Here goes, I'm walking into a mine field "women in outdoor education"

“The outdoor adventure environment is in the main seen as a male domain and although women's participation is increasing (Nolan & Priest, 1994), they continue to be in the minority. This is a factor which can deter other women from becoming involved.” (Boniface 2006)

As an aspiring Mountain Leader I feel that this is an important topic to research and relate my current leading experiences to, as it will not only be interesting as a female leader that may come across difficulties as an instructor, but to also be aware of the problems that female participants may come across whilst being lead as part of a group.

Throughout both my personal involvement in outdoor activities and my leadership in outdoor activities I have never really thought about or researched the topic of women participating in outdoor education or working in the outdoor industry. I personally have always felt as though I have been treated no differently to my male peers and co-workers, and feel that my knowledge of the sports I participate in and lead/ instruct is to the same level as the males who are at a similar experience level to me. On the other hand I have always felt that my performance and skill level has been lower than that of the males who are at a similar experience level to me.

This relates to what Ogilvie (1993) talks about, he presents the theory that until we hit puberty other than the obvious biological differences girls and boys are much the same in both physiological build and physical ability therefor it will only be the mental state that differentiates genders and effects performance. He then goes on to say that after puberty physiological differences will start to play a part in the difference of performance between genders, he says “boys in the main are heavier built and stronger than girls. Beyond this point the way in which these differences are overlain with other misapplied meanings, creates a whole mish-mash of misinterpretations and misconceptions. ‘Stronger’ suddenly becomes ‘better’ or ‘superior’. ‘More powerful’ becomes ‘domineering’ and ‘over-powering’. Power values for weight-strength ratios are discounted as are the benefits of being ‘light’ or having a low centre of gravity.”

I agree with the statement that by and large most boys are bigger built and stronger that girls but I do not feel that I have ever come across a situation whilst leading in which because the male is stronger he feels that he is superior or dominant, this may be because I have only limited leading experience and this type of situation hasn’t ever come about, or the males within the groups I have lead may have been thinking that they have dominance but have not shown it in such a way that it has been obvious to see. In my experiences of not only being a leader but also being a participant in outdoor activities, I have felt that personality traits are far more likely to decide who has dominance over who rather than gender type.

In 1988 Ewert carried out a study on the differences in men and women when it came to “situational fears associated with outdoor recreation”. He found that in various situations relating to physical, social and psychological threats women reported back as having higher levels of fear compared to men. Leary (1983) argued that in his previous research there was no consistent evidence that showed women were more fearful than men. Ewert then concluded that women are more likely to admit their fears. (Ewert. 1988 + Leary. 1983 cited in Boniface 2006)

I have come across this whilst leading the ten tors group. It seemed to be that after a particularly bad weekend on Dartmoor the whole group doubted their ability to carry out the challenge due to various weaknesses like navigational difficulties and fitness levels. None of the boys stepped forward and voiced their fears that they might not be able to go ahead with the challenge, it was the only girl in the group that came forward and talked to myself and another group leader about the fears that she had about the challenge. It was only later on after we had discussed these fears with the rest of the males in the group that they admitted to having some of the same fears.

All of the theories above can relate to both female leaders leading alongside male leaders, and female participants in a group with male participants, but Ogilvie talks about how female leaders are accepted by the groups they lead. He says that with all generalisations not all groups will act the same but in most of his observations groups react differently to female leaders than male leaders. He states this is down to expectations, when participating in a outdoors activity people expect to be led by a male instructor, so when they get a female their ideas about leadership roles in the outdoors is shaken up and this can lead to mixed responses including the feelings of disappointment, resentment, or outrage which will show in a variety of ways which will generally test the worthiness of the leader to gage whether they are worthy of respect.

Generally the groups I have lead have had female leaders before me so are used to the idea of female leaders. I have never been tested yet as female instructor or leader but now I understand the importance of first impressions when leading a group and making sure that they know that even though I am a female operating in a male dominated industry I am perfectly capable of doing the job I am there to do and I would not be there otherwise.

This is still an on-going debate in the outdoor industry and research is still being conducted on the subject. I have only touched lightly on the surface of all the theory behind female leadership and am keen to learn more to hopefully aid my career as a female working in the outdoor education industry.

Reference

Ewert. 1988 cited in Maggie Boniface (2006): The meaning of adventurous activities for ‘women in the outdoors’, Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 6:1, 9-24

 Ken C. Ogilvie (1993) Leading and Managing Groups in the Outdoors: 2^nd edition. Published by the institute for outdoor learning: printed by Fingerprints, Barrow-in-Furness

 Leary. 1983 cited in Maggie Boniface (2006): The meaning of adventurous activities for ‘women in the outdoors’, Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 6:1, 9-24

Maggie Boniface (2006): The meaning of adventurous activities for ‘women in the outdoors’, Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 6:1, 9-24

Team Cohesion and Motivational Needs.

On a recent expedition on Dartmoor with a group of ten tors students, it was interesting to observe how the team worked together to achieve goals and overcome difficulties. Carron (1982) suggested that there are four factors which effect cohesiveness of a team:

-Situational factors e.g. physical factors such as the environment, weather and group size.
- Individual factors such as the characteristics of each individual in the team, what kind of mood each person is in this could be affected by personal issues etc.
-Team factors this includes past experiences the team has had together, team dynamics, communication and collective goals.
-Leadership factors, leadership plays a big part in how cohesive a team is.

Whilst observing the team I noticed how they stopped being cohesive at one moment in particular, at this moment there were several factors playing a part in why they became in-cohesive, but this particular study will concentrate on Individual factors only.

The majority of the group were tired, cold, hungry, and dehydrated. Maslow (1954) created a theory model called the Hierarchy of needs (as seen below), according to this a person will only be motivated to progress to higher levels on the pyramid, once they have sufficiently satisfied the needs of the lower levels such as physiological and safety. So for some of the individuals in the group their basic needs on the bottom physiological levels such as food, sleep and water were not being met therefore their motivations were not concentrated on aspects of the higher levels such as problem solving e.g. map reading to navigate off the moor.

 

Maslow also observed that this theory is backed up by a passage in the bible by Deuteronomy 8:3, He takes the passage and paraphrases it as he interprets it.
“It is quite true that man lives by bread alone — when there is no bread. But what happens to man's desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled? At once other (and higher) needs emerge and these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still higher) needs emerge, and so on. This is what we mean when we say that the basic human needs are organized into a hierarchy of relative prepotency.^”      (Maslow. 1954: cited in Lowry. 1999)

However Diner (2011) questioned Maslow’s theory and did a study into it to see if it worked practically. After the study he said  "Our findings suggest that Maslow's theory is largely correct. In cultures all over the world the fulfilment of his proposed needs correlates with happiness, However, an important departure from Maslow's theory is that we found that a person can report having good social relationships and self-actualization even if their basic needs and safety needs are not completely fulfilled." (Diener. 2011)

So according to Maslow we would have to satisfy all of the lower level needs to encourage the individuals in the group to become motivated to navigate off the moor, but according to Diener it would be down to the individual as to how many of those needs need to be met before they could progress to higher levels. We met some of the individuals needs by providing some of Maslow’s physiological needs, we provided the team with a hot drink, and a bag of sweets. This not only met some of the basic needs but also boosted morale and energy levels.

So bringing it all back to Carron’s theory about group cohesiveness we had now catered for as many of the groups individual needs as possible using Maslow and Diener’s theories, this allowed us to change the individual, personal factors within the team, so we could then go on to think about the other 3 factors that affect cohesiveness and how we could change those factors to bring the team cohesion up to a level at which they could work effectively.  

Reference

Carron, A.V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138.

Deuteronomy 8:3 cited in Lowry, R. (1999) A.H. Maslow's Vision of Human Nature [Online] Available at: http://www.maslow.org/sub/lowry1.htm[Accessed 14.05.11]

Dina (2007) Social Media Strategies – lets remember Maslow! [Online] Available at: http://dinamehta.com/blog/2007/10/18/social-media-strategies-lets-remember-maslow/ [Accessed 14.05.12]

Maslow 1954 cited in Lowry, R. (1999) A.H. Maslow's Vision of Human Nature [Online] Available at: http://www.maslow.org/sub/lowry1.htm [Accessed 14.05.11]

Needs and subjective well-being around the world.

Tay, Louis; Diener, Ed
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 101(2), Aug 2011, 354-365.

Here come the next two....

So its come to that time when everything on the course is sadly coming to an end and as one of the last pieces of work to had in, two more leadership blogs are due in for the mountain leadership module.

As I am writing them now I am wishing I had started them slightly earlier as I have found that I am actually thoroughly enjoying both researching and writing them, but as per usual I have left everything to the last minute (old habits die hard).

As an introduction to the  next two blogs I have found a few pieces of text that I feel fit nicely on the subject of mountain leadership.

Ogilvie quotes "One of the difficulties for trainee leaders is trying to grasp how everything they have learned about leading theory fits together and works on a practical day out with a group. It is a bold leader these days who, in effect, jumps into the pool in order to learn how to swim. There is nothing to beat experience gained as an assistant leader to a group."
I thought this quote quite nicely sums up the aims of the past year in mountain leadership, learning all about leading groups out on the mountain.

Ogilvie also says "whether or not the training course of your chosen training agency or national governing body requires you to keep a log book of of your experience, it is a good idea to do so. In it the act of writing is an opportunity to reflect on your own experiences and whatever useful or memorable lessons can be drawn from them. To learn requires one to think. Learning only takes place after thinking. The leader who stops thinking is dead"

This quote sums up perfectly the purpose of writing these reflective blogs, I especially like the last part of this quote " The leader who stops thinking is dead"

This theory is backed up well by the popular, well used "plan, do, review and revise" cycle by Greenaway 1991.

one last quote that captured my imagination was by J.M. Burns (1978) "Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth"
This has seemed to become more and more apparent  as I have been researching into the many theories and arguments behind leadership.

As I said before I have thoroughly enjoyed researching and writing these next 2 blogs (so far!) so I hope anyone reading will enjoy them just as much.