See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327474392

Gender in Outdoor Studies

Chapter · September 2018

CITATIONS READS
49 9,779

1 author:

Karen Warren
Hampshire College
25 PUBLICATIONS 752 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Karen Warren on 06 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 35
Gender in outdoor studies
Karen Warren
HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE

Evidence of the male-dominated nature of the outdoor field persists despite advances by women
and girls in outdoor participation. Gender role socialisation continues to be a factor in une-
qual power relationships in outdoor programmes and leadership positions for adult women,
while feminist critiques of teaching and learning in the outdoors point out its gender-privileged
nature. More recently, a movement towards studying girls’ experience arose, with this litera-
ture suggesting effective strategies for girls’ outdoor programming. This chapter will delve into
these topics as well as questions about the continued emphasis on women-only experiences,
gendered messages about the outdoor experience, intersectionality in the outdoors, and if new
research can find ways to mitigate factors that continue to disadvantage women and girls in
outdoor programming. Finally, gaps in the outdoor literature concerning gender, including
the reluctance to explore masculinity in outdoor adventure, the invisibility of the experience
of women/girls of colour, its heteronormative nature and nascent attention to transgendered
issues, will be examined.
Scholars and practitioners have called for critical reflection of the gendering of outdoor
adventure programming (Humberstone, 2000). Paramount to any critical discourse on gender
in the outdoors is the question of whether the outdoor experience inculcates and reproduces
static oppressive gender roles or is a site of social change with resistance to gender role con-
ditioning. Some would say that the outdoors provides a respite from social conventions and
is the great equaliser, however the egalitarian level playing field of the wilderness has been
questioned as a myth and remains a complicated site of struggle for many female adventurers
(Warren, 1985; Newbery, 2004). While individual agency allows many women to enjoy and
enact lives of adventuring outdoors, social meanings and conditions continue to follow women
into the wilderness (Little, 2002a). In a historical analysis of education outdoors in the United
Kingdom, Cook (2001) concluded, ‘it seems outdoor education generally reflected wider social
assumptions about gender rather than challenged them’ (p. 50). In contrast, Whittington (2006)
found that girls’ outdoor programmes ‘challenged assumptions about their abilities and images
of conventional notions of femininity’ (p. 212).
In sum, hegemonic reproductions of gender in the outdoors demand an examination of
the social meanings and constructs that continue to prevent outdoor education, recreation and
adventure from being a location of progressive social justice.

360
 Gender in outdoor studies

Gender messages in the outdoors

Media and cultural messages of appropriate roles in the wilderness have mediated the out-
doors as a site for participation of men and women. Gender socialisation has been revealed in
these entrenched meanings of the outdoors, and continues to underlie proscribed ways men
and woman might associate with the outdoors and be influenced by the wilderness experi-
ence (Warren & Loeffler, 2006). In studies of outdoor advertising, popular press and outdoor
guidebooks, researchers have found that oppressive gender roles have been reified rather than
disputed.
In one study analysing popular outdoor magazine advertising, conclusions showed that
women were depicted as participating in less physically and time demanding engagements in
outdoor pursuits, were shown as followers rather than leaders, and were seen as either escaping
from motherhood or being the instigator of outdoor time with their families (McNiel, Harris &
Fondren, 2012). Furthermore, women with exceptional outdoor skills and abilities were viewed
as unique by possessing attributes beyond the outdoor abilities of the average woman (McNiel
et al., 2012), a phenomenon Warren (1985) calls the anomaly of the ‘superwoman’ who effec-
tively vacates any role model status she might have due to her exemplary outdoor skills.
For men and boys, proscribed roles in the outdoors focus on rugged individualism and a con-
quering mentality that further make gender role socialisation concrete and influence the field of
outdoor adventure in maintaining its male-dominated paradigms (Bell, 1997; Warren, 2012). In
Denny’s (2011) content analysis of the handbooks of Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, messages for
boys stressed self-oriented activity and heteronormative masculinity, while girls are influenced
by gendered messages promoting other-oriented activity and femininity, and at the same time
are exposed to messages promoting more progressive feminist identities, thus adding ambiguity
to gender role identity negotiations in the outdoors for young women.
The literature of socialisation in the outdoors extends to guidebooks as well, where the
required femininity of women in the outdoors is problematised. In comparing unisex outdoor
guidebooks to those written for and about women, Glotfelty (1996) noted,

Perhaps the most significant difference between the two sets of books is that all the wom-
en’s guides contain a lengthy discussion of femininity. While unisex guides focus on ‘how
to’ skills, women’s guides teach readers ‘who to’ be. (p. 442)

While outdoor programmes have been employed to challenge constructs of femininity based on
white, middle-class, heterosexual models of beauty (Whittington, 2006), the notion remains a
source of gender role incongruity in the outdoors (Wittmer, 2001) where exemplary outdoor
women require feminisation (McNiel et al., 2012) and women participants in outdoor pro-
grammes face an untenable dilemma of trying to resist oppressive stereotypes of femininity while
at the same time having to conform to these traditional notions to gain acceptance (Lugg, 2003).
The preponderance of gender message for both men and women in outdoor advertising and
literature creates a climate where the cycle of socialisation flourishes, and continues to reinforce
‘acting out’ one’s gender in the outdoors to find success or resist being ostracised.

Gender-sensitive outdoor leadership and pedagogy

Leadership in outdoor education and adventure has been called in to question with Bell’s (1996)
assertion of ‘the gendered, race-based organisation of the subjectivity of the leaders, such that
it is European, able-bodied, autonomous, objective and rational men who are predisposed to

361
Karen Warren

make sound decisions and be natural leaders’ (p. 144). Others have noted gender-mediated
issues in outdoor leadership, such as women who demonstrate traditional masculine leadership
being devalued by participants and supervisors (Wittmer, 2001).
Feminist outdoor leadership and practice has been advanced in the outdoor field with inter-
rogations of power relations playing an important role in the discussion of leading in the out-
doors (Warren & Rheingold, 1993; Henderson, 1996; Haluza-DeLay & Dyment, 2003). While
contemporary feminism is complex, situated and multifaceted, aspects of feminist outdoor lead-
ership include validation of personal experience, democratic or consensus decision-making pro-
cesses, attention to power dynamics in group processes, shared leadership, collective problem
solving and communication, and honouring participant choice.
In outdoor learning environments, researchers have suggested that females may learn techni-
cal outdoor skills differently than male participants and thus benefit from a gender-sensitive ped-
agogy that accounts for these unique needs (Dingle & Kiewa, 2006; Warren & Loeffler, 2006).
Others have found a hidden curriculum of adventure education that disadvantages women
(Lugg, 2003; Mitten, Warren, Lotz & d’Amore, 2012). Additionally, women may seek differ-
ent types of outdoor programmes than men or interact with activities differently. For example,
activities based on trust and relationships were favoured by women, while men valued power
and challenge (Lugg, 2003).
Gender-sensitive outdoor pedagogy involves reflection on the part of the educator about the
personal bias and position they bring to their teaching (Wittmer, 2001). In technical outdoor
skill teaching, providing non-competitive learning situations that minimise performance anxiety
(Loeffler, 2000), offering repetitive practice of skills to account for lack of childhood techni-
cal conditioning (Warren, 1985), addressing linguistic and territorial sexism in teaching envi-
ronments (Warren & Loeffler, 2006), avoiding discriminatory programming techniques (Irish,
2006) and labelling traditional feminine strengths as positive (Haluza-DeLay & Dyment, 2003)
have all been suggested as ways to enhance the learning experience of females.
Initially, feminist outdoor leadership and pedagogy was seen as effective for women and girls
without an attempt to infuse a feminist consciousness into all outdoor programming (Jordan,
1992; Bell, 1996). More recently, the tenets of feminist outdoor leadership have begun to show
up in more mainstream examinations of leading in the outdoors (Martin, Cashel, Wagstaff &
Breunig, 2006), with the key question of whether what works well for females in the outdoors
can be applied across the gender spectrum.
How women navigate professional positions of outdoor leadership is another factor to
be addressed. Inequities and ‘glass ceilings’ that make the journey perilous at times influence
women seeking a career in outdoor education. Allin (2003) questions the idea of an outdoor
career for woman as a planned trajectory, and suggests that women’s outdoor careers may lack a
clear long-term career ladder and could be viewed more accurately through the lens of lifestyle
and self-identity. Women leaders often feel inclined to overcompensate or outdo male leaders
in order to be accepted, and this can lead to burnout and exit from the profession (Wright &
Gray, 2013). Trip participants of both genders may also exhibit a lack of confidence in the
ability of female leaders to facilitate a group or perform technical outdoor skills (Frauman &
Washam, 2013).
Loeffler’s (1996) study on the careers of twenty-five women outdoor leaders suggested that
equal opportunity hiring policies and advancement tracks, support networks, and single-gender
programmes for women and girls would stimulate equity in outdoor leadership positions.
A compelling question formulated from the scholarship on feminist leadership and pedagogy
is whether tenets of this way of leading and teaching can or should direct how the entire field
of outdoor study and practice will evolve.

362
 Gender in outdoor studies

Same-sex outdoor trips

Women who desire access to outdoor adventures have experienced constraints to participa-
tion. Gender role socialisation, motherhood and family obligations, financial priorities, lack
of time, sexual harassment, lack of an outdoor companion, and fear are among the structural,
interpersonal and intrapersonal factors preventing women from being fully engaged in outdoor
adventure (Warren, 1985; Allin, 2003; Bialeschki, 2005). However, women’s participation has
continued to increase as women, in many cases, have negotiated these constraints in order to
participate (Little, 2002b).
One avenue for adult women to overcome constraints to outdoor adventures is through par-
ticipation in same-sex trips. Advocacy of single-sex outdoor trips for women in the 1970s and
early 1980s caused an increase in women-only programmes, with subsequent analysis of their
worth (Hornibrook et al., 1997). Benefits of these programmes were established and used for
justification, while the idea of single-gender learning spaces on mixed-gender trips was also pro-
moted (Warren & Rheingold, 1993). Philosophies that guide women’s and girls’ programmes
include an ethic of care, cooperation and shared leadership, and reliance on conscious choice that
resists subtle influences to conform to facilitator or programme values (Mitten, 1985; Tyson &
Asmus, 2008).
Studies showed benefits of women-only outdoor adventure programmes to be connections
to nature and wilderness, relational bonding, physical confidence and strength, competence,
disengagement from traditional gender roles, overcoming fear and gaining autonomy (Loeffler,
1997; Boniface, 2006; Wedin, 2009; Myers, 2010; Libby & Carruthers, 2013). Further research
could investigate whether these benefits can be attained on mixed-gender trips and what
would need to change in current leadership and teaching in the outdoors to make this possible.
Currently, critiques of women-only programmes suggest that dominant discourses of masculin-
ity in all outdoor programmes are not addressed by the existence of these trips, thereby failing
to create real social change (Lugg, 2003).

Girls in the outdoors

Groundbreaking research on girls’ development (Brown & Gilligan, 1992) caused outdoor edu-
cators to consider how adolescent girls’ experience of the outdoors might be unique, how
outdoor programmes might benefit girls’ development, and what accompanying modifications
of existing outdoor programmes would meet the needs of young women. Authorities on girls’
development found that adolescent girls tend to lose their voice in the transition from pre-teen
to teenage years, and this silence predicates development problems stemming from acceptance
of social stereotypes and notions of gender identity based on white, middle-class, heterosexual,
male conceptions of what a women or girl ‘should be’. Consequently, girls in their adolescent
years are at risk for a decrease in physical activity, diminishing resilience, a disassociation with
self, eating disorders, depression, decrease in self-worth and self-esteem, relational aggression
and other risky behaviour (Humberstone & Lynch, 1991; Henderson & Grant, 1998; Gubitz &
Kutcher, 1999; Sammet, 2010).
Outdoor educators with an interest in girls’ development have identified benefits and con-
straints for girls in the outdoors. Culp (1998) identified constraints to adolescent females’ partici-
pation in outdoor pursuits such as physical and safety concerns, lack of opportunity, differential
opportunities for males and females, and negative peer influence. With the concern that girls
suffer a diminished voice and sense of agency as they reach their teenage years, outdoor pro-
graming has been seen as a way for girls to gain beneficial attributes such as resiliency, positive
identity formation (Gubitz & Kutcher, 1999), leadership, social skills, self-esteem (Wang, Liu &

363
Karen Warren

Kahlid, 2006) and an increased ability to speak out (Whittington, 2006). Results of one study
of several all-girl programmes found the benefits to be that ‘all girls programmes create a space
for adolescent girls to feel safe, increase their connection with others, and provide freedom from
stereotypes’ (Whittington, Mack, Budbill & McKenney, 2011, p. 2). Other benefits include
the reported feeling of self-confidence that solidified girls’ belief in their own abilities (Allen-
Craig & Hartley, 2012), perseverance, courage, resiliency and feelings of physical strength
(Whittington & Budbill, 2013).
The concept of courage has been central to the philosophies of girls’ outdoor programmes.
In studying adolescent females, Rogers (1993) used the 13th-century definition of courage
‘to speak one’s mind by telling all one’s heart’ and posited that this ordinary courage is lost as
girls reach early adolescence. All-girls programmes arose to address these concerns, spearheaded
by Outward Bound’s Connecting with Courage programme (Porter, 1996). A voice-centred
relational approach integrated into challenging outdoor activities was the basis of programming,
with self-expression such as drama, journaling and art work being a key component as well.
Best practices for working with girls in outdoor programmes have been refined over the
years to encompass a theoretical basis stressing strength-based approaches and an ethic of care as
underpinnings (McKenney, Budbill & Roberts, 2008). Within this framework, authentic choice
is emphasised and leadership provides positive role modelling. A strength-based approach, a
programme philosophy that emphasises the positive attributes and efforts of the student to
build on their natural talents rather than focus on their weaknesses (Passarelli, Hall & Anderson,
2010), is utilised to help girls maintain their innate strengths and resiliency in the face of social
pressures that undermine the self-confidence of adolescent females. Prior friendships are hon-
oured in the spirit of relationship building so that girls are encouraged rather than discouraged
from sharing the outdoor experience with their friends (Porter, 1996). As Culp (1998) has sug-
gested that peer relationships are pivotal to girls, outdoor courses offer opportunities for girls to
have positive relationships with other girls (Whittington, 2006).

Constructions of gender in the outdoors

Insistence polarised conundrums in outdoor studies about the female body (feminine vs strong)
(Newbery, 2003), nature (women aligned to nature vs men to culture), (Humberstone &
Pedersen, 2001), and meanings of outdoor experience (social relationships vs physical risk)
(Little, 2002a) must be continually challenged and demystified for liberatory gender relations
and experience in the outdoors to hold promise.
While Henderson and Gibson (2013) noted the development of a nascent analysis of men’s
experience in the leisure literature, the outdoor adventure field has been slower in examining
masculinity. Humberstone’s (2000) writing on hegemonic masculinity in outdoor education
is an exception where, making a comparison to sports, she posits that prevailing cultural mes-
sages ‘celebrate the idealised form of masculinity at the same time as inferiorising the ‘other’;
women and forms of masculinity that do not conform’ (p. 29). While being aware that men
in the outdoors who resist dominant stereotypes are marginalised, expressions of alternative
masculinities that contradict the prevailing ethos noted by scholars may help to reconstruct the
male-dominated nature of the outdoor experience.
In addition to interrogating concepts of masculinity in outdoor studies there is a need to con-
sider the intersectionality of oppressions with regard to gender (Henderson & Gibson, 2013).
In a study of multiple-hierarchy stratification of constraints in outdoor recreation, Shores,
Scott and Floyd (2007) found that identities such as gender, race/ethnicity, age and class inter-
acted, with multiple disadvantageous statuses correlating to a higher likelihood of experiencing

364
 Gender in outdoor studies

outdoor recreation constraints. Studying gender in the outdoors in isolation from other social
identities belies the complexity of the lived experience of participants. Further, in the same way
that much of the literature on outdoor education, adventure and recreation has implicitly been
located in male experience, the writings on females in the outdoors often assume the expe-
rience of white, able-bodied, class-privileged, heterosexual women. Some attempts to make
connections between intersectional experiences of privilege and oppression for women out-
doors have shown up in scholarly work on the meanings and experience of women of colour
(Roberts & Drogin, 1993; Roberts & Henderson, 1997). Understanding that women’s outdoor
adventure experience can continue through the life cycle is an underrepresented topic (Kluge,
2007), while socio-economic class can also influence engagement in the outdoors, with women
questioning costly outdoor programmes while men report that time scarcity due to employ-
ment responsibilities constrains participation (Shores et al., 2007). Entry-level outdoor skills
programmes for women have flourished as a way to gain outdoor competence without huge
monetary commitments (Jones, 2007; Stenberg, 2007).
Heteronormative views proliferate in outdoor education, with the voices of lesbian and
gay outdoor professionals virtually non-existent (Barnfield & Humberstone, 2008), leading to
the proposition that by ‘queering outdoor education’ educators can interrupt the status quo
of heterosexism and sexism (Russell, Sarick & Kennelly, 2003). Supported by homophobia,
gay and lesbian baiting, the practice of labelling people as gay or lesbian no matter their sexual
orientation, is used as a weapon of sexism to reinforce traditional gender role expectations
(McClintock, 1996).
Dialogues about gender issues in the outdoors have traditionally adhered to a gender binary
of dichotomous references of male and female within dialogue and practice. The range of
transgender experience has been only recently explored in outdoor recreation and adventure
(Grossman, O’Connell & D’Augelli, 2005; Mitten, 2012; Wilson & Lewis, 2012). As outdoor
educators better understand the lived experience of transgendered people, the more likely it is
that the gender binary might be challenged in the outdoor field and trans-sensitive practices to
support transgender youth and adults be developed.
Additional studies of these intersections of locations of privilege and disadvantage in partici-
pants and leaders in the outdoors are needed as an answer to normalising white, middle-class, fit
and able-bodied, youthful, heterosexual, male assumptions.

Conclusion
The future of outdoor studies rests on addressing some provocative questions that have previ-
ously been underrepresented in the dialogues about gender in the outdoors.
Can transgressive teaching and leading with attention to feminist values impact the entire
field of outdoor education and recreation? How do dominant paradigms of masculinity in
wilderness and adventure adversely affect men as well as women? Will acceptance of gender
fluidity open up dialogues of women and men’s issues in the outdoors to be less polarised? How
can gendered outdoor messages be muted by an oppositional stance? Can the marginalisation
of women and girls on mixed-gender outdoor adventures be mitigated so that the strengths of
all participants can be recognised and affirmed? Can normalising of practices rooted in white,
male, middle-class, heterosexual, able-bodied and youthful positions of privilege be a broadly
contested site of resistance that challenges the paradigms of outdoor practice, thereby creating
inclusivity?
This chapter has critically explored the gendered nature of outdoor education, recreation
and adventure. Certainly, more scholarly work is necessary to address these dilemmas but,

365
Karen Warren

ultimately, the future rests not in if we will answer these questions but when and how – and,
importantly, who will take the lead. While outdoor studies focused on gender have and continue
to evolve, significant gaps, promising methodologies, alternative theoretical frameworks and the
interrelationship of meanings are still to be explored.

References
Allen-Craig, S. & Hartley, C. (2012). Exploring the long-term effects for young women involved in an
outdoor education program. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education and Leadership, 4(2), 88–92.
Allin, L. (2003). Women’s reflections on a career in outdoor education. In B. Humberstone, H. Brown &
K. Richards (Eds.) Whose Journeys? The Outdoors and Adventure as Social and Cultural Phenomena
(pp. 229–239). Penrith, Cumbria: Institute for Outdoor Learning.
Barnfield, D. & Humberstone, B. (2008). Speaking out: Perspectives of gay and lesbian practitioners in
outdoor education in the UK. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 8(1), 31–42.
Bell, M. (1996). Feminists challenging assumptions about outdoor leadership. In K. Warren (Ed.) Women’s
Voices in Experiential Education (pp. 141–156). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Bell, M. (1997). Gendered experience: Social theory and experiential practice. Journal of Experiential
Education, 20(3), 143–151.
Bialeschki, M.D. (2005). Fear of violence: Contested constraints by women in outdoor recreation activi-
ties. In E. Jackson (Ed.) Constraints to Leisure (pp. 103–114). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Boniface, M. (2006). The meaning of adventurous activities for ‘women in the outdoors’. Journal of
Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 6(1), 9–24.
Brown, L. & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the Crossroads: Women’s Psychology and Girls’ Development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cook, L. (2001). Differential social and political influences on girls and boys through education out of
doors in the United Kingdom. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 1(2), 43–51.
Culp, R.H. (1998). Adolescent girls and outdoor recreation: A case study examining constraints and effec-
tive programming. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(3), 356–380.
Denny, K.E. (2011). Gender in context, content, and approach: Comparing gender messages in Girl Scout
and Boy Scout handbooks. Gender & Society, 25(1), 27–47.
Dingle, P. & Kiewa, J. (2006). Links between kayaking, fear, confidence and competence: Factors affecting
women’s participation in paddling in a tertiary outdoor education course. Australian Journal of Outdoor
Education, 10(1), 46–53.
Frauman, E. & Washam, J. (2013). The role of gender as it relates to confidence among university outdoor
programs’ staff. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education and Leadership, 5(2), 119–123.
Glotfelty, C. (1996). Femininity in the wilderness: Reading gender in women’s guides to backpacking.
Women’s Studies, 25(5), 439–456.
Grossman, A.H., O’Connell, T.S. & D’Augelli, A.R. (2005). Leisure and recreational ‘girl–boy’ activities –
studying the unique challenges provided by transgendered young people. Leisure/Loisir: Journal of the
Canadian Association for Leisure Studies, 29(1), 5–26.
Gubitz, K.F. & Kutcher, J. (1999). Facilitating identity formation for adolescent girls using experientially
based outdoor activities. TCA Journal, 27(1), 32–39.
Haluza-DeLay, R. & Dyment, J.E. (2003). A toolkit for gender-inclusive wilderness leadership. JOPERD –
The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 74(7), 28–32.
Henderson, K. (1996). Feminist perspectives on outdoor leadership. In K. Warren (Ed.) Women’s Voices in
Experiential Education (pp. 107–117). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Henderson, K. & Grant, A. (1998). Recreation programming: Don’t forget the girls. Parks & Recreation,
(6), 34–41.
Henderson, K.A. & Gibson, H.J. (2013). An integrative review of women, gender, and leisure: Increasing
complexities. Journal of Leisure Research, 45(2), 115–135.
Hornibrook, T., Brinkert, E., Parry, D., Seimens, R., Mitten, D. & Priest, S. (1997). The benefits and
motivations of all-women outdoor programs. Journal of Experiential Education, 20(3), 152–158.
Humberstone, B. (2000) The ‘outdoor industry’ as social and educational phenomena: Gender and out-
door adventure/education. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 1(1), 21–35.
Humberstone, B. & Lynch, P. (1991). Girls’ concepts of themselves and their experiences in outdoor edu-
cation programmes. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 8(3), 27–31.

366
 Gender in outdoor studies

Humberstone, B. & Pedersen, K. (2001). Gender, class and outdoor traditions in the UK and Norway.
Sport, Education & Society, 6(1), 23–33.
Irish III, P.A. (2006). Gender-specific effects of muting on outdoor ropes challenge participation. Journal
of Experiential Education, 29(2), 168–186.
Jones, J.J. (2007). Impact of ‘Becoming an Outdoors-Woman’ on self-efficacy, constraints and participa-
tion in outdoor recreation. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University.
Jordan, D.J. (1992). Effective leadership for girls and women in outdoor recreation. JOPERD – The Journal
Of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 63(2), 61–64.
Kluge, M.A. (2007) Re-creating through recreating: Using the personal growth through adventure model
to transform women’s lives. Journal of Transformative Education, 5, 177–191.
Libby, J. & Carruthers, C. (2013). Outcomes associated with a university outdoor adventures women’s
canoe trip. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education and Leadership, 5(3), 210–225.
Little, D.E. (2002a). How do women construct adventure recreation in their lives? Journal of Adventure
Education and Outdoor Learning, 2(1), 55–69.
Little, D.E. (2002b). Women and adventure recreation: Reconstructing leisure constraints and adventure
experiences to negotiate continuing participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(2), 157–177.
Loeffler, T.A. (1996). Leading the way: Strategies that enhance women’s involvement in experiential
education careers. In K. Warren (Ed.), Women’s Voices in Experiential Education (pp. 94–103). Dubuque,
IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Loeffler, T.A. (1997). Assisting women in developing a sense of competence in outdoor programs. Journal
of Experiential Education, 20(3), 119–123.
Loeffler, T.A. (2000). The seasons of competency development for women. Pathways: The Ontario Journal
of Outdoor Education, 12(4), 4–8.
Lugg, A. (2003). Women’s experience of outdoor education: Still trying to be ‘one of the boys’. In B.
Humberstone, H. Brown & K. Richards (Eds.) Whose Journeys? The Outdoors and Adventure as Social and
Cultural Phenomena (pp. 33–47). Penrith, Cumbria: Institute for Outdoor Learning.
Martin, B., Cashel, C., Wagstaff, M. & Breunig, M. (2006). Outdoor Leadership: Theory and Practice.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
McClintock, M. (1996). Lesbian baiting hurts all women. In K. Warren (Ed.) Women’s Voices in Experiential
Education (pp. 241–250). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
McKenney, P., Budbill, N.W. & Roberts, N.S. (2008). Girls’ outdoor adventure programs: History,
theory, and practice. In K. Warren, D. Mitten & T.A. Loeffler (Eds.) Theory and Practice of Experiential
Education (pp. 532–554). Boulder, CO: Association for Experiential Education.
McNiel, J.N., Harris, D.A. & Fondren, K.M. (2012). Women and the wild: Gender socialization in wil-
derness recreation advertising. Gender Issues, 29(1–4), 39.
Mitten, D. (1985). A philosophical basis for a women’s outdoor adventure program. Journal of Experiential
Education, 8(2), 20–24.
Mitten, D. (2012). Transgender and gender-nonconforming participation in outdoor adventure pro-
gramming: Let’s go mainstream. In B. Martin & M. Wagstaff (Eds.) Controversial Issues in Adventure
Programming (pp. 235–240). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mitten, D., Warren, K., Lotz, E. & d’Amore, C. (2012). The hidden curriculum in adventure education:
A Delphi study. In Proceedings of the 2012 Symposium on Experiential Education Research. (pp. 37–40).
Madison, WI: AEE.
Myers, L. (2010). Women travellers’ adventure tourism experiences in New Zealand. Annals of Leisure
Research, 13(1–2), 116–142.
Newbery, L. (2003). Will any/body carry that canoe? A geography of the body, ability, and gender.
Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 8, 204–216.
Newbery, L. (2004). Hegemonic gender identity and Outward Bound: Resistance and re-inscription?
Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 13(1), 36–49.
Passarelli, A., Hall, E. & Anderson, M. (2010). A strengths-based approach to outdoor and adventure edu-
cation: Possibilities for personal growth. Journal of Experiential Education, 33(2), 120–135.
Porter, T. (1996). ‘Connecting with Courage,’ an Outward Bound program for adolescent girls. In K.
Warren (Ed.) Women’s Voices in Experiential Education (pp. 267–275). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Roberts, N.S. & Drogin, E.B. (1993). The outdoor recreation experience: Factors affecting participation
of African American women. Journal of Experiential Education, 16(1), 14–18.
Roberts, N.S. & Henderson, K.A. (1997). Women of color in the outdoors: Culture and meanings. Journal
of Experiential Education, 20(3), 134–142.

367
 Karen Warren

Rogers, A. (1993). Voice, play, and a practice of ordinary courage in girls and women’s lives. Harvard
Educational Review, 63(3), 265–295.
Russell, C., Sarick, T. & Kennelly, J. (2003). Queering outdoor education. Pathways: The Ontario Journal
of Outdoor Education, 15(1), 16–19.
Sammet, K. (2010). Relationships matter: Adolescent girls and relational development in adventure educa-
tion. Journal of Experiential Education, 33(2), 151–165.
Shores, K.A., Scott, D. & Floyd, M.F. (2007). Constraints to outdoor recreation: A multiple hierarchy
stratification perspective. Leisure Sciences, 29(3), 227–246.
Stenberg, K. (2007). Free life: A report from the ‘Outdoor Life for Women’ program in Sweden. Pathways:
The Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 19(3), 29–33.
Tyson, L. & Asmus, K. (2008). Deepening the paradigm of choice: Exploring choice and power in expe-
riential education. In K. Warren, D. Mitten & T.A. Loeffler (Eds.) Theory and Practice of Experiential
Education (pp. 262–281). Boulder, CO: Association for Experiential Education.
Wang, C., Liu, W. & Kahlid, A. (2006). Effects of a five-day Outward Bound course on female students
in Singapore. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(2), 20–28.
Warren, K. (1985). Women’s outdoor adventures: Myth and reality. Journal of Experiential Education, 8(2),
10–15.
Warren, K. (2012). Paradigms of outdoor adventure and social justice. In B. Martin & M. Wagstaff (Eds.)
Controversial Issues in Adventure Programming (pp. 120–125). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Warren, K. & Loeffler, T. (2006). Factors that influence women’s technical skill development. Journal of
Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 6(2), 107–120.
Warren, K. & Rheingold, A. (1993). Feminist pedagogy and experiential education: A critical look. Journal
of Experiential Education, 16 (3), 25–31.
Wedin, B.M. (2009). Experiencing the wilderness. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education and Leadership,
1(2), 172–190.
Whittington, A. (2006). Challenging girls’ constructions of femininity in the outdoors. Journal of Experiential
Education, 28(3), 205–221.
Whittington, A. & Budbill, N. (2013). Breaking the mold: Impacts of adventure education on girls. Journal
of Outdoor Recreation, Education and Leadership, 5(1), 37–53.
Whittington, A., Mack, E., Budbill, N. & McKenney, P. (2011). All-girls adventure programmes: What
are the benefits? Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 11(1), 1–14.
Wilson, J. & Lewis, S. (2012). Transgender-specific programming: An oasis in the storm. In B. Martin &
M. Wagstaff (Eds.) Controversial Issues in Adventure Programming (pp. 229–234). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Wittmer, C.R. (2001). Leadership and gender-role congruency: A guide for wilderness and outdoor prac-
titioners. Journal of Experiential Education, 24(3), 173–178.
Wright, M. & Gray, T. (2013). The hidden turmoil: Females achieving longevity in the outdoor learning
profession. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 16(2), 12–23.

368

View publication stats