Hello Chris
Are you sure that it is the definition of risk that is the construct
"negotiated continuously with the client" or is it the acceptable level of
risk? Perhaps the emphasis varies depending on which area of OAE one is
working in?
While I do not disagree with what you write about risk as metaphor I think
that for many outdoor 'instructors'/'leaders' the issue of 'professional'
risk and 'real' risk is actual and literal, not metaphorical. If you lose
a student on the sea or in the hills the press, public, courts are not
concerned with the "interplay of deep metaphor" but with whether you were
negligent or not, with whether the level of risk was acceptable (where
acceptable will be decided in the courts). The family and friends of the
unfortunate student, and the instructor, are concerned with the above but
also with coming to terms with the fact that risk can entail 'loss' and all
this process involves.
Risk in this business is a many faceted concept and would include the
following:
1. The risk accepted by any instructor/leader working in an adventure
environment - personal risk (physical, emotional, spiritual), professional
risk, commercial risk.
2. The risk accepted/placed on the client - physical, emotional, spiritual,
metaphorical, real or perceived
3. The risk to the provider organisation
4. The risk to the environment
5. The risk to the sport/activity if we are working with specific activities
6. The risk to society of becoming too 'safe' (Libby Purves once wrote an
excellent article about the cotton wool generation)
I'm sure list members could add to this but perhaps it provides a starting
point for thinking about risk in a wider context. Anyway I'll take a risk
and post it!
David Crossland
At 10:12 10/02/00 +0000, Chris Loynes wrote:
>Hi Peter and all
>
>I disagree with your opening premise. We do not have, cannot have and
>should not have a central operational definition of risk. Such an idea
>is a construct negotiated continuously with the client, within the
>providing organisation and with the field. It is academia's job to watch
>and comment on this evolving picture for the insight it gives us on the
>process. Your equation is a good example as public outrage enters the
>frame!
>
>For the clients this negotiation and how risk is understood as a
>metaphor in their lives is part of the core process. So we have risk as
>avoidance of self, risk as transformation of self, risk as aliveness,
>risk as cry for help, and and and .... (see Johan Hovelynck's pieces in
>recent Horizons for the interplay of deep metaphor in our work)
>
>In fact if the field decided on a central definition I think I would
>make it my job to provide alternatives! And certainly to work outside
>the frame.
>
>What you may be suggesting is that we need a working definition to talk
>with Health and Safety beaurocracies or educational institutions. This
>language is useful, functional but not alive and as worked/played with
>in the field by a leader.
>
>Sorry to go outside the box but its important to me that, as Monty
>Python would say, we hang on to our woody words - words that are not
>fixed in meaning even in the moment.
>
>Chris Loynes
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|