Heres my 2 cents on this process and outcome dialogue which I find most
interesting ...
Process and outcome are words that I believe we have used to label and to
help us in understanding some of what some of us do! They are often
indefinable or redefined by us or hopefully by the people we work with and
for. If we see outdoor adventure (for want of a better term) as concerned
with meaning making then it is about knowledge and the way that we
constuct knowledge about success in terms of outcomes and processes can be
central to the work we do, or put another way, how we measure things. Part
of this comes from the dialogues around Taylors work on instrumental
reason - measurement purely in terms of a 'cost benefit analysis' and this
as an approach to much of what we do and the dominant paradigm in most
western societies. I personally struggle with these ideas of process and
outcome - they cannot be separated in many respects yet in others they
need to be. It was not long ago when the pendulum had swung so far that
many only spoke of process - the process is important which I find
preposterous - the outcome is important too!!! Surely, in the 'reality' of
the worlds we live in this exclusive non consequentialist philosophy falls
in to many of the same traps as the purely consequentialist views - how
can one be any better than the other? Perhaps some of the reason for the
pendulum was a reaction against the cost benefit tide.
Regarding the language - process and outcome have become overused there is
little question of this but we should also be cautious of finding new
words and terminology for what we study, as we do so we open ourselves to
over confusing an already complex field we discuss. Meaning making is a
strong phrase of which I am fond. At the same time I think we should
beware of introducing endless language for the sake of it, Wittgenstein
was a master of language and he would be uncomfortable I believe in us
using it to mask the issues we strive to examine. Language should serve us
rather than us serve it.
On another subject, publishing on paper and on line. You raise yet another
interesting topic James. I am wondering what others think of your comments
on publishing on line. Does the internet make journals more accessible
really? Is the internet the answer to the worlds problems as it is often
inferred!? I personally enjoy sitting with a book or journal on the sofa
and reading - getting away from the screen. I also wonder about the
historical aspects of publishing ... will the dialogues and arguements be
lost in cyberspace.
I also wonder about how inclusive the www really is ... yes it opens up to
many but in openings there are also closings ... I wonder who this route
closes out and excludes? I wonder how going too exclusively down this
route might relate to the "celebrating diversity" slogan so regularly
"banded' around.
Thats about my 2 cents for the moment
have a good weekend
best wishes - Pete
[log in to unmask] writes:
>Roger,
>
>As always, Roger, thankyou, thankyou for your thinking, reflection and
>sharing.
>
>You wrote (25/10/01):
>"James, do you mean why bother with 'process' or why bother with
>making distinctions between 'process' and 'outcome'?
>
>If 'process' and 'outcome' really are one and the same thing, how
>would your research writings read if 'process' is substituted for
>'outcome' and vice-versa? How could we have a useful discussion
>about ends and means if we start off by saying that ends and
>means are ''one and the same thing''?
>
>Making distinctions and defining terms is surely an essential
>part of the academic rigour that you are keen to promote."
>
>Maybe Steve can help me out here - I appreciate his ability to turn our
>awareness about certain words around. 'Process' and 'outcomes' are words
>I
>think that are overutilized and have become somewhat empty of
>meaning. Dewey instead might say: 'interaction' for process and
>'continuity' for outcome. Even just by shifting to some different words
>like Dewey's, we might become freed up to focus on the more important
>issue
>which is the underlying quality of experience.
>
>The overuse of 'process' and 'outcome' as words I think has contributed to
>us collectively seeing these as two separate, distinct parts of what I
>would claim is a more organic, interconnected reality of an educational or
>learning moment. I don't see a process occurring and then an outcome
>appearing, i.e. a linear model:
>process -> outcome.
>
>A 'process' is an also an outcome of an experience; and an 'outcome' of an
>experience is not static, it is an ongoing, dynamic process. Languagefied
>concepts, particularly when overused and not reformed and rejuvenated, are
>a symptom of lazy minds who lose connection with the real, fuzzy,
>underlying stuff. This is where it is absolutely critical that we have
>wonderful, insightful, rich and shared qualitative and phenomenological
>inquiry into the nature of human learning through adventurous
>engagement. So we can test and see whether our language and
>concept-making
>is organically valid - and use such investigations to generate new
>language
>for our theory-building.
>
>Some of what theory-building might be about is reinvigorating the dead,
>useless, lifeless language that gets paraded around. Some people have
>very
>alive, rich notions of what they may mean by 'process' and 'outcome'
>(e.g.,
>Roger?) but more often and all too readily these 'easy' words are used
>without meaning and this empty use of language fuels descent into
>unproductive and divisive argument about things like 'qualitative' versus
>'quantitative', rather than creating or using integrative words to
>describe
>research efforts such as 'inquiry' and 'investigation', 'exploration',
>'examination', 'meaning-making' - millions of words that could weave
>threads between our diverse efforts.
>
>A small example on the AEE list at the moment is a posting from Russ
>Robertson saying his organization doesn't go for the all-too-commonly
>accepted and used Project Adventure language of "Fully Value Contract" and
>"Challenge by Choice", but instead the organization has dialogued and
>created their own language "Mutual Respect Agreement" and "up2u". For me
>this shows a level of thinking eons beyond most other organizations
>(regardless of whether or not I agree with these concepts).
>
>Word-making, meaning-making, language-making....only a few people I know
>have really made any new language for OE. We need new language and
>vigorous phenomenological work if we want to make new theory and better
>understand what it is to experience and learn. If good work has already
>been done, please get it up on a website for others to access or send it
>to
>me and I'll do it. BTW - I really wish Europe/UK publications would move
>into the 21st century and publish material electronically instead of
>continuing with the 16th century tradition and making only hard-copy
>publications.
>
>I look to Steve or anyone else, or back to you Roger, to pick up and help
>with this language issue.
>
>Cheers,
>James
>
>PS Roger, I took up the question of what if I replaced 'outcome' with
>'process' and vice-versa in my research writings. I picked my most recent
>writing - an evaluation report for the Colorado Outward Bound School on a
>program with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transvestite youth. I searched
>and
>replaced all 'process' and 'outcome' words and re-read the paper for
>alterations of meaning.
>
>Pasted below are the changes that occurred. My reading of these sentences
>is that the meaning has altered suprisingly little by switching 'process'
>and 'outcome'. I'd be interested in your comments.
>
>1. "Kurt Hahn, the founder of the Outward Bound schools saw the programs
>as
>being able to ignite an ongoing PROCESS of growth and development within
>each individual."
>->
>"Kurt Hahn, the founder of the Outward Bound schools saw the programs as
>being able to ignite an ongoing OUTCOME of growth and development within
>each individual."
>
>2. "However, there is a wide range in the effectiveness of various
>adventure education programs, with Outward Bound programs being clearly
>identified as having stronger OUTCOMES than for other researched programs
>(Hattie, et al., 1997). "
>->
>However, there is a wide range in the effectiveness of various adventure
>education programs, with Outward Bound programs being clearly identified
>as
>having stronger PROCESSES than for other researched programs (Hattie, et
>al., 1997).
>
>3. "A strength of this design is that the difference between
>participants'
>pre and post self-assessments can be compared for the distinct areas of
>life effectiveness and these changes can be compared to OUTCOMES for other
>adventure education programs.
>->
>A strength of this design is that the difference between participants'
>pre
>and post self-assessments can be compared for the distinct areas of life
>effectiveness and these changes can be compared to PROCESSES for other
>adventure education programs.
>
>4. Cautions about this design include: a) follow-up assessments are needed
>to find out about long-term benefits; b) larger sample sizes are needed
>for
>generalisability; c) qualitative observations made by staff and
>participants about the program should be used to help interpret the LEQ
>OUTCOMES.
>->
>Cautions about this design include: a) follow-up assessments are needed to
>find out about long-term benefits; b) larger sample sizes are needed for
>generalisability; c) qualitative observations made by staff and
>participants about the program should be used to help interpret the LEQ
>PROCESSES.
>
>5. The program design allowed participants a great deal of opportunity to
>take control of activities and the direction of the course which would
>appear to have been important in achieving this OUTCOME. The strongest
>OUTCOMES were for Self-Confidence and Time Management
>->
>The program design allowed participants a great deal of opportunity to
>take
>control of activities and the direction of the course which would appear
>to
>have been important in achieving this PROCESS. The strongest PROCESSES
>were for Self-Confidence and Time Management
>
>6. To place the effectiveness of COBS GLBT course into a broader context,
>these results can be compared to the average change effects identified by
>the large meta-analysis of adventure education OUTCOMES by Hattie, Marsh,
>Neill and Richards (1997) in which an ES of .34 was reported.
>->
>To place the effectiveness of COBS GLBT course into a broader context,
>these results can be compared to the average change effects identified by
>the large meta-analysis of adventure education PROCESSES by Hattie, Marsh,
>Neill and Richards (1997) in which an ES of .34 was reported.
>
>7. Outward Bound programs, on the whole, tend to have OUTCOMES about twice
>average (Hattie, et al., 1997); yet the current program has been twice as
>effective as even the generally impressive results for Outward Bound.
>This
>second evaluation of the COBS GLBT program replicates and helps to
>strengthen the very strong OUTCOMES reported for the first program in
>2000.
>->
>Outward Bound programs, on the whole, tend to have PROCESSES about twice
>average (Hattie, et al., 1997); yet the current program has been twice as
>effective as even the generally impressive results for Outward Bound.
>This
>second evaluation of the COBS GLBT program replicates and helps to
>strengthen the very strong PROCESSES reported for the first program in
>2000.
>
>8. In practice, a small ES can be very impressive if, for example, the
>OUTCOME is difficult to change (e.g. a personality construct) or if the
>OUTCOME is very valuable (e.g. an increase in life expectancy).
>->
>In practice, a small ES can be very impressive if, for example, the
>PROCESS
>is difficult to change (e.g. a personality construct) or if the PROCESS is
>very valuable (e.g. an increase in life expectancy).
>
>9. On the other hand, it can also be useful to compare a program's
>OUTCOMES
>with other types of outdoor education, such as management training or
>special education programs, and also to other intervention techniques such
>as counseling and psychotherapy.
>->
>On the other hand, it can also be useful to compare a program's PROCESSES
>with other types of outdoor education, such as management training or
>special education programs, and also to other intervention techniques such
>as counseling and psychotherapy.
>
>
>At 12:36 PM 10/25/01 +0100, you wrote:
>>Maybe we are taking different routes to the same destination?
>>
>>James wrote (23/10/01):
>>''I don't see any point in arguing about which is more
>>important (process or outcome) because its an artificial
>>distinction. There is no outcome without process, there is
>>process without outcome. So why bother with it? They are rolled
>>into together, they are one and the same thing. I have no idea
>>why people get funny preferring to focus on 'process' or
>>'outcome' - maybe someone can enlighten me. ''
>>
>>James, do you mean why bother with 'process' or why bother with
>>making distinctions between 'process' and 'outcome'?
>>
>>If 'process' and 'outcome' really are one and the same thing, how
>>would your research writings read if 'process' is substituted for
>>'outcome' and vice-versa? How could we have a useful discussion
>>about ends and means if we start off by saying that ends and
>>means are ''one and the same thing''?
>>
>>Making distinctions and defining terms is surely an essential
>>part of the academic rigour that you are keen to promote.
>>
>>I suspect that what you really mean is that you do not believe
>>that taking sides on a process vs. outcome debate is going to get
>>us anywhere. I think it is an issue that will always be with us.
>>We cannot and should not bury it by blurring terms, but I think
>>we can move on by welcoming and exploring different points of
>>view - and that we can assist this by promoting and sharing
>>research studies (and research programmes) that have a balanced
>>approach investigating both outcomes and processes (and maybe
>>a few other angles as well). This was the line that Jon Barrett
>>and I took in our review of research - 'Why Adventure?' (1995).
>>
>>I admire your thorough approach to course evaluation and the fact
>>that it includes both processes and outcomes. (I also like
>>carrying out evaluations during a course as this helps to keep
>>things on track, or allows a changing of tracks if more promising
>>tracks are found during the course.)
>>
>>We need you James. Please don't leave us - especially for the
>>world of alternative therapies where there tends to be even less
>>academic rigour around!!!
>>
>>I don't think you need to keep firewalking on your list of
>>possibilities in order to emphasise the importance of outcomes.
>>Academically rigorous studies suggest that you should keep well
>>away from these flames - because of the concerns about process
>>that they raise. The process? Exploitation of ignorance. The
>>outcomes for firewalkers who discover how they have been
>>exploited may well be the exact opposite of what was intended.
>>
>>The quotes below come from an article about an experiment in
>>1985:
>>http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~seckel/firewalking.html
>>
>>''Because firewalking seems to be impossible to most people it
>>can also serve as a very powerful manipulative tool in convincing
>>the walker that questionable material taught by a charismatic
>>leader is correct.''
>>
>>''In reality, firewalking has very little to do with training and
>>meditation. The explanation rests instead with the simple laws of
>>physics concerning the transfer of heat.''
>>
>>''There still exist many stunts that do require special training
>>and mental preparation; however, being able to sort out the ones
>>that do from the ones that don't will allow you a better
>>understanding of human potential.''
>>
>>The quote below comes from Prof. Robert Carrol's conclusion of
>>his review of the research:
>>http://skepdic.com/firewalk.html
>>''Should a person be elated at overcoming the fear of firewalking
>>and successfully walking through the fire pit without getting too
>>severely burned? No. The fear is due to ignorance and the elation
>>will surely turn to bitterness when the firewalker finds out that
>>what they have accomplished can be done by just about anyone. On
>>the other hand, those who are depressed because they could not
>>produce the "courage" to walk the coals might take some
>>consolation in the fact that with a little knowledge courage
>>isn't needed.''
>>
>>When it comes to using adventure for educational purposes maybe
>>'small is beautiful'?
>>
>>Roger Greenaway
>>Reviewing Skills Training
>>[log in to unmask]
>>http://reviewing.co.uk
>
>"Humour is by far the most significant activity of the human brain."
>- Edward De Bono, Daily Mail, 29 January, 1990
>--------------------------------------------
>James T. Neill
>Department of Kinesiology
>New Hampshire Hall
>124 Main Street
>Durham, NH 03824
>USA
>voice: 603 862 3047
>fax: 603 862 0154
>email: [log in to unmask]
>http://www.unh.edu/outdoor-education/index.html
Pete Allison FRGS
Outdoor Education
Department of Physical Education, Sport and Leisure Studies
Faculty of Education, The University of Edinburgh
St. Leonards Land, Holyrood Road
Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ
[log in to unmask]
Tel; 0131 651 6001
http://www.education.ed.ac.uk/pesls/oe/index.html
http://www.outdoor-learning.org/journal/journal.htm
Pete Allison FRGS
Outdoor Education
Department of Physical Education, Sport and Leisure Studies
Faculty of Education, The University of Edinburgh
St. Leonards Land, Holyrood Road
Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ
[log in to unmask]
Tel; 0131 651 6001
http://www.education.ed.ac.uk/pesls/oe/index.html
http://www.outdoor-learning.org/journal/journal.htm
|
