Justification of a qualitative approach

Qualitative research is broadly concerned with illuminating human environments and human experiences within a variety of conceptual frameworks (Winchester & Rofe 2016). Qualitative approaches place an emphasis on the ways in which the world is socially constructed and understood, and generally employ methods which are small-scale and intense, with significant interaction between the researcher and the researched (McEvoy & Richards 2006). This departs from a quantitative approach, shaped more by a methodological enquiry focused on measuring, representing and modelling (DeLyser 2009), employing standardised measures and statistical techniques (McEvoy & Richards 2006).

Changes in conceptualisations of nature (Macnaghten & Urry 1998) and youth (James et al. 1998) have involved the remodelling of research practices and methodologies within both disciplines. In relation to theorisations of childhood, James et al. (1998: 207) identify an epistemological break, wherein “the child is conceived of as a person, a status, a course of action, a set of needs, rights or differences – in sum, as a social actor”. This foregrounds an

approach to research with, rather than, on children, as central informants of their own life worlds (Christiensen & James 2000). Further, just as the concepts of childhood and youth have been conceived of as socially constructed concepts (Holloway & Valentine 2000; James et al. 1998), as outlined in Chapter 2, nature has also come to be understood as constituted through a variety of socio-cultural processes (Macnaghten & Urry 1998). Both these views incorporate a progressive understanding of socio-spatial processes surrounding childhood and nature, and the ways in which (young people’s) identities are constituted in and through particular (nature) spaces. Subsequently, qualitative approaches have the potential to explore and better understand the manifold interactions which make up young peoples’ outdoor education environments. As McEvoy and Richards (2006) assert, the key strength of qualitative methods is their ‘open- endedness’. That is, they allow unanticipated themes to emerge through the enquiry, and can help to highlight complex concepts and relationships to emerge, which may not have been captured by standardised quantitative measures (Ibid.). Adopting a qualitative approach to this research therefore provides an opportunity to gain a deeper insight into young people’s behaviours and practices (Cieslik & Simpson 2013), and generate more purposeful data to address the study’s research questions.

In addition, qualitative methods have been identified as more appropriate to the study outdoor education than quantitative methods (Barrett & Greenaway 1995). Previously, research focusing on outdoor education sought to rationalise experiential learning through well-defined and measurable outcomes (Davidson 2001), often achieved through quantitative instruments such as self-report questionnaires (Ibid.). However, the process of experiential learning (Nicol 2014) involves the interaction of complex variables – people, processes and outcomes – which come together to produce subjective and personal learning experiences (Barrett & Greenaway 1995; Allison & Pomeroy 2000; Davidson 2001). Research that explores these complex variables is necessary to understand how adventure experiences influence perceptions and behaviour in individual and context-specific ways.

The number of mixed-method and qualitative empirical studies exploring the processes of outdoor experiential learning, including studies of the Outward Bound (both in the UK and internationally) has grown in number and quality over the past two decades (see Hattie et al. 1997; Davidson 2001; Mckenzie 2003; Goldenberg et al. 2005; Martin & Leberman 2005). However, much of this research has focused on how core elements relate to key prescribed outcomes. Privileging those ‘quantifiable’ outcomes can marginalize other areas of research (Mcdonald 2000), and these studies often include some underlying assumptions about outdoor

learning experiences (Ewert & Sibthorp 2000). The need for accountability has previously allowed for empirical qualitative studies with weak anecdotal evidence and a tendency towards the descriptive (Long et al. 2000), which also tends to assume a common appreciation of processes across programmes (Hattie et al. 1997). Although the nature of qualitative research means that it is difficult to generalize from studies, it provides a unique interpretation of events better suited to the personal nature of experiential learning (Martin & Leberman 2005). The rich information that can be captured through qualitative research can give insights into the individual meanings and perceptions that participants give to experience (Davidson 2001). Given this, employing qualitative methodologies also allows this research to respond to calls for a greater focus on the how and why of outdoor education programmes over the summative outcomes (Ewert & McAvoy 2000). This study therefore focuses on areas of outdoor education research which have hitherto been overlooked.

Increasingly, multiple qualitative research methods are being used to explore the experiences of children and young people (Hemming 2008). Common research methods include semi- structured interviews, focus group discussions and ethnographic observations (Cieslik & Simpson 2013). There has also been a move toward the use of visual methodologies (Pimlott- Wilson 2012; Pink 2007) and participatory approaches (Gallagher 2008), to ‘give voice’ to young people in different ways and enable them to be actively involved in the production of research data. There is much methodological debate in children’s geographies regarding power relations between the researcher(s) and participants, and issues of ethics and positionality (Gallagher 2008; Hemming 2008; Holt 2004; Morrow 2008; Wilkinson 2016), particularly in the use of ‘child-centred’ methods (Hemming 2008). Holt (2004) compels (children’s) geographers to engage in ‘empowering research relations’ within their research practices, whilst Gallagher (2008) warns against the potential contradictions in supposedly ‘empowering’ participatory methods with children. Accordingly, this study adopts a multi-method, qualitative approach, in an attempt to provide a rich account of different individual experiences, contexts and interpretations of outdoor education spaces from both practitioner and young people perspectives. However, it does so whilst acknowledging the “complex multivalency of power” exercised across spaces of research (Gallagher 2008: 137). The knowledge produced is always only partial, influenced by the researcher’s subjectivity and positionality (Rose 1997), which is something I reflect on throughout this chapter.

The research uses a case study methodology, closely examining the data within a specific context (Baxter 2016; Zainal 2007). This approach allows for an in-depth, holistic investigation

of the complex processes of outdoor education, and has been used prominently in sociological research, including educational studies (Zainal 2007). In combination with a multi-method approach, an in-depth case study of the OBT provides an excellent lens through which to understand the social and physical spaces of outdoor education, thus contributing to broader geographical debates by combining a focus on educational spaces, youth and nature.