attitudes andbehaviors.

Sale (1992) Delinquent ado-lescents

Washington SentenceCompletion Test, andthe Piers Harris Self-Concept Scale

Those participating inthe intensive programhad more gains in egodevelopment than thosein the long term pro-gram. No differences ingain in self-conceptwere found between thetwo groups.

TABLE 4

Research on Efficacy of Residential Camping Programs

AUTHOR POPULATION DEPENDENT VARIABLES OUTCOME

Caram (1994) At-risk Elemen-tary School

On-site observation, docu-ment examination, open-

Perceptions of educators,parents, and community

Students ended interviews related the existence andlongevity of the programto the leadership of theexecutive director.

Larsen (1992) Schizophrenics Unable to ascertain fromabstract

Schizophrenic subjectswere found to have agreater preference foroutdoor environmentswith high degrees of en-closure and complexitythan were non-schizophrenic subjects.

85


AGREEMENT ON A COMMON TERMFOR ADVENTURE THERAPY

Instead of spending time agreeing on aparticular term or phrase to describewhat we do let's put energy into writingspecific how-to training manuals thatcan be shared, and tested using quanti-tative and qualitative methods with re-search designs focused on multiplemeasures and predictor models. Themodels need to be tested across numer-ous homogeneous diagnostic popula-tions and in multicultural settings tobetter understand their strengths (whenindicated) and limitations (when con-traindicated).

The issue of "a particular term or phrase"was originally addressed in the 1992 paper. It isstill a critical question for adventure therapy.The 1992 paper stated "We should not be heldup in settling on one name or label" (p. 36). Wehave changed our minds. We now advocate theuse of a generic term "adventure therapy." Adefinition of adventure therapy is now neededthat is inclusive of the types of programmingand settings described above.

A global view of adventure therapy as oneaspect of the larger field of experiential thera-pies is included in the following definitionpoints:

An active, experiential approach to group(and family) psychotherapy or counseling;although it is acknowledged that much workgoes on in one-to-one conversations be-tween therapist and client while involved inan activity such as a ropes course element;

utilizing an activity base, (cooperativegroup games, ropes courses, outdoor pur-suits or wilderness expeditions);

employing real and or perceived physicaland psychological risk distress/eustress as asignificant clinically significant agent tobring about desired change;

86

making meaning(s) (through insights thatare expressed verbally, nonverbally, or un-consciously that lead to behavioral change)from both verbal and nonverbal introduc-tions prior to (e.g., frontloadings) and dis-cussions following (e.g.,- debriefings) theactivity experience;

punctuating isomorphic connection(s) (howthe structure of the activity matches theresolution of the problem) that significantlycontribute to the transfer of lessons learnedinto changed behavior.

This definition agrees with portions of Ringer's(1994a) view of adventure therapy as

a generic term that refers to a class ofchange-oriented group-based experientiallearning processes that occur in the contextof a contractual, empowering and empathicprofessional relationship. The rationale ofadventure therapy explicitly or implicitlyfocuses on the personality and behaviour ofclients, the strategic application of adven-ture activities to engender personal changein clients, or both. Durable change in mul-tiple aspects of clients' lives is sought. Theprocesses involved are idiosyncratic anddetermined by a complex set of interrelatedfactors such as the nature of the clients, theadventure therapists theoretical orientation,the activities carried out and the goals ofthe program in which the adventure ther-apy occurs. (p. 8-9).

Specific points of agreement with Ringerare that the approach is group based and thatadventure therapy attempts to bring about dura-ble change. The proposed definition attempts toaddress Ringer's concept of 'idiosyncratic proc-esses' as being related to the three settings andapproaches apparent in the literature. The pro-posed definition differs from Ringer's in that therole of risk is explicitly stated. It is this elementof risk and the positive or negative stress pro-duced through resolution that defines adventuretherapy from other forms of experiential thera-pies.

84 GILLIS & THOMSEN

TRAINING GUIDELINES RESULTINGFROM RESEARCH

As one or more models emerge thatshow some research promise, trainingissues can be addressed to better under-stand how to teach traditionally trainedpsychotherapists to do whatever it is wedo and how to ethically train experien-tially based outdoor leaders and para-professionals to work in our powerfulmanner.

The "by whom" question is difficult to as-sess since training manuals do not yet exist norhas any research been found that assesses ad-venture therapist competency in our field. Theacceptable level and kind of education for ad-venture therapist versus the amount of adven-ture therapy experience remains a tension indiscussing training and competence. Numerousquestions remain without much but opinion toanswer them; that is, NO research is known tohave been done that assesses adventure thera-pist' competence. Attempts have been made todelineate some of the factors necessary in un-derstanding the role of the adventure therapist.Berman, (1995), Gass, (1993), Ringer (1994a,1994b) Gerstein (1992), and Burg (1994) haveall made significant contributions in identifyingleadership competencies, valuable group skillsin adventure therapy, and how family and groupadventure therapy differ. But questions re-main...:

What level of education and how much ex-perience or competence does it take to calloneself an adventure therapist?

How many research studies must one citeand how much theory should one know tobe able to practice competently and respon-sibly?

Who judges the minimally acceptable levelof skills needed to conduct adventure ther-apy work with specific psychiatric diagno-ses and populations?

Do you just need to be able to sell yourselfto enough parents who want to let you workwith their children, or find a job working

with clinical or 'challenged' populations tobe called an adventure therapist?

Is being employed by a program claiming tobe adventure-based or reporting to (Gillis,1995) practice wilderness therapy enough tocall oneself an adventure therapist?

Are those facilitators who have credentialsor graduate level mental health degreesmore effective than those who do not havesuch training?

The Therapeutic Adventure ProfessionalGroup (TAPG) of the Association of Experien-tial Education (AEE) has adopted a set of ethicalguidelines that attempts to answer professionalpractice questions (Gass, 1993). However, thejury has yet to be called to answer such ques-tions. Who is likely to serve on that jury: Peerswho review one another's programs and providefeedback and guidance, peers from traditionalmental health agencies; state or federal legisla-tors who are not as familiar with the standardpractices but feel the heat from concerned con-stituents wanting to protect their children(Gillis, 1995)? Do inquiring adventure therapyminds wish to know?

DISSEMINATION AND SHARING OFRESEARCH RESULTS

Our writing needs to be more easilyavailable to one another through anagreement to share resources and refer-ence one another. Perhaps a commonaccessible database of theoretical in-formation will allow dissertations tomove beyond traditional pre-post,treatment-control, outcome designs andoffer more information on how and withwhom what(ever) we do, works.

The Internet has been a major setting formuch discussion in the adventure therapy fieldsince the 1992 symposium. Listservers for theAEE and more recently for adventure therapyhave allowed a forum to discuss pressing issues.The World Wide Web now allows for informa-tion to be put out in a format many can access.As authors we commit to putting our databaseon-line in ways' that can be accessible to readers

87


of this article. Readers are urged to contact theseauthors at http://advthe.gac.peachnet.edu/index.html. By sharing the information we have gath-ered we hope the field can benefit by expandingthe use of others' work and avoiding the repli-cation of similar studies that do not move thefield forward.

A language analysis of many of the conver-sations that have taken place in listserver and e-mail discussions is an area of new ground forresearch in adventure therapy. How we talkabout what we do is an important piece of in-formation about who we are. A brief languageanalysis of the titles and abstracts that exist inthe field may also be an enlightening avenue ofresearch to investigate what words we are usingto talk about what we are doing.

A sample of articles was downloaded of allexisting article summaries found from CD-ROM and DIALOG searches of ERIC, PsychLit,and Dissertation Abstracts International (viaDialog). Search criteria were consistent in thatpsychotherapy and counseling were linked to-gether and crossed with adventure, ropes course,wilderness, Outward Bound and outdoor.

Having recently acquired the latest versionof Endnote bibliographical software, the useful-ness of the "find" function to search the lan-guage we are using in an attempt to ascertainwhich concepts are found in material writtensince the 1992 paper seemed like one way toexamine the state of the field. Table 5 depictsfrequency data that compares 1992-1995 with1981-1991 data. Percentages are used as amethod of simple comparison.

The majority of articles in the last threeyears appear to be concerned with adventure orwilderness therapy with at-risk male adolescentsthat focuses on risk and fun. Work appears to beincreasing for women, for at-risk populationsand focusing on risk. Studies for families, cou-ples, corrections, and ropes courses would ap-pear to be declining from using our 'wordcount' methodology. It would also appear that1/3 of the 99 articles are concerned with re-search. Perhaps a meta-analysis could test outthe hypotheses raised by this initial word search.

R

We still know little of how adventure orwilderness therapy works with the specific di-agnostic populations. We appear to repeat muchof what has been done previously without ex-ploring new territory. Hopefully the need for ameta-analysis of adventure therapy offerings ismade even greater by the analysis mentionedabove.

SHARE OUR RESEARCH WITH THERAPISTS

Focus on sharing what we do with tra-ditional therapists in traditional psy-chotherapy journals and at the tradi-tional therapists' regional and nationalconferences.

This is a very difficult recommendation toevaluate. One can scan the journals to access thenumber of adventure therapy articles appearingin the downloaded journals different from theflagship ones (Journal of Experiential Educa-tion and Therapeutic Recreation Journal). Inaddition, scanning programs from regional, na-tional, and international conferences related topsychotherapy is another way to access a num-ber of presentations taking place outside of thetraditional adventure therapy venues. While weengage in this practice in an informal way, wedid not do so for this article.

Perhaps a new direction that the field of ad-venture therapy can adopt is to use the nomen-clature of the larger mental health field in de-scribing psychotherapy populations and psy-chotherapy methodology. Such behavior shouldallow adventure therapy to gain credibilityamong mental health practitioners. In fact,we've found that describing the work done withgames, initiatives, low and high ropes coursesand expeditions as "activity based group psy-chotherapy" is much more palatable to tradi-tional mental health practitioners than speakingof some 'exotic' adventure in trees or in thewilderness. In the spirit of psychodrama andgestalt therapy, we have talked with our mentalhealth colleagues about group exercises thatwork well with populations in need of concrete,physical activities that match the group's issues.We find the traditional mental health practitio-ner interested in some new 'tricks for their bag"

8.8

86 GILLIS & THOMSEN

TABLE 5

Comparison of Yields of Bibliographic Searches

TERM SEARCHEDTHEN

1980-1991N=86

PercentageTHEN

NOW1992-1995

N=99

PercentageNOW

Adventure Therapy 5 6% 22 22%

Wilderness Therapy 8 9% 20 20%

Therapeutic Camping 9 10% 1 1%

Men or boys or males 76 88% 84 85%

Adolescent 33 38% 26 26%

Women or girls or females 12 14% 24 24%Adult 10 12% 24 24%Families 20 23% 11 11%

Couples 4 5% 2 2%

Psychiatric 35 41% 41 41%At-risk 7 8% 20 20%

Adjudicated or court orprobation or corrections

10 12% 5 5%

Substance Abuse 4 5% 1 1%

Research or empirical 32 37% 30 . 30%

Training 7 8% 10 10%

Qualitative or observation 10 12% 10 10%

Practice 6 7% 9 9%

Adventure 40 47% 56 57%

Wilderness 29 34% 31 31%

Outward Bound 9 10% 9 9%

Ropes course 12 14% 5 5%

Ri k 11 13% 28 28%

Fun 10 12% 15 15%

Challenge 12 14% 11 11%

Communication 7 8% 9 9%

Trust 8 9% 7 7%

Cooperation 4 5% 6 6%

Self concept 7 8% 2 2%

89


and interested in our source of activities. Such aconversation then leads us to talk more of tradi-tional adventure therapy work without the initialturn off by mental health that what we do is toorisky and too dangerous. Perhaps more writingin mental health journals using their language todescribe our work can lead to greater acceptanceand usage of our powerful techniques.

CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OFADVENTURE THERAPY

Enough of this talk about ways we research-ers and practitioners can interact better or howwe can impact those who deliver mental healthservices. What about our consuming public.What might they say about the field of adven-ture therapy. Have they been asked? Anyonewant to take that bet? Psychotherapist research-ers did not think to ask; it took a consumersmagazine to poll its readers. What can we learnfrom such a study?

Martin Seligman's (Seligman, 1995) leadarticle in the December 1995 American Psy-chologist focuses on the effectiveness of psy-chotherapy. Seligman's article responds to arecent Consumer's Report (1995) survey on theeffectiveness of psychotherapy. His main pointsare that much of what is practiced in psycho-therapy is not subjected to empirical analysis fora number of valid reasons. However, the lack ofefficacy studies that meet rigorous statisticaland academic criteria can lead to what Seligmancalls the "inertness assumption." An inert treat-ment is inactive or inoperative as seen by men-tal health third party providers including thegrowing data-based world of managed care.Much of what he says about inert treatmentsapplies to adventure therapy. Almost weekly ourphone rings with the caller asking for researchon the efficacy of adventure therapy (we thinkthey mean effectiveness, but are looking for thestudy that shows adventure therapy is betterthan traditional psychotherapy). While we canpoint to the paper written for the 1992 sympo-sium, or the Gass (1993) excellent edited workAdventure Therapy, or to Cason & Gillis'(1993) meta-analysis, most of the good workbeing done is hidden in dissertations and theses

that never find their way into referred journals.The field of adventure therapy suffers and risksbecoming inert. The field also suffers when onecollects such documents and notes conflictingresults regarding efficacy. Perhaps, as research-ers, we are chasing an illusive dream in trying tobe empirical and focus on efficacy with a fieldthat should focus more on asking our clientele ifwe have been effective.

Seligman recommends combining the bestof efficacy methodology and effectiveness sur-veys as done by Consumer Reports editors. Headvocates a prospective survey where a largesample is given an assessment battery composedof some well-normed questionnaires, detailedbehavioral information as well as global im-provement information. Seligman suggests theuse of outside evaluators blind to the purpose ofsurvey in order to encourage multiple perspec-tives of the information gathered. The majoradvantage of the Consumer Report approach isthat it can assess how and to whom treatment isdelivered and how effective the treatment is.Such a direction is desirable for the field of ad-venture therapy. We need to gather our re-sources (databases) and survey those who havebeen through the variety of experiences we labelas adventure therapy. We need to ask some sim-ple questions such as "What do you remember(if anything) about your experience?" "Howhelpful has that experience been for you?" Suchsimple questions, if we were to all ask them ofour clients and pool the responses might en-lighten us, our colleagues in mental health andthose who control the purse strings of thirdparty reimbursement. Do we have any otherchoice? Do we risk becoming inert? Do we de-prive those who will benefit most from ourservices just because we have not done the workneeded to make our case known? We think not!

SUMMARY

For this examination of what's been writtenon adventure therapy in the last four years wewish to make the following summary points.First, the field of adventure therapy has every-thing to gain from putting together results of ourwork into a collective document that addresses

90

88 GILLIS & THOMSEN

our accomplishments and effectiveness. Let'sutilize technology and the web connection tocommunicate with one another more efficientlyFinding some common ground for reporting ourinformation can only lead to greater credibility.Second, by examining clinically significantevents in adventure therapy programs thatare/were deemed to be of importance by theconsumer and by communicating in languagethat is understandable to mental health, adven-ture therapy can achieve greater credibility withthe more traditional field of mental health andthose who hold the purse strings and benefit ourpotential consumers who may then be able toaccess adventure therapy as a viable approach totreatment. Finally, this is a time ripe with possi-bilities for researchers. Studies of efficacy needto continue. More useful perhaps are the effec-tiveness studies from past consumers or, betteryet, we need to find funding for the prospectivestudy that Seligman recommends. Thus the fOl-lowing research pathways are brought to theforefront for the interested student or researcher:

A comprehensive meta-analysis is neededthat can address the efficacy of adventuretherapy across populations, problems, andsettings. We know very little of how ourwork stacks up collectively.

A survey is needed to highlight similaritiesand differences in activity based work, ex-pedition work, and residential campingwork that falls under the rubric of adventuretherapy. We, as a field, are not committed toevaluation or research; we operate as ifsomeone else will do it. It is we who mustdo the work. It is we who must valueevaluation of our work and be willing toshare what we collect.

A common set of information needs to bespecified in abstracts of our work that ispublished and made available to the publicthrough on-line services.. Such informationshould include, but not be limited to: spe-cifics about the type of programming(activity based, expedition based, campingbased), demographics of the population(including their age, gender, and problem or

diagnosis), the measurement instrumentsemployed, and a clearly stated outcomestatement.

Numerous questions need to be exploredabout competence of leaders in adventuretherapy and how such competence is ob-tained and recognized. We cannot continueto fight among ourselves for what makesone competent; we need to define clinicallyrelevant criteria for the adventure therapistand evaluate their validity.

A retrospective and prospective survey isneeded in adventure therapy where a largesample is given an assessment battery com-posed of some well-normed questionnaires,detailed behavioral information as well asglobal improvement information, then fol-lowed and questioned about how effectivetheir exposure to adventure therapy hasbeen. We need to look backwards and for-wards and then publish the information wereceive from our clients. This recommenda-tion hinges on our need to value what ourcustomers find useful about the work we do.We need not bow to the gods of empiricismas much as we need to know if we're doinggood work and how we can make it better.

Such recommendations can help the field ofadventure therapy gain more credibility withmental health professionals and thus becomemore available to more clients who can benefitfrom our services. We cannot wait for others toconduct and publish such workwe must takeresponsibility for communicating our results.You, the reader, the established researcher, thegraduate student looking for direction, the prac-titioner looking for answersyou need to takeresponsibility for communicating with all of uswhat you're doing and how well it's working.Otherwise we risk becoming even more inertand perhaps even dormant. Just think of all theclients who will suffer due to our inaction. Justthink of how we will benefit from knowingmore about what we do. Researchers of adven-ture therapy UNITE!

91


REFERENCES

Aubrey, A., & MacLeod, M. J. (1994). So...Whatdoes rock climbing have to do with career plan-ning? Special Issue: Wilderness therapy forwomen: The power of adventure. Women andTherapy, 15 (3-4), 205-216.

Bandoroff, S., & Scherer, D. G. (1994). Wildernessfamily therapy: An innovative treatment ap-proach for problem youth. Journal of Child andFamily Studies, 3 (2), 175-191.

Blanchard, C. W. (1993). Effects of ropes coursetherapy on interpersonal behavior and self-esteem of adolescent psychiatric inpatients.Doctoral dissertation: New Mexico State Univer-sity. 55/02-B of Dissertation Abstracts Interna-tional. Abstract from: DIALOG(R)File 35: Dis-sertation Abstracts Online, (University Micro-films Order No: AAD94-17335).

Burg, J. E. (1994). Exploring adventure family ther-apy: A modified delphi study. Doctoral disserta-tion: Purdue University. 56/02-B of DissertationAbstracts International. Abstract from: DIA-LOG(R)File 35: Dissertation Abstracts Online,(University Microfilms Order No: AAD-

19523318).

Caram, C. A. S. (1994). The alternative classroomexperience: A descriptive case study of an at-riskintervention for elementary students (at risk).Doctoral dissertation: The University of Okla-homa. 55/10-A of Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national. Abstract from: DIALOG(R)File 35:Dissertation Abstracts Online, (University Mi-crofilms Order No: AAD95-07302).

Cason, D. R., & Gillis, H. L. (1993). A meta-Analysis of adventure programming with adoles-cents. Journal of Experiential Education, 17, 40-47.

Davis Berman, J., & Berman, D. S. (1994). Researchupdate: Two-year follow-up report for the wil-derness therapy program. (ERIC Document Re-production Service No. EJ491790 CHN:

RC510298).

Duindam, T. (1993). Experiential education, outdooradventure as a modality in youth care and resi-dential treatment. A survey of programs, princi-ples, research and practice on the EuropeanContinent, especially the Netherlands. Paper pre-sented at the Annual International Conference ofthe Association for Experiential Education 21st,

92

September 30-October 3 1993. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service).

Gass, M. A. (1993). Adventure therapy: Therapeuticapplications of adventure programming in men-tal health settings. Dubuque; Iowa: KendallHunt.

Gerstein, J. S. (1992). The group counseling skills ofadventure-Based counselors: A survey examin-ing relevant group counseling skills, perceivedgroup counseling skill competency levels, andgroup counseling training experiences. Doctoraldissertation: Northern Illinois University. 53/06A of Dissertation Abstracts International. Ab-stract from: DIALOG(R)File 35: DissertationAbstracts Online, (University Microfilms OrderNo: AAD92-30712).

Gillis, H. (1995). If I conduct outdoor pursuits withclinical populations, am I an adventure therapist?Leisurability, 22 (2), 5-15.

Gillis, H. L. (1992, ). Therapeutic uses of adventure-challenge-outdoor-wilderness: Theory and re-search. Paper presented at the Coalition for Edu-cation in the Outdoors. Research SymposiumProceedings, (Bradford Woods, Indiana, January17-19, 1992). (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED352227).

Hickmon, W. A. J. (1993). Analysis of an adventure-Based marriage enrichment program. Doctoraldissertation: Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University. 54/11-A of Dissertation Ab-stracts International. Abstract from: DIA-LOG(R)File 35: Dissertation Abstracts Online,(University Microfilms Order No: AAD94-03853).

Hughes, J. S. J. (1993). The effects of adventure-Based counseling and levels of sensation seekingon the self-efficacy of chemically dependentmales (men). Doctoral dissertation: MississippiState University. 54/07-A of Dissertation Ab-stracts International. Abstract from: DIA-LOG(R)File 35: Dissertation Abstracts Online,(University Microfilms Order No: AAD94-00484).

Jacobson, S. E. (1992). Family strengths: Effects ofparticipation in an experiential/adventure-Basedprogram for clinically presenting families. Un-published M.S.S.W., The University of Texas AtArlington.

Kazdin, A. E. (1991). Effectiveness of psychotherapywith children and adolescents. Journal of Con-

90 GILLIS & THOMSEN

suiting and Clinical Psychology, 59 (6), 785-798.

Kessell, M. J. (1994). Women's adventure group:Experiential therapy in an HMO setting. SpecialIssue: Wilderness therapy for women: Thepower of adventure. Women and Therapy, /5 (3-4), 185-203.

Kleiber, L. C. (1993). An experiential education in-tervention for at-risk youth in the Eagle CountySchool District (Colorado, at risk). Doctoral dis-sertation: University of Denver. 54/05-A of Dis-sertation Abstracts International. Abstract from:DIALOG(R)File 35: Dissertation Abstracts On-line, (University Microfilms Order No: AAD93-27761).

Larsen, L. S. (1992). Nature as therapy: An assess-ment of schizophrenic patients' visual prefer-ences for institutional outdoor environments.Doctoral dissertation: University of Guelph(Canada). 31/02 of MASTERS ABSTRACTS.Abstract from: DIALOG(R)File 35: DissertationAbstracts Online, (University Microfilms OrderNo: AADmm-72301).

McNutt, B. (1994). Adventure as therapy: Using ad-venture as part of therapeutic programmes withyoung people in trouble and at risk. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED378016.

Minor, K. I., & Elrod, P. (1994). The effects of aprobation intervention on juvenile offenders'self-concepts, loci of control, and perceptions ofjuvenile justice. Youth and Society, 25 (4), 490-511.

Parker, M. W. (1992). Impact of adventure interven-tions on traditional counseling interventions(ropes course). Doctoral dissertation: The Uni-versity of Oklahoma. 53/09-B of DissertationAbstracts International. Abstract from: DIA-LOG(R)File 35: Dissertation Abstracts Online,(University Microfilms Order No: AAD92-38474).

Pawlowski, M., Holme, G., & Hafner, R. J. (1993).Wilderness therapy for psychiatric disorder.Mental Health in Australia, 5 (1), 8-14.

Pitstick, R. C. (1995). Wilderness discovery: Themeaning and effects of a 7-day wilderness expe-rience program for youth-At-risk in the federal

Job Corps program. Doctoral dissertation: Uni-versity of Idaho. 56/05-A of Dissertation Ab-stracts International. Abstract from: DIA-LOG(R)File 35: Dissertation Abstracts Online,(University Microfilms Order No: AADaa-19528712).

Pommier, J. H. (1994). Experiential adventure ther-apy plus family training: Outward BoundSchool's efficacy With status offenders. Doctoraldissertation: Texas A & M University. 55/10A ofDissertation Abstracts International. Abstractfrom: DIALOG(R)File 35: Dissertation Ab-stracts Online, (University Microfilms Order No:AAD95-06698).

Ringer, M. (1994a). Adventure as therapy: A map ofthe field. workshop report. (ERIC Document Re-production Service).

Ringer, M. (1994b). Leadership competencies foroutdoor adventure: From recreation to therapy.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service).

Sale, P. L. (1992). Ego and self-concept developmentamong juvenile delinquent participants in ad-venture-Based programming. Doctoral disserta-tion: Peabody College For Teachers of Vander-bilt University. 53/07-A of Dissertation Ab-stracts International. Abstract from: DIA-LOG(R)File 35: Dissertation Abstracts Online,(University Microfilms Order No: AAD92-24317).

Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). The effectiveness of psy-chotherapy: The Consumer Reports study.American Psychologist, 50 (12), 965-974.

Ulrich, J. S. (1992). The effects of alternative schoolstudents' participation in a ropes course experi-ence. Doctoral dissertation: The University ofTexas At Arlington. 31/03 of MASTERS AB-STRACTS. Abstract from: DIALOG(R)File 35:Dissertation Abstracts Online, (University Mi-crofilms Order No: AAD13-51778).

Witman, J. P. (1992). Outcomes of adventure pro-gram participation by adolescents involved inpsychiatric treatment: Coalition for Education inthe Outdoors, Cortland, NY. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED352228 CHN:RC018878).

93

INTEGRATING OUTDOOR LEADERSHIP EDUCATION

INTO THE ACADEMIC SETTING

Pamela E. FotiAssociate Professor

Northern Arizona University

Educating outdoor leaders has typicallyoccurred through extending fieldwork for thosestudents who have the time and money. Thisapproach has been effective for private outdoororganizations such as Outward Bound and theNational Outdoor Leadership School but not assuccessful for academic institutions who wish tocombine outdoor leadership training withinstandardized park and recreation collegecurricula.

The Wilderness Education Association(WEA) is a non-profit organization thatintroduces and promotes wilderness educationand outdoor leadership within mainstreamacademic institutions. Unfortunately, with onlya few exceptions, the majority of university-based WEA outdoor leadership programs havebeen offered more along the lines of extra-curricular opportunities, outside of the academicstructure of the program.

To integrate outdoor leadership educationeffectively within university academicprograms, innovative curricula need to bedeveloped that combine field and classroomwork. The goal must be to enable students tounderstand and assimilate the knowledge basewithin the classroom and to be able to apply andshow judgment and competence in the field.

Since 1991, Northern Arizona University's(NAU) Parks and Recreation ManagementProgram has been offering basic outdoorleadership courses as an affiliate of WEA.While the leadership course has been successfulat NAU, there are several problems andlimitations. The first problem is that the basiccourse does not lead to national certification

91

through WEA for NAU's students. Second, thecourse has been offered each year only duringthe summer session, which has resulted inlimited accessibility to park and recreationmajors. And third, the course has been sorestricted in size (current capacity is 12

students) that interested students have beenturned away on a regular basis.

NAU has developed an integrated approachto outdoor leadership education, as an affiliateof WEA, through the use of two semesters ofsequential coursework. The objectives of theNAU outdoor leadership program are asfollows:

1) To train outdoor leaders over the course ofan academic year through a combination ofclass time and intensive, applied fieldpractice.

2) To provide outdoor leadership instructionthat leads to WEA national certification forNAU's outdoor leadership students. Theintention is to have the students developtheir knowledge base and leadership skillsover the course of an entire academic yearso that by the end of the year, they areindependently functioning outdoor leaders.

NAU is implementing the academic yearcurriculum during spring/fall, 1996. Questionsto consider regarding the approach are:

1) Does the sequential course process allow forenough time in the field; and

2) Does the classroom material transfer to fieldapplication without additional in-the-fieldclasses?

Correspondence should be directed to Pamela E. Foti, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept. of ForestryParks &Recreation Management, Northern Arizona University, Box 15018, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, (520) 523-6196; fax (520)523-1080; [email protected]

94

92

INTERACTIVE BEHAVIORS BETWEEN STUDENTSAND INSTRUCTORS IN THE OUTDOORS

Christine CashelOklahoma State University

Research investigating the instructional pro-cess has been conducted in many settings but isstill a young science (Rink, 1985). The relation-ships between variables that affect the teaching-learning process and student achievement havebeen studied in contemporary educational re-search. Few, if any, studies have focused on theinteractive behaviors of instructors and studentsin the outdoor environment. Investigation of thistype may provide insight to how we, as profes-sionals, can maximize effective teaching ofskills and knowledge. Duncan and Biddle(1974) developed a model to categorize the ar-eas observed in pedagogy, which provides auseful framework for discussion of relationshipsbetween variables in the teaching-learning proc-ess. These variables are:

1. Presage variables: characteristics of teachersthat may be examined for their effects onthe teaching process (e.g., formative experi-ences, personality).

2. Context variables: conditions to which theteacher must adjust (e.g., characteristics ofthe environment, attitudes of students, sub-ject matter, skill level of students, objec-tives).

3. Process variables: concerns the actual ac-tivities of the classroom teachingwhatteachers and students do (e.g., time on task,student response to the teacher, teacher be-havior such as feedback).

4. Product variables: concern the outcomes ofteaching or the changes that come about instudents as a result of their involvement inclass activities with teachers and other stu-dents.

Flanders developed a system for observationof student-teacher interaction patterns. TheFlanders Interaction Analysis System (1965)was used throughout the 1970s in process-to-process educational research to determine directand indirect influence of teachers on students.Cheffers (1972) felt there were three limitationswith FIAS for the study of physical education:1) FIAS was concerned only with verbal inter-actions and did not include nonverbal communi-cation; 2) Flanders viewed the teacher as thesole teaching agent in a classroom; and 3) theFlanders system only allowed for coding classstructure when the entire class functioned as aunit. Non verbal interactions, other teachingagents, class structure and elaboration of studentresponses designed to describe physical activitysettings are incorporated in the Cheffers Adap-tation of the Flanders Interaction Analysis Sys-tem (CAFIAS) (1972). Cheffers system seemsto be appropriate for observation in outdoor set-tings because of the many similarities in vari-ables, objectives and methods between outdoorinstructors and physical education teachers.

Some overall conclusions that have beendrawn from the process-process research con-cerning the learning environment created byteachers as it relates to student achievement are:1) time on task or student involvement (con-ceptually or motorically) is critical to achieve-ment; 2) working at an appropriate level of dif-ficulty raises achievement; 3) strong manage-ment skills are an important condition forteacher effectiveness and include the ability toknow what is going on and to target behaviorappropriately, the ability to give specific feed-back, and the ability to handle several things at

Christine Cashel, Ed.D., is Associate Professor of Leisure Studies at Oklahoma State University, 111 Colvin Center,Stillwater, OK, 74078; (405) 744-6815; fax (405) 744-6507; [email protected]

INTERACTIVE BEHAVIORS IN THE OUTDOORS 93

one time; and 4) direct instruction leads toachievement.

METHOD

Three case studies were conducted in whichinstructors were videotaped at different timesduring the first week of a 35 day outdoor leader-ship course. Data were analyzed using CAFIASby coding both verbal and nonverbal interac-tions. The dominant behavior was recordedevery three seconds, and the tallies were thentransferred to a matrix. A variety of interpreta-tions were made from the matrices. The fol-lowing behaviors were analyzed in this study:total instructor-student interactions across sixlessons; total instructor contributions; total stu-dent contributions; the amount of confusion orsilence; instructor responses to student behaviorin both direct and indirect ways; the amount oftime instructors spent in expanding studentideas; the amount of time spent in constant be-havior versus transitional behaviors and studentresponses to instructors.

RESULTS

Many interesting observations were madethat provided feedback for the instructors. Thebehaviors of all three instructors were consid-ered to be those of skilled teachers, especially inthe area of task behaviors, positive feedback,and content orientation. There were variances inthe amount of time spent in the expansion ofstudent ideas and in times of silence or confu-sion. These are all factors that positively affectstudent achievement.

DISCUSSION

This study provides a base from whichother, more thorough investigations can bemade. The system of observation provided de-tail about the teaching process in an outdoorsetting, which could be a useful research or

96

training tool. The method could be easily usedfor student leader training, challenge course in-structors, and with various student populations.Additional research would allow outdoor inves-tigators to focus on teaching to show the effec-tiveness of their abilities in a unique learningenvironment. There are several behaviors thatinstructors can use to enhance the learning expe-rience (Rink, 1985). While not the focus of thisstudy, they may provide some guidance for out-door instructors and leaders in order to improvetheir effectiveness. First, it is important to set atone or to provide parameters of acceptable be-havior. Consistent reinforcement of unaccept-able performance is also important. Mainte-nance of a leadership role, knowledge and un-derstanding of students and effective use of time(little dead time) are other factors. A neutralclimate tends to be most effective in terms ofthe emotional climate created for student suc-cess. Finally, students need to be held ac-countable for their efforts and need to be kepton task.

REFERENCES

Cheffers, J. T. F. (1972). The validation of an in-strument designed to expand the Flanders' sys-tem of interaction analysis to describe non-verbal interaction, different varieties of teacherbehavior and pupil response. Unpublished Doc-toral Dissertation, Temple University.

Duncan, M., & Biddle, B. (1974). The study ofteaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonGeneral Book.

Flanders, N. A. (1965). Teacher influence, pupil at-titudes and achievement. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of HEW, Cooperative ResearchMonograph, No.12.

Rink, J. E. (1985). Teaching physical education forlearning. St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror-MosbyCollege Publishing.

94

"KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE":THE GENDERED MEANINGS OF

THE OUTDOORS FOR WOMEN STUDENTS

Karla A. Henderson

ProfessorUniversity of North Carolina

Sherry Winn Nina S. Roberts

Graduate Assistant Staff AssociateUniversity of North Carolina Student Conservation Association

The purpose of this study was to examine the links betweenpast, present, and future involvementfor females and perceptions about whether the outdoors was perceived as a gendered environment.Data were collected using five focus group interviews. Several aspects of grounded theoryemerged from this study including aspects of exposure to outdoor opportunities as a child, in-volvement in the outdoors as a result of and resistance to a gendered society, and contradictionsbetween idealized attitudes and the realities of women's involvement in the outdoors.

KEYWORDS: Gender, outdoors, women, participation, girls, resistance, environment

INTRODUCTION

Despite gains by women in society, manygendered contradictions about the outdoors existregarding whether women should claim the out-doors as a place to nurture their physical, emo-tional, and spiritual identities. Those issues wereexpressed by this woman of white heritage whohas become more involved in the outdoors inrecent years:

Most of the outdoor activities I do, I do withanother guy. Or my mom. I don't have anyfemale friends that want to do those things. Ithink of myself as kind of in the middle. I'mnot a tomboy that's out there with all theguys doing that stuff, but yet, I'm not thelittle girl who won't sit in the rain at theHootie concert. You know, I'm kind of inthe middle.

Historically women have been in the mid-dle. They have been invisible in outdoor pur-

suits or inaccurately depicted mainly because ofthe incompatibility between traditional percep-tions of female roles and girls' and women'sdesire to be involved (Henderson & Bialeschki,1995). For example, we have seldom heard thehistory about how some middle and upper classwhite women at the turn of the century livedtwo lives as explorers and as gentle women(Kaufman, 1986; LaBastille, 1980; Lynch,1987). Until recently, women have remainedmostly invisible, with the outdoors seen as amale domain unless females were involved ashelpmates. Women have traditionally made fewdemands for outdoor recreation, but many havebeen involved quietly for a number of years.

The changes brought about by the contem-porary women's movement of the past thirtyyears have resulted in a new visibility aboutwomen in the outdoors as well as in other areasof leisure involvement. Many individuals like tothink that the outdoors is no longer a male do-

Karla A. Henderson is Professor of Leisure Studies and Recreation Administration at the University of North Caro-lina at Chapel Hill; Sherry Winn is a graduate assistant in the department; and Nina S. Roberts is a staff associate atthe Student Conservation Association. Correspondence should be directed to: Karla Henderson, Curriculum in Lei-sure Studies and Recreation Administration, CB #3185 Evergreen, UNC-CH, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-3185; (919)962 -1222; Fax (919) 962-1223; [email protected]

97

GENDERED MEANINGS

main. Yet, we know little about how youngwomen of today perceive themselves as femalesin the outdoors or how their cultural identitiesmight define their experiences. We also do notknow the meanings that many females associatewith the outdoors related to the changing rolesand status of women in society.

The purpose of this study was to examinewhether gendered meanings exist for femalesregarding outdoor recreation. For this study, thedefinition of outdoor recreation included allfreely chosen activities that occur in a naturaland/or remote outdoor environment. The defini-tion further included a continuum of opportuni-ties that ranges from walks in a community parkto wilderness expeditions. These pursuits in-cluded informal gatherings in the outdoors withfriends and family to involvement throughstructured organizations. Females may partici-pate in all women, co-ed, and/or family groupinvolvements. In addition, outdoor activitiesmay be for women of all ages.

According to Roberts and Bialeschki(1995), most of the research on women in theoutdoors until now has concerned five primarytopics: leadership/guiding, gender, effects onwomen, constraints/barriers, and all womengroups. Research about gender and the outdoorshas largely focused on gender differences (e.g.,Henderson & Bialeschki, 1987; Jordan, 1992;Knapp, 1995; Mitten, 1986) with some concep-tual studies that have examined what being fe-male means (e.g., Bialeschki & Henderson,1993; Henderson & Bialeschki, 1995; Holz-warth, 1993; Mitten, 1992).

The value of this current study is twofold.First, we empirically explored the potential gen-dered meanings of female involvement in theoutdoors that often has been examined intui-tively rather than empirically. Second, the re-spondents in this study represented a variety ofinvolvements in the outdoors ranging from fe-males who loved the outdoors to those who saidthey absolutely did not enjoy spending time inthe outdoors. We wanted to understand mean-ings related to the links between past, present,and future involvement for females and percep-

95

tions about whether the outdoors was perceivedas a gendered environment.

BACKGROUND LITERATURE

Quantitative statistics provide evidenceabout the evolving participation patterns ofwomen in the outdoors. For example, in the1990's all aspects of outdoor recreation partici-pation are expected to rise faster for femalesthan males. Hunting is the only activity that hasless female participation than males althoughpopular current literature suggests that morewomen are becoming hunters as well (Begley,1995). The 1995 Human Powered Outdoor Rec-reation State of the Industry Report (Widdekind,1995) showed statistics indicating that 6% of thefemale population in the US backpacks, 35%bicycle, 7% canoe, 22% hike, 4% Nordic ski,2% do rock climbing, and 80% walk for pleas-ure. Further, this recent research along withother studies, suggested that the most significantdeterminant of involvement is whether or notparticipation in outdoor recreation occurs withthe family as a child. About two-thirds of thosewho recreate outdoors were introduced to theirfavorite outdoor activity before the age of 17,and half of those before the age of eight(Widdekind, 1995).

These statistics prove the increasing valueof the outdoors for women, but they tell us littleabout the experience that women have in theoutdoors. Past literature offers some insightabout the positive effects of outdoor involve-ment on women (e.g., Cole, Erdman, & Roth-blum, 1994; Henderson & Bialeschki, 1986;Miranda & Yerkes, 1982). Research data as wellas testimonials, describe the social rewards, em-powerment, health benefits, therapeutic out-comes, stress management, freedom, and senseof community that develops as a result of theoutdoors. These outcomes probably are not dif-ferent for men, although sometimes women mayexperience them in a different way (Henderson,1992).

Similarly, a large body of literature has de-veloped around the understanding of constraintsrelated to outdoor pursuits (e.g., Bialeschki &Henderson, 1993; Roberts & Drogin, 1993;

98

96 HENDERSON, WINN, & ROBERTS

Warren, 1985). A constraint is anything thatinhibits people's ability to participate in activi-ties, to take advantage of opportunities, or toachieve a desired level of satisfaction. Differentconstraints have different impacts upon groupsof women. Examples of constraints discussedare: an ethic of care often influenced by familyresponsibilities, gender expectations related todefinitions of femininity and masculinity in so-ciety, lack of skills and opportunities, andphysical and psychological fears for safety.Most of these intrapersonal, interpersonal, andstructural fears relate to some aspect of beingfemale in relation to the outdoors.

Although a growing literature base aboutwomen's involvement in the outdoors hasemerged in the past ten years, an area whereunderstanding is lacking relates to sophisticatedanalyses of gender, not as sex differences, but asthe social meanings of being female in achanging society (Henderson, 1994). Genderrefers to cultural connections associated withone's biological sex. Thus, when biological sexis determined at birth as female or male, culturalexpectations are associated immediately withthe child. Further, gender is an ongoing processrather than an inborn biological trait. Themeaning of gender is constructed by society andeach of us is socialized into that construction.Gender scholarship addresses the complexity ofexpectations, roles, and behavior associatedwith being male as well as being female.

Conducting research with gender as the fo-cus, however, requires that we acknowledge themeaning of being female as a fluctuating, not afixed state. Being female has varied historicallyand contextually. Assuming that all females ex-perience outdoor recreation in the same way isrisky. One's biological sex alone does not de-termine behavior, rather it is the way that anindividual interprets his or her gender that isimportant (Henderson, 1994). Race, age, educa-tion, cultural background, and other characteris-tics affect each female's experience in a waythat cannot be generalized to all other females.Using gender as a central focus in examining theexperiences of females along with other aspectsof identity such as race can give us insights into

understanding deeper meanings about the out-doors.

METHODS

An interpretive paradigm was the basis forthis research study. Symbolic interactionismprovided the framework for collecting data. Ac-cording to Blumer (1969), symbolic interac-tionism assumes that human beings are con-scious, feeling, thinking, and reflective subjects.People impute meanings about what is happen-ing around them and how they are interactingwith others. Specifically, symbolic interaction-ism was used to explore the relationships thatyoung women had, are currently having, andexpect to have with the outdoors.

Data were collected using group interviews,popularly referred to as focus groups(Henderson, 1991). The values of this methodinclude its socially oriented procedure, allow-ances for the moderator to probe, low cost,speedy results, and the opportunity to use afairly large sample in smaller group units(Krueger, 1988). We collected data during Sep-tember 1995 from five focus groups composedof a total of 36 women who had varying experi-ences in their involvement with the outdoors.Each focus group ranging in size from 6-8 peo-ple met for 75 minutes and was facilitated bytwo leaders. A sample of the questions asked isfound in Table 1. The focus groups were audio-taped and transcribed.

In addition to a set of semi-structured focusgroup questions, the participants also completed'a short questionnaire that asked their attitudesabout the outdoors as well as participation anddemographic information. We used the quanti-tative data primarily to describe the sample. Aconvenience sample was used to try to get abroad range of responses from female studentsat a large southern research university. Thequalitative data were the basis for the dataanalysis.

The 36 female students were recruited fromfour classes taught by leisure studies faculty.Recreation majors were the majority of oneclass, but the other three were non-recreation

99

GENDERED MEANINGS 97

TABLE 1

Focus Group Questions Guide

Tell us a little about your involvement in the outdoors

Is your involvement in outdoor activities too much, too little, or just right? Explain.

When you were a child, did you participate in any kind of organized outdoor experience like

attending a camp or going school camping? Describe that experience orwhy you might not

have had that experience.

What do other family members do in the outdoors? Are they active in the outdoors?

How did other people influence your attitude toward and involvement in the outdoors?

How does whether you were a "tomboy" or not relate to your involvement in the outdoors?

What prevents you from enjoying the outdoors in all the ways that youmight like?

Is your outdoor involvement different because you are female than if you had been male?

What do you hope your future involvement in the outdoors will be?

What other issues or ideas has this discussion raised that might be of help to us in trying to un-

derstand the involvement of women in the outdoors?

major populations. In recruiting participants, weencouraged individuals who were not experi-enced in the outdoors to participate in the focusgroups as well as individuals who were inter-ested. All participants signed informed consentsand received a small monetary stipend for theirinvolvement in the interview. The sample con-sisted of 5 African-American students, 2 Asian-American students, and 29 women of whiteheritage. All the students were between the agesof 19-25 with 30 individuals being 20 or 21years old. Ten students grew up in a large city,10 in a medium city, 13 in a small town, andtwo on farms. Thirty-one had attended camp asa child and 21 had been a counselor at camp.Thirty-one of the students said they loved theoutdoors with 5 who did not care about it. Thenumber of outdoor recreation activities done aschildren in the outdoors ranged from two activi-ties to 14 with a median of seven different ac-tivities. The number of outdoor activities donein the past year ranged from one to 11 with amedian of five activities.

The 36 female students were recruited fromfour classes taught by leisure studies faculty.

1 0 0

Recreation majors were the majority of oneclass, but the other three were non-recreationmajor populations. In recruiting participants, weencouraged individuals who were not experi-enced in the outdoors to participate in the focusgroups as well as individuals who were inter-ested. All participants signed informed consentsand received a small monetary stipend for theirinvolvement in the interview. The sample con-sisted of 5 African-American students, 2 Asian-American students, and 29 women of whiteheritage. All the students were between the agesof 19-25 with 30 individuals being 20 or 21years old. Ten students grew up in a large city,10 in a medium city, 13 in a small town, andtwo on farms. Thirty-one had attended camp asa child and 21 had been a counselor at camp.Thirty-one of the students said they loved theoutdoors with 5 who did not care about it. Thenumber of outdoor recreation activities done aschildren in the outdoors ranged from two activi-ties to 14 with a median of seven different ac-tivities. The number of outdoor activities donein the past year ranged from one to 11 with amedian of five activities.


HYPERQUAL2 was used to organize andanalyze the data. The analyses of most interestto the researchers pertained to

examining how the outdoors was perceived in apast, present, and future context and how genderhelped to underscore the involvement or lack ofinvolvement of young women. HYPERQUAL2allowed for the coding of the data in many waysso that the linkages could be examined in devel-oping the grounded theory that emerged in thestudy. We noted something about the back-ground of students where appropriate, but wedid not make any direct comparisons acrossdemographic characteristics since comparisonswere not the purpose of this qualitative study.

Although analyzing ethnic comparisons wasnot the focus of this study, we noted the racialidentity of the respondents for several reasons.By describing the race of the study participants,we were able to recognize different aspects offemale experiences. In addition, to date moststudies pertaining to women in the outdoorshave focused on women of white heritage. Al-though much work needs to be done examiningthe intersection of race, class, and gender in theoutdoors, we wanted to acknowledge the racialidentity of the respondents to give visibility tothe potential cultural nature of the responses. Inconsidering gender as the central theoreticalframework, our interpretations, showed howsome women's experiences led them to makechoices contingent on contexts and relation-ships, not, just because they were biologicallyfemale or male. Further, our intent was not tocompare females and males or women of colorand white women, but to examine the possiblecontexts that surrounded being female and beinginvolved in the outdoors.

RESULTS

This analyses focused around the youngwomen's reflections of their past, perceptions oftheir present, and expectations about their futureinvolvement within a gendered context. Exam-ples of these themes are presented with conclu-sions that provide some grounded theory forsummarizing the gendered meanings of the out-doors.

Reflections on Past Involvement

Focus group members initially were askedquestions to ascertain how they were involvedwith the outdoors. Past involvement revealed avariety of responses from the participants. Thetwo primary influences about growing up re-lated to the young women's involvement withfamily and youth organizations, although not allwomen in the study had outdoor recreation op-portunities. Several respondents discussed whatit meant not having much contact with the out-doors while growing up. One student of whiteheritage who currently does not enjoy the out-doors explicitly stated, "I've had very little ex-perience in the outdoors. I don't like to be in thewoods, I've never spent any time in the woods."A student of white heritage offered this analysis:

And they [people who didn't grow up in-volved in the outdoors] don't appreciate theoutdoors like people that were brought up init. How you were brought up has a lot to dowith it. When you're brought up outdoors Ithink you're going to appreciate it whenyou're older and stay with it. I was outsideall the time, and that's how I am now, Ican't get enough.

Within the contexts of little involvement, aswell as family and youth organization activities,other gendered reflections also emerged.

Family

Some individuals were active outdoors withtheir families while others had few family expe-riences. Comments included such positivestatements as this one by a woman of whiteheritage who grew up in a city, "My parentsloved to camp so we went camping a lot when Iwas growing up." A similar anecdote describedan active white outdoor family:

Sometimes on Friday mornings he'd [dad]wake us up and say, "Packing up for some-where cold for three days." And then he'dget in the car and we'd drive...most of thetime we ended up in the mountains becausethat's what we liked.

Another student of white heritage who is a rec-reation major illustrated her family's involve-ment in this way:

0 1


For my family it [the outdoors] was really aspiritual place. Everybody else went tochurch on Sunday and we always went on ahike on Sunday and that's what we weretaught. This is what your higher power iseverything out there.

One young white woman who had limitedexperience in the outdoors growing up but reallyenjoys it today said, "I think the biggest familything was like, to go fishing. We'd go out thereand bait a hook and pull the fish out and sit out-side and clean all the fish and it was just a bigSunday afternoon thing to do." In contrast, anAfrican-American student who said she is indif-ferent about the outdoors today commented "Iguess my family really, they're not really out-door people...So, I've been fishing a couple oftimes and I didn't like it too well. But, we al-ways go on picnics and stuff, but I'm not out-doors a lot." Family outdoor activities were notpopular with this student of white heritage whocurrently says she likes the outdoors as long asthe weather cooperates: "I used to have to gocamping and I hated it, especially when it wouldrain. I can't stand it when it pours and when it'scold and damp and you smell bad and all thatkind of stuff."

Camps and Youth Organization Involvement

A second major influence that youngwomen described was their involvements withcamping and youth organizations. Several de-scribed how these organizations complimentedtheir family ventures and others describedstructured camp influences that were not allpositive.

A combination of family and other struc-tured outdoor activities was influential as de-scribed by this woman of white heritage whocontinues to be active in the outdoors today:

My influence has been a combination ofthings because first of all, my family is afarm family and so everything we've everdone that I can remember has been out-doors. That's been work and play. They[parents] don't believe in room service, myparents are real rugged down to earth peo-ple. But then, I really like high risk activities

02

outdoors. And I think some of these things, Iwas introduced to through camps...It kind ofall fitted togetherI was introduced to be-ing in the outdoors through being with myparents and the more risky activities didn'thave anything to do with them.

In a similar way, another white student wholoves the outdoors today noted, "I learned a lotof stuff through the Girl Scouts. I mean, everytime we went camping, my parents did all thework. But with the Girls Scouts, we had to dothe cooking and we had to clean up and go packthe backpacks and everything."

Because her family was not too keen on theoutdoors, an Asian-American student said thatshe is active in the outdoors today as a result oforganized school activities. She commented,"My father, the extent of his outdoor experienceis gardening and that's it. My mother and father,when we travel we stay in really nice ho-tels...[but] camping was a really big part of myhigh school experience." Similarly, a student ofwhite heritage who is more active in the out-doors today than ever before said, "I went toGirl Scout camp [because] the extent of my par-ents experience in the outdoors was walking thedog."

Other individuals talked about how a posi-tive or negative outcome of camping with youthorganizations did not matter, but just having anykind of outdoor experience seemed to providean appreciation for the outdoors that carriedover into their lives today. For example, onewhite student said, "I went to camp twice and Ihated it both times, but I guess that didn't makemuch of a difference. I still love the outdoorstoday." In addition, one student of white heri-tage who loves the outdoors today described herperception of the impact of Girl Scout campingas:

We did have to deal with the bugs andthings that a lot of people would besqueamish about [but], I got over the nega-tive side. I thought it was a little bit exciting,there were things that you had to deal with,but I really enjoyed it.


Other Issues About Growing Up

Issues of gender were evident when some ofthe students described their childhood experi-ences. Tomboyism as an aspect of the outdoorsemerged several times in the focus groups. Mostof the females agreed that a female did not haveto perceive herself as a "tomboy" to enjoy theoutdoors, but it helped. None of the women inany of the focus groups verbalized a negativestigma attached to being a tomboy, although noteveryone in the focus groups noted or com-mented about the notion. An African-Americanstudent who grew up in a small town said, "Iused to be a tomboy, I'm not going to lie. Iclimbed the trees, I mean I could climb a treeand go anywhere the guys could go." A similarcomment was made by a female of white heri-tage:

I would spend 90% of the day in the woods.I sort of hung out with all the guys in theneighborhood, there weren't many girls...wewould camp out in the woods and play inthe creek ...but as I grew older it dwindledwhere I didn't do a lot of woodsy stuff.

A white student told this story: "I used to gofishing with my dad. I'm the youngest of threegirls and I was like, I was a tomboy when I waslittle, I was like his little boy." Another whitestudent, however, countered some of these ideasby describing her interests and traditional femi-ninity, "When I think of the prissiest woman inthe world, she can still like the outdoors. I don'tthink it [being a tomboy] has anything to dowith it [being in the outdoors]."

Some gender issues concerning growing upwere also evident in comments made about allfemale groups. One woman of white heritagewho attended camp every summer remarked,"[Camp] was all girls and you just stayed inseparate cabins and being in the woods and youdidn't care what you looked like." An Asian-American student offered a gender based com-parison about the Boy Scouts and the GirlsScouts:

The Boy Scouts, they don't take it, they'relike, "Deal with it." You see a bear, you seea bear and you scream and that's it, and then

you move on. With the Girls Scouts, it'slike, they hold your hand so much, theydon't let you do very much of anything.

From another point of view, a woman of whiteheritage who grew up in a large city and was acamper for several summers said:

A lot of my experiences were with the GirlScouts and so for all of the years that I was acamper and a counselor, it was always allgirls. And so for me it was never, "Youcan't do this because you were a girl." I justnever thought of it that way because therewas never anything I couldn't do just be-cause I was a girl.

Issues of gender seemed to be evident forsome of the women retrospectively as they de-scribed how they grew up. None of the women,however, admitted that being female had neces-sarily been a detriment to them during theiryouth. During the focus groups, several of thewomen indicated that they had never reallythought about the possible influence of genderon their involvement in the outdoors.

Present Perceptions of Outdoor Involvement

When the participants described on thequestionnaire their level of outdoor participationfrom the past to the present, eight students saidit had increased, four individuals indicated nochange, and 24 noted a decrease. An explanationof the lives of the students interviewed helpedus understand more about the continuity or lackof continuity of their outdoor involvements overtime. Some of these changes related to genderissues, but other factors affected what the youngwomen were currently experiencing regardingthe outdoors.

Increases in involvement often were associ-ated with new opportunities. For example, onewoman of white heritage said that she got in-volved with the outdoors after high school be-cause she had the opportunity to be a counselorand go to camp for the first time, "I learned howto canoe and do a ropes course and so I was kindof like learning to be a kid all over again." Themajority of young women in this study, how-ever, described their outdoor activity as de-

103


creasing due to a number of common and gen-der-related constraints.

Common Constraints

Constraints are complex phenomena. Forthis analysis, we noted individuals- who wereconstrained and did not necessarily care to par-ticipate in the outdoors more as well as indi-viduals who wanted to be more involved, butwere constrained for a variety of reasons. Theperceptions of both types of individuals werenoted as we examined constraints to outdoorinvolvement.

Women whose involvement had decreasedand who were not interested in outdoor pursuitsgenerally indicated their continuing discomfortwith the outdoors. An African-American womansaid, "I mean I like the outdoors. I go outside tothink. I'll go outside just to walk around. I'minterested, it's just the temperature I don't like."A woman of white heritage said:

I don't like to be out in the woods because Idon't like bugs and I'm afraid ofsnakes...like if I walk to the woods I feellike I have bugs crawling all over me... I justdon't fmd it fun to be outside doing much ofanything if I'm sweating to death or freezingto death.

Regarding constraints for women whowanted to do more but couldn't, several com-mon constraints emerged that have been uncov-ered in other studies. Specifically, time andmoney were mentioned frequently by this groupof students. One quote by a woman of whiteheritage that typified the attitude of several ofthe young women was:

I have a lot of things that I want to try in thefuture but I've not gotten to because ofmaybe time restrictions or monetary restric-tions. Like I would love to go backpackingand stay gone for two weeks but I can't af-ford all the equipment and stuff.

Related to time and money was the issue ofplanning that several women discussed. Oneyoung woman of white heritage who had goneto summer camp for ten years said, "It takes alot of time to plan these things [outdoor activi-ties] and a lot of times it involves travel to cer-

104

tain places. And I don't like to be alone eitherand it involves getting a group together and thattakes time." Another white woman remarked,"That's something else nice about going withyour family because they planned it and you justwent along and it was so easy and you didn'treally have a choice and you just went anyway."

Needing Partners for Participation

Although having friends to participate withis a common constraint to leisure for many peo-ple, the experiences described by the women inthis study reflected a dilemma that was oftengender-based. Lack of partners was also associ-ated with fear and a lack of opportunities.

One individual of white heritage who grewup in a small town and had done most of herprevious outdoor activities with her family said,"Most of my girlfriends have got boyfriendsright now and I've just come out of a relation-ship so I'm pretty much strained and they'realways doing things with their boyfriends." An-other woman stated, "My friends don't havetime either or they don't think it's [outdoors]important so there's really no one for me to do itwith." She went on to say, "I'm not really goingto take off and go somewhere alone and go outin the woods alone, especially, you know, theway things are today."

Fear often was the basis for needing part-ners in the outdoors. This fear generally re-volved around gender-based notions. Contradictions were apparent, however, in some ofthe issues about fear that the female studentsraised. For example, one woman of white heri-tage who grew up in a city was not aware ofhow fear changed her life when she said:

I don't think about being raped or attackedor being assaulted or anything when I gowalking by myself. I mean I just make sure Idon't do it where there are not street lights ifI'm walking on a street. But most of my ac-tivities I do during the day, I just don't thinkabout it.

Another woman of white heritage said, "I wouldnot walk around Raleigh if I was by myselfalone. But I would go to the mountains and justwalk."


Other women were clear about their fearsregarding the outdoors and how it related tothem being female. One woman lamented, "Ijust feel like I couldn't do some of the activitiesby myself that I would like to do." Anotherwhite woman who had previously described theoutdoors as a liberating experience during thefocus group said, "I wouldn't want to camp bymyself. I don't really know why, I guess atnight, being out there alone by yourself withnothing around you to protect you except maybea stick." A woman of white heritage summed upthis gendered fear issue by stating:

I told one of my guy friends that I wish Iwas a guy because it's just not fair. Youknow, I should have lived a long time agowhen I could have done all these thingsalone...I mean the most fun to me is justseeing new places and doing new things, butI can't really do that alone.

Gender Expectations and the Outdoors

Even though fear was a gendered constraint,most of the women interviewed indicated thatthey did not perceive the outdoors today as theprimary domain of males with females not wel-come. Most respondents felt that females wereas likely to be involved as males in most out-door pursuits other than perhaps hunting. Onewoman, for example, said:

I don't know why, I just can't see too manyguys saying, "I'm going on a nature walk." Ican't see too many women saying "I'm go-ing out deer hunting"...and there are thoseactivities that are kind of equal like whitewater rafting and canoeing.

Similarly, a woman of white heritage who grewup in a small town indicated that if peoplethought of the outdoors as a man's world it was"that they're thinking about hunting and fishing.They're not thinking about the whole thing likenature walks, hiking, rafting, canoeing." An-other white woman noted that females may getinvolved in stereotypes that suggest that youshould not "be strong and go out and do all thatstuff, the outdoorsy stuff" even though thisstereotype had not inhibited her at all.

Hunting was an issue that raised reactionsamong the women who were interviewed.Hunting was considered a "male thing" becauseas one woman of white heritage stated,"Females, at least from my experience, theydon't seem to want to go out and kill a big bearor something." Another woman talked abouthunting as being a way for men to "claim theirmanhood." Another sentiment was expressed bya woman of white heritage who did not enjoythe outdoors. She said, "I feel terrible when Ipull a little fish up and I know it's going to dieand things like that."

Related to gender as a possible constraintfor women in the outdoors was the idea thatmen are more inclined and encouraged to buyequipment necessary for outdoor activities. Onewoman of white heritage, who is not as activetoday in the outdoors as she was in the past, re-marked that the outdoors "isn't being sold towomen." She said, "When you go into an out-door store, I'd say three-fourths is for guys.There's this little section for females and therest is for guys."

Two of the women interviewed thoughtwomen were different from men when theywere in the outdoors and this was a positivebenefit. One Asian-American woman noted that"females are a lot easier to deal with." She de-scribed how on a hiking trip other women wereencouraging, supportive, and positive influencesthat helped her along when she needed it. Themen on that trip had not been helpful.

Entitlement and the Ungendered Outdoors

Almost all of the women interviewed ex-pressed that they felt entitled to outdoor experi-ences whether they chose to be involved or not.Many of the students did not feel that as femalesthey were discriminated against or at a disad-vantage concerning their outdoor recreation op-portunities.

Several women did not feel there were anygender differences in the outdoors. An African-American woman remarked about her percep-tions of how times have changed:

105


A lot of things are coming about. Mostly,we've found them [women] inside the houseor around the yard like I said with mygrandmother. But you're finding that moreof them are going whitewater rafting, hik-ing, backpacking, and things like that. It'sbecause the door is open for them. A lot ofpeople think that sharp tools and things likethat are just used, men can only handle thembecause the woman is very gentle and shemay hurt herself and stuff like that. But wejust have to show that we're equal. I mean,yes, men have more strength in some areasthan women do but we all have our placesthat we fit. And I'm pretty sure there is aplace for woman outdoors and we have tolet it be more known.

Several women clearly resisted the idea thatthe outdoors might be gendered. One woman ofwhite heritage said, "If I want to do something,I'm going to do it and I just don't put any kindsof limits or restrictions on myself. I just don't, ifit's there and I have an opportunity to do it, I'mgoing to do it." Another woman talked about notwanting to be the whiny woman in the woodseven though she was afraid of spidersin notwanting to be the stereotyped female, she said,"It makes you do more and makes you get outthere." An Asian-American woman said, "Inever felt limited...And I've proved a lot ofpeople wrong by doing things they didn't think Icould do."

Thus, regardless of amount of involvement,most of the young women interviewed did notwant to believe that the outdoors was genderedalthough their statements about present in-volvement and their perceptions indicated thatsome questions clearly existed in their minds.Even though they saw the world as havingchanged, it was evident that stereotypes aboutthe outdoors still existed to some extent.

Expectations about the Future

Conjecturing about the future is often diffi-cult. Yet to understand aspects about the out-doors, it was useful to examine what theseyoung women saw ahead for themselves. Thosewomen who did not have an interest and appre-ciation for the outdoors presently were not

0 6

likely to want to obtain a different involvementin the future. One woman's apprehension re-lated to skill, "I think it's kind of scary some-times to venture out and do something...lack ofknowledge I guess. I just wouldn't know exactlywhat to do." She did not think that it would beeasy for her to learn.

All of the young women who were involvedcurrently in the outdoors indicated that theywould like to see their involvement increase inthe future. For example, one woman of whiteheritage said, "I think I'm just going to continueon the things I've always had. I've always beeninvolved and I'm sure I always will." Most fe-males in the study acknowledged the value ofthe outdoors and said they would participatemore in the future if others were available toshare the experience.

A number of women commented, often un-prompted, about what they would like for theirchildren in the outdoors if they had childrensomeday. A common idea expressed was, "Iwould like to see my family being outdoors be-cause, it's nice. And I think you should have acertain appreciation for it." A woman of whiteheritage said, "I have no clue what I'm going tobe, where I'm going to be, but I really enjoybeing outside and climbing mountains and stuffand I'm definitely going to expose my childrento that." An African-American female statedthat she didn't know if she would be able to in-volve her children because of her attitude aboutthe outdoors. She said, "And I'm not too con-vinced about that if I have little girls. I meanbecause they're going to be around me and I'malways going to squirm every time I see a bug,so, I mean, most likely they probably will too."Most of the students agreed that they did notwant to force the outdoors on their children, butthat they wanted them to feel comfortable in theoutdoors even if they themselves did not. Forexample, a woman of white heritage who doesnot enjoy the outdoors said:

I would hope that I could raise children thatare comfortable outdoors and who could justrun in the woods and have a good time.... Iwould like to be more comfortable in theoutdoors, so the thought of spending the af-


ternoon in the woods wasn't a horrifyingthing.

Although concern for one's future familywas a gendered type of socialization, none ofthe women differentiated about the gender oftheir children except the one who was afraid shewas more likely to pass her fear of bugs to herdaughters than sons. The comments of thesewomen suggest that future generations ofwomen may not experience either behaviors orattitudes that would connote a gendered out-doors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided information to describea range of gendered behaviors that relate towomen in the outdoors. With gender as an or-ganizing theoretical framework, our interpreta-tions exemplified how most women madechoices contingent on contexts and relation-ships, not just because they were biologicallyfemale. The impact of changing women's roles,past socialization, and stereotypical gender ex-pectations, however, made the determination ofhow choices were made difficult. The researchadds some depth to understanding the breadth ofoutdoor involvement for women. New defini-tions of outdoor meanings will likely emerge asmore females resist gendered expectations anddevelop appreciations, interests, skills, and op-portunities in the outdoors.

Several aspects of grounded theory aboutwomen in the outdoors emerged from this study.First, a prerequisite to developing an apprecia-tion of the outdoors for women revolved aroundhaving exposure to outdoor opportunities as achild. The findings regarding past experienceindicated that the young women in this studyhad a variety of opportunities for outdoor in-volvement as they grew up. Regardless ofwhether their outdoor experiences were positiveor negative, the exposure to the outdoorsseemed to be an important element in how theysaid they participated today. As indicated byother studies (e.g., Widdekind, 1995), a rela-tionship existed between involvement as a childand future involvement in the outdoors, but this

involvement varied greatly among the partici-pants in this study.

Brightbill (1963) suggested that a progres-sion of appreciation, interests, skills, and thenopportunities must exist if an individual is tolearn to "love" a leisure activity. Therefore, asecond grounded theory conclusion is that ap-preciation, interests, skills, and opportunities inthe outdoors develop for females as both a resultof and resistance to a gendered society. If ap-preciations and interests are not developed andfemales do not feel entitled to learn skills andpursue opportunities, then the outdoors cannotbe a context for female involvement. On theother hand, some women who are interested donot have a chance to develop skills or find op-portunities due to common as well as genderedconstraints. A progression of learning from oth-ers, experimentation, and practice appeared tobe necessary for the females in this study if theywere to resist potential gendered stereotypes ofthe outdoors and seek positive experiences.

Third, most young women wanted to be-lieve that the outdoors is a gender neutral envi-ronment although their involvements often re-flected a contradiction in this consciousnessbetween idealized attitudes and the realities oftheir situations. The students interviewed didnot want to see the outdoors as a gendered placealthough as females, many acknowledged thatthe outdoors may be more a male domain than afemale domain in regard to how it has been tra-ditionally defined. Some women clearly resistedthe idea that the outdoors was a male thing andwanted women's visibility to overshadow pre-vious stereotypes. A contradiction existed be-tween the ideal of a gender neutral environmentand problems related to stereotypes in the out-doors, fear issues, and difficulty in finding out-door partners. A sense of "kind of in the mid-dle" was evident in the responses of thesewomen. The females in this study were opti-mistic, however, about the changing nature ofwomen's visibility in the outdoors. For exam-ple, one woman of white heritage summarizedthis notion:


I think we are one of the first generationsthat are able to go out and do it, that havethe skills and have the knowledge and don'thave the fear necessarily, or the stigma at-tached to it, as much as years past. I thinkwe've already made a small stretch and Ithink we are lucky for that.

We noted some differences in participationlevels based on race, although any definitivecomparisons were not possible given the natureof the research. Seven individuals in the samplewere women of color. The African-Americanstudents in this study generally were involvedless in outdoor pursuits other than family pic-nics. The two Asian-American students, on theother hand, seemed to love the outdoors anddesired to spend much more time there in thefuture. Issues of race surfaced twice during theinterviews. In explaining the lack of involve-ment of African American students, two obser-vations were made by students. One AfricanAmerican student who grew up in a large cityand who was indifferent about the outdoors,noted how it was "kinda racial" because she didnot want to be in the sun and get any darker thanshe was. She also did not like to get her hairsweaty and wet and have to try to "get it backthe way I want it to be." Another African-American student indicated:

You don't see a lot of black people hiking ormountain climbing. You get to the pointwhere there's this stigma that that's not whatyou do...if I have the opportunity sometimein my life, I would like to do them [outdooractivities]. I think there's a stigma on thethings that African-Americans do.

Although more is being written about the in-volvement of people of color in the outdoors,their relative invisibility seems to perpetuatethis stigma. The combination of gender and ra-cial invisibility may be like "double jeopardy"for women of color in the outdoors. Although asmall sample, the women of color in this studyrepresented a range of opinions about the out-doors and the meanings it may or may not bringto their lives. The racial background of the stu-dents provided some additional information, but

I 08

few conclusions about racial differences weredrawn from these data.

More information about gender, gender re-lations, and the stigma attached to gender willhelp us understand outdoor experiences better inthe future. This future research can help us un-derstand what being "kind of in the middle"means regarding the influence of gender forboth females and males. Whether a female par-ticipates alone or with a group, the outdoors is aplace where girls and women can set goals, stepout of traditional gender expectations, and makeempowering choices that can carry over for alifetime.

REFERENCES

Begley, S. (October 30, 1995). Let's talk turkey.Newsweek, pp. 70-72.

Bialeschki, M. D., & Henderson, K. A. (1993,March). Expanding outdoor opportunities forwomen. Parks. & Recreation, pp. 36-40.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Per-spective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Brightbill, C. K. (1963). The challenge of leisure.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cole, E., Erdman, E., & Rothblum, E. D. (1994).Introduction. In E. Cole, E. Erdman, & E. D.Rothblum (Eds.), Wilderness therapy for women:The power of adventure (pp. 1-8). New York:The Haworth Press.

Henderson, K. A. (1991). Dimensions of choice. StateCollege, PA: Venture Publishing.

Henderson, K. A. (1992). Breaking with traditionWomen & outdoor pursuits. Journal of PhysicalEducation, Recreation, and Dance, 63 (2), 49-51.

Henderson, K. A. (1994). Perspectives on analyzinggender, women, and leisure. Journal of LeisureResearch, 26 (2), 119-137.

Henderson, K. A., & Bialeschki, M. D. (1986). Out-door experiential education (for women only).AEE Conference Proceedings, pp. 35-41.

Henderson, K. A., & Bialeschki, M. D. (1987). Viva ladifferencia! Camping Magazine, 59 (4), 20-22.

Henderson, K. A., & Bialeschki, M. D. (1995). Inclu-sive physical activity programming for girls andwomen. Parks and Recreation, 30 (3), 70-78.


Holzwarth, R. (1992, Winter). Outdoor programs forwomen: What they mean to women. WomenOutdoors Magazine, pp. 8-10.

Jordan, D. (1992). Effective leadership for girls andwomen in outdoor recreation. Journal of Physi-cal Education, Recreation, and Dance, 63 (2),61-64.

Kaufman, P. W. (1986) Early women claim park-lands for adventure and aspiration. Courier, 31(10), 16-18.

Knapp, C. E. (1995). Escaping the gender trap: Theultimate challenge for experiential educators.Journal of Experiential Education, 8 (2), 16-19.

Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

LaBastille, A. (1980). Women and wilderness. SanFrancisco: Sierra Club Books.

Lynch, P. (1987). Scaling the heights: They called it`an easy day for a lady.' New Zealand Women'sStudies Journal, 3 (1), 59-73.

Miranda, W., & Yerkes, R. (1982). The need for re-search in outdoor education programs forwomen. Journal of Physical Education, Recrea-tion, and Dance, 53 (4), 82-85.

Mitten, D. (1986). Women's outdoor programs needa different philosophy. The Bulletin of the Asso-ciation of College Unions International, 54 (5),16-19.

Mitten, D. (1992). Empowering girls and women inthe outdoors. Journal of Physical Education,Recreation, and Dance, 63 (2), 56-60.

Roberts, N. S., & Bialeschki, M. D. (1995, Novem-ber). Women in the outdoors: Historical per-spective and review of literature. In L. Frank(Ed.), Association for Experiential Educationconference proceedings (pp. 249-252). Lake Ge-neva, WI: AEE 23rd International Conference

Roberts, N. S., & Drogin, E. B. (1993). The outdoorrecreation experience: Factors affecting partici-pation of African American women. Journal ofExperiential Education, 16 (1), 14-18.

Warren, K. (1985). Women's outdoor adventures:Myth and reality. Journal of Experiential Edu-cation, 8 (2), 10-14.

Widdekind, L. (1995). Human powered outdoor rec-reation: State of the industry report 1995. Wash-ington, DC: The Outdoor Recreation Coalition ofAmerica.

109

THE CURRENT STATUS OF WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENTIN OUTDOOR LEADERSHIP

T. A. Loeffler

Assistant ProfessorMemorial University

The study analyzed women's employment rates from 62 outdoor organizations to determine women's rep-resentation in the outdoor field. Statistical analysis revealed that women were under-represented in outdoororganizations at the executive and management levels using a proportionality standard. Additionally,

women reported lower salaries and higher gender-based discrimination occurrences than their male coun-

terparts.

KEYwoRDS: Outdoor, employment, discrimination, women

Women are participating in outdoor adven-ture activities in ever-growing numbers(Miranda & Yerkes, 1982; Stringer, 1993). Si-multaneous with this surge in participation inoutdoor recreation has been a significant in-crease in the number of organizations offeringoutdoor adventure programs. Such organizationsemploy outdoor leaders to guide these outdoorexperiences. A common assumption in the out-door field has been that women's developmentas outdoor leaders has not kept pace with theirparticipation in outdoor adventure activities(Absolon, 1993; Hampton, 1994), and thatwomen are not very visible in leadership posi-tions in outdoor adventure. This is illustrated ina statement by a female mountaineering studentat the National Outdoor Leadership School(NOLS):

As I've gotten involved in more technicaland extensive outdoor adventures, I've seenthe number of women leaders decreasegreatly. I think if I would have had a femaleinstructor on my NOLS course, I wouldhave felt as if I had someone I could relateto more in terms of a role model. (Hampton,1994, p. 1)

Though some writing and research has beendone on women's participation in outdoor ad-venture activities (e.g., Bean, 1988; Gal land,1980; Henderson & Bialeschki, 1986; Jordan,

107

1992; Mitten, 1985; Warren, 1985), few studieshave focused on women in outdoor leadershippositions (Miranda & Yerkes, 1987; Page,1986). Relatively little is known about the num-ber of women currently employed in outdoorleadership positions. One of the few statisticscurrently available in print is that 30% of theNational Outdoor Leadership School's instruc-tional staff is women (Hampton, 1994).

Several authors have recognized the needfor research about women and outdoor leader-ship (e.g., Miranda & Yerkes, 1982; Knapp,1985; Warren, 1985). Knapp (1985) identifiedmany potential "gender traps" in outdoor expe-riential education that needed to be examined(p. 16). These gender traps included discrimina-tion in hiring, pay equity issues, outdoor skilland leadership competency, traditional genderroles, and communication dynamics. He con-cluded that gender dynamics in outdoor pro-grams have not been investigated thoroughly.

Miranda and Yerkes (1987) conducted oneof the only studies done exclusively on womenin outdoor leadership. In their study, entitledWomen Outdoor Leaders Today, they surveyed200 women outdoor leaders in the United Statesand received 130 responses. In the study's in-troduction, the researchers outlined their majorassumption:

T. A. Loeffler, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the School of Physical Education and Athletics, Memorial Univer-sity of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, A lA 1C8, CANADA; (709) 576-2725; fax (709) 737-3979;[email protected]

1 1 0

108 LOEFFLER

Gender is a fundamental dynamic factor inthe career development and professional ad-vancement of women. This is itself a con-troversial question among outdoor leadersand is not fully tested in this survey. How-ever, there are some indications that womenshare a belief that gender is either problem-atic or positively significant in their profes-sional lives (p. 17).

Their study examined four major areas: educa-tional background, motivations, perception ofwomen leaders, and professional opportunities.Miranda and Yerkes found that over 90% of thesurvey respondents indicated that "gender hashad a marked influence on their careers" (p. 19).The authors concluded that their study was justa beginning and further research was necessaryto develop a greater knowledge base about gen-der related concerns in outdoor leadership. Thiscall for further study was one of the major ra-tionales for the present study.

The present study investigated gender re-lated employment concerns in outdoor leader-ship. The research addressed gaps in under-standing by examining how many women wereemployed by outdoor leadership organizations,the ratio of women to men employed and thetypes of positions in which women were em-ployed. Along with this description of the cur-rent status of women's employment in outdoororganizations, the study used a statistical analy-sis of gender ratios, salary and reported inci-dence of discrimination to further explore po-tential gender traps (Knapp, 1985). Finally, theresearch concluded by discussing some of theimplications of the results for outdoor organiza-tions.

METHOD

The study utilized a mailed survey to fa-cilitate the collection of data from a large sam-ple of outdoor programs and program adminis-trators. The survey was developed in order tosolicit information on two levels: organizationaldemographics and individual perceptions ofoutdoor program administrators. On the organ-izational level, the outdoor program adminis-trators were asked to provide information about

their organization such as number and gendercomposition of staff, gender composition ofprogram participants, type of program, and em-ployment policies. On the personal level, theprogram administrators were asked to answerquestions as individuals. The second part of thesurvey was developed by adapting an instrumentdesigned by a researcher at the University ofBritish Columbia (Frisbee & Brown, 1991). In-formation was collected from respondents re-garding their individual demographics, careerpath, and career satisfaction.

Once the survey was developed, it was re-viewed for content validity and structure by anexpert panel and then the survey was pilottested. The outdoor programs for the samplewere chosen from the 1994-95 Membership Di-rectory and Handbook of the Association of Ex-periential Education, a professional umbrellaorganization for experiential educators whichlisted 360 member organizations. Since the As-sociation of Experiential Education represents awide variety of experiential education organiza-tions, including schools, hospitals, and outdooreducation organizations, a criterion-based sam-pling technique was used. Programs that had thewords "adventure," "out," or "wilderness," intheir names were chosen for inclusion in thestudy because they would most likely meet thecriterion of an outdoor education program withan adventure component. This sampling tech-nique yielded the 103 programs that were sur-veyed in the present study.

The researcher utilized Dillman's "total de-sign method to survey research" because it isrecognized as one of the most effective ap-proaches to maximize response rate (Babbie,1989). The study produced a response rate of60% (n=62 of N=103). The survey research lit-erature suggests that a response rate of 50% isgenerally considered to be "adequate" and a re-sponse rate of 60% is generally considered"good" (Bainbridge, 1989).

The statistical analyses of survey data weredone using the Excel spreadsheet software pro-gram and the SPSS version 6.1 statistical soft-ware program for the Macintosh personal corn-

CURRENT STATUS OF WOMEN

puter. In order to gain an overview of the sam-ple, descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies,ranges, means, standard deviations) were cal-culated for the respondents' socio-demographiccharacteristics. In addition, descriptive statisticswere calculated on the responses to each surveyquestion to investigate the shape of their distri-butions. Since the present study was exploratoryin nature, statistical tests were required to attainan alpha of .05 for the results to be consideredsignificant (Babbie, 1989).

Statistical analyses were selected to matchthe types of data collected and the purpose ofeach survey question. The survey questions thatproduced nominal or ordinal data were analyzedusing nonparametric statistical procedures andtests such as frequencies, cross-tabulations, andchi-square. The, survey questions that producedinterval data (Likert-type responses) were ana-lyzed using parametric statistical tests such ascorrelation and analysis of variance (ANOVA).

The choice of parametric tests may be ques-tioned for a non-random sample. After extensivestudy, however, Kerlinger (1973) contended thatunless the sample is "seriously non-normal andvariances are heterogeneous, it is usually unwiseto use a non-parametric test in place of aparametric one" (p. 287). Additionally, accord-ing to Kirk (1982), most parametric tests arerobust enough for use with non-probabilitysamples.

RESULTS

The outdoor programs in the sample serv-iced 160,585 participants in 1994. Of these par-ticipants, 41% (n=65,840) were female and 59%(n=94,745) were male. The outdoor programs inthe sample employed 3,401 staff in 1994. Theoverall staff gender ratio was 45% women(n=1,539) to 55% men (n=1,862). Using theone-dimensional chi-square goodness of fit test(Howell, 1992), it was determined that this ratiowas significantly different from a theoretical 50-

112

109

50 gender ratio 1 in the breakdown of the staff(x2 [1, n=3401] = 30.68, p < .01).

Of the 3401 staff members, 51% (n=1734)were employed year-round and 49% (n=1667)were additional staff hired to cover the peakseason. Table 1 provides a visual overview ofparticipant gender ratios and staff gender ratiosfor various employment categories. Most of theyear-round employment categories showed fe-male numbers equal to or greater than the par-ticipant female numbers. The executive staffcategory, however, had a ratio of 38% women to62% men. Again, using the one-dimensionalchi-square goodness of fit test (Howell, 1992),all of the employment categories except supportstaff and seasonal management showed signifi-cant differences from a 50-50 gender ratio atp < .05. The outdoor programs also reported thegender breakdown of their governing boards.There were a total of 493 governing boardmembers and 38% (n=186) of the memberswere women and 62% were men (n=307) whichrepresented a significant difference in the gen-der breakdown of governing board membersfrom a 50-50 split (x2[1, n=493] = 29.7, p < .01).

It is interesting to note that of the 62 pro-gram administrators who returned surveys, ap-proximately 55% (n=34) were women, whileapproximately 45% (n=28) were men. This gen-der ratio is significantly different (x2 [1, n=62] =6.93, p < .01) from the year-round managementstaff gender ratio. The survey instructions askedthe person receiving the survey to give it to theperson at the organization who was most re-sponsible for the hiring and supervision of fieldstaff such as a program director or staffing co-ordinator. The significant finding could indicatethat women who are being employed at the ad-ministrative level are more responsible for

1 The theoretical 50-50 gender distribution was usedin the chi-square test for the expected frequenciesbecause it closely resembles the gender distributionin the overall population of the United States.Women tend to slightly outnumber men but the 50-50 distribution was used for ease in calculation andunderstanding.

110 LOEFFLER

TABLE 1

Gender Ratios for Participants, Governing Board Members, and Various Staff Categories

Category n(1/0 of

Women% ofMen

SignificantDifference at

p < .05

Participants 160,585 41 59 yes

Overall staff 3401 45 55 yes

Year-round overall staff 1734 46 54 yes

Seasonal overall staff 1667 45 55 yes

Year-round field staff 1071 41 59 yes

Seasonal field staff 1451 45 55 yes

Year-round support staff 147 44 56 no

Seasonal support staff 120 48 52 no

Year-round office staff 219 76 24 yes

Seasonal office staff 49 74 26 yes

Year-round management 216 42 58 yes

Seasonal management 47 40 60 no

Year-round executive staff 81 32 68 yes

Governing board 493 38 68 yes

human resources or that the initial contactstended to pass the survey on to women becausethey would be more interested in filling it out.

The organizations in the sample were askedif they specifically recruit female staff. Fifty-sixpercent (n=30) of the organizations answeringthe question said they recruited women staffmembers, while 44% (n=24) said they did notspecifically recruit female staff. As a follow-upquestion, the organizations were then asked howthey recruited women. The two most frequentlymentioned methods were through word ofmouth (n=15) and through advertisements inoutdoor jobs newsletters (n=18) such as the As-sociation of Experiential Education JobsClearinghouse. One program stated that it al-ways included the phrase "women and minori-ties are encouraged to apply" in all its advertis-ing of positions. Ten of the programs recruited

through college placement offices and employ-ment fairs. Some (n=4) of the organizations re-cruited women by sending program directors toconferences to network with other organiza-tions, hold informational meetings, and inter-view potential female staff. One organization setaside special scholarship money for talentedfemale students on its instructor course and pro-vided special technical skills development op-portunities for female staff in a single gendersetting. Two of the organizations tracked tal-ented women students in their programs andthen specifically invited them to apply for staffpositions. Another organization had an instruc-tor development program for female staff.

Gender ratios were calculated for programsthat specifically recruit women and those thatdon't. In the categories of overall year-roundstaff, year-round executive, and seasonal fieldstaff, organizations that specifically recruit

CURRENT STATUS OF WOMEN 111

women had a lower percentage of women com-pared to organizations that don't specificallyrecruit them. Organizations that specifically re-cruit women had a higher percentage of womenin the year-round and seasonal managementcategories.

Although none of the differences mentionedabove were statistically significant, they raisesome interesting questions. Some might expectorganizations that specifically recruit womenwould have higher percentages of women, butthis did not hold true for all categories in thissample. It may be that organizations that spe-cifically recruit women have this policy becausethey have experienced difficulty in hiringwomen staff, hence the lower percentages. Itcould also indicate that the recruitment practicesbeing used are ineffective. Since the survey didnot gather staffing information over a number ofyears, these questions cannot be answeredwithin the present study.

The organizations were also asked if, ac-cording to federal guidelines, they were equalopportunity employers and affirmative actionemployers. Eighty percent (n=43) checked thatthey were equal opportunity employers, and39% (n=21) indicated that they were affirmativeaction employers. It is interesting to note thatalmost half (48%) of the program administratorssurveyed did not know if their organizationswere affirmative action employers, since theseprogram administrators are responsible for hir-ing within their organizations.

Organizations listing themselves as equalopportunity employers showed either slightlylower or equal percentages of women employ-ees compared to the organizations that did not.On the whole, organizations listing themselvesas affirmative action employers tended to havehigher percentages of women employees com-pared to the organizations that did not have anaffirmative action hiring policy. The category ofexecutive staff was the only exception to thistrend.

The staff gender ratios for non-profit andprofit organizations were also calculated andcompared. Overall, there was very little differ-

ence in the staff gender ratios between the twotypes of organizations, although there was a sig-nificant difference in the gender ratios of staff atthe year-round management level (x2[1, n=54] =4.0, p < .05). When the number of year-roundmanagement level staff was summed for profit-based organizations, the ratio was 32% womento 68% men. When the number of similar staffwas totaled for non-profit organizations, the ra-tio was 43% women to 57% men.

As part of the survey, respondents wereasked to identify their salary range. Table 2summarizes their responses. A one-way analysisof variance (ANOVA) suggested that there wassignificant difference in the salaries of year-round female and male program administrators(F [1, 53] = 6.29, p < .01). Following up on theANOVA, several measures of central tendencywere examined. The mean salary range for year-round female program administrators was$25,000-$29,999, with the mean salary ap-proximately $25,833. The mean salary range foryear-round male program directors was$30,000-$34,999, with the mean salary ap-proximately $32,599. The modal salary rangefor year-round females was $25,000-$29,000,while the modal salary range for year-roundmale program administrators was over $45,000.Respondents were also asked to rate the extentto which their expectations about salary hadbeen met in their outdoor leadership careers.The results were analyzed using one wayANOVA. There was a significant differencebetween the responses of the female and maleadministrators in the area of salary expectations(F [1, 58] = 7.38, p < .009); female administra-tors were less satisfied (mean = 1.64, range =1-3) with their salaries than male administrators(mean = 2.11, range = 1-3).

To further examine the issue of salary dif-ferences, some possible explanations were ex-plored statistically. Although there was a sig-nificant difference for salaries between educa-tion levels, (F [4, 56] = 2.92, p < .03), therewere no significant differences in the educationlevels reported by female and male programadministrators. Additionally, there was no sig-nificant interaction between gender and

l 4

112LOEFFLER

Table 2A Summary of the Program Administrators' Reported Salaries

SALARY FEMALE

n % n

MALE

%Under $14,999 6 18.2 2 7.1

$15,000-$19,999 2 6.1 3 10.7

$20,000-$24,999 5 15.2 2 7.1

$25,000-$29,999 10 30.3 4 14.3

$30,000-$34,999 4 12.1 5 17.9

$35,000-$39,999 1 3.0 3 10.7

$40,000-$44,999 3 9.1 2 7.1

Over $45,000 2 6.1 7 25.0

education variables when a two-way ANOVAwas performed on the salary data. Thus, differ-ences in education cannot be used to explain thedifferences in salary.

Another possible explanation for the differ-ences in program administrators' salaries is thenumber of years of experience. Program ad-ministrators were asked to provide informationabout their outdoor leadership work history andlength of employment in several employmentcategories. Means were calculated for years ofexperience in the various employment catego-ries. Follow-up analysis revealed no significantdifferences in the years of experience betweenfemale and male program administrators in anyemployment category. Additionally, no signifi-cant difference was found when total years ofexperience was compared. Therefore, differ-ences in years of experience cannot be used toexplain the differences in these program ad-ministrators' salaries.

Finally, the program administrators wereasked how often they had felt discriminatedagainst in the field of outdoor leadership basedon their gender. Twenty-nine percent (n=10) ofthe female administrators reported never feelingsuch discrimination, while 68% (n=19) of themen reported likewise. Feeling discriminatedagainst once or twice were 32% of the women

(n=11) and 21% of the men (n=6). Twelve per-cent (n=4) of the female administrators reportedfeeling discriminated against three or fourtimes, and 11% of the male administrators re-ported similarly. No male administrator reportedfeeling discriminated against five or more timeson the basis of his gender but a large portion ofthe female administrators (27%, n=9) reportedfeeling discriminated more than five timesbased on their gender.

Analysis (one-way ANOVA) found thatthere was a significant difference in the levels ofgender-based discrimination reported by femaleand male administrators (F [1, 60] = 13.43,p < .001). Of the administrators reporting atleast one incident of discrimination, 73% werefemale while 27% were male. The female ad-ministrators reported a greater incidence of gen-der-based discrimination (mean = 2.35, range =1-4) as compared to the male administrators(mean = 1.42, range = 1-4). When the resultswere adjusted for differences in sample size (toallow comparison between groups), the femaleadministrators reported at least 56 cases of dis-crimination based on gender while the male ad-ministrators reported at least 12 such cases.

DISCUSSION

Some of the results pertaining to the currentstatus of women's employment in outdoor lead-

CURRENT STATUS OF WOMEN 113

ership were surprising and challenged currentassumptions in the outdoor adventure field,while other results confirmed them. Many out-door programs aim to have the number of fe-male staff they employ, match or exceed thenumber of female participants they serve(Hampton, 1994). If the number of women em-ployed does not match the participant numbers,women employees are defined as underrepre-sented. This defining process is similar to the"proportionality measure" that is one methodused to assess compliance with Title IX in col-lege sports (Acosta & Carpenter, 1988). A col-lege is said to be in compliance with Title IX ifthe resources given to female athletes matchesthe proportion of female students in the under-graduate population.

Prior to the present study, a wide-spreadbelief was that women were underrepresented inoutdoor leadership organizations (Absolon,1993, Hampton, 1994). It was assumed thatwomen were underrepresented at all levels ofemployment, such as field instructors, programadministrators and executive staff. Using theoutdoor program version of the proportionalitymeasure as a standard, women, as expected,were underrepresented at the executive and gov-erning board levels. Women's employment atthe field instructor, support staff, and officestaff levels exceeded the female participant pro-portion. This result was surprising since the as-sumption was that women were underrepre-sented at all levels. Though it is common prac-tice for outdoor organizations to use their par-ticipant gender ratio as a benchmark for evalu-ating their staff gender ratios (Hampton, 1994),many of the survey respondents thought thatoutdoor programs should aim to have genderratios in their students and staff match that ofthe general population. One study participantexpressed this thought: "My theory is that weare conditioned to expect there will be less [sic]women in outdoor organizations. We are sur-prised and happy when we've reached 30-40%representation. Why shouldn't we expect 50%?"If a 50% male 50% female gender proportion isused as a standard, women in this study wereunderrepresented in every staff category except

office staff. Please note that these findings relateto the organizations in the study sample only,with no attempt to generalize to the field.

In her study of the corporate environment,Kanter (1977) noted that women are underrepre-sented in male-dominated organizations becauseof the interaction of three variables: opportunity,power and proportion. Opportunity refers to anindividual's perceptions of her or his prospectsto move up the career ladder. Power refers to theamount of influence that an individual wieldswithin an organization and to the existence ofmentors and supportive peers. Proportion refersto the ratio or numbers of a particular groupwithin an organization. In this study, proportionrefers to the ratio of female staff to male staff inoutdoor leadership organizations.

Kanter (1977) found that within corporateenvirons, the people which have the greatestsimilarity in terms of socio-demographic char-acteristics to the administration are the onesmost likely to be hired and promoted. She de-fined this process of hiring employees who aresimilar to the dominant group as "homologousreproduction" (p. 48). Since historically womenin outdoor organizations have had less opportu-nity, less power, and fewer numbers than theirmale peers, their continued under-representationmay be attributable to homologous reproduc-tion.

IMPLICATIONS FOR OUTDOORORGANIZATIONS

The above findings have several implica-tions for practice. First, during the study it be-came evident that two standards for determiningunder-representation exist within the field ofoutdoor leadership: the proportionality standardand the overall population standard. As seenabove, the choice of standard influences the out-come of the analysis. Further study is necessary,at both the organizational and field levels, todetermine the most appropriate standard for useby outdoor organizations and for doing futureanalysis. Second, additional research is neededto "break open" (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 75)the gender ratios found in this study to better

116

114 LOEFFLER

understand the additional factors that influencewomen's employment (Loeffler, 1995).

Salary is another indicator of occupationalstatus. Many female respondents expressed con-cern about the amount of remuneration they re-ceive. Several said that early in their careersthey did not care about salary issues, but laterrealized they needed to start planning for re-tirement. Many women mentioned they werecontemplating leaving the field of outdoor lead-ership because of their low salaries. One womansummed up her decision by saying:

I'm leaving outdoor leadership because Idon't want to retire in poverty. I didn'tmuch think about the money early in my ca-reer because I was having so much fun. Itwasn't until I was older that I began to seethe implications of subsistence living.

The study results support Knapp's (1985)identification of pay equity as a potential"gender trap" for outdoor organizations. Onefemale respondent commented that although herorganization had several "pro-women policies,"she suspected that women in her organizationwere paid less than the men. Three other womenalso mentioned concern over pay inequities andoverall, women were less satisfied with theirsalaries than their male counterparts. In the pre-sent study, male administrators reported salariesthat were significantly higher than female ad-ministrators and this difference could not beexplained through differences in education oryears of experience. Issues of salary and payinequity are key for women employed in theoutdoor field. Outdoor organizations need toexamine their remuneration policies for genderbias and further research is necessary to exam-ine the effects of low salaries on staff retention.

In this study, women reported the incidenceof gender-based discrimination at a significantlygreater rate than men. Further study is necessaryto investigate and disclose the nature of suchdiscrimination and it's influence on women'semployment in outdoor leadership. Once thediscrimination is better understood, outdoorprograms will be able to make programmatic or

procedural changes to maximize women's ca-reer opportunities.

The present study investigated the currentstatus of women's employment in outdoor lead-ership. The study analyzed women's employ-ment rates from 62 outdoor organizations toprovide a clearer overall picture of women'srepresentation in the field. Statistical analysisdetermined that women were under-representedin outdoor organizations at the executive andmanagement levels using the proportionalitystandard and under-represented at all levels ex-cept office staff using the population standard.Further analysis determined that women re-ported lower salaries and higher gender-baseddiscrimination occurrences than their malecounterparts. Further study is recommended tofurther understand all of these and other vari-ables influencing women's employment in out-door leadership.

REFERENCES

Absolon, M. (1993). Women at NOLS. The NOLSLeader, 10 (1).

Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (1988). Perceivedcauses of the declining representation of womenleaders in intercollegiate sports: 1988 Update.Unpublished manuscript, Brooklyn College.

Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research.(5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bainbridge, W. S. (1989). Survey research: A com-puter-assisted approach. Belmont, CA: Wad-sworth.

Bean, M. (1987). Women in risk recreation. Womenin Natural Resources, 10 (2), 26-28.

Frisbee, W., & Brown, B. A. (1991). The balancingact: Women leisure service managers. Journal ofApplied Recreation Research, 16 (4), 297-321.

Galland, C. (1980). Women in the wilderness. NewYork: Harper and Row.

Hampton, M. (1994). Women 's careers at NOLS.Unpublished manuscript.

Henderson, K. A., & Bialeschki, M. D. (1986). Out-door experiential education (for women only).

11 7

CURRENT STATUS OF WOMEN

Proceedings of the 1986 Association of Experi-ential Education National Conference, 35-40.

Howell, D. C. (1992). Statistical methods for psy-chology. (3rd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent.

Jordan, D. (1992). Effective leadership for girls andwomen in outdoor recreation. Journal of Physi-cal Education, Recreation and Dance, 63 (2).

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corpo-ration. New York: Basic Books.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioralresearch. (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart,& Winston.

Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Proceduresfor the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). Belmont,CA: Brooks/Cole.

Knapp, C. (1985). Escaping the gender trap: Theultimate challenge for experiential educators.Journal of Experiential Education, 8 (2).

Loeffler, T. A. (1995). Factors that influencewomen's career development in outdoor leader-ship. Doctoral dissertation, (Ph.D.). Universityof Minnesota. Dissertation Abstracts Intema-

115

tional. (University Microfilms Publication Num-ber 9541337).

Miranda, W., & Yerkes, R. (1982). The need for re-search in outdoor education programs forwomen. Journal of Physical Education, Recrea-tion, and Dance. April.

Miranda, W., & Yerkes, R. (1987). Women outdoorleaders today. Camping Magazine, 59 (4).

Mitten, D. (1985). A philosophical basis for awomen's outdoor program. Journal of Experien-tial Education, 8 (2).

Page, L. (1986). Women and outdoor leadership.Women Outdoors Newsletter. 7 (1).

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of quali-tative research: Grounded theory proceduresand techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.

Stringer, L. A. (1993). Gender-role conformity as aconstraint to women's participation in outdoorrecreation. Unpublished manuscript.

Warren, K. (1985). Women's outdoor adventures:Myth and reality. Journal of Experiential Edu-cation, 8 (2).

18

116

THE PERMANENCY OF A SPECIFIC SELF-CONCEPT

Alan N. Wright

California State University Northridge

The Adjective Check List was used to measure a global and a specific self-concept. The resultsindicate differentiation between the global self and a specific adventure self as mountaineer and ahigh degree of permanency was found in the specific self at the follow-up thirteen years later.

KEYWORDS: Self-concept, outdoor adventure, specific self adjective check list, global selflong-term effects

INTRODUCTION

Conceptions of the self have an extensiveresearch tradition and historically have empha-sized the general or total self-concept. Morerecently, researchers in self-concept have ar-gued for multidimensional models of self whichincludes both a general construct and specificdimensions (e.g., Byrne, 1984; Gergen, 1971;Markus & Nurius, 1986; Marsh, 1986, 1990).The hierarchical model of the self (Byrne 1984;Marsh, Byrne, & Shavelson, 1988; Shavelson,Hubner, & Stanton, 1976) describes the globalself as an overall self which is influenced bymore specific domains of the self. Specific di-mensions of the self have included broad do-mains such as the academic self, as well as morenarrow selves such as a math academic self(Marsh, 1990). Research in physical self-concept has demonstrated specific physical selfdomains such as strength, sport ability, endur-ance/ fitness, appearance (Fox & Corbin, 1989;Marsh, 1994). The hierarchical self is conceptu-alized as a pyramid structure with progressivelygreater specificity at the lower levels of thepyramid. Ultimately, the base of the self-concept triangle rests on specific experienceswithin certain domains that create the phenome-nal self in both specific and more global dimen-sions.

Recent research places greater emphasis onunderstanding the self in its specific dimensions.

The assessment of self-concept must move fromthe global domain to focus on the specific rolesof the participant (Griffin, Chassin, & Young,1981) or the self-report from the specific expe-rience itself (Wright, 1982). Research in out-door education should reflect the perspectivesdemonstrated in other educational areas like theacademic self-concept or the physical self-concept. Marsh states, "I am not arguing thatresearchers should completely abandon meas-ures of general self-concept and general physi-cal self-concept, but researchers and practitio-ners should place more emphasis on the specificphysical self-concept domains particularly rele-vant to their concern" (1994, p.322). Within arecreational context, researchers could assessself-concept in specific roles, such as athlete,basketball player, kayaker, mountaineer, orfrom the context of a single outdoor recreationexperience.

Stability of Specific Self-Concept Measures

The question of stability of a self report isessential to the purpose of this research. Thehierarchical self-concept originally hypothe-sized that the global self would be the most sta-ble dimension of the self (Byrne, 1984). How-ever, studies on specific self-concept suggestthat the specific selves may show more stabilitythan global domains. Shavelson and Bolus(1982) failed to find greater stability of the gen-eral self in a study related to academic self-

Dr. Alan Wright is the Outdoor Recreation Coordinator for the Dept. of Leisure Studies & Recreation, Cal. State-Northridge, 18111 Nordorf St., Northridge, CA, 91330-8269; (818) 885-3250; fax (818) 885-2695; [email protected]

119

PERMANENCY OF A SPECIFIC SELF 117

concept. Marsh, Richards, and Barnes (1986,1987) reached a similar conclusion in their re-search with Australian Outward Bound, stating,"Data from this study also suggest that general-self is substantially less stable over long-termintervals than more specific facets of self'(Marsh, et al. 1987, p.490). The Youth in Tran-sition study (Bachman, O'Malley, & Johnson,1978) also found a higher stability in specificdimensions of self than in a general self-conceptscale when assessed two years apart.

The proposition of a reasonably stable spe-cific self is critiqued by some self-theorists fromthe sociological tradition who suggest that invery specific settings a person's self evaluationsmay be quite variable due to the influence ofothers in that setting (Gergen, 1982). However,Gergen's laboratory style research argues thatthe individual may change a specific self-reportfrom one situation to another based on who isthere and does not really address the issue ofconsistency in recall of a self-report. If a personaccurately stores a specific self experience andit is reported accurately at a later time, it wouldbe reasonably stable within the person. The highvariability that can be seen across specific-selfreports in different settings is a different issuethan the issue of consistency over time or con-sistency in recall of a self-description.

Based on the empirical studies from the hi-erarchical self model, the hypothesis for thisstudy would predict stability for the situation-ally specific self. The researcher does recognizethat previous research on specific self measureda specific domain such as physical self (Marsh,et al., 1987), whereas the current study measuresa specific self in a single situation: a mountain-eering experience.

Influence of Memory on Specific Self-Concept Measures

The study focuses on the measurement of asituationally specific self-concept that was takenimmediately after an outdoor experience andthen measured 13 years later. The recall of aspecific self concept raises the question of therole of memory in self-concept. Can one expectspecific recall of a self-perception after such along period of time has passed? Literature on

autobiographical memory helps respond to thememory question. Autobiographical memory,which is defined as the capacity to recollect per-sonal events of one's life (Rubin, 1986), hasseen renewed and sometimes controversial in-terest. Self memories are divided into two cate-gories: episodic and semantic. Semantic infor-mation is material that is repeatedly experiencedby the person, such as relatives' names, and isconsidered part of the general information ofone's personal past. Episodic information, onthe other hand, is memory of single incidentsthat can be referenced to a specific time andplace. The recall of a specific self-conceptwould be asking the person to reflect on an epi-sodic memory.

One of the characteristics of certain episodicautobiographical memories is the clarity orvividness of the memory. Brown and Kulick(1977) used the term "flashbulb memory" asrecalling personal experiences in reference tohistorical events such as the Kennedy assassi-nation. Flashbulb memories were labeled assuch due to their clear, vivid, almost life-likeproperties, in addition to meeting other estab-lished criterion. Rubin and Kosin (1984) utilizedthe term "vivid memories" as an extension ofthe work of Brown and Kulick. Vivid memorieswere clear like a flashbulb snapshot but theywere found to be more inclusive of differenttypes of self-memory.

The relevance of this literature discussion isthat researchers (Rubin & Kosin, 1984) foundthat a young adult sample group showed that thenumber of years since the experience showedlittle influence on memory in terms of meetingthe criteria of clear and vivid quality of thememory. Long -term specific memory can be avivid memory. Rubin and Kosin (1984) remindus that "vividness, however, should not be con-fused with accuracy. In this regard, it is almostcertain that most of the memories are inaccuratein some respects" (p. 84). The expectation thatsubjects may have vivid recall of a specificevent and perceptions of themselves in thatevent is reasonable. If the event was consideredpersonally important and if it had emotionalimpact, then vivid memory would be more

20

118 WRIGHT

likely to occur (Rubin & Kosin, 1984;Mackavey, Malley, & Stewart, 1991).

Limitations and Purpose

This research project is based on the clearsupport for specific domains of the self withinthe self-concept literature. Furthermore, somestudies suggest that the specific self will showconsistency over time and may even be morestable than a global self. The related research onautobiographical memory lends support for ex-pecting a vivid recall of the specific self-report.

The study excludes from analysis the ques-tion of stability between the global self meas-ures as well as whether the specific self is morestable than the global self. The study is alsolimited by the narrow scope of the study popu-lation. The study used a single age group; ado-lescents. The small study size of 31 subjectsalso limits the conclusions. More variance inlong term measures, rather than the single 13year follow-up, would have created a strongerstudy, but the situation did not allow for thatdesign opportunity.

The purpose of the study was to explore thesituationally specific self-concept of participantsin a mountaineering experience and then to as-sess whether the recall of that self-concept wasstable in a long term follow-up. The hypothesiswas that the specific self concept would be dif-ferent from the global self-concept and that thespecific self-concept would show stability when

, the original and follow-up measures were com-pared.

METHOD

Design and Subjects

The study explored a long-term follow-upof a specific self measure taken from a majormountain ascent. In the original study (Wright,1982), adolescents from a nine week adventurecamp program in 1978 were given a global selfmeasure on day two of the program, and then amonth later the group climbed Mt. Rainier(14,410 ft.), which is a snow and ice climb inWashington state. Participants engaged in atwo-day climbing and training school at the baseof the mountain and then spent day threeclimbing to the 10,000 foot base camp, with the

climb to the summit and the descent on dayfour. The self measure was administered as partof the relaxation day following the descent (Day34). At the end of the summer, the camperswere given another global measure (Day 64).

Thirteen years later (Day 4800+/-), theadolescents who were now young adults weregiven the same measures as the first study (aglobal and a specific self), 30 days apart. Theorder of taking the specific measure or theglobal measure was determined by random as-signment. The follow-up data were collected in1991.

The original study group (N=57) consistedof 34 males and 23 females. Campers ranged inage from 14-18 years, with a mean age of 15.5.In the search for the original subjects, 44 of the57 were able to be contacted, and 77% of thatgroup responded to the study. Because of in-complete questionnaires, the final study groupwas 31 young adults, which represents 53% ofthe original subjects. The age range was 28-30,with a mean age of 28.7 years. Sex was fairlyequally divided, with 17 males and 14 females.

Adjective Check List as a Self-Concept Measure

The Adjective Check List (ACL) developedby Gough and Heilbrun (1983) in the late '50s isone of the most widely used instruments in per-sonality assessment. The instrument consists of300 adjectives listed alphabetically, and the re-spondent checks all those adjectives that wouldbe considered self-descriptive. The currentmanual provides scoring for 28 original scalesrelated to personality and self-constructs. Nineadditional scales have been developed, with fivescales related to the transactional analysis para-digm and four scales assessing Welsh's ori-gence-intellectence dimensions, for a total of 37scales.

The ACL was developed primarily as a per-sonality instrument to assist clinicians with as-sessment, although it has been more widely usedin research. The normative sample upon whichthe ACL scores have been based is 9,402 sub-jects. Internal consistency for the 37 ACL scalesshow acceptable median values of .76 and .75for males and females, respectively. Test-retest

1 21


correlations for all scales show a median corre-lation of .65, with a range of .77 to .34. TheACL has been criticized (Wylie, 1974; Fekken,1984) and was not included in the self-conceptinstruments reviewed by Wylie in 1989. Thechief complaint against the ACL has been thepotential overlap between existing scales, rais-ing construct validity problems. Despite the cri-tiques, the ACL remains popular as an assess-ment tool because of its simplicity and diverseapplicability.

The unique benefit of the ACL for use in thepresent study was its flexibility in application.The ACL has been successfully used for newapplications. By modifying the standard direc-tions for the instrument, the respondent can de-scribe a variety of events or persons with a wellused set of adjectives. The ACL was used byWilliams and Best (1990) to assess masculineand feminine characteristics in their major workexploring cross cultural sex stereotypes. TheACL has also been used in psycho-biographicalstudies to describe past presidents (Simonton,1986). The flexibility of the ACL allows it to beadapted easily to measure a specific dimensionof the self, as well as to measure a global viewof self. The specific view of self in the contextof an adventure experience can be comparedwith standard scales reflective of dimensions ofthe self and also allow for a structure free as-sessment by simply noting the frequency anddistribution of single adjectives selected to beself descriptive.

The capacity for the ACL to explore thepicture of the specific mountaineering self in anopen-ended style was a key factor in its selec-tion for this type of exploratory research. Re-cently developed specific self scales (e.g.Marsh, Richards, Johnson, Lawrence & Throm-bin, 1994; Fox & Corbin, 1989) are based ondeveloping a theoretical suggestion of specificself dimensions and then creating test questionsto assess that dimension. The instrument is thentested for its validity and reliability in measur-ing the a priori constructs designed by the test'sauthors. The ACL, on the other hand, allows forsome exploration of selected standard scalesthat are appropriately viewed as domains of the

self-concept, while at the same time allowingfor a reflective analysis of potential dimensionsof the specific self based on the groups of par-ticular adjectives that were checked.The standard directions for the ACL are listedbelow and were used to assess the global self.

This booklet contains a list of adjec-tives. Please read them quickly and put an Xin the box beside each one you would con-sider to be self descriptive. Do not worryabout duplications, contradictions, and soforth. Work quickly and do not spend toomuch time on any one adjective. Try to befrank and check those adjectives which de-scribe you as you really are, not as youwould like to be. (Gough, 1952, p.1).

The ACL was administered to assess thespecific self by shifting these directions to aspecific context as illustrated below.

Think for a moment about your ascent.of Mt. Rainier and how you felt about your-self. Read through the list of adjectivesquickly and put an X in the boxes besideeach one of those adjectives that would de-scribe you during your experience of Mt.Rainier. Those adjectives that would not de-scribe you as you reflect upon your experi-ence of Mt. Rainier should be left un-checked. Be frank and honest in your an-swers and do not spend too much time onany one adjective.

The standard directions were used to measurethe global self pretest, posttest, and follow-uptest, and the modified directions were used tomeasure the specific self at the initial assess-ment and the follow-up.

ANALYSIS

Analysis of the data included both descrip-tive and parametric techniques. The standardscales of the ACL were analyzed using theMinitab statistical analysis program. An analy-sis of variance tested for a difference betweenthe global self and specific self measures. Theanalysis also included a descriptive report offrequencies of particular adjectives used to de-scribe the specific self.

122

120 WRIGHT

Analysis of the Standard Scales of the ACL

The standard scales of the ACL are based onthe number of indicative adjectives checked forthat scale minus the number of contra-indicativeadjectives checked. With the standard direc-tions, the total number of adjectives checked outof a possible 300 is a normal distribution, with amean of 93.40 (SD = 36.36) for males and 97.37(SD = 34.64) for females. The total number ofadjectives checked is considered a free variableof the instrument indicating an expressive com-ponent of the personality, but it serves primarilyas a means for standardizing the scoring onother scales relative to the number of adjectives

checked. If, for example, one person checked 60adjectives and another person checked 130 ad-jectives, the various scales would be affected ifthe scores were not adjusted for the total num-ber of adjectives checked.

The study group raw scores for Total Ad-jectives Checked at each of the five test occur-rences is shown in Figure 1. The means for To-tal Adjectives Checked follows the pattern ofthe letter W with the global self reflecting anormal number of adjectives checked (aver-aging over 100 on the global measures) with thespecific self mean dropping to 76.48 at the firstmeasure and 45.16 at the follow-up measure.

20

10

00

90

80

70

60

50

40

Means of Total Adjectives CheckedRaw Scores for Global & Specific Selves

Global I Global II Rainier II Global III

Figure 1. Means of total adjectives checked

123


Differentiation of Specific Self

One of the key indicators of a difference inthe global view of self and the specific adven-ture self was this change in the total number ofadjectives checked. The t-test values for the dif-ference in total adjectives checked at the globalselves and the specific selves found significancebeyond the .001 level. The W shape of the totaladjectives checked scale (see Figure 1) becomesthe common pattern for the majority of the basic28 scales of the ACL. Thirteen scales followthis basic W pattern, with the implication thatthe scales represent a negative shift between theglobal and specific self.

Previous work by Wright (1982) using theACL to assess a specific adventure self found asignificant positive shift in a cluster of scalesrelated to a person being goal directed,achievement oriented, and confident in the pur-suit of tasks. The positive shift between globalself and specific self would be represented bythe shape of a shallow M when graphed. Eightscales followed this basic shallow M pattern andsuggested a clear positive differentiation be-tween the global self and the specific selves onthese salient dimensions. The difference wasgreater between the immediate specific self andcorresponding global measures, with six of eightscales significant at the .05 level. The differencebetween the memory self and the follow-upglobal measure was less, with two of eightscales significant at the .05 level. Yet, the shal-low M or flat characteristic of these scalesstands in sharp contrast to the W patterns of themajority of standard scales. A review of meansand t-test values can be found in Table 1. Thescales with the M pattern suggest a clear posi-tive differentiation between the global self andthe specific selves on these salient dimensions.

Consistency Between the Specific Selves

One way to test for stability and perma-nence of the specific self is to compare standardscales of the Immediate Self directly with theMemory Self. Of the eight scales showing posi-tive influence, only two showed a significantdifference between the two specific selves ,andthose differences reflected a more positive viewbeing expressed at the follow-up test. The T2 to

T4 comparison in Table 1 shows the actual t-values and confidence interval. The overall lackof significant difference between the immediateself and the memory self would suggest a stablespecific self image.

Analysis of Adjective Frequency

It is helpful to look at the frequency distri-bution of specific adjectives checked in order totest for consistency and inconsistency betweenthe specific selves. The list of adjectives in Ta-ble 2 shows those adjectives checked most fre-quently at the memory self and the immediateself. The order of adjectives in Table 2 is basedon the percentage ranking reflecting the mem-ory self. All adjectives checked by 50% or moreof the participants were included in the table.The reader can note the similarity between thetwo specific selves. The Pearson product mo-ment correlation technique was used to test forthe strength of relationship between the twospecific measures. The Pearson r was .85, basedon the relationship of number of times particularadjectives were checked at the two specificselves. The strong relationship was consistentwhen calculated separately for males (r=.802)and females (r.803).

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Specific Self: Different and Stable

The analysis of the standardized scalesdemonstrates a difference between the globaland specific selves. Based on the drop in overallnumber of adjectives checked and the distinctlydifferent patterns in scales (the majority withthe distinct W compared to the minority withshallow M), the specific self seems to reflect amore selective, focused self.

The specific self seems to demonstrate a fairdegree of stability between the immediate selfand the memory self. The .85 correlation indi-cates a strong relationship, and the M scalesshowed no significant negative change betweenthe two specific selves.

Specific Self: A Definition

If the specific self appears relatively stableover time, what essential definition of this spe-cific self emerges? A brief summary of thescales in Table 1 helps define that image. The

I24

122 WRIGHT

Table 1

ACL Scales with Positive Change Patterns Between Global and Specific Selves

Means (and SDs) for: t-test of Significance forGlobal I Rainier I Global II Rainier H Global III Selected Pair-Wise Comparisons

Ti T2 T3 T4 T5 T 1 -T2 T4-T5 T2 -T4ACL Scales

Achievement 50.73 58.53 54.65 61.62 56.78 -4.01*** 2.20* -1.47(ACH) (7.88) (7.44) (6.37) (8.98) (8.18) (.000) (.032) (.15)

Endurance 49.04 54.44 52.46 59.18 55.16 -2.99** 2.00* -2.49*(END) (7.23) (6.99) (5.10) (7.97) (7.72) (.004) (.05) (.016)

Leadership 48.62 53.76 52.43 54.16 54.49 -2.54* -.18 -.20(MLS) (6.99) (8.83) (6.4.6) (6.60) (7.33) (.014) (.86) (.84)

Order 47.92 50.22 50.17 55.31 54.45 -1.26 .40 -2.71**(ORD) (7.24) (7.19) (5.23). (7.61) (8.20) (.21) (.69) (.009)

Dominance 51.18 56.47 57.56 59.51 57.62 -2.95** .85 -1.49(DOM) (7.56) (6.52) (6.29) (9.33) (7.99) (.005) (.40) (.14)

Self-Confidence 52.81 58.60 57.69 61.47 59.04 -3.01** .99 -1.21(S-CFD) (7.20) (7.93) (8.16) (10.58) (8.59) (.004) (.33) (.23)

Masculine 50.35 55.99 53.82 55.10 55.29 -2.47* .51 .36(MAS) (9.87) (8.04) (10.74) (11.22) (8.77) (.017) (.61) (.72)

Autonomy 49.70 51.54 50.63 53.93 52.94 -.89 .41 -1.19(AUT) (9.06) (7.14) (6.78) (8.61) (9.94) (.38) (.68) (.24)

Note: Test symbols are defined as T1 = Global Self I (Pretest), T2 = Specific Self I of Rainier (Immediate Self),T3 = Global Self II (Posttest), T4 = Specific Self II of Rainier (Memory Self/ 13 yr Follow-up),T5 = Global Self III (13 yr. Follow-up).

< .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; pvaluesinparenthesis

125

PERMANENCY OF A SPECIFIC SELF

Table 2

Percentage of Persons Checking Selected Adjectives at Specific Selves

Rainier I(Immediate Self)

Rainier II(Memory Self)

Percent of ChangeBetween Tests

Adjectives Number Number

Adventurous 27 87.1 29 93.5 6.5*

Determined 29 93.5 28 90.3 -3.2

Alert 28 90.3 25 80.6 -9.7

Capable 28 90.3 24 77.4 -12.9

Active 29 93.5 23 74.2 -19.4

Ambitious 26 83.9 22 71.0 -12.9

Adaptable 25 80.6 22 71.0 -9.7

Persevering 10 32.3 22 71.0 38.7*

Persisent 19 61.3 21 67.7 6.5*

Energetic 22 71.0 21 67.7 -3.2

Strong 20 64.5 21 67.7 3.2*

Confident 27 87.1 20 64.5 -22.6

Anxious 27 87.1 20 64.5 -22.6

Courageous 19 61.3 20 64.5 3.2*

Cooperative 27 87.1 19 61.3 -25.8

Note: Adjectives selected based on over 60% frequency on follow-up (Memory Self) measure* equals positive increase in frequency at follow-up measure

following definitions are taken from the ACLManual (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). Achieve-ment (ACH), which showed the greatest amountof change, is defined as a hard-working, goal-directed individual who is determined to do welland usually does. Endurance (END) means topersist in any task undertaken. Military Leader-ship (MLS) is defined as one who shows self-discipline and who works hard to see that goalsare attained. Order (ORD) means one placesemphasis on neatness, organization, and plan-ning in one's activities. Dominance (DOM) is toseek and maintain a role as a leader in groups,reflecting someone who is strong-willed, ambi-tious, and determined. Self-confidence (S-CFD)is reflected by someone with poise, self-assurance, confidence; an initiator, confident in

123

her/his ability to achieve goals. Persons scoringhigh on Autonomy (AUT) are independent,autonomous, assertive, and self-willed. Mascu-line (MAS) is indicative of people who per-ceives themselves to be ambitious and assertive,quick to get things moving and stubbornly in-sistent on attaining their goals. It should benoted that when MAS scores were analyzedseparately for men and women, scores werecomparable, with women having slightly higherscores on the scale.

Specific Self: Changes Between the ImmediateSelf and the Memory Self

The memory self showed an overall drop inthe number of adjectives checked at the follow-up (means ranged from 76.5 to 45.2). As people

126

124 WRIGHT

move further away from an event, one mightexpect key elements of that experience to re-main vivid memories, while other dimensions ofthe experience would not remain memorable.The drop in total number of adjectives checkedat the memory self may reflect this phenomenaof a more focused description at the memoryself.

Of special interest are the adjectives thatshowed an increase in their frequency at thememory self. Table 1 lists those adjectives thatshowed a positive increase. One adjective, per-severing, showed a large increase (38.7%) at thememory self. Attaining the summit of Mt.Rainier required a one-day approach climb to10,000 feet, followed by a very arduous climbon day two. Day two began at 4:00 a.m. and re-quired continuous hiking to reach the summit atmid morning. After a short rest on top, the de-scent climb lasted into the late afternoon. Thegeneral perception of novice climbers was thatthey had been through an endurance event.Other adjectives with positive increases weredaring (9%), persistent and adventurous (6.5%),and courageous and strong (3.5%); All theseadjectives describe successful mastery of a risk-oriented task.

In other work on the adventure self (Wright,1982), categories were developed from specificadjectives that defined the self-image, includingthose listed in Table 2. Categories included goaldirected and confident, as well as the categoryof anxiety. The anxiety-related words (e.g.,anxious, alert) come as no surprise, given theperceived or actual risk of mountain climbing. Itis noteworthy that the anxiety related words inTable 2 show a more significant drop at thememory self than other adjectives. Participantsalso experienced what could be described aspersonal enthusiasm (e.g., energetic, optimistic)and social interdependency (e.g., cooperative) atthe immediate self report. The social dimensionof the adventure and the emotional descriptionsdropped somewhat in the shadow of the primaryimage of the goal-directed determined adven-turer.

Specific Self Influence of Involvement

One of the confounding variables that mightchallenge the accuracy of the specific memoryself would be participation in other mountain-eering experiences following the original study.To determine this influence, a questionnairecollected involvement data on mountain climb-ing experiences. Only three out of 31 partici-pants (10%) remained active in climbing onsnow-covered peaks. Sixty percent had neverclimbed again, 20% had climbed 1-3 timesduring the 13 year period, and 10% had climbed4-6 times since the Mt. Rainier experience.Ninety percent of the group rated their currentlevel of involvement in climbing as very low ornot involved at all. Seventy percent of the grouphad been involved in hiking, and 45% had beeninvolved in backpacking-type experiences, butthe dissimilarity of those experiences with theMt. Rainier experience is certainly stronger thanthe similarity. Thus, the original image from theRainier climb did not appear to be heavily influ-enced by other directly related outdoor experi-ences. The uniqueness of the summit style ex-pedition made it a good prospect for a long-termevaluation.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the specific view ofself collected from an adventure experience ofclimbing to a mountain summit remains as aprimarily stable, permanent self-image, evenafter 13 years had passed. The positive view ofself seen immediately after the experience wascharacterized as being a goal-directed, self-confident achiever who also felt an inner anxi-ety, excitement, and a cooperative attitude to-ward group members. Years later, the self-image maintained the core view of a goal di-rected achiever but viewed some specific partsof the self-image less intensely, and a few facetswere embellished.

The embellishment phenomena is like theold joke about a person's memory and pridehaving an argument as to exactly what had hap-pened in a past situation. The punch line is that`Pride won the argument.' Though the partici-pants did see themselves as persevering, daring,and adventurous immediately after the experi-

127


ence, they saw themselves as having been moreso years later. Given our positive cultural identi-fication with those characteristics, it is no sur-prise that people would slightly embellish thoseattributes. However, the amount of embellish-ment was very limited (only persevering showedan increase greater than 10%), and the moretelling result is the consistency of a goal di-rected self-image.

The survey also collected anecdotal infor-mation about key memories by asking people torelate what they remembered most about theRainier experience. Key memories were con-sistent with self-images reported on the ACL.Examples included: "The thrill and the chal-lenge of accomplishing something so great,""Challenging myself to do something I didn'tthink I could do," and "Terrifying and thrillingat the same time. I faced both extreme self-doubt and tremendous confidence momentslater."

When asked about the frequency of recol-lection of the experience, the average personthought about the experience occasionally (M =3.3) on a 5-point Likert scale, with possible re-sponses of never-rarely-occasionally-frequently-very frequently. The average span of time sincepeople had thought about the Rainier experienceprior to participating in the study was 4.7months.

Assuming the accuracy of the self-report, itis intriguing to conjecture about the impact thepositive specific self could have on the person'sglobal view of self. Future research should in-clude studies that more clearly define the rela-tionship between the specific self and the per-son's global self. A clear understanding of self-concept structure and the role of a specific viewof self on other more global dimensions is es-sential to understanding whether the permanentspecific self has any lasting impact on globaldimensions. Perhaps the specific self remains analoof memory, with no clear connection to thecurrent self-concept. Or the specific self mayhave become a direct and vital part of the cur-rent global self. Or, perhaps, the specific selfremains a separate memory which serves as ametaphor for encouraging perseverance and

,);

goal directed behavior when facing other lifeexperiences. In the words of one participant,"...within me lies a spot of fulfillment whichnever abandons my psyche. I always can find afeeling of confidence and courage from thesememories."

REFERENCES

Bachman, J. G., O'Malley, P. M., & Johnson, J.(1978). Youth in transition: Vol. 4. Adolescenceto adulthoodChange & stability in the lives ofyoung men. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for SocialResearch, University of Michigan.

Brown, R., & Kulick, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories.Cognition, 5, 73-99.

Byrne, B. M. (1984). The generallacademic self-concept nomological network: A review of con-struct validation research. Review of EducationalResearch, 54, 427-456.

Fekken. G. C. (1984). Adjective Check List. In D. J.Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques:Vol. I. Kansas City, MI: Westport Publishing.

Fox, K. R., & Corbin, C. B. (1989). The PhysicalSelf-Perception Profile: Development and pre-liminary validation. Journal of Sport & ExercisePsychology, 11, 408-430.

Gergen, K. J. (1982). From self to science: What isthere to know? In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychologicalperspectives on the self Vol. I. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Gergen, K. J. (1971). The concept of sell New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Gough, H. G. (1952). The Adjective Check List. PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gough, H. G.., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The Adjec-tive Check List manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consult-ing Psychologists Press.

Griffm, N., Chassin, L., & Young, R. D. (1981).Measurement of global self-concept versus mul-tiple role specific self-concepts in adolescents.Adolescence, 16(61), 49-56.

Mackavey, W. R., Malley, J. E., & Stewart, A. J.(1991). Remembering autobiographical con-sequential experiences: content analysis of psy-chologists' accounts of their lives. Psychologyand Aging, 6, 50-59.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selfs.American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.

I 2 8

126 WRIGHT

Marsh, H. W. (1986). Global self-esteem: Its rela-tionship to specific facets of self-concept andtheir importance. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 51, 1224-1236.

Marsh, H. W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. Journalof Educational Psychology, 82 (4), 623-636.

Marsh, H. W. (1994). The importance of being im-portant: Theoretical models of relations betweenspecific and global components of physical self-concept. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychol-ogy, 16, 306-325.

Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J.(1988). A multifaceted academic self-concept:Its hierarchical structure and its relation to aca-demic achievement. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 80, 366-380.

Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. E., & Barnes, J. (1986).Multidimensional self-concepts: The effects ofparticipation in an Outward Bound program.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,50, 195-204.

Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. E., & Barnes, J. (1987).Multidimensional self-concepts: A long termfollow-up of the effects of participation in anOutward Bound program. Personality & SocialPsychology Bulletin, 12 (4), 475-492.

Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. E., Johnson, S., Law-rence, R., & Thrombin, P. (1994). Physical Self-Description Questionnaire: Psychometric prop-erties and a multitrait-multimethod analysis of

relations to existing instruments. Journal ofSport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 270-305.

Rubin, D. C. (1986). Autobiographical memory. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, D. C., & Kosin, M. (1984). Vivid memories.Cognition, 16, 81-95.

Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J:, & Stanton, J. C.(1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct in-terpretation. Review Educational Research, 46,407-441.

Shavelson, R. J., & Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept:the interplay of theory and methods. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 74 (1), 3-17.

Simonton, D. K. (1986). Presidential personality:Biographical use of the Gough Adjective CheckList. Journal of Personality & Social Psychol-ogy, 51, 149-160.

Williams, J. E., & Best, D. C. (1990). Measuring sexstereotypes: A multi-nation study. NewburyPark, CA: Sage Publications.

Wright, A. N. (1982). The effects of high adventureon adolescent self-concept: A comparison ofsituationally specific self-concept measurementsand global self-concept measurements. Re-sources in Education, 18 (4) (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 224-791).

Wylie, R. (1979). The self-concept: A review of meth-odological considerations and measuring in-struments (rev. ed.). Lincoln: University of Ne-braska Press.

Wylie, R. (1989). Measures of self-concept. Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.

J29

EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTERPRETATION:A REVIEW OF THREE RESEARCH STUDIES

Doug KnappAssistant ProfessorIndiana University

This paper reviews three research studies that looked at the impact an interpretive experience hason knowledge, attitude, and/or behavior of a park visitor. research methodologies, limitations, andconclusions were discussed for all three studies.

KEYWORDS: Environmental interpretation, evaluation, environmental education, knowledge/-attitude/behavior change

INTRODUCTION

The fifth principle of interpretation definedby Freeman Tilden is to provoke visitors to be-come preservationists of the park they visit(Tilden, 1957). This lofty goal is supported by asignificant proportion of interpreters and will beused by the author to define environmental in-terpretation.1 Despite the interest and impor-tance of this particular interpretive endeavor, thefield has lacked an established framework ofgoals to achieve this behavior change.

Several studies have been conducted in therelated field of environmental education toanalyze and identify key variables that are asso-ciated with attitude/behavior change, Researchconducted by Borden and Powell (1983), Hines(1987), Holt (1988), Hungerford and Volk(1990), Marcinkowski (1989), and Sia, Hunger-ford, and Tomera (1985/86) revealed that thereare probably three categories of variables thatcontribute to environmental behavior: entrylevel, ownership and empowerment variables.

A communication process for revealing meaningsand information of natural resources and their rela-tionships with man with an ultimate aim of chang-ing a visitor's behavior toward the resource siteand beyond.

127

Combining the above research with a syn-thesis of over 100 goals and objectives of inter-pretation, the author produced a framework ofgoals and objectives for environmental inter-pretation. This framework was evaluated andsupported by a panel of interpretive leadersthroughout North America. The result of thisvalidation process is the Environmental Inter-pretation Behavior Change Model (Knapp,1994) illustrated in Figure 1.

The most powerful use of this model is tooffer interpretive experiences that include allthree variable levels in a sequential hierarchicalorder. Although this may not assure attitude orbehavior change in the visitor, it does offer op-portunities to stimulate change. It is importantto note that, with the exception of issue investi-gation goals, all of the directives listed in theabove model are outcomes often found in theinterpretive literature.

The development of this model is an attemptto offer to the field a "road map" to achieveknowledge, attitude, and/or behavior change in apark visitor. It is a framework in which the fieldcan attempt to evaluate which variables aremore successful in achieving this behaviorchange goal. For the past three years, IndianaUniversity's Department of Recreation and Park

Doug Knapp, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Recreation and Park Administration at IndianaUniversity, Bloomington, IN 47405; (812) 855-3094; fax (812) 855-3998.

130

128 KNAPP

Entry Level Goals

* Information / Awarenessof Site

Ownership Goals + Empowerment Goals* Resource Site Issue * Promote Positive /

Awareness

* Understanding of Site * Resource Site IssueInvestigation and

* Awareness of Site EvaluationPolicies

* Environmental Sensitivity

Visitor Behavidr Change

ResponsibleEnvironmental Actions

Figure 1. Environmental Interpretation Behavior Change Model

Administration has been conducting three multi-year research studies to evaluate one or more ofthe variables outlined in the behavior changemodel. The remainder of this paper will summa-rize the methodologies and results of the firstyear of these evaluations.

THE HILLTOP INTERPRETATION PROJECT

Purpose of Study

The primary goal of the Hilltop Interpreta-tion Project was to evaluate the impact an eco-logical interpretive program has on the envi-ronmental knowledge, attitude, and/or behaviorof third and fourth grade students. This repre-sents the first goal level of the EnvironmentalInterpretation Behavior Change Model.

A second goal of the Hilltop InterpretationProject was to enable urban and rural children insouth central Indiana to participate in environ-mental/conservation education programs at theHilltop Garden and Nature Center. This facilityis located in the city of Bloomington on thecampus of Indiana University.

Methods and Procedures

The Hilltop Interpretation Project offeredseveral innovative approaches toward the devel-opment, application, and evaluation of environ-mental interpretation. An outline of these proce-dures follows:

Selection of Program

Through a series of meetings with partici-pating school teachers and agency officials, aninterpretive program was developed that an-swered the needs of the teachers' class curric-ula. The actual experiences and activities usedin these programs were taken from existing en-vironmental/conservation resources such asProject Learning Tree, Project Wild, and OBIS(Outdoor Biological Instructional Strategies).The subject matter contained in the interpretiveexperience focused on plant adaptations. Thiswas an important science concept that both thethird and fourth grade students were learningthrough the Science Curriculum ImprovementStudy (SCIS).

Program Implementation

During the fall and spring of the 1993-94school year, approximately 30 third and fourth

IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTERPRETATION 129

grade classes (600 students) from south centralIndiana participated in conservation/environ-mental education activities at the Hilltop Inter-pretive Center. These interpretive programs,which lasted for a half day, were led by an envi-ronmental education specialist.

Prior to the field trip, each participatingteacher was required to take part in a day-longtraining that accomplished two objectives. First,all pre and post lessons to be implemented bythe teacher were offered in a participatory fash-ion. Second, the educators were made aware ofthe research associated with this program andthe evaluation instrument teachers would ad-minister to students.

Program Evaluation

An evaluation of the classes' participationin these interpretive programs took place fromthe onset of their experience. A quasi-experimental design was used to conduct thisresearch. This field research model approxi-mates the conditions of a true experiment in asetting which does not allow for control of allvariables (Isaac and Michael, 1990). A test wasadministered to students prior to any pre-fieldtrip lessons. A pre-visit test was given beforetheir visit to the Hilltop facility and a post-testwas administered to students at the school fol-lowing the experience. These evaluations, whichwere approved by the teachers, measured anyknowledge and/or attitude change that resultedfrom students' participation in the interpretationprogram at Hilltop.

The Hilltop Interpretation Project had twodistinct phasesthe fall and spring evaluationsessions. The fall semester was considered apilot study; it evaluated approximately 230 thirdand fourth graders' experiences at Hilltop. Theevaluation instrument used for the pretest, pre-visit test, and post-test was revised followingthe pilot study during the fall semester. Thisinstrument was a partial replication of evalua-tion tools designed by the National Science Re-sources Center (1993) to measure knowledgeand attitude changes in elementary school stu-dents. This instrument contained nine multiplechoice and true/false questions. The revised in-

X32

strument and evaluation process were then ad-ministered during the spring semester.

During the spring semester, over 300 thirdand fourth grade students participated in theHilltop Interpretation Project. Each studentcompleted a pretest, pre-visit test, and post-test.A chi-square analysis was conducted on themultiple choice questions due to the nominaldata. This analysis determined if a relationshipexisted between the time the students took thetest and the responses they selected. F tests wererun on the true/false questions to determine ifthere were any significant changes in scoresbetween the first, second, and third tests.

Conclusions and Discussion

The results show significant changes in stu-dents' knowledge of plant adaptations after theirinterpretive experience. All knowledge-relatedquestions showed some significant increase inscores following the Hilltop program. The atti-tude related questions showed no significantdifference. These data support the notion that aninterpretive experience can aid student's aware-ness in science/ecological subject matter. It doesnot support the notion that such a short experi-ence can affect student's attitude toward thatsubject matter.

INDIANA DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE/INDIANA UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL

EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP

Purpose of Study

The primary goal of the first year of this twoyear study was to evaluate impacts that twoseparate environmental interpretive programshave on students' environmental knowledge,attitude and/or behavior. This project providedtwo environmental interpretative field trips toapproximately 1600 fourth and fifth grade urbanstudents. Second, it provided environmentaleducation training to the 65 participating teach-ers. A third outcome of this project yielded anintensive evaluation of students' interpretiveexperiences. This evaluation compared the ef-fects of two different programs representing two

130 KNAPP

variable levels of the Environmental Interpreta-tion Behavior Change Model: awareness ofecology and environmental issue awareness.


Selection of Programs

During the summer of 1994, representativesof Indiana University worked closely with staffat the Paul H. Douglas Environmental Educa-tion Center, at Indiana Dunes National Lake-shore, to determine which programs currentlybeing offered at the Douglas Center would besuitable for inclusion in the study. After a thor-ough examination, "Fall Fanfare" was chosen asthe ecology-based program. This program fo-cused on preparations and adaptations animalsand plants make to survive the winter. Objec-tives of the program were met through a seriesof activities on a guided walk through a foresteddune area.

The "Celebration Earth" presentation waschosen as the issue-oriented program. Through aseries of four activities conducted at the Doug-las Center, students were presented with prob-lems of and possible solutions to water pollu-tion. The programs were designed by the Na-tional Park Service staff at the Douglas Centerand have been presented to thousands of stu-dents over the past ten years.


At the beginning of the 1994-95 schoolyear, 65 teachers (representing approximately1600 students) from the Dune land, East Chi-cago, and Gary, Indiana school districts werecontacted and asked to participate in a study thatwould provide the opportunity to attend fall andspring workshops. The teachers were also in-formed that their classes would be able to par-ticipate in ranger-guided fall and spring envi-ronmental interpretation field trips.

At the day-long training workshops teachersparticipated in programs their students would beattending later in the semester. Pre-site andpost-site activities developed by the NationalPark Service were demonstrated for teachers ina hands-on presentation. Teachers signed up for

field trips during the workshop insuring thateach class would be able to participate at a timeconvenient to their schedule. Evaluation instru-ments, testing forms, and return envelopes wereprovided to teachers to facilitate high responserates for the program evaluations.

Program Evaluation

To evaluate the impact the programs had onstudents' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviortoward the environment, a quasi-experimentaldesign (Isaac and Michael, 1990) was imple-mented using an evaluation instrument that in-cluded fifteen matching, multiple choice, andLikert scale questions. This was a replication ofan evaluation tool developed by Drake andKnapp (1994) and the National Science Re-sources Center (1993). During the fall, teachersadministered the test before they began pre-siteactivities (the initial test), before the class at-tended the "Fall Fanfare" program (the pre-test),and after the class attended the program (thepost-test). All tests in the study were given inthe classroom and then sent to Indiana Univer-sity for analysis.

During the spring teachers were asked toadminister the test twice, once before the"Celebration Earth" program (the pre-test) andonce after the "Celebration Earth" program (thepost-test). The evaluation instrument remainedthe same throughout the fall and spring sessions.A majority of teachers administered the evalua-tion which provided a large sample of studentresponses for analysis. Two teachers volun-teered to act as control groups.

T-tests for independent samples was used toanalyze the Likert scale and matching questionswhich measured any attitude and/or knowledgechange. This analysis was chosen to determineif the difference in responses over time was sig-nificant. It was also chosen due to the variabilityin teacher consistency in returning the evalua-tions. A chi-square analysis was conducted onthe multiple choice questions due to the nominaldata. This analysis determined if a relationshipexisted between the time the students took thetest and the responses they selected.

33

IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTERPRETATION

TABLE I

Significant Results from Indiana Dunes Study

131

Ecology-Based Interpretive Program Issue-Based Interpretive Program

Positive increase in attitude toward Indiana Dunes Decrease in positive attitude toward the Indiana(between initial test and pre-test only). Dunes.

Positive increase in attitude toward staying on Decrease in positive attitude toward staying on

marked trails. marked trails.

All ecology-based questions (5) showed significant No positive increase in ecology scores but higher

positive increases. pre-test means than in fall.

More students moved toward organizing protest to Fewer students would form petitions to protect

protect park. park.

Positive increase in attitudes toward the forests. Fewer students would organize friends to take ac-

More students would attend guided park walks.tion to protect park.

Fewer students would attend guided park walks.


Conclusions

Table 1 shows a summary of significant re-sults found in this study. These results tend tosuggest that an ecology-based program producemore immediate positive changes in students'knowledge, attitudes, and behavior intent thanan issue-oriented program. The analysisof thefifteen question evaluation instrument revealedten favorable changes and no unfavorablechanges in relation to the ecology-based pro-gram. There were no positive changes and fiveunfavorable changes associated with issue-basedpresentation.

Discussion

There were several limitations related to thisstudy that must be reviewed. First, the evalua-tion instrument only measured short-term reten-tion. The pre and post-tests were administeredwithin one to two weeks prior to and after thefield trips. This was done to alleviate other vari-ables from influencing student responses and toisolate the immediate impact of the field trip.Therefore, this analysis of short term effect can-not support actual behavior change. Rather, thisstudy can report on behavior intent through thepre and post-test evaluation.

Another important limitation was that thefall interpretive experience was conducted in theoutdoors where as the spring session was con-ducted primarily indoors. Although the springsession contained hands-on experiences for stu-dents, the possibility does exist that negativeresults from this session were motivated by lackof outdoor activities. If this limitation is valid, itshould still be noted there was a clear differencein students' reaction to indoor vs. outdoor inter-pretive experiences.

These limitations must be considered wheninterpreting the results of the first year of thisstudy. This research does not completely vali-date ecological-based programs nor does it ne-gate the importance of issue-based interpretiveexperiences. Several changes in the researchwill take place during the second year to in-crease the validity of the evaluation instrumentand application of the interpretive programs.These changes will produce a more accountablestudy.

SOUTH CENTRAL INDIANA ENVIRONMENTALEDUCATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT

Purpose of Study

The primary goal of the South Central Indi-ana Environmental Education Partnership Proj-

234

132 KNAPP

ect was to evaluate effects of interpretive pro-grams on students' environmental knowledge,attitudes, and/or behavior. This partnership rep-resents all of the goal levels associated with theEnvironmental Interpretation Behavior ChangeModel outlined at beginning of this paper. TheSouth Central Indiana Environmental EducationPartnership Project was composed of three pri-mary institutions. They were:

Indiana UniversityDepartment of Recrea-tion and Park Administration

United States Forest ServiceHoosier Na-tional Forest

Monroe County Community School Corpo-ration

This project formed a partnership with the re-gion's educational institutions to provide envi-ronmental education to middle school teachersand students and to promote their involvementin the management of Charles Deam Wilder-ness. This site, located in south central Indiana,is one of the most utilized wilderness areas inthe country.


Selection of Programs

To accomplish the partnership's objectives,five environmental interpretive programs orphases were developed to integrate into middleschool curricula during the academic year. Eachphase included one teacher training day, an in-terpretive field trip, and related classroom les-sons.

The program was intended to be used withscience and social studies curricula creating ayear-long environmental education program.Below is a brief description of each phase of theprogram:

Phase #1Basic Knowledge of WildernessSite: Focused on basic ecological principlesregarding south central Indiana ecosystems,as well as the natural and cultural history ofthe Deam Wilderness.

Phase #2Awareness of Problems and Is-sues Related to Wilderness Site: Students

learned about problems and issues associ-ated with the Deam Wilderness by analyz-ing some wilderness site issues.

Phase #3Investigation of Wilderness SiteIssues: Strategies and methods wereplanned so that students could investigateDeam Wilderness issues.

Phase #4Knowledge of Citizen Participa-tion Skills: Students determined implemen-tation strategies to remediate the wildernessissues.

Wilderness Summit: All of the participatingstudents met with U.S. Forest Service offi-cials to report recommendations regardingmanagement of the Deam Wilderness.


Each of the above program phases includedteacher training and classroom lessons as wellas an interpretive aspect such as a field trip orclass visit by a Forest Service/Indiana Univer-sity Interpreter. These programs represented onefull school year with phases one and two occur-ring in the fall semester and phases three andfour in the spring semester. Five teachers, representing. 150 middle school students, were cho-sen to take part in this project.

Program Evaluation

Below are two areas that were evaluated inthis project:

Does the partnership project affect students'knowledge, attitudes, and/or behaviors to-ward the Deam Wilderness and related envi-ronmental issues?

Which one of the environmental educationphases has the most impact (if any) on stu-dents' knowledge, attitudes, and/or behav-iors toward the Deam Wilderness and re-lated environmental issues?

To investigate these questions, a quasi-experimental design (Isaac & Michael, 1990)was implemented which included an evaluativeinstrument developed by Indiana University.This took the form of a series of pre- and.post-tests administered to all participating students.

135


TABLE 2

Timing and Placement of Evaluations

GeneralPre-test

Pre-Evaluation

Phase #1

Post-Evaluation

Pre-Evaluation

Phase #2

Post-Evaluation

Pre-Evaluation

Phase #3

Post-Evaluation

Pre-Evaluation

Phase #4 General Posttest

Post-Evaluation

These evaluations were approved by the teach-ers and measured any knowledge and/or attitudechange due to their participation in this envi-ronmental education project. This evaluationwas a modification of instruments developed byRamsey (1981), Kling ler (1981), and Drake andKnapp (1994). This was a 20-item instrumentthat used Likert scale and multiple choice ques-tions. Table 2 shows a chart that illustrates theplacement of these evaluations.

The general pre- and post-test was an at-tempt to answer the first area of importance tothis studydoes the project as a whole makeany impact on students' knowledge and/or atti-tudes toward the Deam Wilderness issues? Thepre and post evaluations for all phases attemptedto find out which part of the program had themost impact. Each question was analyzed byusing a matched pairs t-test to determine if thedifference in responses over time was signifi-cant.

Another important aspect of this project wasthe qualitative evaluation. Through first-handobservations, the research team was able to de-termine a great deal about students' knowledge,attitudes, and behavior with respect to the DeamWilderness. The Indiana University educatorsalso conducted a series of interviews with theparticipating classroom teachers during and af-ter the partnership project.


Conclusions

Of the three variables (knowledge, attitude,and behavior) evaluated through the quantitativemeasures, only knowledge questions showedsignificant increases during the year-long pro-gram. In fact, this increase occurred primarilyduring the first phase of the partnership project.

The attitude and behavior variables did not re-flect a significant increase.

The qualitative evaluation also showedmixed findings. The comments from both stu-dents and teachers during the first two phaseswere generally positive. On the other hand,comments from the second two phases showedfrustration with students' interest in researchingwilderness issues. The most dramatic qualitativeresults occurred with students' interest in ForestService officials' statements during the wilder-ness summit.

Discussion

An important lesson from this project wasover-testing of students through quantitativeevaluations. It became clear after two phases oftesting, students responses were reflecting "testburnout." Another important finding was thatfuture interpretive partnerships should look atsemester or month-long experiences. A fullschool year was too long with both qualitativeand quantitative findings showing a decrease ininterest.

SUMMARY

The three research studies outlined aboveare initial attempts to validate or disprove theenvironmental interpretation "road map" de-scribed at the outset of this paper. Many limita-tions existed in these studies and were discussedwith each research summary. Despite these con-cerns the author believes there are two impor-tant observations that can be made regardingthese three studies and their bearing on the En-vironmental Interpretation Behavior ChangeModel.

1) Entry level variables showed more short-term impact on students than ownership orempowerment variables. All three research

X36

134 KNAPP

studies showed significant increases on stu-dents' knowledge of the resource site in-volved in that particular study. This, how-ever, was only true for the interpretive expe-riences that were based on ecological in-formation. The Hilltop program, the eco-logical field trip at Indiana Dunes, and thefirst phase of the wilderness field trips allshowed significant increases in studentknowledge. Only the ecological field trip atIndiana Dunes showed any impact in stu-dents' attitudes and behavior toward the re-source site.

2) Interpretive experiences with ownership andempowerment variables showed no signifi-cant impact on students' attitude and/or be-havior intent toward the resource site. Theissue-oriented field trip at Indiana Dunesand the three phases of the Deam Wilder-ness project that represented ownership andempowerment variables showed no signifi-cant impact on students' attitude towardand/or behavior intent regarding the re-source site. In fact, some scores showed adecline in attitude and/or behavior towardthe resource site following ownership/em-powerment experiences.

The first year's results of these three studiesindicate that the initial variables of the Envi-ronmental Interpretation Behavior ChangeModel may have impact on a visitor's knowl-edge of the resource site. However only the In-diana Dunes study found these variables to haveimpact on a visitor's attitude or behavior. Noother significant results were found in any othervariable level.

Research supports the notion that short-termawareness experiences do not change an indi-vidual's behavior, which is the ultimate goal ofenvironmental interpretation. Unfortunately, thestudies reviewed above only support success inconveying knowledge variables. Therefore, aninference from this data would support the no-tion that environmental interpretation shouldtake a hard look at its lofty goal of provoking avisitor to become a preservationist of his/herresource site. The field must further investigate

if and how interpreters can successfully conveyownership and empowerment variables to at-tempt to achieve the widely espoused behaviorchange outcome.

REFERENCES

Borden, R., & Powell, P. (1983). Androgyny andenvironmental orientation: individual differencesin concern and commitment. In A. Sacks et al.,Current issues in environmental education andenvironmental studies (Vol. VIII, pp. 261-275).Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

Drake, T., & Knapp, D. H. (1994). The hilltop inter-pretation project. The interpretive sourcebook(The Proceedings of the 1994 National Interpret-ers' Workshop). Madison, WI: Omnipress, 282-292.

Hines [Stone], J. M. (1986/87). Analysis and synthe-sis of research on responsible environmental be-havior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environ-mental Education, 18 (2), 1-8.

Holt, J. G. (1988). A study of the effects of issue in-vestigation and action training on characteristicsassociated with environmental behavior in non-gifted eighth grade students. Unpublished re-search paper, Southern Illinois University.

Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changinglearner behavior through environmental educa-tion. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1990). Handbook inresearch and evaluation. San Diego, CA: Edits.

Klingler, G. (1981). The effect of an instructionalsequence on the environmental action skills of asample of Southern Illinois students. Unpub-lished research report, Southern Illinois Univer-sity.

Knapp, D. H. (1994). Validating a framework ofgoals for program development in environmentalinterpretation. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Knapp, D. H. (1995). Moving beyond Tilden: Pro-ducing behavior change goals for environmentalinterpretation. Legacy: Journal of the NationalAssociation for Interpretation. January/February,24-27.

137


Marcinkowski, T. J., (1989). An analysis of corre-lates and predictors of responsible environmentalbehavior. (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illi-nois University at Carbondale, 1988). Disserta-tion Abstracts International, 49 (12), 3677-A.

National Park Service. (1992). National parks for the21st century: The Vail agenda. Washington D.C.: National Park Service.

National Science Resources Center. (1993). Assess-ment in STC units. National Science ResourcesCenter Newsletter, Spring, 2-3.

Ramsey, J. (1981). The effects of environmental ac-tion and environmental case study instruction onthe overt environmental behavior. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 13 (1), 24-30.

Sia, A. P., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N.(1985/86). Selected predictors of responsible en-vironmental behavior: An analysis. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 17 (2), 31-40.

Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting our heritage. ChapelHill, NC: University of North Carolina.

138

136

PERSONALITY PREFERENCES OF OUTDOOR PARTICIPANTS

Christine CashelAssociate Professor

Oklahoma State University

Diane Montgomery Suzie LaneAssociate Professor

Oklahoma State UniversityAssistant Professor

Oklahoma State University

Historically, outdoor educational experi-ences have been provided for the purpose ofteaching in, about and for the outdoors, to facechallenges of self and the environment, and forvarious therapeutic purposes. While the com-plexities and interactions of alternative forms ofeducation are many, there has been an increasein the popularity of adventure education forpeople of all ages. Adventure education isrooted in Kurt Hahn's work (Smith, Roland,Haven, & Hoyt, 1992) of developing the indi-vidual through various physical challenges. TheOutward Bound schools are based on Hahn'seducational practices and state, "The aim ofeducation is to impel young people into value-forming experiences" (p. 9). Project Adventureand other programs aimed at leadership devel-opment have all stemmed from the idea of let-ting adventure teach one about oneself, how onerelates to others in a group and other transfer-able lessons, such as decision making and val-ues (Smith, 1992). For the last two decades, theadventure education approach has become apopular attraction for a greater number of peo-ple wanting to participate in outdoor experi-ences. Often, the modern outdoor participant haslittle personal experience with the natural envi-ronment; and, therefore, seeks a group session,structured for success with someone who servesas teacher, protector or manager of the experi-ence (McAvoy, 1987). Along with the increaseof providing structured programs, came varietyin types of people seeking outdoor experiences.

This variety has led researchers in outdoor edu-cation on a quest to better understand the char-acteristics of the participants.

Studies have shown that several character-istics relate to how an individual approaches andparticipates in the outdoors. Many studies haveinvestigated how various social and psychologi-cal states such as creative flow (Csikszent-mihalyi, 1975), risk (Ewert, 1985), self efficacy(Bandura, 1977, Harmon &Temp lin, 1987), selfconcept (Bacon, 1988), self actualization (Mas-low, 1962), fear (Ewert, 1985), and competence(Allen, 1980) serve as motivators for participa-tion in adventure activities. Other research haslooked at how various groups respond to an out-door experience. Women tend to experience theoutdoors differently than men (Kiewa, 1994;Mitten, 1994; Warren, 1985); novices differfrom those more experienced (Ewert, 1989);ethnic background may be an accessibility androle model issue (Ashley, 1990); and olderadults differ from other adults (Sugarman, 1990)or school children (Moore, 1990). Phipps (1985)used Jungian psychology to make a case forstress management using wilderness experi-ences. He posited that there may be an uncon-scious lure of the wilderness in which to explorethe inner self. By using archetypes an under-standing of self may become more apparent.

There remains some question about how tolink what is known about individuals to theplanning and implementation of group struc-tured outdoor programs. One theory that may

Christine Cashel, Ed.D., is Associate Professor of Leisure Studies, Diane Montgomery, Ph.D., is Associate Profes-sor of Applied Behavioral Studies, and Suzie Lane, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor of Leisure Studies at OklahomaState University. Correspondence should be sent to the authors at 111 Colvin Center, Oklahoma State University,Stillwater, OK, 74078, (405) 744-6815, fax (405) 744-6507.

139

PERSONALITY PREFERENCES OF OUTDOOR PARTICIPANTS 137

illuminate the program planning and imple-mentation processes in terms of collective dif-ferences is Jungian personality theory.

For Jung (1923, 1971), there were essentialways that people become aware of things andcome to some conclusion about their awareness.These two processes, becoming aware (per-ception) and making decisions (judgment), arefurther defined as bipolar dimensions producingfour functions of human personality (Spoto,1995). One may prefer to become aware ofthings in his/her own world by sensing concreteinformation (sensor) or by intuiting more ab-stract information (intuition). The decisionmaking function is viewed as a rational decisionusing logic (thinking) or a more personal relatedway (feeling). It is believed that these fourfunctions of sensing, intuition, thinking andfeeling can serve as broad generalizations forplanning and implementing group structuredoutdoor programs.

Structured outdoor educational trips createan intense experience by developing a closedcommunity where each decision made affectseveryone in the group. The very nature of beingin unfamiliar terrain with unfamiliar people of-fers both opportunities for personal growth andopportunities for conflict and confusion. It isassumed that personality type preferences play arole in how people respond to an unique outdoorenvironment. Membership in an outdoor groupcan be a positive experience if members under-stand and appreciate each other's uniqueness.Thus, this study was designed help us better un-derstand the people who seek an organizedgroup experience in the outdoor environment.

BACKGROUND

Understanding preferences is important toteachers/leaders and other professionals whodesire to be more effective in their work to meetindividual needs in group settings. Personalitytype preference is defined as every individual'spattern of mental habits. There are no right orwrong patterns, nor does one's preference likelychange. By examining a person's patterns orways of taking in and using information, wegeneralize about certain "type" similarities.

.c 4O

The study of personality types is groundedin Jung's (1923, 1971) theory that identifiedpatterns of behavior used as indicators of psy-chological processes. Typology indicates vari-ous patterns in the ways that people prefer toperceive information and make judgments. Hecharacterized mental activity into two percep-tion processes (sensing and intuition) and twojudgment processes (thinking and feeling). Per-ception processes are how information comesinto consciousness. Information is used (sorted,evaluated, analyzed) by the judgment processes(Lawrence, 1993).

The purpose of this study was to investigatethe personality type preferences represented bythose who have chosen to participate in a struc-tured, field based, outdoor education program.Research has explored the prevalent types ofvarious professions including teachers, engi-neers, dancers, physicians, and business persons(Myers, 1991). The typology has not yet beenspecifically identified for outdoor participants.Furthermore, a comparison of how outdoor par-ticipants differ from other groups in the generalpopulation becomes a secondary question in thisstudy.

METHOD

This study is a description of people whovoluntarily sought a guided, outdoor educationalexperience. For this study, 87 participants wereadministered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(MBTI) prior to starting a ten day WildernessEducation Association outdoor leadership tripconducted in New Mexico in 1994 and 1995.The participants ranged in age from 18 to 46.There were 37 female and 50 male subjects. Allsubjects had at least one year of college. Theoutdoor experiences of the sample ranged fromno experience to multiple short excursions aver-aging 9 days in length. About one third of thesubjects were affiliated with the Boy Scouts ofAmerica as their reference for outdoor partici-pation.

The MBTI is a well known assessment tooland is easy to administer. Isabel Briggs-Myersand her mother Katherine Briggs developed thepaper-pencil test to identify four dimensions of

138 CASHEL, MONTGOMERY, & LANE

personality type as previously identified byJung. They are: 1) Extroversion-Introversion; 2)Sensing-Intuition; 3) Thinking-Feeling; and, 4)Judgment-Perception (Myers, 1991). Sixteenpossible types can be determined with differentcombinations of these four dimensions of per-sonality. Extroversion-Introversion measureshow much one prefers the interaction with otherpeople and external ideas from a variety ofsituations or the degree to which one prefers towork alone, to contemplate and reflect internalideas. The Sensing and Intuition scales indicatehow information is taken in by an individual.The Sensing scale indicates a preference forconcrete information and facts, while the Intui-tion scale describes one's preference for an ab-straction of possibilities and relationships. TheThinking-Feeling scales describe how onemakes decisions. One who prefers thinking usesan objective, impersonal process of logic,whereas one who refers feeling is one who con-siders relationships and personal values. TheJudgment-Perception scales reveal how peopleviews their world. The judger tends to demon-strate a need for closure, structure and order.The perceiver demonstrates a need for resis-tance to closure, flexibility, and spontaneity.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the frequency of each per-sonality type as found in the study. There is arange of type and all types are represented. Per-sonality types are recorded with capital letterssymbolizing the corresponding preference: E =extroversion; I = introversion; S = sensing; N =intuition; T = thinking; F = feeling; J = judging;and P = perceiving. There are sixteen possiblepersonality types derived from the four prefer-ence dimensions. Myers and Myers (1990) havedeveloped a formula to compare the degree ofself selection by any personality type in anysample. The resultant self selection ratio (SSR)is the percentage frequency of that personalitytype in the sample divided by its percentage fre-quency in the appropriate base population(Myers & Myers, 1990). The base populationfor this study was the general population forboth male and female adults as predicted byKeirsey and Bates (1978). The lower the SSR,

the greater the similarity between the samplegroup and the general population prediction.Conversely, the higher the SSR the more thetwo groups differ in type distribution. A signifi-cant self selection is indicated by a SSR of 1.0or greater.

In this study there were overwhelminglyhigh SSRs in the type categories of INTP(SSR=11.0), INFP (SSR=9.0), INTJ (SSR=8.0 ),and INFJ (SSR=6.0). These types have particu-larly low representations in the general popula-tion, which may partially account for the highSSRs. Other significant self selection ratioswere demonstrated for ENFP (2.0), ENTP (1.6),ENTJ (1.6), ISFP (1.4), and ISTJ (1.3).

Table 2 displays the comparison of the out-door participant sample to the general popula-tion prediction by Keirsey and Bates (1978).The largest concentration relative to what is ex-pected in the general population falls into intro-version and intuition categories. It appears thatpeople interested in the outdoors are differentthan the general population in the extroversion-introversion scale and the sensing-intuitionscale. A chi-square value of 18.09 is significantat the .05 level for extroversion and introver-sion. The sensing-intuition data revealed a chi-square value of 31.6, which is significant at the.05 level. The sensing-thinking scale revealed achi square of .29, which was not significant.Similarly, the judging-perceiving scale indicateda chi-square of .27, which also was not signifi-cant. Seventy-five percent of the general popu-lation is categorized as extroverted and 25% isintroverted (Keirsey & Bates, 1978). Results ofthis sample showed 44% and 56% respectively.While one would expect more extroverts tochoose a group setting this study revealed thecontrary.

Similarly, 75% of the general populationacquires information through the sensing proc-ess. Whereas, our results indicate only 32% ofthe sampled outdoor participants prefer thesensing function. This means that the sampledoutdoor participants may approach the experi-ence by incorporating many dimensions andaspects of the total experience, rather than the

141


Table 1Comparison of Subjects to Adult Base Population and Self Selection Ratios

TYPE*°A OF

GEN. POP. NUMBER

OF

SUBJECTS SSR**

ISTJ 6 7 8 1.3

ISFJ 6 2 2 .3

ISTP 5 3 3 .6

ISFP 5 6 7 1.4

ESTP 13 4 4 .3

ESFP 15 2 2 .1

ESTJ 13 3 3 .2

ESFJ 13 3 3 .2

INFJ 1 5 6 6.0

INTJ 1 7 8 8.0

INFP 1 8 9 9.0

INTP 1 10 11 11.0

ENFP 5 9 10 2.0

ENTP 5 7 8 1.6

ENFJ 5 4 4 .8

ENTJ 5 7 8 1.6

Notes: I = Introversion, E= Extroversion, S= Sensing, N= Intuitive, T = Thinking, F = Feeling, J = Judging, P =

Perceiving.** Self Selection Ratio (SSR)= Incidence of that type in the sample divided by its incidence in the appropriate basepopulation (Myers, 1990). Values above 1.00 show high positive self selection.

specific, concrete and individual elements of theexperience. The other dimensions of Thinking-Feeling and Judgment-Perception indicate sim-ilar patterns with general population expecta-tions.

DISCUSSION

When discussing personality preference,ways of taking in and using information are of-ten separated. The Sensing-Intuition (S/N) andthe Thinking-Feeling scale (T/F) provide thisimportant insight. These combine in ways thathelp further determine a temperament (Keirsey& Bates, 1978) or learning style (Lawrence,1993). For instance, this study found a high

number of Intuitive- Thinkers, NTs, ( 36%) andIntuitive-Feelers, NFs, (30%) seeking the out-doors. Both of these intuitive types are a minor-ity in the general population.

Intuitive-Thinkers (NTs) have a logical wayof processing information making them effec-tive in groups. They have high standards forthemselves and seek to understand, control, andpredict all that is around thempeople and na-ture. They are self-critical and mastery is im-portant. A structured outdoor experience pro-vides an opportunity to learn about themselvesand nature in a psychologically safe community.Achievement of physical standards may be ap-pealing for those who demonstrate this type.

142

140 Cashel, Montgomery, & Lane

Table 2Statistical Comparison of Sample to General Population

Extroversion

f %Introversion

f %

General population(expected)

Outdoor subjects (observed)

x2(1, 87) = 18.09,p < .05

65.25

39

75

44

21.75

48

25

56

fSensing

% fIntuitive

%General population(expected)

Outdoor subjects (observed)2

X (1, 87) = 31.6, p < .05

65.25

28

75

32

21.75

59

25

68

fThinking

% fFeeling

%


Outdoor subjects (observed)

x2 (1, 87) = .29,p > .05

43.5

46

50

53

43.5

39

50

47

fJudging

% fPerceiving

%


Outdoor subjects (observed)2

X (1, N = 87) = .27,p > .05

43.5

41

50

45

43.5

48

50

55

The outdoors may be a way of life for NTs be-cause they have difficulty in separating workand play (Keirsey & Bates, 1978).

The Intuitive-Feelers (NFs) are generallynon judgmental, accepting, genuine, committedto their own growth and that of others. NFs seekgrowth and development of personal identity;integrity is a prime value. Outdoor experiencesmay be particularly attractive to people with theNF preferences because the innate personalchallenges and the opportunity for the collectiveexperience in the outdoor environment.

In outdoor educational settings, group coop-eration is essential to meet the goals of the pro-

grams. This is known as positive interdepend-ence. The goal of positive interdependence(Johnson & Johnson, 1994) may be facilitatedby the personality preferences exhibited by par-ticipants who are intuitive and either thinking orfeeling. Johnson and Johnson (1994) list fourelements related to positive interdependence: 1)positive relationships (Feelers); 2) effort toachieve common goals (Thinkers), 3) positiveadjustment (Thinkers), and 4) social compe-tence (Feelers). Positive relationships are char-acteristic of feeling types as is social compe-tence; whereas, the effort to achieve commongoals and positive adjustment would be charac-teristics of thinking types.

143


The over-representation of Introverts in theresults of this study indicate that Introvertedtypes, typically represented by only one quarterof the general population, tend to seek outdoorexperiences. Perhaps the solitary, contemplativeexperience of the outdoors offers opportunitywhere they absorb information and seek to un-derstand relationships. As good problem solv-ers, introverts are able to adapt to the socialsituations presented in the outdoor experience.The outdoor environment appears to have aninherent attraction for them.

Personality type theory also has implica-tions for teachers/leaders and their effective-ness. In structured group experiences the leadermay pay attention to individual needs for alonetime or to allow participants to develop individ-ual goals which fit within the framework of thegroup goals. There are many opportunities ingroup courses to be alone in activity (i.e., hikingalong a trail is both a personal reflective time aswell as a group activity). Instructors may temperfact within the less scientific framework of theoutdoors. Information about personality typescan provide the instructor with a better under-standing of people in order to deliver curriculumfor effective teaching. Participants who volun-tarily seek a structured outdoor program seem tohave some unusual and common characteristicswhich value both knowledge and relationships.Personality type should not be the only indicatorfor leaders to work with individuals in a group.Rather it should be used as one of many meas-ures of a participant. Outdoor participants canbenefit from understanding the personality pref-erences as a useful strategy in providing a betterunderstanding of their own potential and waysto find their strengths and interests in outdooractivities. More research related to type andgroup dynamics, experience and nature of tripneeds to be completed. Furthermore, research isneeded to identify personality types for inde-pendent outdoor participants, participants ofother kinds of structured programs, small groupuse of the outdoors.

More information is needed in understand-ing the people who want structured outdoor ex-periences in order to best meet their needs.

Further research might investigate how instruc-tor personality preferences affect group interac-tion? Would complementary or matching pref-erence facilitate teamwork or satisfaction withgoal attainment? How does personality prefer-ence relate to technical and other camp skills?What are the characteristics of other people inthe outdoors, specifically those not in organizedgroups? How do personality preferences relateto group process or conflict in outdoor experi-ences? This study provides a foundation tobuilding such understanding about participantsin outdoor educational trips.

REFERENCES

Allen, S. (1980). Risk recreation: A literature reviewand conceptual model. In J. Meier, T. Morash, &G. Welton (Eds.), High adventure outdoor pur-suits (pp. 52-81). Salt Lake City, UT: BrightonPublishing.

Ashley, F. B. (1990). Ethnic minorities' involvementwith outdoor experiential education. In J. Miles& S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure education, (pp.375-378). State College, PA: Venture Publish-ing.

Bacon, S. (1988). Outward Bound and troubledyouth. Greenwich, CT: Outward Bound.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifyingtheory of behavioral change. Psychological Re-view, 84, 191-215.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom andanxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ewert, A. (1985). Identifying fears in the outdoorenvironment. Proceedings: Southeastern rec-reation research. Athens, GA: Institute for Be-havioral Research, University of Georgia.

Ewert, A. (1989). Outdoor adventure pursuits:Foundations, models and theories. Columbus,OH: Publishing Horizons.

Harmon, P. & Templin, G. (1987). Conceptualizingexperiential education. In J. Meier, T. Morash,and G. Welton (Eds.), High adventure outdoorpursuits (2nd ed., pp. 66-77). Columbus, OH:Publishing Horizons.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. J. (1994). Joiningtogether: Group theory and group skills. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

144

142 CASHEL, MONTGOMERY, & LANE

Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types. New York:Harcourt Brace.

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. BollingtonSeries XX, The collected works of C. G. Jung,Vol. 6. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1978). Please understandme: Character and temperament types. Delmar,CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.

Kiewa, J. (1994). Self-control: The key to adventure?Towards a model of the adventure experience. InE. Cole, E. Erdman, & E. D. Rothblum (Eds.),Wilderness therapy for women: The power ofadventure (pp. 29-41). New York: HaworthPress.

Lawrence, G. L. (1993). People types and tigerstripes. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applicationsof Psychological Type.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Some educational implica-tions of humanistic psychologies. Harvard Edu-cational Review, 38 (4).

McAvoy. L. H. (1987). Education for outdoor leader-ship. In J. F. Meier, T. W. Morash, & G. E Wel-ton (Eds.), High adventure outdoor pursuits (pp.459-467). Columbus, OH: Publishing Horizons.

Mitten, D. (1994). Ethical considerations in adven-ture therapy: A feminist critique. In E. Cole, E.Erdman, & E. D. Rothblum (Eds.), Wildernesstherapy for women: The power of adventure (pp.55-84). New York: Haworth Press.

Moore, G. (1990). Adventure activities for schoolchildren. In J. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adven-

ture education (pp. 375-378). State College, PA:Venture Publishing.

Myers, I. B. (1990). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I. B. (1991). Introduction to type: A descrip-tion of the theory and applications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consult-ing Psychologists Press.

Phipps, M. (1986). AdventureAn inner journey tothe self: The psychology of adventure expressedin Jungian term. In J. Cederquist (Ed.), Pro-ceedings of the 1986 Conference on OutdoorRecreation (pp. 75-90). Davis, CA.

Priest, S. (1990). The adventure experience para-digm. In J. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventureeducation (pp. 157-162). State College, PA:Venture Publishing.

Smith, T. E., Roland, C.C., Havens, M. D., & Hoyt,J. A. (1992). The theory and practice of chal-lenge education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/HuntPublishing.

Spoto, A. (1995). Jung's typology in perspective.Wilmette, IL: Chiron.

Sugarman, D. (1990). Programming adventure edu-cation for older adults. In J. Miles & S. Priest(Eds.), Adventure education (pp. 403-410). StateCollege, PA: Venture Publishing.

Warren, K. (1985). Women's outdoor adventures:Myth or reality. Journal of Experiential Educa-tion, 8 (2), 10-14.

145

TEACHING AND EVALUATING OUTDOOR ETHICS PROGRAMS:SETTING A RESEARCH AGENDA

Bruce E. Matthews

Senior Extension AssociateCornell University

Concerns over poor outdoor user behaviorhave spawned increasingly urgent calls for out-door ethics education (Elliot, 1992; Enck &Stedman, 1992; Jackson & Norton, 1979; Mar-shall, 1993; Schmied, 1993; Waterman & Wa-terman, 1993). Outdoor groups are justifiablyconcerned about the impacts of negative userbehavior, which include poor public perceptionsof all participants in an outdoor activity, degra-dation of the outdoor experience for others,denigration of outdoor traditions, and loss ofaccess to the outdoors (Matthews & Riley,1995). Education-based strategies (Marshall,1993; Schmied, 1993) have been gaining popu-larity and momentum. Are these strategies well-grounded in research? What does the researchsay about their effectiveness in changing out-door behavior? What opportunitiesand, infact, imperativesexist for research in thisarea?

The success of outdoor ethics education isultimately benchmarked by long-term, enduringchanges in the intentions, motivations, and be-haviors of outdoor users and their communities.In their enthusiasm to respond to the need foroutdoor ethics education, however, outdoor usergroups, state and federal agencies, and evenoutdoor and environmental educators haveadopted strategies and techniques, such as pub-lic awareness campaigns, promoting codes ofethics, and incorporating environmental ethicslectures, that are not supported by research.Several of these approaches, in fact, have beenshown to be ineffective (Hartshorne & May,

143

1928/1930; Leming, 1993; Matthews & Riley,1995).

Outdoor ethics educators who wish to basetheir efforts on what the literature suggests arethe methods most likely to bring about long-term, ethics-based behavioral change will avoidthe following:

lectures

excessive moralizing

externally-derived codes of conduct

adults setting the ethics agenda for youthaudiences

teachers/leaders as authoritarian figures

assuming that long-term, ethics-based be-havioral change will result from buildingknowledge or changing attitudes

consequences, rewards, or incentives

simply providing information designed toraise issue awareness or to urge good be-havior

However, an emerging body of researchprovides some support for adapting the follow-ing approaches for use in outdoor ethics educa-tion:

1. Group participation in developing codesof behavior for outdoor activities;

2. Interactive teaching methods, such assmall group discussions, role playing,and peer teaching and role-modeling;

Direct correspondence to Bruce E. Matthews, Dept. of Natural Resources, Cornell University, 121 Femow Hall,Ithaca, NY, 14853, (607) 255-9370; fax (607) 255-2815; bem3 @cornell.edu

146

144 MATTHEWS

3. Discussions about ethical dilemmas thatdeal with relevant issues;

4. "Trigger" films and slide-shows and in-teractive videos;

5. Mentoring approaches, especially thosebased in the community and done on along-term basis;

6. Use of community clubs and organiza-tions.

At this point, there is very little researchthat has focused directly on evaluating outdoorethics education approaches. Opportunities forthe outdoor education research communityclearly exist. Research is needed concerning:

Formative evaluations of ethics educationprograms;

The effectiveness of outdoor ethics edu-cation in various contexts;

the importance of the socio-cultural con-text in outdoor ethics education;

longitudinal effects of outdoor ethics edu-cation programs;

the relationship between outdoor ethicsand environmental stewardship;

the interactions between motivations, in-tentions, and behaviors, as well as how toinfluence them.

Given the need for and interest in outdoorethics education that exists on the part of theoutdoor recreation, natural resource, and educa-tion communities, it seems imperative that out-door education researchers respond. Providingmore insights into how best to develop respon-

sible behavior, including a commitment for re-source stewardship, is arguably the most im-portant task faced by the outdoor education pro-fession.

REFERENCES

Elliot, D. S. (1992). Hunters, we have a problem. InProceedings of governor's symposium on NorthAmerica's hunting heritage. Minnetonka, MN:North American Hunting Club.

Enck, J. W., & Stedman, R. C. (1992). Understand-ing hunting ethics from a cultural perspective. InProceedings, 4th North American symposium onsociety and resource management (p. 166).

Hartshorne, H., & May, M. (1928/1930). Studies inthe nature of character. New York: The Mac-Millan Co.

Jackson, R. M., & Norton, R. C. (1979). Improvingethical behavior in hunters. Transactions: NorthAmerican wildlife and natural resources confer-ence, 44, 306-318.

Leming, J. S. (1993). Character education: Lessonsfrom the past, models for the future. Camden,ME: Institute for Global Ethics.

Marshall, L. (1993). Ethics afield: Support gathersaround a new code of conduct for hunters. IWLAOutdoor Ethics Newsletter, 1, 6-8.

Matthews, B. E., & Riley, C. K. (1995). Teachingand evaluating outdoor ethics education pro-grams. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Fed-eration.

Schmied, R. L. (1993). The use of angler ethics edu-cation to support marine fisheries management.Trends, 30, 2.

Waterman, G., & Waterman, L. (1993). Wildernessethics: Preserving the spirit of wildness. Wood-stock, VT: Countryman Press.

147

CEO Affiliate Application Form

Join the Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Today!Fill out and mail the application below to start taking advantage of the valuable information andresources available from the CEO.

Name of Organization

Contact Name Title

Address

City/Zip/State/Country

Phone /Fax E-mail

Please select the appropriate Affiliate Category and fee. Enclose check (U.S dollars) to Coalitionfor Education in the Outdoors. Silver or Golden Sustaining Members will be recognized in theCEO Newsletter, Taproot.

Mail To: Coalition for Education in the Outdoors , P.O. Box 2000, Park Center, Cortland, NY 13045

ORGANIZATION TYPE

[ ] Educational Institutions and Academic Dept.

National, International or Regional

1 -Year Affiliation

$ $0

5-Year Affiliation

$200

[ ] Not-For-Profit Organization/Association $100[ ] Advocacy Organization $104[ ] Volunteer/Public Agencies $100[ ] Businesses $250 $800

State, Provincial or Local[ ] Not-For-Profit Organization/Association $ 50 $200[ ] Advocacy Organization $ 50 $200[ ] Volunteer/Public Agencies $ 50[ ] Businesses $125

)Individual $ 30Our organization would like to contribute to theCEO through a Sustaining Affiliation

[ ] Silver Sustaining Affiliation $2,000[ ] Golden Sustaining Affiliation $4,000

Affiliate Profile: Tell us about your organization (i.e. area of Interest, size of organization, current projects, etc.)

How can the CEO and Taproot help you the most ?

148

Come Grow with TaprootDo you love the outdoors? Are you a professional educator who

teaches for, in, or about the natural world?

Explore Taproot...

Inside each issue, you'll find:Resources: Taproot is known for its lengthy and comprehensive Resource

section. You find a listing of close to 100 new resources with every issue,everything from audio-visual supplies and curriculum guides, to newslettersand special reports. You won't find that anywhere else.

Features: "Thoreau's Legacy" "Moral Education and Outdoor Education"Every issue of Taproot will go into depth with several feature articles. Regulartopics include ethics, current trends and new philosophies of outdoor education.

News Briefs: "Sierra Club Downsizes," "Lizard Inspires Improved RobotDesign," are just two examples of the headlines you'll find in our News section.The news briefs you will find in Taproot will make you smile, think, questionand laugh. From serious national issues to curiosities of nature, you won't beable to put it down.

Professional Development: We will keep your career moving with acomprehensive listing of conferences, job opportunities, workshops, clinics andgrants, and an easy reference calendar of events and organizations.

What do professionals say about Taproot?"Taproot is a valuable source of information for professionals and those

preparing to be professionals in outdoor education."Dr. Leo H. McAvoy

Chair, Division of Recreation and Leisure StudiesUniversity of Minnesota

"One of the most complete outdoor education newslettersavailable...Excellent resource."

Dr. Camille BuntingDirector, Outdoor Education Institute

Texas A&M University

"Taproot is outstanding and offers a refreshing perspective to the field."Jennifer Rigby

Acorn Naturalists, Tustin, CA

149

$5.00. Make checks payable toutdoof Contact the Coalition at

Cortland. NY 13045. (607)7W-4971

10/21/1997 16:50 304347f.

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OEM)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE

1. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

(Specific Document)

PAGE 02

1//reis

Title: C evi_ crt 0/.3 F-t) CZ Mi.f.CATV)KI tNThe111 )2_L3 crtc2-tA4 s<1-vp Os' 90-oc_cEb IFQL1 S t In- -14 1 91p

Author(s): 1,4C, AV . G-kr-iryr L, A 0,1csei-x.: 1,4 .b. -7- hi"Corporate Source: Publication Date:

.4Anle-r sq11. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order td disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announcedin the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproducedpaper copy, and etectronloroptiesImeda, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ERRS) or other ERIC vendors. Credit isgiven to the source of each document. and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following two options and sign atthe bottom of the page.

4Check here

For Level 1 Release:Permitting reproduction Inmicrofiche x film) orether ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical)end paper copy.

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to alt Level 1 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

5.

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 1

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS

MATERIAL IN OTHER THAN PAPERCOPY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 2

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permissionto reproduce is granted, but neither box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

Ime

Check hereFor Level 2 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4" x 6" film) orother ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical),but not in paper copy.

Signhere-)please

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusivepermission to reproduce and disseminatethis document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic/optical media by persons other thanERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profitreproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries."

$,9I1 !Printed NametPosnion/Title:-EET.Jfr-tU .

7a,-e- _ ..... .,.... ttetr..(-900t-t----s R, `11(311-E- .1( ize---cri-cf.

CdttAibM E UCttrAm% n DLL--i-kcocs (064 71; 3 Li q. t---)I

--teD7is-s sD-?o C rMITMEE 5117

PO Go-i. .-o Do CANr-Ha . N`/ 13 DI-I 5 1

10/21/1997 16:50 304347 PAGE 03

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source,please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it ispublicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria aresignificantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/ Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT /REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and address:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:ERIC/CRESS AT AEL

1031 QUARRIER STREET - 8TH FLOORP 0 BOX 1348

CHARLESTON WV 25325

phone: 800/624-9120

However, if solicited by the ERIC FacilitY, ar.liniaking an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document beingcontributed) to:

ERIC Processing and Reference Facility1100 West Street, 2d Floor

Laurel, Maryland 207074598

Telephone: 301-497-4080Toll Free: 800-7994742

FAX: 301-953-0263e-mail: erIcfaceineted.gov

WWW: http://aricfac.piccard.csc.com(Rev. 6/96)