SEER 2004 Closing Address

During this year's SEER presentations, we were privileged to hear about a wide array of research studies and results within environmental and adventure-based education. I thank all the researchers who presented their work and all the researchers who applied to present and are not here. Having so many quality research proposals from which to choose helps make SEER valuable and a showcase symposium for research about experiential education.

Last year, as she praised the work of researchers presenting at SEER, Karla Henderson (2003) said we know in our hearts that experiential education is a good thing, and while we have more research to support our intuition, we need more research, too. In response, researchers at this year's seeR have positively added to the last two years of research presentations. SEER provides a valuable platform for researchers to share their work and provides a venue for us all to learn more about evidencebased research about the efficacy of experiential education.

Digging Deeper

While this year's line-up of researchers continued the trend noted by Christian Itin (2003) of SEER focusing on adventure-based research, we also saw a nice mix of research designs, using a number of different methodologies for collecting data and data analysis. Some studies combined qualitative and quantitative methodologies, and one study used archival and narrative data.

Researchers are digging deeper with the questions they ask. For example, it is not just, "Are ropes courses valuable to participants?" it is, "What different impacts do different program components in ropes courses have on participants?" (Haras & Bunting, 2004). Not only might one look at the efficacy of therapeutic treatment programs, but also at the impact of the treatment programs' design on the efficacy (Russell, 2004). Likewise, there is the question of what possible differing impacts there might be of an inclusive wilderness experience program for persons with disabilities as compared to persons without disabilities.

Two researchers used the current theory of emotional intelligence, and applied this theory in helping to understand aspects of outdoor leadership and camp counseling. Perhaps if being a camp counselor can increase one's emotional intelligence, it may help make being a camp counselor a more desired position. It might also help validate the American Camping Association's slogan of "enriching lives" in terms of the counselors, as well as the campers.

Research Ethics

There are a number of important questions to ask ourselves about the ethics of research. Two that I would like to address today are: (a) Who does the research benefit? and (b) How does research change experiences for participants? These questions interface with the quality and validity of our research.

I ran an adventure travel organization for about 20 years. For a number of years I chose to call it outdoor travel. I believed the word adventure frontloaded the experience in a way that might not be appropriate for the participants. Partly, that was a sign of the times. In 1979, the word adventure was not as much a part of our vocabulary and would have had a different impact than potential participants hearing the word adventure in 1990. In changing with the times, by the late 1980s, the slogan of that organization was "Adventure is the best souvenir."

Similarly, in the early years, I was not open to people using our trip participants for research projects. A concern was that the very fact that they were the subjects of research would alter their experience. Having their experience altered might take away some of the authenticity of their experience and it might take way some of the relevance of their experience. For example, if given a pretest asking about self-esteem and self-confidence, a person might believe that they were supposed to develop those attributes-that might be positive from our perspective. On the other hand, some people might become so preoccupied with their concerns about their self-esteem and self-confidence that a pretest could have the opposite impact, and cause a person to believe that s/he is not fit for the program and the person might not fully engage in the program. Or, if a person is obstinate, a pretest might help him or her not engage just because s/he did not want the researcher to have the satisfaction of controlling his or her life (believe me; that could fit a number of people, including many teenagers). My point is that we cannot predict exactly how a pretest will impact participants and their participation. I believe we know that it has a high potential to have impacts on perceptions and participation, and therefore outcomes.

We might learn from medical and environmental research. By today's standards, early research was crude, and some of the research techniques are now illegal. For example, research about the effects of some chemicals, such as DDT, and drugs was done on prisoners. Lives of prisoners were not highly valued and it wasn't thought of as much of a loss if some died. In fact, it was thought of as a good thing to potentially sacrifice them instead of the law-abiding population. I don't think we are exactly like early medical and environmental researchers, and yet I think we can learn form their history. The research did not benefit the prisoners. The researchers and the prisoners knew that. The research benefited many other people. It is true that some prisoners were willing subjects, because they were paid some money and promised an earlier release. A question that comes up for me is: Are we sacrificing something of our participants on whom we administer tests? What is the nature and extent of this sacrifice and does this sacrifice, in our ethical construct, justify the research?

Perhaps we ask those questions, and we determine that there is no sacrifice on the part of the participants, or we find that there is a sacrifice but we are willing to live with their sacrifice. Or, we may find that there is a sacrifice that we determine is too great to justify our research. We have options. Sometimes altering the research design can change the nature of the intrusion into the participants' experiences. I know many of us work with Internal Review Boards (IRB) at our universities that help regulate how much of a burden we can put on participants. The job of IRBs is to be sure research subjects are treated in an ethical manner. However, there may be questions we should ask ourselves that IRBs do not ask. Additionally, some researchers do not work within a university setting and do not have the benefit of IRB scrutiny.

As research designs have changed, and more commonly don't have to include pretests, I know I became more open to using participants for research. Through the years, I supported several research projects using participants on the trips I ran. This was after I learned enough about research and felt I knew enough about the population with whom I worked to understand ways to incorporate research into their experiences that would either have minimal impact on their experiences or might even enhance their experiences. For the populations with whom I worked, I continued not to allow research projects that used pretests.

One important project was done by Lisa West-Smith. Her research was on body image. She looked at the value of women participating on outdoor trips and their concept of their body image. A specific question she addressed is whether or not active outdoors women define physical attractiveness in a way that differs from the culturally prescribed definitions. I supported research by Simon Priest and several of his students who examined the benefits and motivations of all-women trips. These researchers contacted the participants after their experiences and used valid research methodologies that happened to not include pretests. Results of both of these projects have been published in the Journal of Experiential Education.

I supported Laura Fredrickson's research while she explored the spiritual benefits of person-nature interactions through an ecosystem management approach. In her cross-case study, Laura used a phenomenological approach and a number of methodologies of data collection, including participant observation, reading personal trip journals, and in-depth interviews.

For the Future

Research gives us much needed information about how our underlying assumptions about our practices and our participants; it contributes to our knowledge base about our profession. My encouragement is that we think creatively about the research we conduct. I encourage us to look at the impacts of our research, not only on the lives of future participants who might benefit from our research, but also on the lives of participants who are part of our research efforts. Additionally, while we conduct research ostensibly to help set standards for best practices, we also need to be vigilant that we are not making all programs the same for all participants, and have one best practice standard that is supposed to fit all populations. Finally, we need to be sure we are not conducting research that validates what we are doing for the sake of validating what we are doing.

I, again, want to express my gratitude to all the people involved with SEER-the presenters, the organizers, and all of the audience members who took the time to hear about the important work of their colleagues. The contributions of everyone here will strengthen our work in experiential education, as well as give us direction to move forward continuing our research, and continuing to respond to questions about the appropriateness and efficacy of experiential methodologies.

Thank you.

References

Fredrickson, L. M. (1996). Exploring spiritual benefits of person-nature interactions through an ecosystem management approach. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(07), 4117B. (University Microfilms No. AAG96-35854)

Henderson, K. (2003). Opening address. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(3), 184-189.

Hornibrook, T., Brinkert, E., Perry, D., Seimens, R., Mitten, D., & Priest, S. (1997). The benefits and motivations of all-women outdoor programs. Journal of Experiential Education, 20(3), 152-158.

Itin, C. (2003) Closing address, SEER. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(3), 219-221.

West-Smith, L. (1997). Body image perceptions of active outdoors women: Towards a new definition of physical attractiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International. (University Microfilms No. 9736721)

Denise Mitten, Ph.D., Ferns University, Rapids, MI. E-mail: DeniseMitten@ferris.edu

Copyright Association for Experiential Education 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved