OK - maybe there's an infinite number of questions. 6, 8 or 10?
I'm already losing count.

Maybe in this forum it is better to handle one question at a time
anyway? Especially if it is an unwritten rule of research that
the more questions you ask the lower the response rate.

A crux issue (concerning professional accreditation) is the
balancing of structure and freedom, or how to create structures
within which there is sufficient freedom. It is the space for
exercising professional judgment.

And in our kind of work (especially) it is a space for being
'alive', being 'other', being 'different', being 'real' and
'participating' (words from Steve's email 12/11/2001).

I didn't think I would be getting drawn into this discussion, but
Steve's email reminded me of questions I was asking in my own
research - in which I was asking for descriptions of intuitively
professional practice (or 'model-free' practice) where it feels
as if models, codes and rules are being discarded (but in a
professional kind of way?!?). So I have quoted the relevant
section below, and hope that something here might stir up the
embers.

The following extract is quoted from Chapter 4 of my thesis
about outdoor management development. This particular extract is
equally relevant to youth development. The extract begins with
two of the questions that I was asking to the trainers:

=================

When do you feel relatively free of models, and in what aspects
of your work are you least dependent on models or theories?

Can you give me some examples of when you feel you are being most
unconventional, or are rejecting models, or are just doing things
your own way, are following your nose, or depending a lot on your
intuition etc.?"
...

Graham's group were doubtful about the relevance of the course
and felt they were being manipulated. Laura's group felt they
could only get further benefit from the course if they levelled
with each other, and got on better with each other at a more
sincere and honest level. Both of these groups were dissatisfied
with the level at which the course was operating - it was too
shallow, superficial or irrelevant - and both groups took action
which deepened the level of the course, by confronting each other
or their trainer.
...

Extracts from interviews with trainers
[The block capitals are mine, the lower case letters are
extracted from the transcripts of the taped interviews with the
three trainers.]

IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DISRUPT THE PROGRAMME: stops following the
programme ... abandoned the structure ... acceleration from a
prescribed path ... put business aside and let the story run ...

LEARNER DIRECTED: learners really do things and make things
happen if they wanted to ...

CONCENTRATION: a bomb could drop outside ...

EXCITEMENT: charged atmosphere of excitement ... nice feeling but
excited ... physical sensation of excitement (for trainer) not
knowing what outcomes would be ...

ENERGY: energy level high ... electric ... buzz ... gear change
... feeling of acceleration ...

SIMPLE: so simple but so powerful ...

REAL: real issues in the group ... eerie feeling that I was on
the sharp end ... people were really interested in what was
happening and really focused on what was happening, things that
were important, they were working with what was real and what was
live.

COMMITMENT: They were really using it because they really wanted
to.

HONESTY: levelling with each other, sorting things out ...

OPENNESS: on top of the table ... on to the table things that had
remained covered ... free-flowing open style of learning ...

FREEDOM: unchaining themselves so they could move freely in the
arena available ... running wild a bit ...

PLAY: explored it ... sniffed it ... structure facilitating play
...
EXPERIMENTAL: sharp end ... risk taking ...

FREE-FLOWING: it just evolved from the review ... I allow the
process to happen ... not preventing that free-flowing nature ...
free-flowing open-style of learning ... not getting the process
bogged down ... running wild a bit ... free-flowing discussion

ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE: erosion of perceived boundaries ... dawning
... wall coming down ... boundary dropping ... the sky's the
limit ...
...

Connections

This is the way in which Carl Rogers described a similar group
atmosphere:

"When I have been able to transform a group - and here I mean all
of the members of a group, myself included - into a community of
learners, then the excitement has been almost beyond belief. To
free curiosity, to permit individuals to go charging off in new
directions dictated by their own interests; to unleash the sense
of enquiry; to open everything to questioning and exploration; to
recognise that everything is in the process of change - here is
an experience I can never forget." (Rogers, 1969)

=================

This may not describe the ideal that every adventure educator
aspires to, but any further professionalising of this field
should not make it any harder to create the conditions for such
learning adventures to happen. Unlike Carl Rogers, we don't have
the handicap of working indoors.

It would be a strange irony if indoor educators are able to
create more freedom to learn than outdoor educators constrained
by a different view of professionalism.

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