Are the Mountains Still Speaking for Themselves?

A Defining Tension 20 Years On…

James Neill, Wilderdom http://www.wilderdom.com/JamesNeill.htm

Abstract

Axiomatic issues in adventure education should be examined in more depth,

particular during significant stages of a field’s evolution. The question of the role,

importance, methods, and so on in facilitating adventure education groups has been

attracting considerable attention since the 1960’s. However, there also seems to be

significant reluctance to examining facilitation methods by people who consider doing

so a threat to a more essential quality of adventure-based experiences, based in the

experience. A classic paper on the topic was written in 1980 by Thomas James,

entitled “Can the Mountains Speak for Themselves”. This paper eloquently articulates

the sentiments of the “rock-jocks” and the “touchy-feelies” in terms of the strengths

and weaknesses of their arguments and practices. The “mountains” versus

“facilitation” tension has continued to thrive in adventure education ever since, and is

no less resolved today than it was in 1980. It is suggested, however, that this has

been, and should continue to be, a healthy tension that has irritated and stimulated

adventure education leaders to look more closely at their preferred facilitation styles

and strive to successfully integrate the educative potential of “mountains” and

“facilitation”. The current paper places Thomas James’ “mountains” versus

“facilitation” duality within the context of subsequent proposals of up to six stages of

facilitation (Priest & Gass, 1997), argues that it is necessary to examine the

relationship between the first and second stages (mountains and reflection

respectively) more closely, since they are so fundamental, even axiomatic. The rest of

the current paper goes on to describe a 60 to 90 minute workshop that can be

conducted with adventure education trainee leaders and/or for staff training,

examining the question of “Can the Mountains Speak for Themselves” and relating this

back to individual, personal preferences and beliefs.

© James Neill, 2002, Wilderdom

1

Preamble: Axiomatic Issues in Adventure Education

Adventure education, in its ‘modern’ form, is well over 50 years old. It seems

timely at the beginning of the twenty-first century to reflect upon trends and issues

influencing adventure education programming and to consider the underlying,

seemingly perennial nature of fundamental questions. Science talks about axioms,

the central hunches or beliefs upon which the whole box and dice rest. Adventure

education should also be in the habit of making apparent, and cogitating upon, its

axioms. What fundamental assumptions do the theories and practices of adventure

education base themselves? Mapping out the territory of philosophical assumptions

that are the architecture of outdoor education is a significant task, and few, if any,

could claim to have tackled the task comprehensively and head on. A few names

come to mind, as worthy of consideration – Jasper Hunt and Steve Bowles, for

example. Such thinkers, however, would probably be the first to argue that we need

deeper examination of the fundamental assumptions in order to consider possible

futures and ways forward for adventure education. I personally have particularly

appreciated the work of Jasper Hunt on ethical issues in the adventure education

setting and Steve Bowles’ questioning of the positivistic limitations of the

predominantly North American theoretical and philosophical views that receive

considerable global currency in adventure education circles.

Amongst the potentially axiomatic issues that could be considered for closer

philosophical examination in adventure education are the roles, challenge, risk, safety,

nature, psychological aspects, the leader, and facilitation in adventure education. The

current paper focuses on a facilitation question – specifically the debate that occurs

between those who promote a “let the mountains speak themselves” view versus

those who promote a “facilitated processing of experience is important, in addition (or

integrated with) the “mountains” experience”. Interestingly, this is not a new issue.

Bacon’s (1987) Three Stages in the Evolution of Outward Bound and Priest

and Gass’ (1997) Six Generations of Facilitation

Stephen Bacon (1987) identified three key stages in the evolution of Outward

Bound: 1) a first generation model which focused on experience alone and dominated

programming in the 1960’s and early 1970’s; 2) a second generation model which

emphasised discussion, group process and imported techniques, characteristic of the

1980’s; and 3) a third generation stressing experiential metaphors which we can

gained more prominence during the 1990’s.

© James Neill, 2002, Wilderdom

2

Since this time, Michael Gass (Priest & Gass, 1997) has done some interesting

work expanding the nature and sequencing of reflective processes and the use of

metaphoric framing of activities. In essence, Priest and Gass (1997) proposes shifting

the reflection process from after the experience to before the experience or during the

experience. Frontloading, the fourth stage involves conducting a preview discussion

before an experience to help orient and focus participants during the ensuing activity.

The fifth stages builds upon frontloading by introducing an isomorphic framing, that is,

a metaphorical structure for the activity which has a meaningful link to other aspects

of participants’ lives. The sixth stage is used where up front frontloading and

isomorphic framing may not work, and thus is may involve using paradoxical means,

such as telling participants that an activity will probably be too hard for them to

complete in order to fire their motivation.

Whilst it can be tempting to focus on the intricacies and complexities of the

latter stages, there is no doubt that the vast majority of outdoor education

programming utilizes the first and second stages – letting the experience for itself and

using post-experience reflection to help make sense of an experience. Thus, we

shouldn’t let the proposal of advanced facilitation models blind us to the reality that

the guts of current programming lies in these two more fundamental and critical

stages. What’s more, a vital tension exists between the two models.

Mountains vs. Facilitation

The tension between letting the experience speak for itself and processing of

experience is not new. Thomas James (1980/2000) observed that vehement

arguments about whether or not Outward Bound programs should include more

‘processing’ components dated back at least to the early 1960’s. He claimed that

there has been an enduring, indeed defining, tension between the “rock jocks” and

the “touchy feelies”, which is still very much in evidence today in outdoor education.

The tension makes some uncomfortable, partly because it is perplexing, drives

passions high, and is not easily resolvable. But I suggest the dilemma is a very

healthy one and that professional engagement with the issue is vital to the aliveness

of adventure education. The debate continues to fuel staff planning meetings and

course debriefs every day all over the world and it can be a particularly using topic

when structured into staff training.

A Workshop on “Can the Mountains Speak for Themselves”: Preparation

© James Neill, 2002, Wilderdom

3

I ask trainee staff and undergraduate outdoor education students to read

Thomas James’ class “Can the Mountains Speak for Themselves?” paper before

conducting a 60 to 90 minute workshop and then complete a pre-workshop reflection

sheet. If trainees are not able to read the paper beforehand, then I provide a

summary of the paper at the start of the session. So, I find the session can be done

effectively in 60 minutes if trainees are prepared, and 90 minutes if they are not

prepared. It is preferable, however, that trainees read the paper beforehand because

it is so eloquent and engaging. Remember, download these materials from:

http://www.wilderdom.com/mountainsmaterial.html. The rest of this describes

assumes trainees have done their ‘homework’.

Workshop: Phase 1 – Personal Orientations

I reintroduce students Thomas James’ notion that there are people who prefer

an instructional approach which emphasizes the quality of the actual activity and

experience and allowing students to do their own processing of the experience

(“Mountains”) and those who feel that it is critical to help structure and organize

students’ processing of their experiences, often via debriefing, but there are also

many other creative and more subtle processing techniques such as journal writing.

On a board I then draw a long line, the continuum, as follows (with pictures) and

ask each trainee to place a cross and their initials to represent their preferred

instructional style, given their ideal program and ideal client group. This is fascinating

to watch and discussion will usually ensue quite naturally.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let the Mountains

Speak for Themselves

Facilitate Personal

& Group Process

When everyone’s finished, I then emphasize that there is no right or wrong in

this exercise (trainees often seem to think that the trainer is way towards the

facilitation end – but I usually place myself more towards the mountains side than

most for two reasons – one, its my personal preference, two, it provokes trainees).

© James Neill, 2002, Wilderdom

4

I then ask the couple of folks at the extremes to share with the group their

reasons for their preference and sometimes I’ll also ask for a perspective from

someone right in the middle. The ensuing discussions is always lively and reveals

strong arguments for both ends of the spectrum. I continue probing for viewpoints

until critical comments start emerging about the model itself – the switched on

facilitators will start to make comments like:

“but I use a different style with different groups, so it was very hard for me to place

myself in only one place” or

“groups go through different stages, and so I used different styles depending on

the stage of group development” or

“different participants respond best to different styles and so I try to adapt to meet

each of their needs”.

In the initial stages of the workshop when these kinds of comments come up, I

respond by saying something like, “sure, but at the end of the day, what is your most

comfortable, preferred way of leading a group”. However, when the comments

surface again later in the workshop (may need some prompting), I move into the next

phase.

Workshop Phase 2: Redesigning the Model

Until this point in the workshop, I’ve emphasized the utility and value of Thomas

James’ model. I then suddenly switch gears and invite students to throw the model

away, because its clearly problematic and there needs to be more flexibility.

So, I then ask students to redesign Thomas James’ model in a way that is more

meaningful and useful. They might look blank. So, I suggest that perhaps the line

should be bent into another shape, a triangle or a circle or a spiral. Or perhaps a new

metaphor would be better – some groups have used a bus, a chef, and so on.

Groups then breakout and have about 20 to 30 minutes with large paper and

markers to develop a new model. Each group then gets a few minutes to present their

models. The resultant presentations never fail to impress. I emphasize the vital

importance of us not accepting the written literature without trying to reconceptualize

it for ourselves, in our own organizations and with our own groups.

I then finish by emphasizing some take-home points:

1. Understand that you have a personal preference that influences and guides

the way you operate in group leadership situations

© James Neill, 2002, Wilderdom

5

2. Understand that there are a wide spectrum of preferences and some of the

best instructors are from the opposite ends of the spectrum, so there’s no right or

wrong in what should fundamentally be preferred. There are strong arguments for

both perspectives and there are also potential limitations for both.

3. Develop flexibility in your style – you cannot be a successful instructor by

sticking with your preference – must develop capacity to operate along the full

spectrum.

4. Develop excellent expertise in your preferred style – we have a preference

for a reason, often because we sense it is where our intuitive strength lays. So

develop it further.

Conclusion: Vital Tension and Some Speculations

We need such debates and we can benefit from revisiting defining tensions of

the past. The explosion of adventure education formats in the last 15 or so years

makes it possible to see Bacon’s three stages of program design and Priest and Gass’

(1997) six stages, all in existence - from boot camps to sophisticated adventure

therapy - in different countries, organisations, and even in different programs run by

the same organization. Research on facilitation styles has even suggested that all

three styles could be used within a single program, with different orderings creating

varied processes and outcomes (e.g. see CAT studies by Priest – www.tarrak.com).

We also need to consider individual differences between participants (i.e., does

everyone goes through the same process?) and unique situational influence. Surely

the individual and unique moments play particularly significant roles in the inner

process of experience and transformation? If so, then it becomes difficult to see too

much value in placing emphasis on the facilitation technique without simulataneously

focusing in an indepth way of the experience of the individual. It may, thus, be that

Priest and Gass’ (1997) six stages of facilitation do not go where Thomas James (1980)

and Stephen Bacon (1987) were heading in their papers – towards describing a deeper

spiral in which each of the three models was an important thread, a transformative,

spiritual, even Jungian, type model. Bacon (1983) suggested that the metaphoric

model be supplemented by a mythic or archetypal model in which students access

ancient patterns of learning by symbolically recreating the formative challenges of

heroes and heroines. Of course Bacon (1987) conceded these ideas are not new – in

fact by definition such rites of passage are incredibly old. Priest and Gass’ (1997) six

generations of facilitation seem to describe some specific techniques for presenting

and sequencing the interaction between activities and instructor intervention. At the

very least, we should be wary and critically examine the proposed linear evolution of

© James Neill, 2002, Wilderdom

6

stages suggested first as the “mountains” versus “facilitation” duality suggested by

James (1980) and then expanded by Bacon (1987) and by Priest and Gass (1997).

Neill, J. T. (2002). Are the mountains still speaking for themselves? A defining tension 20 years

on….

http://www.wilderdom.com/mountainsmaterial.html

ReferencesBacon, S. B. (1987). The Evolution of the Outward Bound Process. Greenwich, CT: Outward Bound USA.James, T. (1980/2000). Can the Mountains Speak for Themselves? [republished] Scisco Conscientia, 3.Priest, S., & Gass, M. (1997). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

© James Neill, 2002, Wilderdom

7