Roger's last sentence is interesting: "Taking part in a public debate is
yet another kind of risk, but sending a message to outres won't make you
a better rock climber".
However, outdoor educationalists often claim that taking part in rock
climbing makes you better at taking other risks (such as public debate)!
So the question is, is risk-taking transferable, and if so, how can we
facilitate the transfer?
Steve Lenartowicz
Youth Development Manager
Brathay Hall Trust
www.brathay.org.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Greenaway [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 10:14 AM
> To: outres list
> Subject: Risk Discussion
>
> Risk Discussion,
>
> I love the way you explode assumptions Steve - but it leaves a
> mess. I guess that's what researchers do - explode things that
> are too tidy, and tidy up things that are too messy.
>
> So I'd like to try some tidying up ... I think it would be
> helpful to create some clear dividing lines between the very
> different kinds of 'risk' that have entered this discussion.
>
> I see three main aspects:
>
> 1) OUTDOOR SAFETY (moral and legal issues)
> 2) LEARNING OBJECTIVES (whys)
> 3) LEARNING THEORY (hows)
>
> 1) On OUTDOOR SAFETY issues there are facts and perceptions. Some
> solid statistical work on actual risks, together with pertinent
> and valid comparisons would be a very useful information for
> providers and users of outdoor learning. Given how much mention
> is made of 'challenge', 'adventure', 'pushing personal limits'
> etc. it should not be surprising if public perception
> overestimates the actual risks. I don't think anyone is seriously
> suggesting that providers with the worst accident records provide
> the most effective training and education, or that providers with
> the best safety records tend to provide the least effective
> learning. Let's break this link for good and make safety a
> separate issue from learning.
>
> Incidentally - you'll find 24 articles about risk in the
> ''Insurance, Risk Management and Wilderness Law'' section of
> http://www.outdoornetwork.com/
>
> 2) On LEARNING OBJECTIVES, it is easy to come up with horrifying
> stories and statistics about young people 'at risk' and about
> young people who 'take risks'. These are vulnerable young people
> who can be helped by suitable interventions. The fact that there
> is a word used in adventure sports that also happens to be the
> same as the word that is used to describe their vulnerability -
> is really just a coincidence. I don't think that the purpose of
> an intervention or programme can ever be to encourage people to
> ''take more risk'' or to ''take less risk''. Such messages are
> far too simplistic. I hope outdoor programmes are more
> sophisticated and supportive than this. Let's break this link
> too - rather than stretch the 'risk' metaphor from the rock face
> (where risk pays) to the street (where some risks pay and others
> don't) or to the home where 'risk' can mean so many other things
> (abuse, neglect, violence etc.)
>
> 3) In LEARNING THEORY, risk has a different meaning again. It is
> not an isolated, measurable factor but part of a dynamic process
> that gets people changing, growing and learning. Good outdoor
> learning programmes help to get these learning processes moving.
> It is learning itself that is the risk - because it involves
> leaving the known world (however 'good' or 'bad' that may be) for
> an unknown destination. The fact that risk is an integral part of
> the learning process does not automatically mean that
> participants are learning about risk. They can learn about
> anything! It is surely the potential of the outdoors as a
> learning environment (not as a playground for risk takers) that
> explains why there is such a huge variety of programmes for
> learning and development taking place in the outdoors.
>
> You (outres member) may have another way of 'tidying up' these
> many different meanings and uses of the term 'risk'. Please do!
> This four lettered word is much over-used. Perhaps we are better
> off without it? Perhaps we should also be wary of simplistic
> metaphors that crudely connect physical achievements with complex
> social issues.
>
> I think that the over-use (and inappropriate use) of ready-made
> metaphors in outdoor learning masks a lot of what is really
> happening. As researchers we should be able to see through these
> generalisations. I applaud Peter's starting of this debate -
> searching for greater precision about how we use the term 'risk'.
>
> Just as there are multiple kinds of intelligence, so there are
> multiple kinds of risk. Taking part in a public debate is yet
> another kind of risk, but sending a message to outres won't make
> you a better rock climber ;-)
>
> Roger Greenaway
> Reviewing Skills Training
> [log in to unmask]
> http://reviewing.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|