Abstract
Rationale:
Social work has long supported activity-based group work for young people. One such approach includes outdoor behavioral healthcare (OBH), also known as wilderness therapy, which often employs nonclinical field staff to lead outdoor activities as part of the overall treatment model. Although men and women both serve as field guides, the culture of OBH has historically been male-dominated, at times obscuring the voices and perspectives of female staff in the field. For this reason, a feminist social work lens was employed in order to engage in a qualitative gender analysis of women field guides’ experiences in OBH.
Methods:
Focus groups were used in this study to better understand gender as experienced by individuals who identify as women working as field guides in OBH.
Findings:
Results indicated that women experienced gender at intrapersonal, interpersonal, and program levels in ways that contributed to both empowerment and obstacles to leadership roles and longevity in the field. Identified needs included training for all staff on gender, women in leadership roles, and all women’s spaces.
Practice Considerations:
Implications for social work practice are discussed, aimed at supporting women’s development and creating work environments most conducive to learning and growth for staff and clients alike.
Social work has long supported activity-based group work (Rosenwald et al., 2013; Tucker, 2009). One such approach is outdoor behavioral healthcare (OBH), also known as wilderness therapy. OBH is an emerging mental health intervention growing in its use by social workers who utilizes outdoor activities, adventure-based group work, and wilderness expeditions, in combination with individual, group, and family therapy, to address clients’ treatment and wellness needs (Bettmann, Russell, & Parry, 2013; Combs, Hoag, Javorski, & Roberts, 2016; Tucker & Norton, 2013). It is estimated that 100 OBH programs currently exist in North America serving over 100,000 clients and their families each year (Burns, 2017). Research has shown OBH to be a highly effective intervention for youth and families struggling with mental health, substance abuse, and family conflict (Bettmann, Gillis, Speelman, Parry, & Case, 2016; Norton et al., 2014) and has applications for adult populations as well (Bettmann & Jasperson, 2008; Curtis, Briggs, & Behrens, 2018; Roberts, Stroud, Hoag, & Combs, 2017).
Social work practitioners and scholars have highlighted OBH as a good fit for social work practice due to its holistic engagement of clients on affective, cognitive, and behavioral levels as well as its focus on building upon client strengths (Bettmann & Jasperson, 2008; Tucker, 2009; Tucker, Norton, Itin, Alvarez, & Hobson, 2016). Social workers are in leadership roles in OBH programs across the United States (OBH Council, 2017), and specialized programs in the United States train social workers to work in OBH settings (Norton & Tucker, 2010; Tucker & Norton, 2013). As such, increased attention on OBH within the field of social work is needed.
Unlike the larger clinical social work profession, which is predominately female (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016), the culture of OBH has been historically male-dominated, often obscuring the voices and perspectives of women (Kirby, 2006; Marchand, Russell, & Cross, 2009). Over the past decades, the number and proportion of women entering outdoor professions, including OBH, has continued to grow (Gray, 2016). Despite this increase, there are disproportionately fewer women than men in leadership roles in outdoor programs (Gray, 2016). Previous research has highlighted the way in which gender influences women’s perceived ability to enter outdoor professions, differences in acquiring outdoor technical skills (Loeffler, 2000), perceived competence as outdoor leaders (Clemmensen, 2002; Paisley, Witter, & Tyson, 2004), and career obstacles created by internalized gender bias for women in outdoor professions (Gray, 2016; Warren & Loeffler, 2006). Further, despite significant contributions to the development of outdoor education and programming, women’s accomplishments and contributions have been consistently undervalued and marginalized, and these stories have often been left untold (Allin & West, 2013; Gray & Mitten, 2018; Mitten, Gray, Allen-Craig, Loeffler, & Carpenter, 2018; Wright & Gray, 2013).
The Role of the Field Guide in OBH
Although multiple program and staffing models exist among OBH programs, most programs utilize continuous flow or basecamp models, in which clients remain in the wilderness (referred to as the “field”) throughout the duration of their stay while field guides, also referred to as field instructors or field staff, rotate in and out on a weekly basis (Russell & Phillips-Miller, 2002). Field guides work together with program clinicians to support a client’s therapeutic progress. While a therapist typically will meet with students once or sometimes multiple times per week, field guides are responsible for clients 24 hr per day and thus occupy many distinct roles in relation to clients including but not limited to authority figure, counselor, mentor, role model, medic, and teacher (Marchand, 2009). This diversity of roles in relation to clients makes the critical importance of a field guide’s role in the clients’ process quite unique. Previous studies have identified the relationship between clients and field guides as an essential component that facilitates positive growth for clients in the wilderness therapy process (Russell & Phillips-Miller, 2002).
To date, only a few studies have explored the experiences of OBH field guides (Cameron, 2018; Kirby, 2006; Marchand, 2009; Marchand et al., 2009). Although previous research has not directly looked at the role of gender in understanding the experience of OBH field guides, it does shed light on the importance of doing so. Research shows that, on average, OBH programs employ a ratio among field guides of 55% male to 45% female (Kirby, 2006; Marchand et al., 2009). Job challenges reported by participants in one study included constraints due to the time and schedule of the job, anxiety and stress-related issues, as well as physical and mental challenges related to the job. Notably, in this study, women reported experiencing anxiety significantly more often than men (Marchand et al., 2009). Marchand, Russell, and Cross (2009) also found that women had been in their role an average of 6 months less than men, suggesting higher turnover among women. High staff turnover has potential to compromise the quality of care provided to clients and may have a significant cost on a program due to constant recruiting and training of new staff (Marchand et al., 2009). These findings point to a need for gender analysis in the experience of women working as OBH field guides.
Qualitative Gender Analysis: Utilizing a Feminist Social Work Perspective
Issues of gender permeate every professional realm, even in fields in which women are highly represented. Although women and men are increasingly equally represented among OBH field guides (Kirby, 2006; Marchand et al., 2009), the historical legacy of the male-dominated outdoor industry makes the process of gender analysis even more important (Gray, 2016; Gray, Allen-Craig, & Carpenter, 2017). According to Morgan et al. (2016), gender analysis “entails researchers seeking to understand gender power relations and norms and their implications…including the nature of female’s and male’s lives, how their needs and experiences differ…the causes and consequences of these differences” and ways in which programs can address these differences (p. 1069). This definition of gender analysis has been applied to the health professions, yet it also has application to this study. Although men were not included in the sample for this study, the qualitative nature of the data brought in differences between men’s and women’s experiences in OBH, as told through the voices of women in the field. Utilizing a feminist social work perspective (Eyal-Lubling & Krumer-Nevo, 2016) allowed us to give voice to women’s experiences in order to foster awareness of gendered power relations among field staff. Further, this study seeks to exhume some of the causes and consequences of gender differences and power relations and discover ways that the field of OBH might address these dynamics.
As important as the process of gender analysis is, researchers should guard against reinforcing gender binarism. This is also an emerging caution to researchers in the literature on gender in outdoor programming (Mitten et al., 2018). Too often research addresses gender as a static factor of a binary system, rather than tuning into the complexity of gender in light of the fluidity of gender identity and expression and the multiple levels at which gender socialization operates (Warren, Roberts, Breunig, & Alvarez, 2014). This is another reason the authors of this study chose to employ a feminist social work perspective in the gender analysis of female OBH field guides’ experiences.
According to Markman (2011), social workers are ethically obligated to support fluid notions of gender and gender nonconformity. While some argue that dismantling this binary conception of gender would serve to reduce or eliminate the gender-based social hierarchy, social work scholars and others suggest that freedom from the limitations of and oppression within the gender binary system is to be found first through attention to and eradication of social hierarchy within the binary paradigm itself (Burdge, 2007; Markman, 2011; Mitten et al., 2018). As such, Mitten, Gray, Allen-Craig, Loeffler, & Carpenter (2018) suggest that focusing on women’s experiences within the gender binary can be an effective way to expose gender-based social hierarchy as a path toward decoupling gender and power dynamics. The authors further note that focusing on women’s perspectives, while it does not account for the experiences of those who identify outside of the gender binary, utilizes a commonly understood language equipped to shed light on elements within the gender-based social hierarchy that affects all people (Mitten et al., 2018).
Relevance to Social Work Practice
Social work, particularly feminist social work, has advocated for gender equity in the workplace as a social justice issue (Mallinger, Starks, & Tarter, 2017). In particular, social workers are charged with challenging gender discrimination in agency settings in which they work and bringing awareness to women’s professional experiences related to gender (Lane & Flowers, 2015). As social workers in the field of OBH, we see this as the purpose of this study. Although we know that women are disproportionately underrepresented in OBH, we do not fully understand the depth of their experiences of gender. In consideration of the limited research looking specifically at women’s experiences in OBH as well as the rise of social workers engaged in OBH practice, it was the intention of this study to explore the experiences of individuals working as field guides who self-identify as women through a qualitative gender analysis that seeks to answer the following research questions:
Method
Focus Groups
The goal of the study was to give voice to the experiences of women working as OBH field guides in relation to gender and gender dynamics. To accomplish this goal, the researchers recruited focus group participants who self-identified as women and at the time of the study worked as field guides in OBH programs currently or within the past 2 years. The focus group format was chosen intentionally. Research in feminist social science found that focus groups are an effective way to empower women to feel safe, equal, and supported to share in an organic way (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2008; Moloney, 2011). In contrast, Kamberelis and Dimitriadis (2008) note that in one-on-one interviews, women may feel led by the interviewer or intimidated by power dynamics between researcher and participant.
Warren and Loeffler (2006) call for a social justice–oriented approach to research in outdoor programming that empowers marginal voices to occupy a role in the production of knowledge, with research participants as both partners and benefactors of the research, and that utilizes methods that encourage “multiple and different versions of truth” (p. 86). To this end, Madriz (2000) suggests that “focus groups can be an important element in the advancement of an agenda of social justice for women because they can serve to expose and validate women’s everyday experiences of subjugation” (p. 836). Focus groups also allow for the exploration of topics in greater depth by placing women in the role of expert of their own experience, while encouraging further elaboration as contradictory ideas emerge (Montell, 1999). Focus groups also provide a space for women to share their stories, which, according to Christie (2018), provides an opportunity to challenge, rather than affirm, the current hegemonic discourse. Kamberelis and Demistriadis (2013) suggest that the use of empowering research methods allows qualitative researchers to more effectively address complexity, contradictions, and the relations between knowledge and power.
Participants
Between April and November 2016, four focus groups were conducted with a total of 21 participants representing 14 different OBH programs in distinct geographic regions in the United States. Participants had a mean of 16 months experience working as a field guide, ranging from 3 months to 5 years. Most of women self-identified as white, and most of the women were in their late 20s and early 30s; however, we did not collect any data on sexual orientation from the women.
Data Collection
To recruit participants, researchers sent e-mails to the executive directors of OBH programs throughout the United States and Canada, advertised the study on industry Facebook groups, and recruited participants in person at industry conferences. In order to facilitate access and bring together field guides from diverse programs, the dates for the focus groups were chosen to coincide with industry conferences in April 2016 and August 2016 where field guides would be present. Additional focus groups took place on site at an OBH program and on a university campus. Four focus groups were conducted in four distinct regions in order to access field guides from numerous programs and thus have a broader perspective on experiences within the field of OBH in the United States. The focus groups had six, eight, two, and four participants in each and were similar in the diversity of programs represented and the range of experience as field guides represented by the participants. While the focus groups were open to current field guides and those in the role in the past 2 years, all participants in the first three focus groups were current field guides. In light of this, the fourth focus group conducted intentionally consisted of current master’s-level students who had worked as field guides prior to enrolling in graduate school in order to access perspectives might be influenced by time to reflect on their experience.
This study was approved by the institutional review board at the lead author’s university. Interested participants were asked to contact the lead researcher, at which point consent forms were either e-mailed or given in person to participants. Each participant was aware of the voluntary nature of the study and its commitment to confidentiality of the participants due to possible consequences or ramifications from participation.
Each focus group lasted approximately 1 hr, was video- and audio-recorded, and held in a private room. The focus groups consisted of semistructured interviews intended to allow participants to describe their own experiences and perceptions. A series of open-ended questions were asked on the following topics: gender and gender dynamics in relation to perceptions from clients, co-staff, and program leadership; professional development; and program values and culture. The following are examples of questions asked in the focus groups: Talk about your perception of the potential for professional development and promotion within the field of wilderness therapy. To what extent does gender influence how students relate to you as a guide? To what extent does gender influence how co-guides relate to you as a guide? To what extent does gender influence how program leadership relate to you as a guide? If the executive director or other leadership at your program approached you and asked for feedback on how you feel the organization is doing in supporting their female field staff, what would you share with them?
Data Analysis
Each focus group was video- and audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using a technique based on the constant comparison method, a type of qualitative content analysis (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). The focus group transcripts were independently thematically coded and analyzed by the three authors and two social work graduate students. Transcript texts were divided into “meaning units” which were grouped into thematic categories. Meaning units are defined as “the constellation of words or statements that relate to the same central meaning” and are helpful for thematically coding and categorizing the data (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). Categories were developed through a process of constant comparison between emerging themes until the themes represented by the data were identified. After individual analysis, the team of five coders came together to review the consistency of themes and discuss any differences between the raters, until there was agreement among the five raters on key themes. To further explore the validity of the study themes, member checking was utilized to ensure that themes represented participants’ experiences.
Findings
The themes that emerged fell into three categories: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and programmatic. Participants described the distinct ways through which gender influenced their experiences at each of these three levels.
Intrapersonal
Internalized gender bias
Several of the participants (n = 6) verbally described experiencing internalized gender bias, particularly in the form of a lacking confidence to progress into leadership roles. Multiple women also expressed feeling a need to achieve an especially high level of competence in order to feel confident to take the risk to advocate for leadership roles. In two of the focus groups in particular, when this sentiment was expressed, the entire group agreed nonverbally. In fact, one participant noted, “I know my progression from field staff to working up to senior field guide took a while because I didn’t feel good about myself.” Participants identified ways in which a lack of confidence led them to actively slow their process of professional development. Due to this, one participant noted, “I avoided leveling up for a long time,” while three women shook their heads in agreement to her statement.
Empowerment through conscious engagement with gender norms
Many participants (n = 8) described empowerment as a central element of the experience of being a field guide as a woman. One participant explained, “As females in the wilderness therapy realm, we’re super empowered and I think in this industry it’s okay to be strong, it’s okay to step out there and be better than a male, that’s okay.” Additionally, a number of participants (n = 5) described intentionally taking on nontraditional gender roles as a field guide and finding power in doing so. One participant stated “I think sometimes there’s a different expectation for the jobs you would have in camp. Like setting high points and doing things like that. I was very conscious sometimes of taking roles that were sort of stereotypically male.” A number of participants also described finding power in stereotypical feminine roles or traits that have been traditionally perceived as weak or inferior. One woman asserted: “I am soft, I am emotional, I am caring, and I am all these things in a really powerful way. And a lot of female staff are.” Another woman summed up the experience of empowerment as a female field guide in discussing the experience of working with a girls group with an all-female staff team: “It wasn’t like we ever said, ‘we don’t need men here,’ but clearly that was the case, we were all able to handle that and it was one of the most peaceful, wonderful weeks I’ve ever spent in the woods.” In fact, in all of the focus groups, all of the women who worked at programs with single gender groups agreed there was something special and empowering about a team of all women.
Interpersonal
Confronting clients’ sexism and gender role expectations for guides
On an interpersonal level, clients’ sexism or internalized sexism was described by participants as manifesting through power dynamics and being put in a mother role, while role modeling was a significant form through which participants described overcoming stereotypes in client–field guide interaction.
Power dynamics
The primary way in which participants described confronting clients’ sexism was through power dynamics. More than half of the participants (n = 11) verbally reported experiencing less initial respect than their male co-staff from male clients, greater difficulty in holding boundaries, and power given over to the male staff as the authority figure and source of knowledge, regardless of their level of experience or role within the staff team. One woman described this dynamic through the stark contrast observed when a male field guide joined an all-female staff team: When we had a male staff join us, things changed. The whole dynamic would change and even behavior in the students, and even my role would change…. All the attention would go to the male staff and all the questions would be directed to them, and even the senior female staff would be like, “What the hell’s going on? This person’s only worked here for a week!”
Mother role prescribed by clients
One of the most complex ways in which participants discussed gender dynamics in interactions with clients was in relation to being put in the mother role. Over half of the participants (n = 11) described the experience of being put in the mother role, generally by clients but occasionally by co-staff. More than half of the women discussing this dynamic identified the element of transference at play in being put in this role and the great potential for growth and processing: A lot of them [clients] have had issues with their moms before, and I think it’s good for them to process that and talk about that…. To really dive into it rather than shut it down or skirt around it. It’s a natural thing that will play out and I think it’s really powerful for the students.
Role modeling
More than half (n = 13) of the participants described being a role model for clients as both a confrontation with clients’ gender role expectations and a medium through which they overcame limiting gender role expectations. One participant talked about the power of showing clients “women who are comfortable doing things for themselves and comfortable in the wilderness.” Others discussed the value of modeling self-care and healthy, respectful relationships with men. One participant noted the way in which client’s limited perceptions of women created the grounds for modeling alternative ways of being as a woman, to which the group agreed in unison.
Male co-staff lack awareness of gender dynamics
In discussing challenging gender dynamics between female field guides and clients, several participants (n = 7) discussed the perceived lack of awareness of such dynamics among male field guides. In describing a group of clients who repeatedly turned to the male staff as the authority figure, one woman noted, “I don’t think the men noticed that it was happening.” Others described feeling they have sole responsibility and willingness as female field guides for tuning into and addressing sexism among clients in order to build a safe and inclusive group culture. Some participants attributed this lack of awareness among male staff to a lack of open conversation about gender dynamics. I worked with some male guides that were open to me pointing out, “hey this kid only listens to you and it’s because you’re a man,” and they were just blindsided, and then they would address it immediately once they recognize those patterns of behavior. But I think a lot of times men don’t think about that, they don’t have to think like that.”
Programmatic
At the programmatic level, participants identified four distinct ways that gender impacted their experience as a field guide: a lack of external recognition and promotion for women in the guide role, masculine leadership style valued more highly, gender as a rigid binary in staffing and staff development, and the importance of women in leadership roles.
Lack of external recognition
Several women (n = 7) discussed experiencing or witnessing a lack of recognition for female field guides in comparison to male field guides at their programs. In each case, at least two or three other women in the focus group nodded in agreement. One woman noted, “I felt like I was in the thick of it more and not getting acknowledged for that hard work, and men were getting pushed up before me.”
However, two women in two distinct focus groups described a contrasting experience, an experience in which they felt recognized and promoted at an even rate to their male peers. When they shared their experiences with each of their groups, the rest of the participants were surprised, and many shared being envious.
Masculine leadership style more valued
Many of the participants described feeling pressured to take on a masculine leadership style in order to be recognized and valued (n = 7). One form this took was through the greater value placed on confidence over competence. Several women identified placing value on achieving competence in a skill set before feeling confident, while program leadership seemed to place greater value on the confidence they exhibited: He [my boss] values, I think, confidence over capabilities, and he has pre-headed, or pushed male staff into a leadership role way quicker than female staff because male staff typically are more confident even if they don’t have everything down, they’re like “Oh yeah, I got this,” and I know our boss really likes that, and he says he wants females to have more confidence in themselves.
Gender binary in staffing
Over half of the participants (n = 13) discussed the perception that gender is rigidly used in staffing in ways that impose a narrow conception of what it means to be a woman. Nearly all of the participants in each focus group nonverbally expressed agreement with this idea. One participant described confusing messages she received: I have gotten feedback from higher ups even like, “you need to be more girly,” and then on the other end of that I’ve received, “find how to be feminine in the field, how to be strong, what does that mean to you? What does it really mean to be a woman and then show that.” And this was coming from a male! And I’m like, what? That just means be myself!
Women in leadership
The need for women in leadership was the most prominent of all the themes that emerged. Fifteen participants identified this theme, while all participants nonverbally expressed agreement. The four participants working at programs where there was a substantial presence of women in leadership highlighted the tremendous value of having women in leadership roles, while the rest of the women at programs with an absence of women in leadership roles noted the difficulty this created for them. One women noted, “I think men can be role models for women but having women as a role model can be more powerful for me.” A statement that was met by the group with unanimous agreement.
This subtheme of struggling to project oneself into leadership roles in the absence of female role models was significant. Women in leadership provide support “just to be able to see, this is what I could achieve” or, as another woman stated: “As someone who has worked there for a while, I want to move up in the company. And it’s harder for me to do that when there are only male field leadership.” In one focus group, several of the women worked for the same program and discussed the value of a women in leadership, particularly for modeling different roles and ways of interacting with clients that avoid getting entrenched in limiting gender dynamics. The rest of the group noted how “cool” and “nice” it must be to have strong female leaders at their program.
Identified Needs to Support Women’s Development as Field Guides
Many participants asserted that there are obstacles to both leadership and longevity for women field guides, reaffirming prior research in this area (Wright & Gray, 2013). Multiple women in each focus group discussed more generally how “It’s more challenging to be a female in this job.” Many participants discussed that obstacles to leadership and retention of female staff exist and noted the difficulty of pinpointing the barriers: “There has to be something that’s keeping female guides from getting to that point [leadership]. Either they’re leaving before they get to that point, or they’re being held back, either explicitly or implicitly.”
Training on gender with all staff
Across all focus groups, all the women highlighted the need for conversation about gender and formal training on gender dynamics among all program staff. While one woman emphasized the value of “just a space to say how I’m feeling,” in relationship to difficult gender dynamics, another participant asserted that “just a conversation acknowledging that it exists would be huge,” to which the rest of the group nodded in agreement. Among the focus groups, almost all of the participants highlighted the value of increasing awareness among male staff, increasing the awareness of internalized sexism on the part of female staff, and having conversation or training that supports all staff to be able to “speak the same language” in order to better communicate when problematic gender dynamics are present.
All-women’s spaces
In addition to the need for conversation about gender dynamics with all staff, the value of women’s spaces, both in and out of the field, emerged as a consistent theme. Women discussed some of the reasons they valued working with all-female co-staff in the field including humor: “the jokes that are made are a little more on the same line”; communication styles: “feedback and communication was more open”; and a sense of ease and comfort: “I always felt more relaxed” and “a shared vulnerability would develop naturally in the group.” Participants also discussed the deeper value they placed on the power of working with all women. One woman noted, “To be with another female co-staff is just one of the best experiences ever, ‘cause you’re in the woods, trucking around with everything you need, and surrounded by a bunch of empowered women.” Another participant described the week she worked with women in a girls group this way: “It was almost like I was on vacation with these girls for that shift.” In contrast, another woman noted: “That week I was working with all males, by the end of the week I was just like, whoa, I needed a little break.” A number of participants also emphasized the need for all-women’s spaces outside of the field to support and mentor one another as they navigate the challenges of the job.
Discussion and Implications for Practice
We believe that as social workers within the field of wilderness therapy both in practice settings and leading the scholarship on this program model, it is our role to open a dialogue around gender dynamics in the OBH field. As such, this current study investigates the role of gender in the experience of women working as OBH field guides. The themes that emerged from this study indicated three distinct levels at which women experience the influence of gender: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and programmatic. The presentation of themes in this three-tiered form is not to suggest that individual and interpersonal experiences are not profoundly influenced by structural forces. Rather, although these themes are distinct, they interact, overlap, and operate together to affect the degree to which women experience empowerment in the field of OBH. A fourth group of themes emerged pertaining to ways to better support women working as field guides.
Intrapersonal
Research has consistently found low self-confidence among women working in the outdoors (Dingle & Kiewa, 2006; Frauman & Washam, 2013; Warren & Loeffler, 2006). This has significant impacts for women including decreased engagement in the process of learning and developing skills (Dingle & Kiewa, 2006; Warren & Loeffler, 2006) and avoiding or delaying self-promotion to leadership roles (Gray, 2016). Reflecting the experience discussed by several study participants of seeking to achieve mastery before moving ahead within a program, Gray (2016) notes that “women hold themselves back by waiting to be flawless” (p. 34).
Warren and Loeffler (2006) point out that “women, as a result of gender-role socialization, tend to view their personal competence through a filter composed of society’s perceptions,” meaning that confidence or sense of competence is produced through a complex interaction of gender role socialization and societal, environmental, and personal factors (p. 110). As such, structural factors such as single gender and supportive, collaborative (as opposed to competitive) learning and work environments can support women to claim their competence (Warren & Loeffler, 2006) and empower them to seek out promotion and leadership.
Interpersonal
A number of theories explain some of the challenging interpersonal dynamics that women in this study and in other studies experienced with clients in relation to gender (Clemmensen, 2002; Paisley et al., 2004). Gender role congruency theory explains how socialization creates roles expectations for men and women that result in negative evaluation or dislike of women who deviate from these expected roles (Wittmer, 2001). Many of the demands of leadership positions call for the individual to take on a role that goes against societal expectations of gender roles, producing a double bind in which a woman can be either well-liked or considered a good leader by clients, with limited ability to be both (Wittmer, 2001).
Leadership categorization theory describes the way in which, because our prototypes of competent leaders are men, we are socialized to perceive men as more competent leaders than women, have higher standards for female leaders, and are more likely to attribute authority and accomplishments to men in a mixed gender staff team (Forsyth, Heiney, & Wright, 1997). Illustrative of this, in one study, participants in an outdoor program perceived leadership ability differently purely based on masculine or feminine physical characteristics (Paisley et al., 2004).
The experience of being a female role model was one of the most prominent themes that emerged in this study. Cameron (2018) discusses how role modeling is simply part of the nature of the job, further highlighting the need for women in management positions who can mentor newer field guides whose womanhood may be in the spotlight for the first time in their lives.
Similarly, the dynamic of women being placed in the mother role is worthy of deeper consideration. Women in this study and previous studies (Avery, 2015; Bell, 1997; Cameron, 2018; Gray, 2018) addressed the way in which being put in the mother or nurturing role can feel limiting, inauthentic, or exhausting. Many of the women in this study also highlighted the powerful way in which gender-based transference allows clients to work through issues in their relationships with their mothers or other women in their lives. Many clients in OBH programs present with family relationship struggles and insecure attachment (Bettmann & Karikari, 2013). Research suggests that positive changes in attachment occur in OBH when attachment dynamics are activated in a challenging environment with the support of staff and the structure of the program (Bettmann & Karikari, 2013). Thus, many of the challenging scenarios in which participants in this study discussed being put in the mother role by clients may be reflective of the critical processes that researchers describe as positive growth toward healthier attachment. It may be the case that, at times, field guides play an important role in clients’ therapeutic process because of their gender. Cameron (2018) notes that it is important to discern between times when this gender role imposition is occurring in a way that is therapeutic and times when it is simply a product of gender role socialization. Additional clinical training for staff to better understand transference and attachment as well as to recognize when clients impose gender role socialization on staff could be essential for field guides to most effectively respond to these dynamics.
Participants in this study highlighted their male co-staff’s relative lack of awareness of gender dynamics and the ways in which this left them feeling alone or isolated in the field. Seemingly, all of the literature addressing gender in outdoor programming highlights the limited role of men’s voices in the dialogue and the need for men to become educated allies who understand the limitations and obstacles created by gender role socialization and sexism (Gray, 2016; Loeffler, 1997, 2000; Pohl, Borrie, & Patterson, 2000; Warren et al., 2014; Wittmer, 2001). Avery (2015) suggests that constant gender role expectations are a significant source of burnout for women in outdoor programming. As such, it is critical to invest the time and resources to ensure that women have the skills to cope with these dynamics and have the support of aware and skilled male co-staff and program leadership.
Programmatic
Program-level challenges identified are consistent with themes identified by previous research. A lack of recognition and promotion for women, the absence of women in leadership roles and the resultant difficulty in accessing leadership roles, and the greater value placed on masculine traits and leadership styles are all elements of outdoor programming that have been identified in previous research (Bell, 1997; Bell, Cosgriff, Lynch, & Zink, 2018; Clemmensen, 2002; Dingle & Kiewa, 2006; Gray, 2016; Loeffler, 1997; Warren et al., 2014). Program management can look critically within their programs to identify the presence of these trends and actively work to rethink the practices that perpetuate them.
In addition to training for all staff on gender, the women in this study clearly articulated two ways that programs can support them: all-women’s spaces and women in leadership to serve as role models and mentors. The importance of all-women’s experiences in the wilderness and all-women’s spaces outside of the wilderness for women who work in the outdoors has consistently been found in research (Warren et al., 2014). Participants in this study described the experience of working shifts in girls’ groups with all women staff teams as a time of respite from difficult gender dynamics. Such accounts suggest that, when staffing resources allow, program managers might intentionally create the opportunity for women to work with all-women staff teams in girls groups, thus providing respite from persistent limiting gender role expectations. This suggestion from focus group participants illuminates the capacity of structural changes to either promote empowerment and confidence or to alleviate burnout and other negative impacts of challenging gender dynamics.
The need for women in leadership roles was the most dominant theme that emerged in this study. Research supports the tremendous need for women in leadership to serve as role models and mentors for women working in the outdoors (Avery, 2015; Gray, 2016; Haluza-DeLay & Dyment, 2003; Warren & Loeffler, 2006). Avery (2015) notes that mentorship in outdoor professions is a unique type of mentorship aimed at supporting women to navigate a male-dominated industry. Feminist social work reinforces this idea of the need for connection and mentoring (Alvarez & Lazzari, 2016), which is especially relevant in OBH.
Finally, participants in this study highlighted problematic considerations of gender in staffing decisions and a lack of transparency around such considerations. The role of gender in staffing is a topic greatly in need of further study. It seems that most programs consider gender to some degree in staffing, as participants reported specific program policies pertaining to staffing and gender. However, these policies seem to vary greatly from one program to the next, and participants expressed little understanding of the theoretical or clinical rationale behind such policies. Participants also discussed experiencing gender in staffing decisions in a way that was essentializing of their gender and thus limiting. As Bell (1997) notes, defining women as essentially different from men or inherently capable of complementing men in some way indirectly defines and thus limits what it means to be a woman, and thus what is expected of female staff. Programs should look critically at the intention and impact of gender’s role in staffing decisions and create greater transparency with staff about how gender is factored in.
Recommendations for OBH Practice
Based on our findings and previous research, we suggest the following recommendations for clinical practice in outdoor settings like OBH. While these recommendations are meant to support women’s development both as field guides and beyond in the field of OBH, they may also be applied to traditional social work settings and may help foster program culture in both settings that is conducive to the growth and learning of staff and clients alike. Training for all staff on gender that supports staff in developing the capacity to both identify and process gender dynamics with each other and with clients while increasing men’s capacity to act as effective and empowered allies. Transparency with regard to the consideration of gender in staffing decisions to better enable program managers to avoid essentializing women (or men) or putting women (or men) in the position of taking on a particular gender-based role without their knowledge. Provide field guides with female role models and mentors by recruiting and promoting women to leadership roles. Consider, when staffing resources are available, rotating women through regular shifts with all-women staff teams in all-girls or women’s groups in order to prevent burnout and support the development of female field guides. Program managers must take a critical look at field guide development and promotion practices as well as retention rates to detect for discrepancies by gender. Where discrepancies exist, programs must look critically at elements influencing these practices. Men must play a central role in the dialogue, education, and training of staff and of one another around gender and in the critical assessment of program practices that disadvantage women.
Limitations and Future Research
This study was limited by the sample size and although 14 different OBH programs were represented across the 21 participants, this is not representative of all of the 100 programs across the United States and Canada or programs around the world. Important participant demographic data pertaining to participants’ race, sexual orientation, class, and so on, are also missing in this study along with a more direct exploration of the intersectionality of these elements of social identity and gender in the focus groups. Future research must account for the intersectional nature of gender as it relates to women’s experiences in OBH. Notably, this study is limited by the researchers’ selection to examine women’s experiences of gender differences solely through their own narratives. In order to gain a full perspective of the role of gender in field guides’ experiences, men’s voices and nonbinary voices should be included in future research. Research that brings to light perspectives on masculinity is needed to further create a broader understanding of gender in OBH and outdoor programming more generally. In addition, to increase the understanding of the ways in which gender is employed in programs, there is a need for research that specifically looks at programmatic practices including staffing decisions in relation to gender and other forms of gender inequity related to salary, promotions, and so on.
Conclusion
As clinical social workers become more involved in OBH, with an estimated 100,000 clients per year (Burns, 2017), it is important that not only client outcomes continue to be examined but also the program structures and the experiences of individuals working within them. In this qualitative gender analysis, themes that emerged revealed gender differences and power relations in the field of OBH, as well as potential opportunities for overcoming limiting gender norms and a site through which women can experience a sense of empowerment. This is especially important as gender diversity increases among OBH staff and clients, along with increased diversity of race, ethnicity, and class. Increased diversity can be expected in the future, as demographics shift in the United States and as increased insurance payments for OBH create greater access for youth and their families. Even in the wilderness, staff and clients bring society and their lived social experiences with them. In light of this reality, this study seeks to provide some insight into how programs can most effectively create an empowering environment for learning and growth for staff and clients in order to more fully engage with the complexities of gender dynamics and, ultimately, social justice more broadly.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
