A call for race, gender, and class sensitive facilitation in outdoor experiential education

osh Miner, one of the founders of Outward Bound in the U.S., said in the early 1960's, Outward Bound has made a great effort to achieve the social "mix" which makes each student confront the universality of his [sic] human nature. The schools take the Iowa farm-boy and billet him with a San Francisco lawyer's son. They take the heir to a Boston fortune and let him paddle with the son of an Arizona Indian. They take the son of a Mississippi "poor white" and let him share a litter handle with a boy from the streets of Harlem. (1970, p. 204)

As Outward Bound and other experiential education programs begin to become more inclusive of different social groups either through the changing demographics of the U.S. population or the more successful efforts by programs to recruit women/girls, racial minorities, and economically disadvantaged students, a strong imperative for facilitators to be trained in socially just leadership emerges.

Experiential education facilitation is an essential component of the learning cycle. As the field seeks to move away from the power dominance of the white, male, class privileged, European roots of experiential education (James, 1996), facilitators will need to become more conscious of how their methods can advance or impede social justice. This article will critically examine current philosophies of facilitation in experiential education in an attempt to unveil opportunities for leaders to use more culturally sensitive methods in teaching, training, and counseling. How the uncritical use of methods prevents more equitable outdoor experiential education will be shown. Several of Kurt Hahn's philosophies of practice will be critiqued to show how experiential educators can be analytical about accepted practice in light of social justice. Finally, suggestions about research and practice needed to influence the field of experiential education on social justice issues will be given. Although I will look specifically at outdoor leadership, ideas in this paper will be pertinent to facilitators of other experiencebased pursuits.

Limitations of a methods approach In asking facilitators to use socially and culturally sensitive facilitation we must be acutely aware of the limitations of a methods approach to experiential education. In her insightful article, "Beyond the Methods Fetish: Toward a Humanizing Pedagogy," Lilia Bartolome (1994) cautions against the uncritical use of teaching methods, particularly with students from subordinated cultures. Practitioners who are very proud of their expanding bag of tricks often adopt methods without scrutinizing them for their suitability to oppressed groups.

The current practice of experiential education is in jeopardy of having a highly developed body of methods without the accompanying analysis of how such methodology can contribute to, or impede, social justice. Bartolome urges "a shift from a narrow and mechanistic view of instruction to one that is broader in scope and takes into consideration the socio-historical and political dimensions of education" (p. 176).

Method traps

I have identified several traps I have seen experiential educators fall into in their uncritical use of methods, especially as it pertains to diversity work.

The "one size fits all" method

The delusive belief that there are generic methods that will work for everyone in a group persists when educators view their learning communities as homogenous groups of students with similar needs. Certainly, a "one size fits all method" of experiential education is simpler to use and seemingly more efficient, but it fails to acknowledge the social differences that exist in every group.

Several authors have shown how the "one size fits all" method may not be suitable for women's experience. Mack (1996) critiques the current use of metaphors in outdoor experiential education. She maintains that the common practice of using imposed metaphors with clients isn't effective with women. Instead, Mack suggests that metaphors derived from women's own experience be used and that the locus of power in facilitation be transferred to the participant. She concludes by warning against a "one size fits all" approach even within groups of women,

If an outdoor instructor plans to implement derived metaphoric constructs, it must be acknowledged that the use of metaphors is not appropriate for everyone. Since metaphors require the use of language and not everyone feels comfortable expressing themselves through words and discussion, not all women will respond to the abstract form of metaphor creation.

Rohde (1996) questions the dominant program model of stress challenge for use with female incest survivors. Extrapolated from this work is the question of whether the "one size fits all" method of facilitating stress challenge experience works well with participants from other oppressed groups. For example, "at risk" youth (who tend to be kids of color in many programs) may respond to stress with instinctive and conditioned behaviors that are counterproductive to their growth. Similar questions need to be asked when the temptation to use a generic method for other subordinated groups arises.

Rote methods

Programs that run many groups of students through a standard curriculum often fall into this trap. Stagnation is the foe of inclusive programming. The use of ropes courses where instructors use routine teaching progressions and "tried and true" methods is an example of this trap. A repetitious use of the tools of experiential education can cause facilitators to be unthinking or mechanistic in the application of their bag of tricks. Formulaic methods familiar to the facilitator but unexamined as to their cultural appropriateness are problematic.

The most profound example of my own use of rote methods occurred a few years ago with a class I was teaching on women and girls in the outdoors. I decided to use the Spider's Web initiative to build group bonding and problem-solving skills. As I advanced through my standard safety and educational framing of the activity, I expected outcomes similar to those I had seen for years of using this initiative. Instead, women stood unmoving in front of the web, courageously beginning to speak. As the women assessed the many sized holes in the web, they spoke of conflicting feelings about their bodies and how the initiative would separate them rather than bring them together (Warren, 1996). It was a poignant reminder that accepted methods must be constantly opened to critical examination. Separating technique from theory Rohnke & Butler (1995) remind adventure experiential educators to "Recognize that your leadership expertise is equally valuable as a burgeoning bag of adventure activities" (p. 4). Methods of facilitation that lack theoretical validation are empty attempts to practice without a sound grounding. This trap is particularly pertinent in cultural diversity work as facilitators attempt to "do the right thing" without an understanding of their own biases or the current anti-bias work theories. Facilitators need training not only in techniques but, more importantly, about the social and cultural backgrounds of their participants and the way their locations in privilege or marginality affect how they teach and facilitate.

For instance, in order to understand the dynamics of a mixed race outdoor program, facilitators need to understand current theories on racial identity development (Tatum, 1997). I have witnessed white facilitators, in the name of inclusivity, break up small groups of students of color who are interacting positively with each other on a course. These facilitators fail to understand that the racial identity development stage of the students of color encourages the students to seek out others who are like them for support.

Choosing experiences before goals

Experiential educators are often exposed to compelling and provocative methods that they are drawn to use due to their novelty or by the fact that the experience was a formative, life-impacting event at one time for them. The result is that the facilitator tries to work that experiential event into the curriculum without regard to the goals of the class or group. For example, outdoor instructors may want to use an overnight solo experience in the curriculum because solos had a particularly powerful impact on them when they were outdoor program students. Or an outdoor leader planning a weekend trip decides the activities and location of the trip before considering what the participants should get out of the trip. This cart-before-the-horse way of creating experiential education curriculum is commonplace. I have often seen educators propose very creative and intense experiential methods that were ultimately contrary to the intentions of their facilitation for that segment of the course or group experience.

With regard to socially-just facilitation, the way educators experience the world might be different from their students from oppressed social groups. To use experiences that are important to facilitators but alienating to students who have different norms and behavioral expectations supports this methods trap. As Marchesani & Adams (1992) point out, "Differences in culture or gender are still viewed in relation to the dominant ideas and contributions of those that have traditionally set standards and defined norms of participation" (p. 15).

Social and cultural awareness in facilitation

Facilitators can unveil and articulate the cultural facets of their programs. For instance, the compass was invented by the Chinese; the kayak developed from Inuit skin boats; and many elements of the rope course (e.g., the Burma bridge) are the functional solutions to real life challenges of people from other cultures.

Facilitation must take into account the linguistic habits of students in relation to their race, class, gender, age and ethnic origin (Shore, 1986). For example, facilitation methods must account for the fact that men use more of the available air time in a discussion than women (Van Nostrand, 1993), and boys' contributions to dialogue are praised, challenged, and generally validated more highly than girls' (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Facilitators trained in gender responsiveness will be more able to create equitable sharing in mixed groups. Also, students of other cultures may use more non-verbal ways of knowing and processing experiences (see Delpit, 1995); therefore, facilitators need training to take these differences into account.

Several pillars of Kurt Hahn's educational philosophy that have influenced the outdoor adventure field could be reexamined. Hahn's ideas of service and selfreliance have traditionally set the tone for outdoor experiences but it may be time to take a new look at these philosophies.

Rethinking service

Service to the community was one of the pillars of Hahn's educational philosophy that has been maintained to varying extents in experiential education programs today. Robert Greenleafs (1977) model of servant leadership continues to inform the work of many involved experiential educators. Yet a critical look at how the concept of service is manifested with lessprivileged groups reveals some troubling dilemmas.

For racial minorities, particularly African Americans, servitude has a profoundly troublesome history associated with slavery. As bell hooks (1994) points out, this servant-served paradigm has implications for the contemporary dynamics between blacks and whites. To require African Americans to aspire to servant leadership may be antithetical to the harsh realities of their involuntary service in the U.S. that still goes on today in more subtle forms.

For economically-less-advantaged students, the existence of a service economy, supported by the work of their families and friends, leads many such students to question the implicit value of service learning. Class issues have been the least recognized of social justice issues in the outdoors. One of Hahn's original educational precepts was to "free the children of rich and influential parents from the paralyzing influence of wealth and privilege" (Ewald, 1970, p. 37). The challenge now is how to include poor and working classes in outdoor adventure, as well as developing class sensitivity about service on courses.

For women, the role of service to others is an encultured part of their everyday lives. To set up programs that focus entirely on service to the outside community then becomes a perpetuation of a role that, while it may be familiar to women, may not offer the greatest avenues for growth. Experiential education facilitators might better be conscious of creating experiences to assist women in learning to be of service to themselves.

While I do not believe that facilitators should discard the idea of service from their programs, I believe the experiential education community needs to critically analyze how service is framed and carried out. Rethinking self-reliance

Another of Hahn's major tenets of educational thought was the development of self-reliance in students. In the U.S., the idea of rugged individualism is added to Hahn's precept creating a climate in the experiential education field that has focused on individual learning and growth rather than community development (Wyatt, 1997).

Many racial and ethnic groups hold cultural values that place community more prominently than individual accomplishment and dependence on self. For example, Latino(a) students see family as a foundation of emotional and economic security and support. Since family is more important in Hispanic communities than in Angelo communities (Grossman, 1984), the exclusion of family from outdoor courses could be re-examined. One instance of this dynamic happened several years ago when I was in charge of a program in which my Hampshire College students facilitated a camping weekend for Latina girls from a local human services agency. In the process of signing up girls for the weekend, the agency director called me because one of the girls' mother wanted to go on the camping trip with her daughter. Not understanding the cultural values involved, I told the director that it was not appropriate for family members to attend the weekend, even though in retrospect it would have not only been nice to have another adult along but would have responded to the underlying need for cultural inclusion.

Other facilitation practices such as individual demonstrations of competence, solos, and impersonal forms of recognition such as badges, pins, and certificates of accomplishment may be culturally incongruent to the values of people of color, women and poor/working class students. Practices involving community building, team-work, shared reflection time, and personal feedback such as praise, hugs, or pats on the back may be more welcoming and effective for some.

Again I am not advocating for the systematic abolishment of practices of self-reliance in outdoor experiential education, but I think we need to be aware of the alienation of cultural values possible in their unexamined use.

Conclusion

A closer look at social justice manifested in the outdoor experiential education field reveals that there are many outstanding philosophical and practical issues still to be addressed by professionals. The attention to topics of race, class, and gender in staff training and professional preparation programs in the outdoors is imperative. More research on how to effectively train leaders, teachers, and counselors is needed. Qualitative studies that demonstrate the developmental dynamics of social justice work are needed in addition to the growing body of quantitative assessments. Integrating social and cultural competency in outdoor experiential education leadership will quell the silencing about social justice that currently prevails. Therefore, accreditation standards must incorporate social justice as a criteria important to accredited programs, and outdoor experiential education training programs in colleges and universities and in the field itself should include anti-bias leadership education in the curriculum.

In addition, the major outdoor adventure programs will need to take the lead as role models in addressing equity issues outdoors, and not only in recruitment but in the subtle messages leaders of courses can convey about who is welcome in outdoor experiential education. Programs such as Project Adventure's diversity course series and Outward Bound's Connecting with Courage program for adolescent girls are examples of what is possible in anti-bias work in the field. What is missing is a strong network or a forum to share exemplary practices in social justice work between programs.

Many questions still remain. Do we only use culturally sensitive facilitation methods in diverse groups or in all white groups? How can we take the programs to the participants rather than bring the participants to the programs? How is race, class, and gender sensitive leadership different from "standard" practices? How do we train leaders to be self-aware of their conditioned biases and to be equitable outdoor facilitators? These questions and others can only be addressed by experiential educators willing to be critically aware of their own privilege and power, and who have the necessary training in order to be self-reflective about their facilitation practice with regard to social justice.

References

Bartolome, L. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing

pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(2), 173-194. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.

Ewald, M. (1970). Salem school 1919-33: Foundation and expansion. In H. Rohrs & H. Tunstall-Behrens (Eds.), Kurt Hahn. (pp. 22-38). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. New York: Paulist Press. Grossman, H. (1984). Educating Hispanic students: Cultural implications for instruction, classroom management, counseling and assessment. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of

freedom. New York: Routledge.

James, K. (1996). Making change: Recognizing culture. Journal of Experiential Education, 19 (3), 127-134. Mack, H. (1996). Inside work, outdoors: Women, metaphor and meaning. In K. Warren (Ed.), Women's voices in experiential education .(pp. 24-31). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Marchesani, L.S. & Adams, M. (1992). Dynamics of diversity in the teaching-learning process: A faculty development model for analysis and action. In M. Adams (Ed.), Promoting diversity in college classrooms: Innovative responses for the curriculum, faculty, and institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miner, J. (1970). Outward Bound in the USA. In H. Rohrs & H. TunstallBehrens (Eds.), Kurt Hahn (pp. 197-208). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Rohde, R. (1996). The value of therapeutic wilderness programs for incest survivors: A look at two dominant program models. In K. Warren (Ed.), Women's voices in experiential education (pp. 4560). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Rohnke, K. & Butler, S. (1995). Quicksilver. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York: Touchstone.

Shore, I. (1986). Equality is excellence: Transforming teacher education and the learning process. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 406-422.

Tatum, B. D. (1997). "Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?" and other conversations about race. New York: BasicBooks.

Van Nostrand, C. H. (1993). Gender-responsible leadership. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Warren, K. (Ed.). (1996). Women's voices in experiential education, Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Wyatt, S. (1997). Dialogue, reflection, and community. Journal of Experiential Education, 20(2), 80-85.

Karen Warren is an instructor in the Outdoors Program/Recreational Athletics at Hampshire College, Amherst, MA 01002 USA (kwCC@hamp.hampshire. edu). She is editor of Women's Voices in Experiential Education and co-editor of The Theorv of Experiential Education.

Copyright Association for Experiential Education May/Jun 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved