Hello Steve and all - My question now, following on from this discussion is
this :-
" Is risk-avoiding transferable ?"
best wishes
steve bowles
Steve Lenartowicz wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|