Dear all

While we are on the topic of 'programming' please excuse a brief comment on
a slight tangent but one which I think we ought to consider here. Last week
at the Risk and Adventure in Society conference Furedi spoke on some of the
topics in his book (Culture of Fear). He was followed by Sir Michael Hobbs
and both of them spoke primarily offering social / historical commentary.
They were both very interesting and I look forward to the proceedings from
the conference.

However, the focus was most definately on what is happening in society
implying that adventure educators work against this dominant trend of
culture of fear, blame society, litigation culture (whatever it is referred
to as). It seems to me that we would do well to look internally at ourselves
and check what WE are doing within the field of adventure education. Have we
become victims of this discourse? I suspect so. This, from what I can tell,
manifests itself in things like the licensing scheme in the UK but it can
also be seen in more subtle ways.

I have watched and worked with many people in the last couple of years and
have noticed that the way in which the majority of people work is in this
programming manner. The 'adventure in a bun' that Loynes warned of and that
Bowles has also discussed extensively, and of course Drasdo. People come for
adventure 'education' and get adventure programmed through a system like a
letter through the postal system. There is little consideration of Ownership
of experience, of decision making that is real, that has consequences.
People are put THROUGH experiences.

Its a difficult one to explain but perhaps a brief example will help. My
students recently completed the south downs way as a part of their first
semester classes. Its an 87 mile walk that they completed in an average of 4
days. The details are not relevant but on return one of them commented that
they had done lots of adventure education before, they had 'done' Duke of
Edinburgh awards (Bronze, Silver and Gold) and done lots of other outdoor
'things', but he realised on return that he had been TAKEN THROUGH them, NOT
DONE THEM HIMSELF. Only afterwards did he realise that he had OWNED this
experience.

I apologise if this is off the deprogramming topic (I can personally see
some clear links) but Its something I have noted in recent years and think
is worthy of attention. I must also note that I am a supporter of DofE and
of programming where that is what people want and expect. My concern is
where people expect adventure education and get adventure programming
(assuming that they can tell and know the difference?). Has adventure
education been programmed by the culture of fear? Have we lost our courage
to take risks?

Thoughts?

Pete


Pete Allison
Senior Lecturer in Adventure Education
School of Physical Education
Bishop Otter Campus
University College Chichester
College Lane, Chichester
West Sussex, PO19 4PE, UK

Tel: 01243 816347
Mobile: 07718 701711
E Mail: [log in to unmask]
www.ucc.ac.uk


Co-Editor: Journal of Outdoor and Adventure
Association for Outdoor Learning
12 St Andrew's Churchyard
Penrith, Cumbria
CA11 7YE, UK

[log in to unmask]
www.adventure-ed.co.uk

>>> Roger Greenaway <[log in to unmask]> 12/01 3:29 pm >>>
I have learned through an internet search that a lot has happened
to the term 'deprogramming' since I first read about it 20 years
ago.

Issues about 'deprogramming' could lead us way off track given
that it raises a whole host of issues beyond 'outdoor education
research' - especially as deprogramming has itself been
characterised as brainwashing.

I have learned that although most 'deprogrammings' have been
voluntary, the ones getting most publicity were the involuntary
ones -starting with a kidnapping and ending (sometimes) with the
deprogrammer going to jail.

After 'deprogramming therapists' along came 'exit counselors' and
now 'thought reform consultants'. Just how the term 'thought
reform' (which Kaye's quote says is 'total manipulation of the
individual') is meant to have a less coercive meaning than
'deprogramming' is possibly one of the strangest things that has
happened to the English language in recent years! But these
thought reformers do appear to have a very respectable code of
ethics.

The language is confusing but the trend is clear. Instead of
'snapping' people out of a programmed state (typical of
deprogramming), thought reform consultants see rehabilitation as
a much longer term process (which is also much more costly of
course).

This ties in with John's phrase in his recent message about ''the
immediate and evolving interpretation of the "adventure".'' Which
also ties in with Peter Allison's work on post expedition
adjustment. i.e. interpretations and adjustments take time. I
think that such insights (and areas of research) might change the
kinds of evaluation questions that are asked after
programmes/courses, as well as the kinds of support that are
provided after the event.

One picture I see is of changes happening within a programme,
with follow-up designed to support the implementation of these
changes back at home/school/work.

The other picture I see is of change beginning within a
programme, with follow-up designed to support continuing learning
and change (similar to John's 'evolving interpretation'). My own
research with managers (6 weeks after their course experience)
supports this concept of 'evolving interpretation' - but it's too
late to use this phrase now! 6 weeks on they were finding
themselves reinterpreting the meaning of their course
experiences. Self-managed learning (supported by others) is
possibly the greatest defence against any form of programming,
reprogramming or deprogramming.

still evolving,

Roger

Roger Greenaway
Reviewing Skills Training
[log in to unmask]
http://reviewing.co.uk