REFEREED ARTICLE
Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 18(1), 2–15, 2015
Editorial
John Quay
Welcome to volume 18 of the Australian Journal of
Outdoor Education. May I introduce myself as the new
editor of the journal, and at the same time thank Robyn
Zink for her work as editor over the last four years. In this
issue are four refereed papers, one non-refereed paper,
and a book review. Thank you to the reviewers who have
been involved with the development of these papers.
Two of the refereed papers highlight concerns with
decision making in our field, both theoretically and in
practice. Decision making brings with it high levels of
complexity, which require theoretical consideration of
practical instances in order to advance both theoretical
and practical understanding. Mike Boyes and Tom Potter
investigate decisions made by experienced outdoor
leaders during bushwalking expeditions in the Southern
Alps of New Zealand. They consider this context one
of Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM), which can be
understood in light of the concept of Recognition-Primed
Decisions (RPD). A major contribution of this empirical
work is the categorisation of decision situations into a
taxonomy relevant to outdoor education.
Sean Murray is also concerned with decision making,
but this time as applied in the area of risk management
planning, raising questions about the breadth of application
of recommendations made by the Queensland Coroner in
connection with commercial rafting participant fatalities.
Again, the complexity of decision-making processes is
highlighted in the realm of safety in outdoor adventure
activities, but the differences between commercial and
educational operations are foregrounded as key to these
processes. Ignoring them brings with it other risks.
The refereed paper by Beau Miles and Brian Wattchow
draws attention to the culturally and textually constructed
nature of adventure. Employing sea kayaking as an empirical
frame of reference, the issue of how adventure is presented
narratively brings to light not only the more obvious external
features of an adventure, but perhaps more importantly the
internal — enabling a window into understandings of self,
identity and meaning making. Both internal and external are
co-constitutive of these meaning-making journeys, some of
which reach to the extremes of human experience.
The other refereed paper is from Paul Stuhr, Sue
Sutherland, Jim Ressler and Esther Ortiz-Stuhr, and
continues the theme of adventure by examining the impact
on relationship skills of an Adventure-based Learning
(ABL) unit of instruction within physical education. This
investigation involved a qualitative case study that drew
on middle school students’ perceptions of this ABL unit
in connection with their intrapersonal and interpersonal
relationship skills. Findings suggest that students were
capable of connecting with, valuing, developing, and
transferring relationship skills learnt during the ABL unit.
1 2
The non-refereed paper offers an insightful excursion
through the nutritional potentialities of including wild foods
in our diet. David Kowalewski perceives the lack of success
sometimes attributed to the regular ways in which we
promote conservation and so takes a more novel approach
— through nutrition — arguing that the nutritional benefits
of wild foods is a further reason for valuing wilderness.
The book review in this issue features Tall Ships
Today: Their Remarkable Story, authored by Nigel Rowe,
Ron Dadswell, Colin Mudie and Michael Rauworth, with
a Preface by HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and published
by Adlard Coles Nautical, Bloomsbury. The review was
conducted by Pete Allison and highlights the role that tall
ships have played in historical terms and also today in
sail training. The book appeals to a variety of audiences,
amongst whom academics feature prominently.
The journal has now been in continuous operation
since volume 1 appeared in 1995. Over these years the
journal has contributed to informing a wide professional
audience by providing an outlet for research and scholarship
in outdoor education. The aim is to continue this tradition.
However, there is a change which will ensue with the next
volume, which also marks the journal’s twenty-first year.
The next volume will involve a change in name
to the Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education.
This brings the journal into line with other major
journals in this field, including the Journal of Adventure
Education and Outdoor Learning based in the UK, and
the Journal of Experiential Education and the Journal of
Outdoor Recreation, Education and Leadership in the USA.
It is generally understood that these journals originate in
particular locations, but they do not wear this location in
their titles, meaning that they appeal more directly to an
international audience of contributors and readers.
In addition, the Journal of Outdoor and
Environmental Education expresses a content niche
amongst these journals in more specifically catering to
research and scholarship that embraces environmental
education aspects of outdoor education, while not
excluding papers from adventure education, experiential
education or outdoor recreation. A further benefit of
the name change is that it does not obviously exclude
colleagues in New Zealand. To mark this change there
will be a special issue released in the next volume, during
2016.
John Quay, Ph.D
Editor
The application of recognition-primed decision theory to
decisions made in an outdoor education context
Mike Boyes and Tom Potter
University of Otago, Lakehead University
Abstract
This research examined the decisions that highly experienced outdoor leaders made on backpacking expeditions conducted
by a tertiary institution in the Southern Alps of New Zealand. The purpose of the research was to document decision problems
and explore them as Recognition-Primed Decisions (RPD) within naturalistic decision making (NDM) contexts. Data were
obtained through critical decision method interviews to generate retrospective verbal protocols. The data generated decision
situations that were categorised into taxonomies consisting of five themes: logistical, safety, pedagogical, environmental
and group dynamics. Across the themes, the defining features of outdoor education situations were teaching and learning
processes where decisions were made, modelled and practised. The decisions were analysed with the RPD model. Some
were straightforward and relied on the experience based intuitive recognition of the leader for fast resolution. Others
required more analysis to better understand the situation or deeper consideration of the options available, and in some cases
both. Many field-based decisions were underpinned by prior departmental planning processes. Experience and planning
supported recognition of the teachable moment particularly in pedagogical and environmental decisions. Consistent with the
RPD model, intuitive judgements arose from experience and intuition was based on recognition. The research applies RPD
into outdoor pedagogical situations and identifies the unique decision features of the outdoor education context.
Keywords: outdoor leadership, recognition-primed decision making, outdoor education
Introduction (e.g., to cross a river or not, and if so, where, how
and when). Consequently, the importance of leader
Outdoor leaders take people into the outdoors decisions varies from inconsequential to paramount.
in a myriad of ways. Included are activities such Drury, Bonney, Berman and Wagstaff (2005) proposed
as rock-climbing, kayaking and mountain biking, a classification of decisions on a continuum from
through diverse domains such as outdoor education, simple to complex (see also Martin et al, 2006).
adventure tourism, and club trips. Much of the Here, decisions could be classified depending on a
learning and welfare of group members are in the combination of contextual factors including degrees
leader's hands. There is widespread agreement that of challenge, uncertainty, predictability of outcome,
outdoor programme implementation relies on effective time pressure, threat, emotionality and situational
decision making (DM) (Martin, Cashel, Wagstaff & understanding. Consideration of these arrays appears
Breunig, 2006; Shooter & Furman, 2011). in several text books (see Drury et al., 2005; Martin et
al., 2006; Priest & Gass, 2005).
It is well recognised that the outdoors is a
complex and dynamic decision-making environment Some empirical research has been conducted
(Galloway, 2002; Martin, Schmid & Parker, 2009; Tozer, to explore different outdoor decision situations.
Fazey & Fazey, 2007). The natural environment has These include: outdoor pursuits leaders (Beare &
intrinsic elements of risk and uncontrolled variables Lynch, 2005); outdoor education leaders (Boyes &
presented by elements such as weather, height, water O’Hare, 2003); medical decision making by Outward
and speed (New Zealand Department of Labour, Bound staff (Galloway, 2007); and outdoor leaders
2010). Adding to this complexity is the uniqueness on a Wilderness Education Association course
of individuals and the dynamics of groups. Decision (Martin et al., 2009). Their decision problems include
circumstances for outdoor leaders vary greatly, with emergency situations such as hypothermia, a lost
some situations pressured and changeable and others person, and a spinal injury, as well as whether to
stable and consistent. The dynamic interactions cross an alpine pass and a river. Also included are
between and among participants, leaders and the decisions about extending a cross country ski trip to
environment means that leaders of outdoor activities increase the level of challenge. Despite the universality
make countless decisions during an excursion. of decisions, researchers have yet to develop a
taxonomy of outdoor leadership decisions based on
Examples of outdoor decisions include: (a) place empirical evidence. A deeper understanding would
(e.g., where to camp); (b) time (e.g., when to stop for be useful as a basis for understanding more about
lunch); (c) the needs of individuals (e.g., comfort, how different contexts and levels of complexity
safety); and (d) the group process (e.g., is everyone influence decision processes. The implications of
happy). Depending on context, these could be simple this approach may be useful to inform the education
or complex decision situations that affect the quality of of new and existing leaders and contribute to better
an adventure experience and the safety of participants practice. The present research explores the range of
Recognition-primed decision theory
decisions made by six highly experienced outdoor
leaders and presents their data in taxonomies. Some
of their key decisions are then explored through
the lens of Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM).
Naturalistic decision making
Hitherto, a modest amount of empirical research
investigates outdoor leader decision making and a
comprehensive understanding has yet to be agreed
upon (Furman, Shooter & Schumann, 2010). Some
researchers have focussed on classical DM models
where multiple options for action are generated,
whereby in a rational, comparative process, the best
perceived solution is chosen and implemented (e.g.,
Drury et al., 2005; Priest & Gass, 2005). In contrast,
the field-based naturalistic models of DM (NDM)
focus on expert performance and the role of intuition
in expediently selecting an option without following
a comparative process (Beare & Lynch, 2005; Boyes
& O’Hare, 2003, 2011; Galloway, 2005, 2007). Other
researchers concentrate on heuristics and biases where
simplifying strategies (rules of thumb) are developed
to manage problem solving in complex situations
(e.g., McCammon, 2004). More recently, interest has
turned to dual-processing models of decision making
where two distinct processes operate, the intuitive and
the analytical (Evans, 2008). While NDM relies more
on intuitive recognition, elements of analysis are also
present (Kahneman & Klein, 2009).
The present research concentrates on NDM in
order to further understand the decision making of
highly experienced outdoor leaders. NDM is based
on observations of how expert leaders actually make
decisions in the field. NDM is performed under
conditions of (a) uncertain dynamic environments;
(b) changing and evolving goals; (c) action and
feedback loops; (d) time constraints; (e) meaningful
consequences; (f) multiple players; and (g) the
influence of organisational goals and norms (Zsambok
& Klein, 1997). Unique combinations of these
conditions appear in different outdoor scenarios. Since
the nature of each outdoor situation will predispose
decisions made, effective outdoor leaders should
carefully consider these conditions. NDM includes not
only the process of how decisions are made but also
the context within which they are made (Galloway,
2007; Martin et al., 2009; Shooter & Furman, 2011).
There is considerable research on NDM in
other leadership domains (see Chaudet, Pellegrin &
Bonnardel, 2013). NDM is appropriate for analysing
the decision making of experienced outdoor leaders
because: (a) it encapsulates the vibrant, naturalistic
environments of the outdoors; (b) it is based on the
practical experiences of experts; (c) it examines the
cognitive effect of expertise; (d) it embraces varying
levels of decision complexity; (e) it captures the
3 4
interplay between task, person and environment; (f)
it integrates the interplay of intuition and analysis
within a decision process and (g) the organisation’s
goals and norms are a salient part of the situation
(Salmon, Cornelissen & Trotter, 2012).
The applicibility and value of NDM relies on
leaders drawing on their considerable experience in
specific contexts (Klein, 1989). According to Klein
(1989), expert leaders’ situational assessments are
normally intuitive and automatic. This means that
leaders know what to do from recognising cues,
leading automatically to an appropriate action. For
example, in recognising the cues and timing of an
incoming electrical storm, experienced leaders can
take appropriate action to reduce the level of risk
to participants. NDM decision makers intuitively
generate a candidate solution and focus on it through
mental simulation and progressive deepening (Boyes
& O’Hare, 2011; Klein, 1989). Usually their intutiive
option is enacted. Only if a flaw is perceived is another
option generated for consideration. The reselection
process is analytical and deliberate in the sense that a
preferred solution is carefully assessed (Kahneman &
Klein, 2009).
NDM research in outdoor education field
conditions has been conducted by Beare and Lynch
(2005), Boyes (1999), Boyes and O’Hare (2003, 2011),
and Galloway (2002, 2005, 2007). Given the complexity
of DM, different aspects were considered by these
researchers. Boyes (1999) focused on the role of
intuition and employed the critical decision method
to conduct interviews with 10 highly experienced
leaders. A series of cognitive task analyses mapped
the key features of their decisions. The decisions were
then structured into seven computer simulations that
were undertaken by 106 experienced outdoor leaders
to explore situational awareness and option selection
(see Boyes & O’Hare, 2011). Key outcomes included
the importance of situational recognition and prior
experience as the basis for sound decision making.
In another piece of naturalistic work, Boyes &
O’Hare (2003) proposed a conceptual model that
focused on outdoor leaders’ situational awareness
and assessment to provide an optimum balance
of challenge for their group members. The most
advantageous position was proposed to be located
between risk opportunity and individual and group
competence. A key attribute of successful DM was
the ability of outdoor leaders to assess situations and
make adjustments towards the ideal level of challenge.
In contrast to the work with expert leaders,
Galloway has concentrated much more on the
differences between novices and experts. Galloway
(2002) utilised the NDM framework to confirm a
set of a priori theoretical differences between the
DM of outdoor novices and experts. He supported
the importance of naturalistic contexts and first
hand experience to provide meaningful training
experiences. These ideas were later applied in the
context of the medical decision making of outdoor
leaders (Galloway, 2007). When determining whether
or not to evacuate injured participants from the field,
outdoor leaders with significant field experience were
more context dependent as compared to the novice
leaders. In addition, experienced outdoor leaders
were less influenced by group cohesion when making
their decisions. In work in 2004, Galloway, Ewert and
Shellman discussed the prevalence of the NDM field
settings (e.g., uncertain dynamic environments) in the
outdoor education context.
The relevance of the NDM context to outdoor
education situations is also supported by Beare &
Lynch (2005). In a study of the decision-making
processes of 23 expert mountaineers and kayakers,
the researchers focused on unknown, unexpected
and often time pressured situations. Their leaders
consistently drew on their experience in all facets of
the decision process. Situational assessment was an
ongoing, proactive process, with the leaders seeking
out cues and expectancies along the lines of Klein’s
(1989) Recognition-Primed Decision Model (RPD),
which will be introduced in the following paragraph.
To date there is no empirical research in outdoor
education that refutes NDM, but in reality there are
many questions yet to be asked, e.g., how do novices
learn NDM?
Recognition-primed decision making (RPD)
The most prevalent NDM model is Klein’s
(1989) recognition primed decision-making model
(RPD) where expertise is embraced, supplemented by
consideration of intuitive and analytical processing of
information to come to a decision. Klein’s model has
four main features: situational recognition, situational
understanding, mental simulation and serial
evaluation (see Figure 1). In situational recognition, a
decision problem is recognised as typical or familiar
to something encountered before, hence matched to a
repertoire of memory patterns (Klein, 2008). This leads
to situational understanding where the decision-maker
recognises the following four types of information:
plausible goals, relevant cues, expectancies and typical
actions. Plausible goals relate to specific achievable
outcomes for the decision maker (e.g., in the previous
example of an electrical storm, it was to quickly reduce
the level of risk to participants), and relevant cues
refer to recognition of the key information available
and what it means (e.g., anvil shaped cumulonimbus
clouds and thunder). Expectancies provide an
understanding of what is likely to happen and when
(e.g., incoming storm with hazardous winds and
lightning), and typical actions generate an option
Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 18(1), 2–15, 2015
for implementation (e.g., moving to safer terrain).
Mental simulation is an analytical component where
a candidate option is deliberated (Klein, 2008). Only
if a problem is detected with the selection is another
option considered; often the first choice is the only
one considered. This enables rapid decision making in
times of need.
Klein (1997) identified three different kinds of
situations where variants of his model were employed.
Firstly, in a simple match, recognition is automatic and
does not require further situational assessment. The
desired action is obvious and little mental simulation
is required. This variant operates mostly within an
intuitive, automatic, subconscious process. Secondly,
Klein identified decisions where more cognitive work
was needed to understand the situation. If a decision
problem is unclear more work is required to diagnose
the situation in order to obtain a clearer understanding
from which to proceed. Once typicality is obtained, the
process proceeds as for the simple match. In the third
variant, the decision problem and recognition is clear
but cognitive work is needed at the mental simulation
level to evaluate a candidate solution. At both the
situation assessment level and the solution evaluation
level the cognitive work engages conscious memory, is
analytical, deliberate and conscious (Klein, 2008).
RPD is unique in embracing intuition as the
guiding influence in making decisions. Experts
recognise critical cues in specific natural environments
and identify patterns from memory through
subconscious, automated cognition (Kahneman &
Klein, 2009). From their experiences, option selection
is often automatic and time efficient. However, there
are times when there is an interaction of the intuitive
and the analytical, especially when the variants of
RPD necessitate more cognitive work (Kahneman &
Klein, 2009; Klein, 2008).
Some of the limitations of NDM include
applicability where the leaders are less experienced,
face unfamiliar tasks or encounter goal conflict (Klein,
Orasanu, Calderwood & Zsambok, 1993). Mosier and
Fischer (2009) question the role of tacit knowledge,
emotion and the affective domain in NDM. Hoffman
& Militello (2009) identify the problem of capturing
mental operations in linear causal sequences when
the mind may work quite differently. Also noticeable
is the vast amount of qualitative research on NDM
and the scarcity of experimental quantitative studies
(Ericsson, 2005).
In summary, our intentions are to gain more
understanding of the complexity and unique features
of outdoor scenarios and how a leader’s RPD is
influenced by self, context, group and environment.
The approach has the limitation of not considering
other ways that leaders make decisions. Regardless,
Recognition-primed decision theory
Figure 1. Model of recognition-primed decision making (reprinted with permission from Klein et al., 1993).
the research may be valuable to improve safe and
quality leadership practise and to develop protocols to
support it. This paper explores the following research
questions: (1) What kinds of field-based decisions are
made by experienced outdoor leaders? (2) How do
these decisions: (a) meet the NDM criteria, (b) draw on
the leaders’ previous experience and (c) fit the variants
of the Recognition-Primed Decision (RPD) model?
Method
The research participants were selected
purposively and included four males and two females
ranging in age from 28 to 54 years. The criteria for
selection were depth of experience, years of working as
outdoor leaders in the institution, outdoor leadership
qualifications, positive student evaluations, and
availability. As is typical in NDM, experts are scarce
and sample sizes low (see Bruce, 2011, p. 21). The
leaders were highly experienced with an average of 25
years of involvement in bush/mountain backpacking
in personal participation and leadership roles. All
of the leaders held at least one outdoor instructors’
qualification, mostly from the New Zealand Outdoor
Instructors Association or the New Zealand Mountain
Safety Council. All held current outdoor first aid
certificates. As such, the leaders could validly be
regarded as experts in their fields.
The critical decision method was used to
interview outdoor leaders about their decisions
(Klein, Calderwood & MacGregor, 1989). They were
asked to recount memorable incidents in which their
5 6
skills and experience were applied. This method is
common to NDM studies and develops retrospective
verbal protocols that have been a rich source of
comprehensive data (Chaudet et al., 2013). The data
are often examined and represented in the form of a
cognitive task analysis where context and cognitive
work are presented sequentially as the scenario
unfolds (Gordon & Gill, 1997).
Qualitative data were obtained using semi-
structured interview techniques with a standardised
interview guide (Creswell, 2014). This was
supplemented by potential consequential questions
and allowed the researchers to follow leads in an
ad hoc manner. To provide focus, the context was
set as the five-to-six day backpacking expeditions
conducted by a tertiary institution in the Southern
Alps of New Zealand. The expeditions took place in
heavily forested alpine valleys, sub-alpine vegetation
and low level alpine passes. The interviews were
retrospective, discussing decision-making situations
that occurred within the prior two years. The focus
was on specifically recalled decisions within a specific
journey.
The participants were initially asked to recall one
of their backpacking expeditions from the last two
years. They were then cognitively walked through
the weeklong journey, recalling the events of each
day and the decisions that were made. A focus was
then made on specific memorable decisions that
were typical of a theme, for example, a decision
around selecting a place to camp, or around the
welfare of an individual. A priori categories had
been established based on Klein’s RPD model and
structured through the cognitive task analysis (CTA)
framework employed by Boyes & O’Hare (2003). Each
CTA included: (1) the identification of the goals of
the leader and participants; (2) the information cues;
(3) the understanding of what the cues meant; (4) the
options for action considered; and (5) the outcomes of
the decision. These provided a focus for reconstructing
the decision and to obtain the information desired.
NDM criteria were discussed and an opinion gained
on their relevance in each CTA decision. Questions
were asked about the different stages of the decision
and how the leaders’ expertise was used within that
process. In order to better address the variants of Klein’s
RPD model, the questioning then moved to exploring
the role of intuition and analysis in the decision process.
Most of the interviews took 40–60 minutes
and the data were recorded for transcription and
analysis. Participants reviewed their transcripts in a
member checking process. For research question one,
"What kinds of field-based decisions are made by a
group of experienced outdoor leaders?", decisions
were identified from the six transcripts and coded
thematically into decision themes and subthemes.
For research question two; “How do these decisions:
(a) meet the NDM criteria, (b) draw on the leader’s
previous experience and (c) fit the variants of the
Recognition-Primed Decision (RPD) model?" the
general frameworks were established from NDM and
RPD so deductive coding applied the general to the
specific. To more effectively capture the detail in the
variants of the RPD model, the three variants were
expanded to four levels: (1) a simple match where
both situational understanding and option selection
were automatic; (2) decisions where more cognitive
effort was needed to understand the situation; (3)
decisions where the situation was understood but
option selection was problematic; and (4) where
both situational understanding and option selection
required analysis. The two researchers audited each
other's work, with different interpretations discussed
and reconciled. The participant leaders also reviewed
the results to ensure accuracy.
Results and discussion
What kinds of decisions do outdoor leaders make?
Each of the leaders was asked to detail the
decisions they made on a five-to-six day backpacking
trip they led in the Southern Alps in New Zealand.
About 40 decisions were identified from the
transcripts. Many were inconsequential and 18 were
complex and explored in more detail. The following
five clusters of themes representing different types
of decisions emerged from the data: (1) logistical; (2)
safety; (3) pedagogical; (4) environmental; and (5)
Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 18(1), 2–15, 2015
group dynamics. Sub-themes provide detail for each
theme and verbatim examples from leaders offer
context and perspective. While some of the sub-themes
can fit into more than one theme, we chose the one of
best fit. Next we conducted an initial exploration of
the role of the leaders’ planning processes in making
and pre-empting decisions. This is followed by a
discussion of the themes.
Salmon, Cornelisson and Trotter (2012) highlight
the influence of organisational climate, organisational
process and resource management on accident
causation. The decisions of individuals reside in
a social milieu. In the present study many of the
decisions made in the field were pre-empted by a
series of departmental meetings held with leaders
prior to the expeditions. In the meetings the broader
context, specific goals and general information about
the programme and students were presented. Included
were items such as general safety management and
emergency response plans, curriculum, sample
menus, the radio schedule and evacuation procedures.
The leaders’ planning was a combination of mental
and physical activities. For instance, thought
processes were engaged by examining maps of the
route, obtaining up-to-date ground conditions and
discussions with others who had been in the area.
Physical activities included selecting and preparing
the personal and group equipment for the expeditions,
including items such as tents, cooking equipment,
mountain radios and locator beacons. Particularly
with pedagogical and environmental decisions,
the planning included content preparation and
preparedness for those specific decision points when
the teachable moment was recognised as the time and
place to engage learning processes.
Thinking about decisions beforehand took place
throughout the expeditions and set up intuitive
recognition. At the planning meetings participant S
talked about how he decided on the route: “It’s pretty
much local knowledge. What do I know about this
area? What can we do, what can’t we do?” Another
participant acknowledged: “I do plan things, but I also
like to be able to utilize opportunities that come up”
(G). Pre-planning decisions during the expeditions
took place in advance: “The drive up is definitely
my planning phase” (S) and during the expeditions
“I lay in my tent that night thinkin’ it all through”
(C). Zsambok & Klein (1997) identified that there is a
danger in being committed to predetermined plans
that can become redundant in rapidly changing field-
based situations. Similarly, not every preplanned
decision came into reality. Rather, the planning
provided the leaders with appropriate resources,
consideration of potential problems and contingency
response plans. Having previously engaged in mental
rehearsal, the leaders only needed the cues to invoke
their actions.
Recognition-primed decision theory Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 18(1), 2–15, 2015

Logistical decisions Table 2. Safety decisions

The data demonstrate the leaders constantly
considered and made logistical decisions before
and during their outdoor journey to facilitate the
best outdoor experiences possible for their students.
Prior to and during an outdoor journey a leader is
faced with a myriad of logistical decisions of varying
importance (see Table 1). Examples of the seemingly
inconsequential include whether to carry tents or
tent-flys, and when to stop for lunch. Some seemingly
inconsequential decisions can have profound
consequences. For example, one leader described Sub-themes Examples
choosing not to stop to fill water bottles presuming
there would be water en route. This was not the case River crossing I took one look at the river and knew it wasn’t on. So we camped and waited. (C)
and resulted a few hours later in a crisis with thirsty,
dehydrated people and no water in sight. Most of the Water and snack stops We decided to stop every hour or so and have a good break and make sure everyone
decisions were seemingly anticipated by the leaders, ate and drank. (M)
such as departure time; however, with little warning
plans were altered by subsequent events, such as Treating injuries [In the group] I had blisters, a wrenched knee, an ankle and several small lacerations
weather conditions and a slow pace that drastically and splinters. (C)

Pace & route The pace slowed quite significantly and students wanted more rests. …. It wasn’t
Table 1. Logistical decisions modification suppose to be a long day, but it became a long day. Initially I thought there would be
enough time … I hadn’t planned for this slow walking. (M)

Sub-themes Examples Identifying support I like to identify the stronger students as early as I can; the person in the group I can
people delegate to if something did go wrong. (B)
Lunch stop I had a yarn to the couple of student leaders about where a good place to stop might
be and what factors we might consider in that. (A) Intervention level with We could have had an incident but I decided to step in… I didn’t like to have to
student leadership override the student leaders, but that needed to be done. (G)
Campsite We left late so I needed to find another place to camp. (C)
Dealing with Then the cloud build-up and the temperatures dropped and the wind increase. I
Equipment The carrying of tents, also meant they carried bed mats and it made their packs a bit challenging weather thought about what I’m gonna do, what are my options? (C)
heavier. (M)
Communication The satellite phone was on the gear list, it was a given that it was our primary means
Departure times We decided to stop every hour or so and have a good break. (M) systems of communication in the field. (G)

Pace I was watching them to see signs of tiredness, or people getting low on blood sugars; Potential hypothermia And we got wet and there was more wind in the open. We walked for a while and got
just when and where to stop is the question. (C) colder and wetter. (C)

Who’s leading I wanted each of the students to be identifying one section that they wanted to be Placement of leader in Most of the time I delegated leadership and walked at the back. If it got tricky I led.
leading. (G) group (C)

Route I had general ideas of where I wanted to walk to each day. (M) Ensure students eat I was watching who was eating, who was not, which I see as really important. (B)
well
Food provision We got students to plan, purchase and prepare their own food. (M)
Route finding We couldn’t find the next pole so milled around for ages working out what to do
Weather check The weather forecast that we get the night before from Mountain Radio plays a big next. (C)
part. (B)

influenced route options. It was important that the
leaders recognised the importance of decisions and
remained adaptable to changing situations.
Safety decisions
Safety decisions proved to be broad, continous
and paramount for leaders (see Table 2). Dealing with
inclement weather and river crossings were hazards
presented by the environment that demanded timely
decisions. In one of these hypothermia was prevented.
One group being temporarily lost also provided a
decision-making challenge. Several decision situations
relating to people’s welfare were reported including
the diagnosis and treatment of minor injuries, ensuring
an appropriate walking pace was maintained and the
maintenance of energy and hydration levels. Other
safety practices reported included the placement
of the leader in the walking group. Decisions about
individual and party equipment had been made in
the planning meetings and the individual gear check
prior to departure. Safety was of the utmost priority
for all of the leaders and was often at odds with the
pedagogical benefits of giving students much of the
leadership and decision-making power; the leaders
had to be vigilent with this balance. Additional stress
on decisions came from pressure to complete journeys
in the planned length of time and to provide students
with safe and educational experiences. Decisions were
made in a multi-tasking environment where leaders
found themselves caring for their students’ welfare,
anticipating challenges, heightening learning, and
determining appropriate levels of adventure and
enjoyment, all the while keeping their charges as safe
as practically possible.
Pedagogical decisions
One of the unique features of outdoor education
decision making is the pedagogical context. As leader
A stated: “You’re not a guide, you are an educator.
You’re trying to create a learning experience for them.”
Leaders’ pedagogical decisions during the planning
and journey stages created the educational framework
for learning (see Table 3). The leaders found the
content of their journeys to be determined by both
academic requirements as well as student interest.
Course goals and learning objectives included bushcraft
skill development, outdoor knowledge, historical/
cultural aspects, social development and leadership.
Entering the course the leaders had much of the
pedagogy in mind but refined it after they had met
with students and made judgements on their skills and
interests.
The leaders empowered the students to make
their own decisions as much as possible. Many
pedagogical situations, like route finding and setting
up camp, were examples of co-constructed learning
with the leader setting up the situation and acting

7 8
Recognition-primed decision theory Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 18(1), 2–15, 2015

Table 3. Pedagogical decisions Table 4. Environmental decisions

Sub-themes Examples Sub-themes Examples

Degree of So my decision was how much do I get involved and pursue checking …. deciding Campsites I always think about how we are going to minimise our impact in every stop we
responsibility/power how much and when to intervene. There were times when I just didn’t provide make, especially the place we camp. I talk about things and set up guidelines. (C)
to give to students input. (G)
[I said] Hey let’s not rip that tree out so that you can put your tent there; let’s find
Route finding So we looked at the map and decided, let’s go to this tarn and see what we can find. another spot for your tent. (B)
(A)
Toileting I check students to see if they know what environmental care is. I am big on toileting
I split them into two groups and each group of five established where they thought and fire lighting with minimal impact and leaving everything the way we found it.
they were and then got the GPS to compare. (G) (A)

Deciding on One decision I made was how I establish what we’re going to do while we’re there? I
curriculum content decided to leave it until we got in the van on the way up. (G)
There are always objectives I keep in mind … like developing community
amongst the group, things like developing a sense of place, understanding place,
understanding fauna and flora and to have fun and enjoyable experiences. (A)
Student objectives It’s not me teaching so much, it’s helping the student get into a position to be able to
influence curriculum teach. (G)
I said that I would like them to organise the activities and chores. (G)
Leadership … always have two student leaders on any particular day and they kind of work
together to provide some leadership on that day. I just talked to the group about the
process of leading the group and maintaining an appropriate pace and looking after
each other. (A)
Flora & fauna … [objective] … understanding fauna and flora (A)
Teaching One of the girls wanted to wash her hair. I told her that she had to take the water
environmental ethics away from the river and wash her hair away from the river and pour the water into
& care the soil. (M)
… we’re walking up a beautiful valley and I’m at the back and they all walk past a
muesli bar wrapper, I pulled them back and said “Hey, did anyone see this? Think
we should take it with us? Why didn’t anyone pick it up?” (B)
Fires So if we rocked up to a campsite that had six fire pits, then we’d leave with one.
They’d break it down and return it to the riverbed. (B)
Weather There’s a bunch of analysis going on as I look at the sky, etc., then I’m listening for
the weather [mountain radio forecast] from the student and saying, yeah well that
makes sense. (G)
Environmental We walked across the flats in a magnificent full moon; it was just stunning. (A)
appreciation
We dragged mattresses out on the balcony of the hut. It was a beautiful night. (M)

So then you see a bird …“did you see that? It was a …” (B)
History/culture place- I left it up to her as to how she was going to get us to that point [a greenstone site]
based and how she was then going to encourage the students to identify this place and she
was going to … pass some understanding around that place. (G)
Shelter building We had quite a range of shelter and suitable equipment. (G)
Camp site selection Okay, does this meet some of the criteria that we’ve got for a campsite. If it hadn’t,
we would have moved and found somewhere else. (A)
Cooking I introduced some of the activities ... as well as daily chores (cooking, getting the
weather) and said that I would like them to organise that. (G)
the decision process was modelled and in other
instances criteria were discussed and the students left
to make the decision through an experiential process.
The criteria included goals, cues and expectancies, and
the pros and cons of actions. At times, leaders would
readily provide curriculum content and at other times
they would resist the urge to contribute and allow
the students to be independent and to learn through
doing. Minor mistakes and their consequences were
embraced. Immersed in somewhat of an unpredictable
environment, the leaders constantly looked for optimal
teachable moments.
Table 4). Being aware of the nuances of the environment
was intrinsic to daily expedition life. The leaders were
constantly monitoring the changeable weather and
sharing and empowering their students to understand
weather signals and their implications. Intuitive
decisions were made to share the beauty of nature at
opportune moments and in general by structuring
quiet reflective time into the days. An example is one
leader who made the decision to take his group on a
night walk under a full moon.
Group dynamics

Teachable moments Certainly I grab teachable moments. There was a temperature drop and the group
moral plummeted… Stuff like that is just a great learning opportunity. (B)
Like see how that river is surging, or see how it’s dropped, or see those clouds
coming? Some students are fascinated by that. (B)
as the guardian of the process and only stepping in There was evidence of a self aware, metacognitive
if safety or the learning process was compromised. process where the leaders not only made a decision in
Often the leader had a decision option in mind and their minds but had to deconstruct it into a learning
was scaffolding the group to make the same decision. process for students to experience. In some instances
Environmental decisions
The leaders went into the field planning to impart
students with a foundational layer of environmental
ethics and care; however, they would frequently
go beyond this. They reported taking advantage of
teachable moments where they would actively care for
the environment though best practices, for example
picking up litter and cleaning up campsites to reduce
previous human impact. A critical aspect of these
lessons was to discus with students the significance
of their own environmental ethics and action (see
Data demonstrate the leaders made many
decisions to foster healthy group dynamics (see Table
5). The leaders were extremely aware that group
dynamics form the foundation of an educational
outdoor journey. The need to develop a group ethos
influenced decisions made early in the expeditions.
Balancing different interests, objectives and physical
abilities within a group to create optimal learning
and enjoyment for all were often a challenge and a
key focus of the leaders; these factors proved to be a
significant influence on decisions made.

9 10
Recognition-primed decision theory Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 18(1), 2–15, 2015

Table 5. Group dynamics decisions

Sub-themes Examples

Working as group These two just started chatting away. They didn’t stop. (M)

Problem individuals We spent some time early in the experience establishing some understood ground
rules around how we would conduct our week. (G)

By that stage I’d clicked into the challenging people in the group. (B)

Conflict resolution [I said] “It might be good if you and so and so do the cooking tonight.” It might be
that they’re not getting along or they don’t know each other as well as other people
in the group. (B)

I knew there was a [group] problem. There was this really bad feeling but I couldn’t
work out what it was. (C)

Meeting individual I had a student who was wanting to climb everything and seemed bored a lot of the
needs time. The poor beggar was always waiting and helping others, not much of a trip for
him. So I sent a couple of them off to climb a minor peak when we got to the pass. He
loved it. (C)

Student objectives The group was getting stretched out. I had such a range of abilities from supremely
influence decisions fit athletes through to overweight, unfit folks. I was always having to decide how to
meet the needs without pissing people off. (C)

I ask them what they want out of the trip. (B) Figure 2. RPD Decision Making Levels (reprinted with permission from Klein, 1989).

Decision making for outdoor leaders is broad,
complex, and dynamic, as illustrated through the
aforementioned taxonomy (Tables 1–5) of outdoor
leadership decisions categorised into five themes:
logistical, safety, pedagogical, environmental and
group dynamics. Across the themes, the defining
features of the outdoor education situations were
teaching and learning processes where decisions were
made, modelled and practised.
We now turn to the second part of our research
which explores how the decisions the leaders made: (a)
meet the NDM criteria, (b) draw upon their previous
experience, and (c) fit the variants of the Recognition
Primed Decision (RPD) model.
Recognition-primed decision making (RPD)
In each interview a number of field-based
decisions that were important to the leaders were
explored. In these scenarios we looked for evidence of
the presence of the NDM criteria. Strongly indicated
were meaningful consequences, multiple players and
action and feedback loops. In contrast, time constraints
were less pervasive. For example, we found that in
weather based decisions the consequences of poor
judgement were meaningful to participants and the
goals of the journey needed to change. Moreover, there
were always multiple players affected by decisions
since the expedition was based within the educational
and safety policies of an educational institution.
However, in many instances there was no immediate
time pressure as the weather signs often developed
over a number of hours. Within the scenarios, each
was unique and had its own combination of NDM
criteria. Furthermore, each decision had implications
for safety and the quality of the experience.
The application of expertise was an important
feature of the decisions. Most of the leaders had
made prior visits to the sites and knew the routes and
features well. The transcripts indicate the experts’
depth of contextual knowledge and understanding
of these. The interrelationships between plausible
goals and environmental cues created expectancies
and generated appropriate actions for that time and
place. Key cue recognition involved identifying
environmental signs, such as place features along
with careful observation of group members and the
group process. The latter particularly influenced
group management tasks such as delegating
leadership and time management. Environmental
features like flooded rivers and challenging weather
signals were critical to the safety decisions; likewise
they were important in pedagogical decisions. The
leaders planned the lessons and had in mind some
likely locations for them on route. They looked for
these places using key cues, thus were recognition-
primed. The implementation of the decisions
was still to be conducted, but providing the cues
matched up, the option selections were clear and
automatic. In addition, the leaders shared their
considerable knowledge of context specific cues,
expectancies and actions either directly or through
learning processes.
Situational recognition and past experiences
provided the basis for the decisions. To explore this in
more detail, Klein’s (1989) three variants are represented
in four levels of decision situations as summarised in
Figure 2. We now turn to examples of these to amplify
our argument.
RPD Level 1 decisions include clear-cut first aid
scenarios, stopping when people are tired or hungry,
recognising teachable moments, making camp at a
desirable place and not crossing a river when it is
clearly in flood. For example: “[participant] had a nasty
blister so we stopped to attend to it” (C); “Certainly I
grab teachable moments” (B); “ I took one look at the
river and knew it wasn’t on.” (C). With the example
of the river crossing, the initial decision was whether
to cross or not, and the cues indicated not. The key
deciding factor is the level of intuition involved.
Where the decisions were immediate they were clearly
a simple match. However, if thought and memory is
involved other levels were engaged.
Examples of RPD Level 2 decisions include
instances where a leader intuitively recognised
cues but needed to engage in cognitive activity to
gain greater comprehension. Examples across the
scenarios include a leader’s observation of group
members, environmental conditions and other
emerging variables: “I was watching them to see
signs of tiredness, for people getting low on blood
sugars” (C); “…we heard the forecast and just watched
for it, having seen the hogsbacks [warning clouds]
and then the wind to get more west. Then the cloud
build-up and the temperature drop” (C); “You know
I knew there was a problem; there was this really bad
feeling [in the group] but I couldn’t work out what
it was” (C). Once the situation was understood well
enough, intuition appears to have come back into
play if the options were automatic. But if options need
consideration, Level 4 processes were encountered.
With Level 3, the decision situation is understood
quickly and intuitively but the options are not clear
cut. Examples include route finding scenarios,
campsite selection, environmental protection
strategies, and pedagogical decisions to fully exploit
teachable moments: “With no track and few markers
we were picking our way up the valley through quite
thick Matagouri [scrub], Spaniards [a spiky alpine
plant] and the like. Almost every 10 metres it was
a route finding decision.” (C); “I always think about

11 12
Recognition-primed decision theory
how we are going to minimise our impact in every
stop we make, especially the place we camp.” (C); “As
this is happening [bad weather buildup] I think about
what I’m gonna do, what are my options?” (C). In all
of these, analysis can be observed where alternatives
were carefully considered.
RPD Level 4 decisions include analysis in both
the situational awareness and the option selection
phases. In the following quote it can be seen that the
situational understanding developed over time: “The
pace slowed quite significantly and the students
wanted more rests… I hadn’t planned for this slow
walking” (M). Once the situation was understood,
which would mean a change of goals, an option
selection phase was entered: “Then looking at the map
and thinking, would that be possible?” (M). In this
particular scenario RPD processes are apparent as the
leader had three options in mind, one of which was
preferred. When this appeared problematic, the leader
engaged in a consultation phase where another option
emerged: “With the other staff, I talked about the three
options — the benefits of all three; looking at the pros
and cons. With the students, we just told them what
we were doing and why” (M). The complexity of the
decision process can be observed with a team decision-
making process, a pedagogical aspect and with little
time pressure. In addition, the quality of reasoning
was checked with other staff members. The intuitive
aspects were overwhelmed, and memory resources,
analytical cognition and consultation were engaged.
Conclusion
Outdoor adventure activities in educational
settings present unique decision-making contexts.
Over a number of days, leaders are faced with
making countless decisions of varying complexity
and importance. From the interviews, the reported
decision situations were categorised and presented
in taxonomies based on five themes: logistical, safety,
pedalogical, environmental and group dynamics.
Sub-themes supported by interview quotes provide
more specific examples. What is unique about the
outdoor education context is the pedagogical and
environmental decisions that permeate practice. The
taxonomies provide a systematic exploration of the
kinds of decisions that outdoor leaders make in the
field. This may serve as a useful adjunct for lessons on
judgement and decision making.
The leaders’ decisions were considered in the
context of Klein’s (1997) (RPD) model. A limitation
of the study is that they were not examined through
the lens of other DM approaches. Many of the features
of NDM were observable in unique combinations
in the decisions. The application of expertise was
strongly evident through the leaders’ situational
understandings and option considerations. The
13
decisions were documented to the variants of the
RPD model, including simple match decisions where
decisions were made quickly and intuitively and
more complex decisions where levels of analysis were
required. Some decisions were blends of intuition and
analysis where analysis was required to either gain
situational understanding and/or to evaluate options.
Evidence can be seen that the intuitive judgements
arose from experience, supporting the observation
made by Kahneman & Klein (2009) that intuition is
strongly based on recognition.
This study was unique in that it documented field-
based pedagogical, environmental and outdoor living
decisions. Many of these decisions were influenced by
planning processes with strong links to an institutional
curriculum. The recognition of the teachable moment
is an intuitive decision as the time and place to engage
pre-planned learning processes. For these leaders,
cognitive preparation that is both physical and mental
paved the way for goal clarification and intuitive
recognition of key cues, expectancies and options.
In the outdoor education domain, planning seems to
be under-researched and has a critical role to play in
successful outdoor recreation decision making.
Identifying the contexts and types of decisions
made by experienced outdoor leaders and
understanding more about the different levels of
recognition-primed decision making may help deepen
the knowledge base of effective outdoor leadership
and lead to more informed training and practise. More
specifically, the information presented may assist
individual leaders to reflect on their own DM and
facilitate staff discussion in these areas. Leaders’ tacit
knowledge comes from a base of personal experience
developed through practice. The beginning of the
process of learning effective DM is initiated through
the pedagogical strategies glimpsed in this study. In
order to embrace a learning opportunity from a real
DM situation a leader has to know how and why
such decisions are made. In the spirit of effective
experiential learning, leaders provide the tools to
enable a group to make and reflect on their own
decisions while ensuring emotional and physical
safety to prevent things going wrong.
To model and teach effective decision making,
leaders need a comprehensive knowledge of how
and why decisions are made. To achieve this, there is
a need to continually move the research knowledge
between theory and practise. Consideration of the
research through planning processes, lessons and
reflective discussions for both novice and experienced
leaders is useful toward advancing the effectiveness of
outdoor leadership.
References
Beare, M., & Lynch, P. (2005). Learning decision
making for the outdoors: A naturalistic
perspective. In T. J. Dickson, T. Gray & B. Hayllar
(Eds.). Outdoor and experiential learning: A view from
the top. Dunedin, NZ: Otago University Press.
Boyes, M. A. (1999). Outdoor adventure decision making.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Otago, Dunedin, NZ.
Boyes, M. A., & O’Hare, D. (2003). Between safety
and risk: A model for outdoor adventure decision
making. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor
Learning, 3(1), 63–76.
Boyes, M. A., & O’Hare, D. (2011). Examining
naturalistic decision making in outdoor adventure
contexts by computer simulation. Australian Journal
of Outdoor Education, 15(1), 22–34.
Bruce, P. J. (2011). Understanding decision-making
in airline operations control. Farnham, England:
Ashgate.
Chaudet, H., Pellegrin, L., & Bonnardel, N. (Eds.).
(2013). 11th international conference on naturalistic
decision making. Marseille, France.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Drury, J. K, Bonney, B. F., Berman, D., & Wagstaff,
M. C. (2005). The backcountry classroom (2nd ed.).
Guildford, CT: Globe Pequot.
Ericsson, K. A. (2005). Recent advances in expertise
research: A commentary on the contributions of
the special issue. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19,
233–241.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of
reasoning, judgment and social cognition. Annual
Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.
Furman, N., Shooter, W., & Schumann, S. (2010).
The role of heuristics, avalanche forcast, and risk
propensity in the decision making of backcountry
skiers. Leisure Sciences, 32, 453–469.
Galloway, S. (2002). Theoretical cognitive
differences in expert and novice outdoor leader
decision making: Implications for training and
development. Journal of Adventure Education and
Outdoor Learning, 2(1), 19–28.
Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 18(1), 2–15, 2015
Galloway, S. (2005). Hierarchical linear modeling of
the effect of experience on decision-making in
outdoor leaders. Journal of Experiential Education,
27(3), 340–342.
Galloway, S. (2007). Experience and medical decision-
making in outdoor leaders. Journal of Experiential
Education, 30(2), 99–116.
Galloway, S., Ewert, A., & Shellman, A. (2004).
Instructor decision-making: An overview and
application of simulation in training. In T. L.
Stenger & R. A. Poff, Edited papers of the 17th
International Conference on Outdoor recreation and
education (pp. 44–50). Bloomington, IN: AORE.
Gordon, S., & Gill, R. T. (1997). Cognitive task
analysis. In C. E. Zsambok & G. A. Klein (Eds.),
Naturalistic decision making (pp. 131–140). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hoffman, R. R., & Militello, L. G. (2009). Naturalistic
decision making. In R. R Hoffman & L. G.
Millitello, Perspectives on task analysis (pp. 171–209).
New York: Psychology Press.
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for
intuitive expertise. American Psychologist, 64(6),
515–526.
Klein, G. A. (1989). Recognition primed decisions. In
W. B. Rouse (Ed.). Advances in man-machine system
research (Vol. 5, pp. 47–92). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Klein, G. A. (1997). The recognition-primed decision
RPD model: Looking back, looking forward. In
C. E. Zsambok & G. A. Klein (Eds.). Naturalistic
decision making (pp. 285–292). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klein, G. A. (2008). Naturalistic decision making.
Human Factors, 50(3), 456–460.
Klein, G. A., Calderwood, R., & MacGregor, D. (1989).
Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
19(3), 462–472.
Klein, G. A., Orasanu, J. M., Calderwood, R., &
Zsambok, C. E. (1993). Decision making in action:
Models and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Martin, B., Cashel, C., Wagstaff, M., & Breunig, M.
(2006). Outdoor leadership: Theory and practice.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
14
Recognition-primed decision theory REFEREED ARTICLE Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 18(1), 16–26, 2015

Martin, B., Schmid, D. & Parker, M. (2009). An
exploration of judgment and decision making
among novice outdoor leaders: A dual-processes
approach. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education,
and Leadership, 1(1), 38–54.
McCammon, I. (2004). Heuristic traps in recreational
avalanche accidents: Evidence and implications.
Avalanche News, 68(Spring), 1–10.
Mosier, K. L., & Fischer, U. (2009). The role of affect
in naturalistic decision making. Journal of Cognitive
Engineering and Decision Making, 4(3), 240–255.
New Zealand Department of Labour. (2010). Stock-
take of risk management and safety provisions in the
adventure and outdoor commercial sectors in New
Zealand. Wellington, NZ: NZ Govt Press.
About the authors
Mike Boyes is an Associate Professor in Outdoor Recreation at the
School of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Sciences at the
University of Otago, New Zealand. His research interests include
teaching and learning in the outdoors, outdoor leadership, and
adventure engagement by older people.
Contact: mike.boyes@otago.ac.nz
Tom G. Potter is an Associate Professor in the School of Outdoor
Recreation, Parks and Tourism at Lakehead University in Thunder
Bay, Ontario, Canada. His teaching and research interests blend to
include the pedagogy of outdoor education, outdoor leadership,
risk management, transportation safety, and nature-based therapy.
Contact: tpotter@lakeheadu.ca
The mirror of the sea: Narrative identity, sea kayak adventuring
and implications for outdoor adventure education
Beau Miles and Brian Wattchow
Monash University
Abstract
This paper explores the complex and changing nature of adventure as a form of cultural practice. Borrowing from Joseph
Conrad’s memoirs The Mirror of The Sea (1907), sea kayaking is contextualized here as a journey that takes place just as much
between ‘landfall and departure’ as it does between the paddler’s ears (i.e., in the paddler’s mind). That is to say, to gain useful
insights into the experience of sea kayaking it is necessary to consider both the external and internal journey of the paddler, and
the relationship that exists between these two phenomena. Using tenets of personality psychology which presents new ways of
understanding narrative identity, we will ‘waymark’ textual vignettes from four modern day sea kayaking adventure narratives
to explore ideas of self, narrative identity and meaning making. These key passages aim to reveal how the adventurer’s story is
influenced by “external factors that shape the public expression of stories about the self” (McAdams & McLean, 2013, p. 233).
Summary discussion will address potential implications for contemporary outdoor adventure education, offering a way of
stimulating reflective practice about the culturally and textually constructed nature of adventure.

Priest, S., & Gass, M. A. (2005). Effective leadership in Keywords: narrative identity, outdoor adventure education, meaning making, critically reflective practice
adventure programming (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Introduction
Salmon, P. M., Cornelisson, M., & Trotter, M. J.
(2012). Systems-based accident analysis methods: People and cultures are drawn to the idea
A comparison of Accimap, HFACS and STAMP. of adventure through adventure stories. From
Safety Science, 50(2012), 1158–1170 the mythological trials of Odysseus to recent
autobiographical stories about the exploration of
Shooter, W., & Furman, N. (2011). Contextualizing summits, oceans and poles, heroes and antiheroes
recent judgment and decision-making concepts depart from familiar homelands, overcome challenges,
for outdoor leadership research. Journal of Outdoor have their epiphanies in the wilderness, and return
Recreation, Education and Leadership, 3(1), 189–203. to society as changed people. Or so it is written.
According to Goodnow (2008) their stories constitute
Tozer, M., Fazey, I., & Fazey, J. (2007). Recognizing and conform to a quest narrative. For both adventurer
and developing adaptive expertise within outdoor and reader the attraction of the genre is that both may
and expedition leaders. Journal of Adventure gain insights into geographically distant places and
Education and Outdoor Learning, 7(1), 55–75 cultures explored, and the equally remote inner terrain
of the adventurer’s psyche.
Zsambok, C. E., & Klein, G. A. (1997). Naturalistic
decision making. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Waves and rollers, storms and winds, rock
and mountains are teachers in two senses,
in so far as they teach the adventurers
something about the obstructive nature
of the world and something about their
own attitude towards them, and both—
the adventurers themselves and their
understanding and knowledge—are
changed in the process. (Becker, 2007 p.
83)
Whilst Hillary famously pursued the summit
of Mt. Everest ‘to knock the bastard off’ and his
predecessor Mallory, ‘because it was there’, the
motivations of the reader may be equally ambiguous:
“yielding helplessly to the suction of story … we just
can’t resist the gravity of alternate worlds” (Gottschall,
2012, p. 3). The telling of the tale, one might argue,
can reveal as much about the reader as the writer;
a narrative where reading about action and action
itself become aligned. Zweig (1974) argues that this
collective conscience about adventure may be
… taken from a novel, a television serial,
a science-fiction story. It would have been
harder to have taken it from my own life
because adventures are precisely what
few of us know from experience. Our
familiarity with them tends to be literary.
(p. 3)
Yet few publications, scholarly or otherwise, have
critically reflected upon what the adventure narrative
looks and reads like in relation to influencing, or being
influenced by, culture. Zweig’s (1974) The Adventurer, is
one of the few insightful and academic representations
of ‘adventure as culture,’ in which the author explores
“the oldest, most persistent subject matter in the
world” (p. 6). Nerlich (1987) proposed an ‘ideology of
adventure’ where adventure and modernity (and the
adventurer’s narrative) are inextricably linked in the
development of Western culture. In the preface to The
Ideology of Adventure: Studies in Modern Consciousness
1100–1750, Nerlich stated that, “writing about
adventure is to venture in writing” (1987, p. xix).
There are a small number of notable publications
that embark on a cultural understanding of particular
forms of adventure. Noyce’s Scholar Mountaineers
(1950) and later Macfarlane’s (2003) Mountains of the
Mind (see also Fleming, 2001, Killing Dragons: The
Conquest of the Alps) signpost a need for gathering
deeper insights into the unique ways humans travel
and write when they adventure. These works gesture
at the reciprocal nature of adventure, culture and

15 16
Copyright of Australian Journal of Outdoor Education is the property of Outdoor Council of
Australia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.