Risking a debate: outdoor instructors' perceptions of risk and risk management

Abstract

Risk and risk management are widely debated issues in outdoor education but much of the research to date appears to have been management focused. The objectives of this study were to investigate outdoor instructors' perceptions of risk both in their own lives and in outdoor education and their perceptions of risk management and risk management models. A qualitative approach was used to explore the perceptions of the participants. Using a case study methodology the participants' views were layered with the relevant literature and also a key informant's perspective on the development of risk and risk management in New Zealand. Twelve outdoor instructors were interviewed to explore their perceptions of risk and risk management. Far from risk being a rational and objective phenomena as much of the current risk discourse constructs it, the participants' perceptions of risk and risk management suggested these were bound up with social and cultural factors. Defining risk as the potential to lose something of value and risk management as the process of minimising that loss, did not reflect the multifaceted nature of their experiences. These focused on the potential of gaining something of value when engaging in a risky activity, and managing risks to both minimise the loss and achieve the potential gains. Redefining risk and risk management to reflect the potential to gain something of value as well as the potential to lose something of value allows a wider range of questions to be asked around risk and risk management. The participants did not identify risk management models as being central in their risk management. Risk Analysis Matrix System (RAMS) was considered a useful process but its usefulness declined when used in a generic fashion that did not take into consideration the context of a specific situation or the needs of a particular group of students. Viewing the RAMS as part of a risk management process rather than a product of risk management may make it more useful to outdoor instructors. Reformatting the RAMS to include strategies to maximise the potential positive outcomes and minimise the potential loss would more accurately reflect the processes the participants engaged in their risk management decisions. The student's subjective experience of risk was one of the least visible factors in risk management, yet this should be central as they experience the potential benefits and costs of risk. Further research on the student's subjective experience of outdoor education programmes and risk would aid instructors in delivering outdoor programmes which met the needs of each student.