INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, som e thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of th is reproduction is d ep en d en t u p o n the quality of th e
copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted.

Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand com er and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy.

Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white

photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Z eeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600

UMI

THE RISK HANDLING BEHAVIOUR OF WHITE WATER KAYAKERS
By
Sally Rigpni
B.Sc., University of Victoria, 1993

THESIS SUBMITTED DMPARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
In
COMMUNITY HEALTH SCIENCE

c Sally Rigoni, 2000
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
June 2000
All rights reserved. This work may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or
other means, without the permission of the author.

1^1

National Library
of Canada

Bibliothèque nationale
du Canada

Acquisitions and
Bibliographic Services

Acquisitions et
services txbliographiques

395 WeWngton Strset
Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada

395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada
KourAto Votm
O u r m Nofrm

The author has granted a non­
exclusive licence allowing the
National Library of Canada to
reproduce, loan, distribute or sell
copies of this thesis in microform,
paper or electronic formats.

L’auteur a accordé une hcence non
exclusive permettant à la
Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
la forme de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papiar ou sur format
électronique.

The author retains ownership of the
copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nor substantial extracts from it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author’s
permission.

L’auteur conserve la propriété du
droit d’auteur qui protège cette thèse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.

0-612-62497-8

Canada

APPROVAL

Name:

Sally Rigoni

Degi'ee:

Master of Science

Thesis Title:

THE RISK HANDLING BEHAVIOUR OF WHITE WATER
KAYAKERS

Examining Committee:

lit: ^ s l i e King, PhD
Professor and Chair, Northwe^

ïgion

Supervisor: Martha MacLeod, RN, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair, Nursing Program

C om
num
n i^e
ise Member: John Shultis, PhD
Assistant Professor, Resource Recreation and Tourism Program

Committee Member: Ted Altar, PhD
Adjunct Professor, Psychology Program

External Examiner: Linda Ritchie, RN, PhD
Assistant Professor, Nursing Program

Date Approved:

ABSTRACT

It is a challenge for those in health care to develop programs and strategies to improve
personal health practices. To help address this challenge, this thesis examines the risk behaviours
of white water kayakers, a group of people alleged to experience few injuries because of their
ability to effectively handle the risks of the sport. In reviewing the literature it was noted that
little is known about the individual and situational factors that influence the learning and practice
of risk-handling behaviours.
A qualitative ethnographic approach was used to capture the character of the kayakers’
naturally occurring behaviour. Field notes and interview transcripts were produced from periods
of participant observation in a white water kayaking course and from interviews with seven white
water kayakers.
The systematic analysis of these interview transcripts and field notes revealed that the
kayakers engaged in the sport because of its anticipated benefits. Rather than ignoring the
potential risks, however, they aggressively tried to formulate options that reduced their risk of
injury. Formulating options involved a complex, dynamic process of decision-making. The
kayakers needed skill, knowledge and strong beliefs in their abilities to handle the risks before
they were able to integrate all the information necessary for effective decision-making. The
development of these attributes was found to be a process that occurs over time with instruction
and experience. The study identified individual and situational factors that affected the
development of skill, knowledge and beliefs of self-efficacy. Belief in their ability to handle the
risks was the key individual factor affecting the kayakers’ risk behaviour and the subsequent
development of their risk-handling behaviour. The situational factors included the type of
companions and the type of kayaking experience. The kayakers learned from participating in
social interactions and discussions with experienced kayakers, and from making decisions and
paddling themselves.

Ill

The findings o f this thesis suggest that developing programs which focus on the
anticipated benefits o f developing effective risk-handling behaviours may be a more effective
means of engaging people in the learning process than programs which focus exclusively on the
negative aspects of risk activities. The findings of this thesis also suggest guidelines for program
development. Actively involving people in the learning experience by providing opportunities
for group discussions, helping people identify the risks in the situation and then providing
opportunities to learn and practice behaviours that minimize the risk of injury in a safe
environment were found to be effective means of developing risk-handling behaviours.
The background for this study drew on several bodies of literature: health promotion,
adventure recreation, risk decision-making, and experiential learning. The findings demonstrate
the ability of interdisciplinary collaboration to provide fresh insights for promoting health and
preventing disease and injury.

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

viii

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

I

Background Information
Purpose of Study
Relevance of Study to Community Health Care

2
3
4

CHAPTER 2 Review of Literature

7

Introduction
Concept of Risk
Health Promotion and Disease/Injury Prevention Concept of Risk
Adventure Recreation Concept of Risk
Risk Decision-Making
Deliberate Risk Decision-Making
Normative Models of Decision-Making
Descriptive Models of Decision-Making
Developmental Perspective of Risk Decision-Making
Role of Beliefs of Self Efficacy in Decision Making
Cognitive Processes
Motivational Processes
Affective Processes
Selection Processes
Non-Deliberative Risk Decisions
Experiential Learning
Stages of Skill Acquisition
Level 1. Novice
Level 2. Advanced Beginner
Level 3. Competent
Level4. E*roficient
Level 5. Expert
Process of Movement through the Stages
The Nature of Experience
The Social Aspect of Learning
Summary and Conclusions

7
8
9
15
21
21
23
24
24
25
26
27
28
28
30
33
34
35
35
35
35
35
36
37
38
40

CHAPTER 3 Approach to the Study

44

The Ethnographic Approach
Data Collection Techniques and Ethical Considerations

45
46

•

Participant Observation
Intensive Interviews
Sample Selection
Ethical Considerations
The Interview Guide
The Interviews
Data Analysis
Data Quality/Rigor

47
49
50
51
51
52
53
56

CHAPTER 4 The Kayaking Experience

59

White Water Kayaking —The Sport
Feelings Associated with the Kayaking Experience
Fear
Exhilaration
Confidence
Choosing a Successful Experience
Perception of Risk
Risk T olerance
Realizing a Successful Experience
Assessment
Assessing the Environment
Assessing skill level
Assessing the Equipment
Planning
Implementation
Summary

59
63
64
66
68
70
70
71
75
75
75
77
78
81
83
84

.

CHAPTER 5 The Social Environment of White Water Kayakers

86

A Team Sport
Team Size
The Right People
The Wrong People
A Kayaker s Liability
Gender Issues
Rules of Conduct
Team Leadership
Team Behaviours
Summary

86
87
88
90
91
93
95
95
98
101

CHAPTER 6 The Learning Process

104

Ted’s Story
Ted’s Introduction to the Sport
Ted’s Initial Experiences
Effects of the Kayaking Course
Other Sources of Learning
Summary of Ted’s Experiences
The Other Kayakers’ Experiences
Introduction to the Sport

104
105
105
106
107
111
111
112

VI

Initial Learning Experiences
The Kayaking Course
The First Day
The Second and Third Day
The fourth and fifth day
Jane’s Experience
Additional Sources o f Learning
Tips From Other Kayakers
Experiential Learning
Books and Videos
Learning From Other Sports
Summary

113
115
115
116
117
121
122
122
125
127
128
129

CHAPTER 7 Summary and Conclusions
Introduction
Risk Decision-Making
Deliberative Risk Decision-Making
Non-Deliberative Risk Decision-Making
Development of Effective Risk Decision-Making Skills
Skill Development
Knowledge Development
Development of Beliefs of Self-Efficacy
Flow
Implications
Adventure Recreation Implications
Health Promotion and Disease/Injury Prevention Implications
Suggestions for Future Research
Summary

132
132
133
134
134
135
135
137
139
140
141
142
143
146
147

REFERENCES

149

APPENDIX A: Sample of Consent Form

157

APPENDIX B: THE INTERVIEW GUIDE

158

APPENDIX C: DIAGRAMMING STAGE

159

APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

160

v il

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Schuett’s Revised Adventure Recreation Model

17

Figure 2: Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow Model

20

Figure 3: The Participants

50

Figure 4: Domains

54

V lll

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Pursuing this project was much like my white water kayaking experience. There were
wonderful times when concepts became clear, the words appeared and 1 actually experienced
“flow”. There were also times, as in kayaking, where I ran into the “wall of death” and felt
incapable of completing the project. There were ether times of waiting for feedback or times
when other life activities took priority. I eddied out” during these times and refocused on the
journey ahead. When other disciplines came on stream it caused some ripples, as happens when
streams join rivers. At these times decisions had to be made: should I lean upstream and risk
flipping over or lean down stream and go with the current and increase the chance of a successful
experience. To help me leam the risk handling behaviours necessary for a successful thesis
journey I was fortunate to have the right people on my team.
First amongst them are my family. My husband Chris, whose enduring patience, love
and support helped me to keep this project in perspective. I know I can “lick all my ten fingers
and never find a man so good”. My children, Richard and Michelle, offered many words of
encouragement and believed in my ability to succeed.
Without the support and wise guidance of my thesis advisor, Martha MacLeod, this
journey would not have been possible. She suffered through many rough chapter drafts providing
clear direction and hope that the end would one day be realized. Ted Altar and John Shultis,
members of my thesis committee, gave their time to provide valuable feedback and advice which
improved the quality of my thesis. I thank them for their support.
Friends and colleagues have been tremendously supportive throughout this project.
Leslie Stuart, who is also writing her thesis, helped to dispel the isolation one feels when doing a
project such as this through distance education. Joanna, Carol, Gayle, and Margaret, community
health classmates have shown me thesis projects do end if one perseveres. I thank them for

IX

showing the way. Assessing library resources by distance can be challenging. The friendly
assistance of Jan Johnson and Nancy Black has been invaluable.
Heartfelt thanks must also go to the white water kayakers who willingly shared their
experiences with me, allowing a better understanding of how risk handling behaviours are learned
and practiced. These insights have caused me and I hope others to look at promoting health and
preventing disease and injury with new eyes.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction

Many people are making impressive efforts to improve their health by changing their
personal health practices. They are becoming more active, stopping smoking or choosing not to
start, wearing seat belts and driving sober. In spite of these changes, there is evidence that there
remains considerable room for improvement. The Second Report of the Health of Canadians
reveals that rates of smoking and multiple drug use have increased substantially among
adolescents, the proportion of overweight men and women has increased, rates of physical
activity continue to decrease with age, and many people are choosing to engage in unprotected
sexual activity with multiple partners (Federal, Provincial & Territorial Advisory Committee on
Population Health, 1999). It is a challenge for those engaged in health promotion and
disease/injury prevention to develop programs and strategies that will improve personal health
practices.
Promoting health and preventing disease and injury is complicated by the fact that many
health care providers have been conditioned to view risk behaviours negatively. As a result,
many of the strategies and programs promoting health and preventing disease and injury focus on
the negative outcomes of risk behaviours and seek to eliminate these behaviours. People’s
expectancies regarding expected benefits have been shown to be more reliably associated with
their risk-taking behaviour than were their beliefs regarding the potential negative outcomes
(Fromme, Katz, & Rivet, 1997). Therefore, the health promotion programs and disease or injury
prevention programs which focus on the negative outcomes may be missing their target. Some of
the more recently developed programs promote risk-handling behaviours to reduce rather than
eliminate the negative aspects of risk behaviours while still allowing people to enjoy the benefits.
Unfortunately little is known about the nature of risk-handling behaviours or the factors which
influence the learning and practice of these behaviours (Yates, 1992).

In contrast to the field of health promotion, where the focus has traditionally been on the
negative outcomes of risk behaviour, those involved in the field o f adventure recreation focus on
the positive outcomes o f risk activities. Adventice recreation activities provide opportunities for
people to experience intense cognitive and affective involvement which results in self discovery
and personal growth (Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1989; Robinson, 1992). Those involved in the field
of adventure recreation seek to provide opportunities whereby people participating can realize
these benefits through the development of technical skills and effective decision-making abilities
(Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1989; Schuett, 1991). Using these skills, participants are able to handle
the risks in adventure recreation and avoid injury. If we in health care can more fully understand
the individual and situational factors that influence the learning and practice of these riskhandling behaviours, it may lead to the development of more effective health promotion and
disease/injury prevention programs and strategies.

Background Information
This study stems from a personal interest in the behaviour of those who participate in
high-risk sports, especially white water kayaking, and from a need in my role as a community
health nurse to develop more effective health promotion and disease/injury prevention programs.
In discussions with people who engage in high-risk sports such as white water kayaking,
backcountry skiing, and rock climbing, I have come to admire their ability to engage in these risk
activities without experiencing serious injury. The research shows that there is an increase in the
number of people engaging in these high-risk sports all over North America (Ewert, 1994;
Robinson, 1992). The research also shows that these risk takers are rarely reckless in decision
making (Carroll, 1988; Groves, 1987; Holmes, 1983) and in fact have comparatively low rates of
injury when compared with those who participate in the more traditional sporting activities such
as football or basketball (Ewert & Johnson, 1983; Hale, 1987).

In my practice as a community health nurse working in a small northern community, I
work with people of different age groups, in a variety of settings including schools, people’s
homes and senior’s and recreation centers. Many people are engaging in activities that put their
health and the health of their children at risk. I have found that programs which focus on the
negative outcomes of risk activities are not always effective in changing behaviour. In fact I have
found it is often difficult to even attract interest in programs which focus on the negative
outcomes. As I began my search o f the literature for this study, I gained a new perspective on
risk-taking behaviours. I realized more fully how the understanding of risk affects the response to
risk behaviours and risk situations. The response of those involved in the field of adventure
recreation to individuals who engage in high-risk recreation activities is to provide programs with
the goal of enabling these individuals to make effective risk-decisions and to handle the risks. A
more thorough understanding of the risk handling behaviour of those who engage in high risk
recreational activities and the way in which they leam these behaviours may provide insights that
are of benefit to those in the field of community health care.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to better understand the ways in which people engage in riskhandling behaviours and the factors which influence the learning and practice of these
behaviours. Specifically, this study explores the risk-handling behaviour of white water kayakers
with a view to gaining an understanding of the individual and situational factors that influence the
learning and practice of their risk-handling behaviours. White water kayaking is a sport that,
because of the very nature of the environment in which it takes place, has the potential to produce
high risks or even cause death. Through a detailed analysis of transcripts of interviews with
kayakers and field notes gathered during a white water kayaking course, an interpretation is
offered of the white water kayaker’s risk-handling behaviours and the processes by which these
behaviours are learned.

Relevance of Study to Community Health Care
There are many factors in the socioeconomic and physical environments that impact on
health, either directly or indirectly through their influence on personal health practices. While it is
recognized that the health sector has a key direct role in improving health, many of the
determinants of health are outside the traditional health system (Federal, Provincial, & Territorial
Advisory Committee on Population Health, 1999). Building alliances with other sectors is
recommended as a primary strategy for improving the health of the population in the Second
Report on the Health of Canadians (Federal, Provincial & Territorial Advisory Cotiunittee on
Population Health, 1999). The recreation sector is identified in the report as one of the necessary
partners.
This study is therefore significant in that it brings together research from the field of
adventure recreation and health. Many health studies explore risk behaviours such as drug and
alcohol use (Fromme, Katz, & D’Amico, 1997), drinking and driving (Wilson & Jonah, 1985)
and unsafe sexual practices (Plant, Plant, Peck & Setters, 1989). Exploring the behaviour of
white water kayakers engaged in adventure recreation targets a different population of risk takers.
Exploring the risk behaviours and also, more importantly, the risk-handling behaviours of this
group provides fresh insights into the individual and situational factors that affect the
development of risk-handling behaviours. As this study explores the behaviour of white water
kayakers it may be of interest to those in the field of adventure recreation and thus be a first step
in encouraging dialogue between the recreation and health care sectors.
To be effective, programs that promote health and prevent disease and injury must first
attract the interest of those engaging in risk behaviours. It is therefore important to examine the
approach used to interest the white water kayakers in developing and implementing behaviours
which enable them to handle the risks. The understanding gained from this examination may
furnish community health professionals with new ideas for attracting people’s interest in
promoting health and preventing disease and injury.

The risk decision is an important step in initiating any risk-handling behaviour. In the
literature it was noted that there are two types of risk decisions. One is a process of careful
deliberation and while the other is an automatic response reflecting the intuitive, skilled response
of an expert or the behaviour of one engaging in the routine activities of daily life (Wagenaar,
1992; Pitz, 1992). It is necessary to recognize both types of decision-making in any discussion of
risk behaviour. This study explores the white water kayakers’ risk decision-making providing
insights into the factors that affect their risk decisions. Knowledge of these factors can serve to
better direct strategies and programs seeking to change behaviours.
Without a clear understanding of risk-handling behaviours and the factors that affect the
learning and practice of these behaviours, health care providers may fail to develop programs and
strategies which effectively promote health and prevent disease and injury. This study seeks to
increase the understanding of these risk-handling behaviours and the process by which these
behaviours are learned. Arising from the study, guidelines for program development to enhance
the advancement of risk-handling behaviours are suggested.
The structure of this thesis is as follows. Chapter 2 begins with a discussion of the
concept of risk and demonstrates how the understanding of risk affects the way in which risk
activities are approached. The literature review then discusses the approach used in traditional
health promotion and disease/injury prevention programs and contrasts this with the approach
used by those in adventure recreation programs. In the next part of the chapter the risk decision­
making literature is reviewed. The chapter concludes with an exploration of the experiential
learning literature to provide the background from which to view the kayakers’ process of
learning the risk-handling behaviours.
Chapter 3 describes the approach used in this study and provides the framework for the
particular methods of data collection and analysis that were used. Ethical considerations are also
addressed in this chapter. The analysis of the data led to the identification of major themes,
which are expanded upon in chapters 4, 5, and 6. Chapter 4 describes the risk experience and the

behaviours that are used to handle the risk. Di Chapter 5 the role of the social environment in the
development and implementation of risk-handling behaviours is discussed. The processes by
which the kayakers leam to handle the risks are described in Chapter 6.
In the final chapter the themes are brought together in a discussion of risk decision making, which is central to any risk handling behaviour. The kayakers are shown to take a
proactive role in dealing with risk, aggressively trying to formulate options that will enable them
to handle the risk. I suggest that the risk decision-making that takes place in the natural
environment is more complex and dynamic than has previously been described in the decision­
making literature. The increased understanding of the development and practice of risk-handling
behaviour gained in this study has implications for the development of health promotion and
disease/injury prevention programs and also for the development of white water kayaking
programs. These implications are discussed, as are the limitations of the findings and suggestions
for future research.

CHAPTER2
Review of Literature

Introduction
Three main bodies of literature are reviewed to provide a foundation from which to view
the risk-handling behaviour of white water kayakers. The first body of literature concerns the
concept of risk. There is an element of risk in all that we do; in fact life itself is about taking
risks; however, the understanding of and the response to risk varies. As this study explores the
adventure recreation activity of white water kayaking, to provide information that will assist those
in health promotion and disease/injury prevention, the following discussion examines the concept
of risk from these two perspectives. The discussion also explores how the differences in
understanding of risk lead to the development of different responses to risk situations and
behaviours.
The second body of literature examines risk decision-making. The risk decision is the
first step in engaging in risk behaviour or in initiating risk-handling behaviour. There are many
theories that have been developed to explain how individuals make risk decisions. A discussion
of these theories serves as a backdrop to the examination of the white water kayakers’ process of
decision making. There are individual and situational factors that afreet risk decision-making.
Among these factors, the most notable is self-efficacy, as this concept has been described as
influencing the way individuals feel, think, and act. The literature concerning beliefs in selfefficacy and the development of these beliefs is explored as well.
White water kayakers leam many of the risk-handling behaviours during the kayaking
experience; therefore, the third body of literature reviewed concerns experiential learning. Four
aspects of experiential learning are discussed: stages of skill acquisition, process of movement
through the stages, the nature of the experience, and the social aspect of learning. Examination of

8

these aspects provides the background from which to view the white water kayakers’ learning
experience.
Concept of Risk
The dictionary definition of risk “is the possibility of loss ” Yates’ (1992) meta-analysis
of risk-taking behaviour outlines three critical elements of the risk construct: "(a) potential losses,
(b) the significance o f those losses, and (c) the uncertainty of those losses’’ (p.4). He suggests
that the significance and uncertainty of the loss is based on a subjective assessment o f the
situation. What is perceived to be a risk situation for one person may not be considered a risk
situation for another.
Keyes (1985), in his study of several types of risk-takers including a high-wire walker, a
skydiver and individuals choosing drastic life and career changes, observes another element in the
risk construct. He proposes that to take risks one must confront fear. “This, ” he says, “ is the
essence of genuine risk taking’’ (p. 276). There are tangible rewards for confronting fear and
taking risks. Once confronted, fear changes from a negative sensation of possible loss, to a
positive sensation of exhilaration and heightened arousal. Keyes (1985) notes that when shared
with others, the feelings of exhilaration and heightened arousal serve as “a source of
camaraderie” (p. 33).
Just as there are differences in the way one perceives a risk situation, there are also
differences in the way in which one reacts to a risk situation. Personality theorists explore the
possibility that some individuals have a “sensation seeking” trait that draws them into activities in
which there is the perceived possibility of death. Keyes (1985) discovered that some of his
subjects craved the feeling of exhilaration and stimulation and became listless without it. This
finding coincides with studies done by Zuckerman (1983) and Zuckerman, Simons and Como
(1988) who theorize and test the theory that individual differences in sensation seeking are in part
attributed to individual differences in brain chemistry. Bromiley and Curley’s (1992) review of
the research on individual differences in risk-taking finds a lack of theories that address critical

situational and individual factors involved in risk-taking behaviours and suggest a need for
situational analysis to better our understanding of the role of individual differences in risk-taking
behaviour.
Organizations, like individuals, perceive risk differently. The way in which organizations
perceive risk affects their response to risk situations and risk behaviours. Those in health
promotion and disease/injury prevention understand risk differently from those involved in
adventure recreation. Their understanding of risk and their response to it is discussed below.

Health Promotion and Disease/Iniurv Prevention Concept of Risk
Those involved in health care seek to improve people’s health and well-being using
strategies that promote health and prevent disease and injury. From the health promotion and
disease/injury prevention perspective, risk has traditionally been viewed as a negative event, as
what is often put at risk is one’s health (Adler, Kegeles & Genevro, 1992). To promote health
and prevent disease and injury one draws on assumptions about the causes of the loss of health.
The Second Report on the Health of Canadians (Federal, Provincial & Territorial Advisory
Committee on Population Health, 1999) shows that factors in the socioeconomic and physical
environment, as well as early childhood experiences, personal health practices and genetic factors
have a major impact on health.
Assumptions about the causes of the loss of health influence the choice of form and
tî -get of intervention used to promote health and prevent disease and injury. Interventions used
include education, engineering and enforcement strategies (Committee on Trauma Research,
1985). The target of intervention includes the individual, the community and the environment.
Linder (1987), in his study of the injury problem in America, outlines four views about the causal
agents and mechanisms of injury. The assumptions underlying these views determine the
approach used to prevent their occurrence. Linder (1987) suggests that from the medical
perspective, injuries are attributed to unhealthy lifestyle choices and faulty behaviour. The

10

individual, therefore, is made responsible for any untoward consequences of risk decision
making. Prevention, from this view, involves patient education promoting healthy lifestyles or in
cases where education fails, providing emergency treatment.
From the public health perspective, Linder (1987) suggests that injuries have much in
common with communicable disease. As with treating communicable disease outbreaks, all
susceptible individuals would be treated before the initial outbreak of the disease. The burden of
prevention from this view falls on the community to ensure that its members are properly
protected. Diseases from this view are seen to be caused by the transmission of pathogens or in
the case of injury, kinetic or chemical energy from the environment via some agent or vehicle to
the human host. Linder (1987) suggests that prevention interventions from this perspective focus
on interrupting the transmission process by protecting the host, disarming the agent or by altering
the environment. The individual’s actions are not seen to be the sole cause of most injuries. The
following simple story shows the complex set of factors that are seen to be the cause of disease
and injury from the public health view.
Why is Jason in the hospital?
Because he has a bad infection in his leg.
But why does he have an infection?
Because he has a cut on his leg and it got infected.
But why does he have a cut on his leg?
Because he was playing in the junk yard next to his apartment building and there was
some sharp, jagged steel there that he fell on.
But why was he playing in a junk yard?
Because his neighbourhood is kind of run down. A lot of kids play there and there is no
one to supervise them.
But why does he live in that neighbourhood?
Because his parents can’t afford a nicer place to live.
But why can’t his parents afford a nicer place to live?
Because his Dad is unemployed and his Mom is sick.
But why is his Dad unemployed?
Because he doesn’t have much education and he can’t find a job.

Il

But why—? (Federal, Provincial & Territorial Advisory Committee on Population
Health, 1999, p. vi).
This story shows that when one takes a public health view of the injury/disease problem the
intervention is not as simple as changing the individual’s behaviour. One must also consider the
socioeconomic factors affecting the occurrence of disease and injuries. From the public health
perspective the community as well as the individual is the focus of the prevention intervention.
Prevention interventions target the socioeconomic and physical environment, as well as early
childhood experiences and personal health practices.
The third view of the injury problem proposed by Linder (1987), is the legal view. This
view “focuses on the role of common law in deterring injury to individuals, through complex
rules for defining liability and ultimately assigning the risk of any losses that might occur”
(p.285). The common law offers an indirect inducement for manufacturers or others engaging in
high risk activities to exercise reasonable care. Injury, from this view, is a product of choices
made by some party. The intervention sees linking potential harm to a responsible individual as
more important than identifying hazards.
The economic view, the fourth view of the injury problem proposed by Linder (1987)
suggests another prevention strategy. This perspective views injury as the outcome of an implicit
trade off between the costs and benefits of prevention. The optimal level of injury (or disease) is
one that minimizes the combined costs of prevention and injury. The individual is the locus of
treatment but this view, rather than attributing injury that departs from the socially optimal level
to individuals, attributes injury to the market’s failings. Distorted incentives and faulty
information are singled out as causes of injury rather than human error and bad judgement. From
this perspective individuals are not restrained from taking risks once incentives are aligned so that
no involuntary or uncompensated costs are imposed on others.

12

From his research and teaching in ergonomic psychology, skill acquisition, mass media
messages and behaviour change and the psychology of risk taking, Gerald Wilde (1994)
developed a “Risk Homeostasis Theory”. This theory recognizes that people expect to receive
benefits from engaging in a risk activity. The theory proposes that “in any activity people accept
a certain level of subjectively estimated risk to their health, safety, and other things they value in
exchange for the benefits they hope to receive from that activity” (p. 5). He suggests that people
continually check the amount of risk they feel they are exposed to and compare this with the
amount of risk they are willing to accept. They try to reduce any difference between the two to
zero. If the level of subjectively experienced risk is lower that is acceptable, Wilde (1994)
theorizes that people will engage in actions that increase their exposure to risk; if safer roadways
are created people will drive faster in order to maintain a subjectively acceptable level of risk.
Prevention interventions proposed by Wilde (1994) focus on motivating people to adopt a
safer level of risk using four tactics; increasing the perceived benefit of cautious behaviour,
decreasing the perceived cost of cautious behaviour, increasing the perceived cost of risky
behaviour and decreasing the perceived benefit of risky behaviour (p. 183). Wilde’s (1994)
prevention interventions are similar to Linder’s economic view of the injury problem which
proposes that if the right incentives or disincentives are put in place individuals will choose safer
levels of risk.
The previous studies show how assumptions regarding the cause of disease and injury
determine the approach used to prevent their occurrence. These views of the disease and injury
problem assume that individuals actively make a decision to engage in behaviours that put their
health at risk. The public health perspective acknowledges that there may be socioeconomic
factors that contribute to the choice of personal health practices. However, many of the education
strategies continue to focus on the negative aspects of people's health choices in attempts to
motivate people to eliminate the risk behaviour. The public is bombarded about the risks in
almost every human activity: eating, drinking, smoking, engaging in sex, and being out in the

13

sunshine. People are advised to avoid high cholesterol foods, limit the consumption of alcoholic
beverages, quit smoking, abstain from unsafe sexual activities and stay out of the sun. In other
words, people are advised to eliminate the risk behaviour.
In a recent study by Fromme, Katz and Rivet (1997), a questioruiaire was developed to
assess outcome expectancies for the potential consequences of involvement in a variety of risk
activities. They found that potential benefits were found to be more reliably associated with risktaking than were beliefs about potential negative consequences. They suggest that rather than
developing programs which focus on the negative aspects of the risk behaviour (unsafe sex, drug
and alcohol use), it may be more effective to develop programs that could recognize the appeal of
risk activities while encouraging steps toward minimizing the risks. They do not describe the
steps toward minimizing risk or provide information on how these steps would be learned by the
risk takers.
The HIV Transmission Guidelines (McClure & Grubb, 1999) also recognize that
elimination of or abstinence from the risk activity is not possible for everyone, but the potential
negative consequences of the risk activity can be decreased using risk reduction strategies. The
Guidelines promoting these strategies assume that it is better to provide information about both
options: reducing risk and eliminating risk, thereby allowing individuals to determine which
choice is appropriate for themselves. The Guidelines, however, do not discuss how this
knowledge is learned by risk takers.
The Canadian Injury Prevention Foundation provides a good example of how marketing
strategies are used to change people’s attitudes and behaviours. The foundation changed its name
to the SMARTRISK Foundation, a name that more accurately reflects their mission: encouraging
Canadians to be smart about risk and minimize their potential for injury and death (SMARTRISK
Foundation, 1995). Their approach is different from the traditional safety messages, which are
filled with a litany of “Don’ts”. They propose that ‘life is about taking risks’ and any prevention
message must carry a positive choice theme. The Foundation notes that there is a continuum of

14

risk. At one end of the spectrum are risks that none of us are willing to take, as the potential for
loss is too high. At the other end of the spectrum there are risks that are taken so much for
granted they are not even perceived as risks. The Foundation named the line that separates smart
risk from stupid risk as The Stupid Line and developed a creative marketing campaign around
this concept. Their programs target teens. The Foundation proposes that by socially sanctioning
the word “stupid” teens are given a strategy that can easily be used when faced with peer demand
to take a risk. The Stupid Line gives them the option to be in charge and exercise their ability to
choose smart risks. It outlines incentives to encourage smart risk decision-making. The
Foundation proposes five choices rather than rules for taking smart risks; ‘look first,’ ‘ wear the
gear,’ ‘drive sober,’ buckle up,’ and get trained.’ These strategies enable people to handle the
risk and enjoy the benefits rather than eliminate the activity entirely.
Cadman’s (1996) interdisciplinary study of ski injury prevention encompasses sports
medicine, epidemiology, education, sociology and health promotion. The research includes two
phases, a retrospective case series analysis of 2,139 injury events during the 1992 ski season and
a 1993 prospective case series analysis of 540 injured alpine skiers and snowboarders in three age
groups (0-6, 7-12, 13-17 years). The study employed ski patrol data and a specially designed
questionnaire administered to over 800 skiers and 114 injured skiers. The study identified
differences in patterns of injury in the different age groups and the different activities o f
snowboarding and alpine skiing. The study also revealed factors in the social and physical
environments that influenced skiing behaviour. Personal error was cited as the leading cause of
injury although Cadman (1996) suggests “the higher risk activities in skiing, such as skiing
avalanche prone slopes or skiing the trees should not be condemned but tolerated” (p. 131). Like
the SMARTRISK Foundation, Cadman (1996) proposes that “young people should be taught,
encouraged and reinforced for adopting health promoting behaviours that will counter the higher
risk activities in which they engage” (p. 131). The study acknowledges that behaviour is
determined by the interactions of the person, the person’s behaviour and the environment. Again,

15

the study does not address the factors that affect how the skiers learn the health promoting or riskhandling behaviours.
Yates’s (1992) examination of studies concerning risk-taking behaviour notes that risktaking in natural settings uses a mode o f risk-handling behaviour. He also notes there are no
models or even broadly descriptive data on this recently recognized type of behaviour and
recommends risk-handling behavior as a high-priority research topic. A study of this riskhandling behaviour may provide insights that would aid in the development of programs that are
based on the principles of harm reduction recommended by Fromme, Katz and Rivet (1997) and
promoted by McClure and Grubb (1999) and the SMARTRISK Foundation (1995). It may also
provide insights that will aid in teaching young people the risk handling behaviours that will
counter their higher risk activities. This finding prompted a search of the adventure recreation
literature, which concerns risk taking in natural settings.

Adventure Recreation Concept of Risk
Activities in a natural environment that involve risk to the participant have become more
popular over the last decade. This phenomenon has prompted a variety of research studies by
those involved in recreation seeking to increase the understanding of the complex nature of risk
recreation and the factors which influence the enduring involvement of participants (Ewert, 1994;
Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1989; Robinson, 1992; Schuett, 1991; 1993; 1994). From the adventure
recreation perspective, risk is defined as a variety of self-initiated activities, which generally
occur in natural environment settings, and which due to their always uncertain and potentially
harmful nature, provide the opportunity for intense cognitive and affective involvement (Ewert &
Hollenhorst, 1989; Robinson, 1992). The focus is on the positive aspects of risk situations.
The recreation literature has long recognized the benefits that can be achieved from
participating in adventure recreation activities. Sparkes (1982), in his paper presented to the
American Alliance for Health, Physical Recreation and Dance, states that participation in

16

adventure recreation activities has the potential for self-discovery, self-realization, and personal
growth. Mortlock (1978), a Churchill Scholar and Director of the Centre of Adventure Education
at Charlotte Mason College in the U.K., states that adventure is the most dynamic form of
education. He reports that there are positive traits to be gained from participating in adventure
recreation activities. These include an awareness of and respect for the environment, selfconfidence, self-discipline, unselfishness, vitality, integrity, and humility (Mortlock, 1978).
These would all seem to be benefits that promote health and well-being.
Those involved in adventure recreation acknowledge that people choose to participate in
risk activities because of the benefits they hope to experience. From this perspective, strategies
that seek to safeguard participants by altering the natural environment or regulating the actions of
the individuals are seen to damage the risk experience (Ewert, 1989; 1994). This finding
coincides with the views of Wilde’s (1994) Risk Homeostasis Theory and Cadman’s (1996)
study. If participants are safeguarded from injury it is theorized they will engage in other actions
that increase their exposure to risk. Rather than focussing on the negative aspect o f the risk
situation, adventure recreationists focus on the positive aspects of risk and seek to develop
strategies that provide the best possible outdoor adventure recreation experience (Ewert, 1989).
One assumes the best risk experience would not involve an injury; however, injury prevention is
not addressed directly in the recreation literature.
Models have been developed to explain why individuals engage in outdoor adventure
activities (Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1989; Schuett, 1991). These models seek information on the
characteristics of the participants as well as information on the benefits the participants’ desire
from their engagement. Ewert and Hollenhorst (1989) tested the Adventure Model using
university students from outdoor recreation classes who reported their experience in a variety of
activities, including rock climbing, caving and wilderness canoeing. They found that as the
engagement of the participant increased from introduction to commitment, the participants’
motivation shifted towards more risk-taking, their locus of control became more internal, and

17

their social orientation shifted away from structured programs and groups to peer groups. They
also found that as engagement increased, the participants sought a more natural enviroiunent,
their perception of risk decreased and their level of skill and frequency of participation increased.
Schuett (1991) expanded the original Adventure Model to improve its explanatory ability
for adventure recreation participation. In the revised model, the dependent variable was changed
from engagement to enduring involvement, a concept believed to tnore effectively capture the
personal meaning of recreational activities. The independent variables were skill, experience,
psychological outcomes, sensation seeking, frequency of participation, environmental preference,
social orientation, locus of control and risk perception, in addition to the socio-demographic
variables of age, gender, income and education (Schuett, 1991, p. 94).

INDIVIDUAL
ATTRIBUTES

ACTIVITY/SETTING
ATTRIBUTES

Skill
Experience
Locus of Control
Frequency of
Participation
Sensation Seeking
Psychological
Outcomes

Perception o f Risk
Environmental
Preference
Social Orientation

ENDURING INVOLVEMENT

Figure 1. Schuett’s Revised Adventure Recreation Model

18

The subjects in this study were 291 white water kayakers who had participated in a kayaking
program and participated in kayaking in the year previous to the study. “Results from this study
revealed that the needs and desires of white water kayakers are influenced by several variables,
most importantly, skill level, age and gender” (p.207). These studies show how those involved in
adventure recreation gain information about the characteristics and desires of the people who
participate in adventure recreation activities. This information enables them to develop adventure
recreation programs that provide opportunities for the participants to realize the benefits of a risk
experience.
Schuett (1991) suggests that the information gained in his study has numerous
implications for those involved in providing adventure recreation experiences including those in
marketing and advertising/promotion. To offer effective programs he advises that staff must be
trained about the needs and wants of the consumer. Schuett (1991) suggests programmers should
consider offering courses by various age groups or programs exclusively for males or females.
Offering opportunities for social interaction is another suggestion prompted by the research.
Schuett (1991) notes that paddlers prefer the risk inherent in white water kayaking and suggests
that instructors should try to make the course exciting but “always be cognizant of the risk
activity in case a participant is experiencing anxiety or boredom.” He stresses the importance of
training staff in paddling skills and techniques as well as rescue training and risk management.
Schuett (1991) also stresses the importance of human relations training to enable the instructors to
understand more about the social interaction that takes place in an adventure recreation
experience.
The adventure recreation literature shows that risk recreation or outdoor adventure
recreation programs seek to maximize the benefits of the risk experience. Preventing injuries is a
concern but what appears to be more important is providing opportunities for individuals to
realize their own potential. The literature suggests that outdoor adventure recreation programs

19

seek to develop technical skills as well as risk handling behaviours. In order to develop
participants’ decision-making skills, the literature recommends low risk, structured learning
environments for the novice participant. As skill and knowledge increase it is suggested that the
participants be allowed the freedom and encouragement to make their own choices (Ewert &
Hollenhorst, 1989).
The key to successful risk-taking, in which the benefits are realized while the potential
losses are not, is matching skill level to the demands of the situation. Csikszentmihalyi (1990)
developed a concept called the flow model to explain the pleasant, satisfying state experienced by
an individual when skill level matches the challenge presented by an activity (Figure 2). When
flow occurs, the individual is aware of the challenge, the goals are clear and the person feels
he/she has the skills to achieve the goals. In this situation a merging between the activity and
awareness occurs. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) states that there is no attention left to think of other
worries or frustrations. All contents of consciousness are in harmony with each other. The
person becomes part of a system of action greater than what they had before and experiences a
sense of control over his/her actions. Sense of time is altered and concern for self or selfconsciousness disappears. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) proposes that this loss of self-consciousness
provides a chance to expand the concept of self. Flow experiences are proposed to be optimal
experiences that force people to stretch themselves to take on other challenges, continually
improving their abilities. Because flow experiences reaffirm the order of self and are so
enjoyable, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) says people will attempt to replicate the experience whenever
possible.
Enjoyable activities that produce flow can also have a potentially negative effect.
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) says that when a person becomes so dependent on the ability to control
an enjoyable activity that he cannot pay attention to anything else, he loses the ultimate control:
the freedom to determine the content of consciousness.

20

Flow typically occurs in clearly structured activities in which the level of challenges and
skills can be varied and controlled (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Csikszentmihalyi (1990) states that
any possibility for action to which a skill corresponds can produce a flow experience. He also
notes that no activity can sustain it for long unless both the challenges and skills become more
complex.

Anxiety
Level o f challenge

Flow
Boredom

Level o f skill

Figure 2. Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow Model
Matching skills to the challenge depends on a subjective assessment. The person must be
able to see the challenge in the activity and perceive he or she has the skill to master the
challenge. If the person misjudges the level of challenge or skill, the activity produces anxiety or
boredom instead of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). It would also seem that when skill level does
not match the level of challenge in a sport such as white water kayaking the person would also be
at greater risk of injury.
Both the health promotion and the adventure recreation literature perceive that people are
making a conscious decision to engage in risk activities. Their strategies focus on influencing
people’s risk decision. In the adventure recreation literature, strategies promote the development
of programs where individuals learn the skills and develop the experience to improve their risk
decision-making abilities and thereby create optimal experiences: beautiful, extraordinary

21

moments. The more recent health promotion and disease/injury prevention Literature also
recognizes that people are choosing to engage in risk activities because of the anticipated positive
benefits. Unlike the benefits of adventure recreation risk experiences, the benefits of health risk
behaviours do not appear to provide opportunities for personal growth. They do, however,
provide immediate pleasure for the individual. Some health promotion strategies focus on
providing individuals with the skill and knowledge to determine which choice is right for them,
the short or the long-term benefits. This contrasts with the traditional health promotion and
disease/injury prevention approach in which strategies were developed to encourage individuals
to change their behaviour based on the health care provider’s decision that the right risk decision
was the elimination of the risk activity. A more thorough understanding of factors involved in
risk decision-making is needed to understand the decisions involved in implementing risk
handling behaviours. The review now turns to the risk decision-making literattue.

Risk Decision Making
A decision-making perspective on risk taking implies that the risk-taking behaviotur is the
result of a deliberate choice. Deliberative risk-taking has been studied extensively and has
resulted in the development of decision theories and models of health behaviour discussed in the
following section. Within these theories, beliefs of self-efficacy are seen to exert a major
influence on decision-making. The role of these beliefs will therefore be discussed. A less
recognized type of non-deliberative risk taking, in which the individual does not perceive the
need for careful deliberation, or where the person does not see the risk that is acknowledged by
others, is also examined.

Deliberate Risk Decision- Making
Deliberate risk decision-making suggests that a person makes a careful appraisal of the
level of risk involved in a situation. Yates and Stone (1992) state that for a situation to be

22

considered risky, the risk appraiser must believe it harbours the potential for losses.
Consequently, they propose that a major part of formal risk analysis is the identification of the
potential losses. It was noted earlier in the discussion of the concept of risk that the construct of
risk involves three essential elements: losses, the significance of those losses and the uncertainty
associated with those losses (Yates & Stone, 1992). The risk appraiser must be able to identify
all the elements of the risk construct.
Fischhoff (1992), in his study of decision behaviour, states that focussing on a limited
portion of people’s choices, the “risky outcomes ”, may be misleading. He points out that “in the
eye of the behavers, these risks are the price paid to achieve (or at least have a chance at) some
benefits” (p. 137). Consideration of the entire range of outcomes, both positive and negative,
certain and uncertain is therefore necessary to provide a full account of a risky decision.
Yates and Stone (1992) discovered that people rely on relative frequencies, subjective
reasoning and formal models to make their judgements regarding the possibility of loss.
Neumann, a doctoral student in health economics and health decision sciences at Harvard
University School of Public Health, and Politser, a mathematical psychologist interested in
decision analysis and behavioural decision-making, note in their review of the risk decision­
making literature that there are limits to human decision-making. They suggest that decision­
making is affected by perceptions of controllability, voluntariness and castastrophic potential of
the risk. Slovic (1987) says that these perceptions are in turn influenced by media coverage of
accidents.
Weinstein’s (1984) study of perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility found college
students' views of their own actions and psychological attributes to be excessively optimistic. His
results suggest that “people are unrealistic about their vulnerability to hazards perceived to be
controllable at least in part because they are biased about the actions and psychological attributes
that determine their susceptibility to such hazards ” (p.439). Weinstein (1984) acknowledges that

23

as his data refers to young, generally healthy individuals, results may be found to vary with age,
health or socioeconomic status.
Research psychologists Adler, Kegeles and Genevro’s (1992) review o f the literature on
risk taking and health notes that responses to health threats do not always appear to be associated
with a rational weighing of the actual harm. They state that this may be due to limited
information- processing capacities which are exacerbated by the uncertainty associated with
many of the potential risks to health as well as possible information overload. The uncertainty of
health risks may be due to the fact that the positive consequences, as compared to the negative
consequences, occur more frequently and tend to be paired more closely in time with involvement
in risky activities. The pleasure experienced from smoking a cigarette today is certain while the
fact one might develop emphysema or lung cancer in the future is less certain (Weinstein, 1987;
Fromme, Katz & D’Amico 1997).
The above studies show that people have limited abilities to make risky decisions.
Recognizing the possibility of human imperfection, decision analysts use many different models
and decision-making techniques to help people make better risk decisions. The models can be
distinguished by their topics: people’s behaviour, the environments in which people act and the
tasks people face in these environments. They can also be distinguished by whether they are
descriptive or normative models.
Normative models of decision-making. These models specify the rules to be followed
when making decisions. The models prescribe actions for people in tasks and specify conditions
for the environment. A normative model of decision-making can predict correctly the behaviour
of anyone who is willing and able to apply that model in making decisions (von Winterfeldt &
Edwards, 1986). Subjective Expected Utility theory (Savage, 1954) is an example of normative
theory. In this theory, the expected utility or value of an outcome as well as subjective measures
of probability are given a numerical value. Using arithmetical tools, these values are aggregated
to arrive at a meaningful decision. A decision tree is made and it is predicted that people will

24

choose the option with the largest subjectively expected utility. It is noted that both utilities and
the probabilities that enter into them are numbers that are inherently subjective and would
therefore be influenced by the factors previously discussed. These factors are not considered in
normative theories. Decision analysts von Winterfeldt and Edwards (1986) assert, “the larger
and more important the decision, the more likely is the decision maker to calculate carefully the
potential consequences of each act and try to make the normatively correct decision” (p. 16). A
set of normative decision-theoretic models together with the techniques for applying them are
usually called decision analysis (von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1986). Methods of decision
analysis are usually reserved for the hard decisions of govermnent and business.
Descriptive models of decision-making. These models examine how people actually
make decisions and from these observations attempt to predict what people do. Von Winterfeldt
and Edwards (1986) state that every descriptive model in psychology contains two parts. One is a
description of the environment and task facing the organism; the other is a description of the basic
response tendencies the organism brings to that environment and task (p. 16). It is the interplay
between these two kinds of descriptions that produces predictions about the behaviour of the
organism.
Developmental perspective of risk decision-making. When people fail to make a wise
risk decision, it is attributed to a lack o f intellectual skills, a lack of knowledge or a failure to use
their skill and knowledge effectively. From this cognitive perspective Fischhoff (1992) states,
“all things being equal, people should become more proficient at risk taking as their cognitive
skills and knowledge improve over their life span” (p. 138). He offers a developmental
perspective of risk decision-making, which focuses not only on the development of people’s
cognitive resources but also on the development of their affective and social resources. This
developmental perspective addresses factors involved in décision making excluded by normative
theory. Fischhoff (1992) reviews studies that address the specific processes of cognitive
development, how people think about the world; affective development, how people feel about

25

the world; and social development, the role that others play in people’s choices as they relate to
risk taking. His findings indicate, “Decision makers’ thinking may depend on their cognitive
capacity, their beliefs and their skills (for manipulating those beliefs within the constraints
imposed by their capacity)” (p. 156). Fischhoff (1992) states that this thinking goes on against
the backdrop of affective and social pressures whose management requires additional skills. He
suggests that when studying risk behaviours one must see the development of risk decisions as
being made against the background of the general development of their cognitive, affective and
social resources. These resources are all affected by beliefs of self-efficacy.

Role of Beliefs of Self Efficacv in Decision-Making
Beliefs of self-efficacy (the belief that one can execute a given level of performance) are
also developed against the background of the general development of people’s cognitive,
affective and social resources (Bandura, 1990). Bandura (1990) suggests that much o f the
research on human decision-making may not provide a sufficient basis for developing either
descriptive or normative models of decision-making in dynamic naturalistic environments.
Bandura (1990) is unique among social psychologists in his understanding of the dynamic nature
of decision-making in the real world environment. He describes naturalistic environments as
those environments “which involve repeated judgements in the face of a wide array o f
information, within a continuing flow of activity, under time constraints, and social and selfevaluative consequences” (p. 134). Bandura’s description would appear to fit the decision­
making environment of white water kayaking. It also captures the environment of our everyday
lives where most of our risk decisions are made.
Bandura (1990) provides information on the powerful influence of beliefs of self-efficacy
in regulating behavioim. He distinguishes between self-efficacy and the more familiar term
confidence. He asserts that the term confidence is limiting, as it refers to a belief in one’s
abilities, but does not specify the direction of the belief. Bandura (1990) suggests that one can be

26

confident that he/she will fail at an endeavor, as well as confident that he/she will succeed. In his
review of the literature and discussion of his own research on the effects of beliefs of self
efficacy, Bandura (1990) suggests that self-efficacy beliefs regulate behaviour through four types
of processes: cognitive, motivational, affective, and selection.
Cognitive processes. Bandura (1990) asserts that self-efficacy beliefs affect thought
patterns that can enhance or undermine performance. Those who have a high sense of selfefficacy visualize success scenarios that provide positive guides for performance while those
lacking a high sense of self-efficacy visualize failure scenarios that decrease performance. In
Bandura and Wood’s (1989b) research. Individuals managed a computer-simulated organization.
The structure of the social cognitive theory was tested In conjunction with experimentally varied
organizational properties and belief systems that had the potential to enhance or undermine the
operation of self-regulatory determinants.
One belief system concerned conceptions of abilities. Bandura and Wood (1989 b) found
that the managers who viewed decision-making abilities as reflecting basic cognitive aptitude
were beset with increasing self-doubts about their managerial efficacy as they encountered
problems and as a result their performance declined. In contrast those managers who viewed
decision-making as an acquirable skill exhibited a highly resilient sense of personal efficacy
when faced with problems, seeing the problems as an opportunity to expand their knowledge.
Bandura and Wood (1989b) also examined the effect of people’s beliefs about the extent to which
the environment is controllable. Those who managed simulated organizations under the belief
that the organization was not controllable lost faith In their decision making abilities while those
who viewed the environment as controllable displayed a strong sense of managerial efficacy
The study showed that when initially faced with managing a complex, unfamiliar
environment, people relied on their past performance in Judging their efficacy and setting their
personal goals. As they began to form a self-schema concerning their abilities, their actions in
future performance experiences were Influenced more by perceptions of self-efficacy and through

27

the effects of these beliefs on personal goal-setting and analytical thinking. Bandura and Wood
(1989b) conclude that personal goals enhance performance attainments through the mediation of
analytic strategies.
Bandura and Wood’s (1989b) study also examined the effects of social comparisons on
people’s judgement of their self-efficacy and their personal goal-setting. They found that when
people saw themselves surpassed by ‘similar social referents’ their perceived self-efficacy was
undermined and their performance deteriorated. Seeing oneself gain mastery, however,
strengthened a sense of personal efficacy and increased performance.
Motivational processes. Beliefs of self-efficacy operate on all forms of cognitive
motivators: causal attributions, outcome expectancies and cognized goals (Bandura, 1990).
Bandura (1990) suggests that causal attributions and self-efficacy appraisals involve bidirectional
causation. The relative weight given to available information about the situation affects selfefficacy appraisal and the effects of causal attributions on performance attainments are in turn
mediated through beliefs of self-efficacy. He asserts that expectancy motivators are governed by
the value placed on the outcomes as well as the expectation that particular actions will produce
specific outcomes. For many activities, outcomes are determined by level of competence.
Therefore, the types of outcomes people anticipate depend largely on their beliefs in their
abilities. In most situations, people who judge themselves highly efficacious will expect
favourable outcomes whereas those who judge themselves lacking in ability will expect
unfavourable outcomes (Bandura, 1990). Beliefs of self-efficacy affect goal intentions as it is
partly on the basis of self-efficacy beliefs that people choose what challenges to take, how much
effort to expend in the endeavor, and how long to persevere in the face of difficulties (Bandura,
1986; 1988a). When faced with obstacles, people who doubt their abilities slacken their efforts or
abort their attempts while those with strong beliefs in their abilities exert greater effort to master
the challenge. Bandura (1990) suggests, “By making self-satisfaction conditional on matching

28

adopted goals, people give direction to their actions and create self-incentives to persist in their
efforts until their performances match their goals” (p. 142).
Affective processes. Beliefs of self-efficacy affect how much stress and depression
people experience in threatening or taxing situations (Bandura, 1990). People who believe they
have the ability to control potentially threatening situations are not anxious or fearful, whereas
those who believe they cannot control the situation experience high levels of anxiety arousal.
Bandura (1990) states that perceived coping ability regulates avoidance behaviour in risky
situations suggesting that the stronger the perceived coping self-efficacy the more venturesome
the behaviour.
Selection processes. People can exert some influence over their lives by the
environments they select as well as the environments they create. Bandura (1990) proposes that
people may choose to avoid activities and situations they believe exceed their coping capabilities
but they may readily choose to participate in social environments and situations they judge
themselves capable of handling. Bandura (1990) cites studies that note “the stronger people’s
self-beliefs in their capabilities, the more options they consider possible, the greater the interest
they show in them, and the better they prepare themselves for different pursuits” (p.l51). It was
shown earlier that effective decision analysis involved identifying all the options in a risk
situation. This would indicate that strong beliefs of self-efficacy would enhance one’s decision­
making abilities.
Bandura (1990) provides suggestions for the development of strong beliefs of selfefficacy. He suggests the most powerful means of developing strong beliefs of self-efficacy is
through mastery experiences. Bandura (1990) cautions against placing people prematurely in
situations where they are likely to fail. He also acknowledges that if people experience only easy
success they learn to expect quick results and their efficacy beliefs are easily undermined by
failure. Set backs can serve a useful purpose, teaching that success requires sustained effort.
Bandura (1990) sums up the development of efficacy beliefs stating they are “the product of a

29

complex process of self-persuasion that relies on cognitive processing of diverse sources of
efficacy information conveyed enactively, vicariously, socially, and physiologically” (p. 157).
The importance of consideration of the effect of efficacy beliefs on behaviour is acknowledged in
the following health belief models.
Several models have been developed specifically to account for the likelihood that
individuals will engage in health promoting, disease/injury preventing behaviours. The Health
Belief Model (HEM) was developed in the early 1950’s by a group of social psychologists in an
attempt to understand why people fail to accept disease preventives or screening tests for the
early detection of asymptomatic disease (Janz & Becker, 1984). The refined Health Belief Model
(Rosenstock, 1974) provides an important framework for studying the extent to which individuals
accept recommendations regarding health care and act on them. The dimensions of the model
include the perceived susceptibility of the individual to a certain disease or injury; the perceived
seriousness of that disease or injury; the perceived benefits of taking the preventive action; and
the perceived barriers to taking the preventive action. The early applications of the HEM dealt
with fairly simple preventive behaviours while current uses of the model investigate the
relationship between health beliefs and the more complex preventive behaviours involved in
complying with current medical regimens. Rosenstock, Strecher, and Becker (1988) suggest that
the addition of perceived self-efficacy to the HBM may help to explain the variance in health
related behaviours previously unaccounted for by the model.
Protection Motivation Theory (Rogers, 1975) proposes that a fear appeal communication
initiates cognitive appraisal processes in a person, whereby the person assesses the probability
and severity of the event, as well as the efficacy of the preventive behaviour. The cognitive
appraisals mediate the effects of the fear appeal by arousing protection motivation, an intervening
variable that arouses, sustains, and directs activity to protect the person from danger. A revision
of this theory (Rogers, 1983), like revisions o f the HBM, attempts to offer a more comprehensive
theory by incorporating Bandura’s (1977) Self-Efficacy theory. In the revised theory, a person’s

30

belief that a given behaviour will or will not lead to a given outcome and their belief that they are
capable of performing the particular behavioiu* is proposed as another cognitive mediating
process that arouses protection motivation. Other studies showing that the most powerfiil
predictor of behavioural intentions is self-efficacy expectancy (Maddux & Rogers, 1983) and
high self-efficacy, along with conditions of high threat, high response and higher levels of beliefs
about the health benefits (Rippetoe and Rogers, 1987), confirm the importance of considering
these beliefs when studying risk-handling behaviour. Maddux and Rogers (1983) reinforce the
importance of considering both positive and negative outcomes in risk decisions. They note that
the protection motivation theory is limited by its emphasis on the negative events associated with
risk decisions and suggest that shifting the emphasis to include consideration of positive
outcomes would increase the range of the theory’s applicability.
These models acknowledge the complex nature of risk decision-making and identify
some of the individual and situational factors that influence the risk decision. As stated earlier all
of these models imply that risk-taking behaviour is the result o f a process of careful deliberation.
In contrast, Wagenaar (1992), in his study of the research on risk-taking and accident causation,
found that a large majority of our everyday actions, which may include risk-taking behaviour, are
automatically controlled and do not involve conscious decision-making.

Non-deliberative Risk Decisions
In the previous discussion on deliberative risk decision-making, it is assumed that
persons undertaking a risk consciously and deliberately consider the risk involved. The risk taker
has to receive the relevant information and recognize the situation as being risky. Wagenaar
(1992) states, “there can be no risk taking without awareness of a problem” (p.274). In his
research, choosing the risk option was shown to involve investigation of the available choices,
their possible consequences and the attached value of those consequences. It was also shown to
involve employing a process by which the risks and benefits were compared and accepted or

31

rejected. Failure to make an effective risk decision was seen to be due to a lack of skills and
knowledge or failure to use the skill and knowledge effectively. Risk decisions were also shown
to be influenced by beliefs of self-efficacy.
Wagenaar's (1992) review of accident histories found that in 83% of the cases, errors
were not the result of a calculated acceptance of risk. In some cases the risks were not calculated
because there was a lack of information about the risk situation; in other cases the information
was available but the situation was not regarded as risky. There were cases where individuals
involved failed to consider other alternatives or under-estimated the possibility of disaster. The
individuals did not recognize a need for careful deliberation or they did not see risk
acknowledged by others.
MacCrimmon and Wehrung (1986) suggest that a person’s response to a risky situation
involves several stages that may interact, but which reflect different psychological processes.
They propose that the recognition and evaluation of the risk situation may occur automatically or
may be the result of conscious deliberation. Wagenaar (1992) discusses the different
psychological processes, which reflect levels of operation that were identified by Van der Molen
and Boetticher (1988) and Rasmussen (1982; 1983). In his discussion he combines the three
levels of operation identified. The bottom level he equates with Van der Molen and Boetticher’s
(1988) operational level or Rasmussen’s skill-based behaviour. This level describes the person’s
ongoing or routine behaviour during the actual activity. Wagenaar (1992) states that risk
evaluation is absent at this level. In the middle, tactical or rule-based level of operation he
proposes that any decisions made result from rule-following behaviour rather than a process of
careful deliberation. Conscious problem solving occurs only at the top, strategic or knowledgebased level of operation. Wagenaar (1992) asserts that at this level, rules guiding behaviour are
created and adapted. Individuals who operate at the bottom level, the skill based level of
operation, are running risks rather than making a deliberate decision to take a risk (Wagenaar,
1992). Wagenaar (1992) links these levels of operation to levels of management and suggests

32

intervention strategies, rather than targeting the person on the shop floor, should instead target
those at the top level of management. He implies, “most activities are executed at the bottom
level of automated behaviour where there is simply no room for consideration of risks” (p.279).
Wagenaar ( 1992) does not mention whether or not these levels of operation are situation specific.
Pitz (1992), a research psychologist, suggests that there are two sides to automatic
behaviour. On the one side, automatic behaviour reflects habits acquired through the routine
activities of daily life. On the other side, automatic behaviour is also an important characteristic
of skilled behaviour: an activity practiced to the point one becomes an expert. He states that sldU
in this context includes not only motor performance but also cognitive skills, which include
problem solving. These automatic forms of behaviour reflect long-term learning processes and
familiar environments. The Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986)
describes the different types of decision analysis that occur as one moves from a novice skill level
to an expert level. Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) propose that the expert’s perception of the
situation as well as their decisions happen intuitively without conscious deliberative decision­
making. However the whole situation is still analyzed, the risks are still identifled and options for
response are determined. MacLeod (1996) in her study of experience in everyday nursing
practice states the excellent, experienced nurses notice, understand, and act virtually
simultaneously. The processes are inextricably intertwined. The stages of skill acquisition are
discussed more fully in the next section.
Pitz (1992) states that behaviour in risky situations involves recognizing and evaluating
risk, as well as responding to risk. Both types of decision making need to be considered when
attempting to influence behaviour. Those involved in health promotion and disease/injury
prevention and those involved in adventure recreation focus on the individual and seek to
influence or improve his/her decision-making abilities.
The discussion of risk decision-making shows that the development of decision-making
abilities must be seen against the general development of cognitive, affective and social

33

resources. The discussion also revealed that in deliberative risk decision-making the assessment
of potential losses and expected benefits and skill level depended on a subjective assessment.
This assessment was therefore affected by one’s previous experiences. Beliefs of self-efficacy
were also affected by previous experiences. This study now turns to the experiential learning
literature to explore more fully the role of experience in the development of decision-making
abilities, beliefs of self-efficacy, and cognitive, affective and social resources. It is this literature
that provides the background knowledge from which to view the kayakers’ learning experience.

Experiential Learning
To understand the learning experience of white water kayakers, we need to look at four
aspects of experiential learning. The section begins by examining the stages of skill acquisition as
described by Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986). These stages involve qualitatively different modes of
decision-making an individual passes through as expertise is acquired. Movement through the
stages is affected by the nature of the experience. Experience takes many forms and each affects
learning differently. The forms of experience and their effect on learning are noted. The fourth
aspect of experiential learning discussed concerns the manner in which individuals engage in the
social practice that entails learning.
A range of experiential learning models developed from deliberative learning situations
in which the learners are aware they are learning exists: e.g., Lewin (1952), Kolb (1984), Boud,
Keogh and Walker (1985), and Argyris and Schon (1974). There are three common elements in
these experiential learning models. The ‘experience’ is viewed as the source and testing ground
for learning. Learning is the focus of the models, the learning which restructures perceptions of
situations and oneself (MacLeod, 1996). The models show the experience of learning to be
cyclical in nature, each learning experience influencing the next. We begin with a look at the
stages of skill acquisition to determine the quality o f learning that takes place through
experiencing.

34

Stages of Skill Acquisition
Insights into thinking and decision-making skills have been gained by studying the
contrast between the knowledge and skills of experts and novices. It has been suggested by
studies in cognitive psychology that what distinguishes expert performance is “rapid access to an
organized body of conceptual and procedural knowledge” (Glaser, 1987). This process of
decision-making and the nature of the rapid access and knowledge used have been the focus of
studies of clinical judgement in nursing (LeBreck, 1989; Tanner, 1983; 1987). Conventional
approaches o f statistical modeling and information processing have been found to be of limited
usefulness in describing clinical judgement in natural settings because practical knowledge and
the influence of the context have been overlooked (Tanner, 1987).
The Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986) offers another
approach. The Dreyfus Model was first developed during studies of airline pilots and chess
players and extended to the study of automobile drivers and adult learners of a second language.
It is unique in its emphasis on the practical nature of knowledge inherent in expertise and the
importance o f experience in the development of that knowledge. The Dreyfus Model proposes
that as people gain skill in a particular area they pass through five stages of qualitatively different
modes of decision making. There are three dimensions to the development of expertise. One
moves; (a) from using abstract principles to assess the situation, to using past experiences as a
base for decision-making; (b) from identifying the various relevant facts and features of a
situation to create a whole picture, to being able to immediately grasp the whole picture without
first identifying the relevant facts; and (c) firom being a detached decision-maker, to one who is
emotionally involved and feels responsibility for the decision. A more detailed explanation of the
five stages follows.

35

Level 1. Novice. The novice leams to recognize relevant facts and features of the
situation that lead to the development of rules for determining action. These rules are “context
free” and recognized without reference to the overall situation in which they occur.
Level 2. Advanced Beginner. After considerable experience the learner is able to
recognize speciftc elements of the overall situation but in complex situations is unable to
prioritize the specific elements. Actions follow learned rules and procedures.
Level 3. Competent. A competent performer begins to adopt a hierarchical procedure of
decision-making. Competent performers are able to see the whole picture. The importance of
relevant facts may depend on the presence of other facts. At this point of knowledge acquisition
competent performers feel responsible for their decisions and emotionally involved in the
outcome. Successful as well as disastrous outcomes leave a vivid memory of the situation and
chosen option.
Level 4. Proficient. The behaviour of the proficient performer bears no resemblance to
the slow detached reasoning of the novice performer. The proficient performer is able to
intuitively grasp and organize the whole situation without decomposing the situation into its
component features. Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) call this process “holistic discrimination”. This
is knowledge “know how”. The proficient performer, although able to intuitively understand the
situation, resorts to rule-based analysis to produce decisions.
Level 5. Expert. The expert no longer relies on rules to link the recognition of the
whole to the appropriate action. The expert’s perception of the situation as well as their decisions
and actions happen intuitively. There is no conscious deliberative decision-making. Their
assessment of the situation and resulting decision and action happens unconsciously,
automatically and naturally. Experience enables the expert to recognize and understand new
situations as similar to previous situations and to simultaneously recall the associated decision
and action. Responding to the situation intuitively results in the rapid, fluid, involved kind of
behaviour, which characterizes the expert.

36

Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) state that interpretive ability—being able to recognize what is
important in a situation—constitutes judgement. The movement from a novice’s dependence on
“context free” rules to guide actions to the intuitive understanding, which guides the behaviour of
the expert, is the core of the Dreyfus Model. This intuitive judgement (understanding without a
rationale) has six key components: pattern recognition, similarity recognition, commonsense
understanding, a sense of salience, skilled know-how and deliberative rationality. Schempp
(1997), in discussing the development of expertise in teaching and coaching, acknowledges that
experts using these six components of intuitive judgement, quickly extract meaningful chunks of
information from often confusing and complex activity, predict the next series of events and plan
an appropriate course of action.
The levels of skill development discussed are situation specifrc and as such do not
describe people but rather stages of performance (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Benner, 1984).
Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) suggest that people move from one skill level to another through the
accumulation of an “immense library of distinguishable situations” which is built up on the basis
of experience (p. 32). They further suggest that people make a qualitative jump between stages
rather than progress in a linear fashion. The nature of experiences and the process through which
they are accumulated are unexplored by Dreyfus and Dreyfus ( 1986).

Process of Movement through the Stages
Learning or moving through the stages of skill acquisition can be a sudden or gradual
process. The Dreyfus Model addresses the process of reflection maintaining that with experience
the process of reflection changes from “calculative rationality”: objective, distanced and
analytical, to “deliberative rationality”: involved, synthetic and perspective-changing (Benner &
Tanner, 1987). In deliberate rationality, the difrerences iii the situation are considered to account
for the differences; the overall plan is the focus, while issues that arise as the plan is played out
are noticed; a change in perspective is experienced so that new issues arise; the relevance and

37

adequacy of past situations which seem to underlie a current situation are considered (Dreyfus &
Dreyfus, 1986). Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) propose that for learning to occur a part of the mind
must remain aloof, monitoring.
In a study exploring the everyday experience in nursing practice, MacLeod ( 1996) found
that learning is not only the result of some particularly meaningful experience but that it
accompanies all experiencing. MacLeod (1996) suggests that rather than being a static entity as
previously described, the ongoing practice (the everyday experience of the experienced, excellent
nurses) involves a continuous interplay of the past, the present and the future, linking experience
to ongoing practices and through them with time. The nurses learn whether they intend to or not;
it is a part of experiencing nursing practice. MacLeod (1996) suggests that it is the nurses’
practice of noticing which “produces an opening of possibility which allows for the movement in
experience’’ (p.58). Learning accompanies changes in noticing, understanding and acting. In
addition, learning is made possible by noticing, understanding and acting. MacLeod’s (1996)
study suggests that experience is more complex than it is usually portrayed in the research
literature. A closer examination of the nature of experience follows.

The Nature of Experience
Studies that focus more directly on the nature of experience present a more dynamic view
of experience. In MacLeod’s (1996) study two ways of understanding experience emerged. In
one understanding, experience is a resource or entity, something to be gained. Experience is also
understood as an ongoing process, a process of experiencing. MacLeod ( 1996) suggests that the
two are intertwined. The process of experiencing is not separate but “in continual interplay with
the experience in the sense of a resource growing out of, informing and being changed by the
process of experiencing’’ (MacLeod, 1996, p. 58).
MacLeod identifies three different types of experiences: watershed experiences, resonant
experiences and bits & bobs. Watershed experiences are often first-time instances, which are

38

emotionally charged, highly memorable and vividly recounted. In MacLeod’s (1996) study these
experiences were specifically meaningful for the nurses and resulted in a significant alteration in
their understanding. Resonant experiences are less emotionally laden, often taking place over a
longer period of time and result in a gradual change in self-understanding. MacLeod (1996)
suggests that these experiences may be the result of an accumulation of taken-for-granted
experiences. Often the resonant experiences were less coherent and needed prompting to be
recalled. The majority of experiences identified by MacLeod (1996) were ‘bits & bobs’. These
are the taken-for-granted experiences that happen all the time in the nurses’ ongoing practice.
The experiences are often forgotten soon afterwards and are not considered important enough to
talk about or they are recounted in an even, emotional tone. MacLeod (1996) suggests that even
though experience takes many forms, characteristic of all is the involvement of the nurses, which
allows them to grasp the meanings inherent in their practice and experiences with patients and
others.

The Social Aspect of Learning
The involvement or the participation of individuals in communities of practice is the
focus of Lave and Wenger’s (1991) study. They explore apprenticeship in five communities of
practice; midwives, tailors, quartermasters, butchers, and non-drinking alcoholics and present a
different approach to learning. They suggest that learning is an integral part of generative social
practice in the lived-in world. Rather than focussing on the nature of the learning experience they
examine the nature of engagement of individuals in the experience. Their study focuses on the
relationship between learning and the social situations in which it occurs, proposing that one
acquires the skills to perform by actually engaging in the process under the attenuated conditions
of legitimate peripheral participation. Learning is a process that takes place in a participation
framework, not in an individual mind. The different perspectives held by the coparticipants,
therefore, mediate the learning. Learning through legitimate peripheral participation takes place

39

no matter which educational form provides a context for learning or whether there is any
educational form at all (p. 40). The important point of learning is one of access to practice as a
resource rather than instruction. A training program that consists of instructional settings
separated from actual performance would tend to split the learner’s ability to manage the learning
situations apart from his or her ability to perform the skill.
The importance of access to practice as a resource is supported by a study researching
teaching in physical education (Silverman, 1991). Silverman’s findings indicate that in addition
to providing clear explanations and demonstrations, teachers who allocate time for motor skill
practice and structure practice so the students are appropriately engaged will promote student
learning (p. 357). A paper by Latham and Cassady (1997) outlining the skills which are integral
to the process of performance analysis reports that the individual’s skill knowledge base and their
ability to analyze effectively will only develop with relevant practical experience and practice.
In order to be engaged in the learning and to move into positions of full participation.
Lave and Wenger (1991) state that learners must be legitimate peripheral participants in ongoing
practice. Conditions that place newcomers in adversarial relations with masters, in exhausting
conditions or in involuntary servitude rather than participation, distort the prospects for learning
in practice (p. 64). The legitimate peripherality of the learners, rather than being an
“observational” lookout post, crucially involves participation as a way of learning. An extended
period of legitimate peripherality provides learners with opportunities to create their own culture
of practice. From a broadly peripheral perspective, the learners gradually assemble a general idea
of what constitutes the practice of the community. This might include how the masters and others
conduct their lives, how people who are not part of the community interact with it, what other
learners are doing, and what the learners need to leam to become full participants. Legitimate
peripheral participation, in this manner, offers models which motivate learning.
Lave and Wenger’s (1991) study has increased awareness of the social nature of
experiential learning. The findings of this study are supported by a study concerning the

40

construction of scientific knowledge in the social setting of the classroom (Driver, Asoko, Leach,
Mortimer, & Scott, 1994) and by a study using discourse analysis to change physical education
(Prain & Hickey 1995). Driver et al. (1994) propose that scientific knowledge is socially
constructed, validated and communicated in the social interaction within the everyday culture of
the learning environment. Individuals build up knowledge by actively engaging with others in
attempting to understand and interpret the phenomenon for themselves. The critical feature of
this process of learning is the nature of the dialogic process. Driver et al. (1994) suggest that
there are two components to the role of the instructor in this process. The instructor must
introduce new ideas and then provide the support and guidance for students to make sense of
these ideas for themselves. The instructor must also listen and diagnose the ways in which the
instructional activities are being interpreted to inform further action. In this way the instructor
too, becomes a learner. The model of discourse analysis proposed by Prain and Hickey (1995)
also highlights the importance of exploratory verbal interaction and nondidactic approaches to
encourage clarification and consolidation of student learning (p.88).
In this section we have discovered the complex nature of experiential learning. As
MacLeod (1996) states, “Learning is much like the wind. It is impossible to grasp but its
presence and influence are unmistakable” (p. 116).

Summary and Conclusions
In this chapter, three bodies of literature have been reviewed: the concept of risk, risk
decision-making and experiential learning. The concept of risk was seen to be understood
differently by those involved in health promotion and disease/injury prevention when compared
with the understanding of those involved in adventure recreation. The differences in their
understanding of risk led to differences in their response to risk behaviours and risk situations.
Those in health promotion saw risk situations and behaviours as causing a loss of health and
developed strategies to eliminate the behaviours and situations, while those in adventure

41

recreation saw risk situations as opportunities for personal growth and developed strategies to
provide the optimal risk experience.
It is widely acknowledged that socioeconomic and environmental factors as well as
individual life style choices affect one’s health; however, many of the strategies used by those in
health promotion were seen to focus on the individual. The more recent health promotion and
disease/injury prevention strategies recognize that people choose to engage in health risk
behaviours because of the expected benefits. These more recent strategies, instead of focussing
on eliminating the behaviour, seek to reduce the harm by developing effective risk-handling
behaviours. The review discovered a lack of information on risk-handling behaviour and how
this type of behaviour is developed. The literature recommends it as a high priority research topic
(Yates, 1992).
There is a substantial amount of adventure recreation literature that describes a holistic
approach to risk situations, taking into consideration the natural and social environment as well as
the individual. Adventure recreation models provide information on the characteristics of the
individuals and explore the personal meaning of the participant’s experience. Information
obtained from these models furnishes suggestions for the development of programs and strategies
to provide the optimal experience. Specific strategies focus on the development of skills,
including risk decision-making skills. The strategies include many of the conditions
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) considered necessary to experience flow and thereby to experience
personal growth.
All the theories of risk decision-making explored showed that when people identify the
possible losses in a situation, and assess the significance and the probability of those losses, it is
based on a subjective appraisal. The assessment of expected benefîts of the risk activity and the
benefits of implementing risk-handling behaviours are also based on people’s subjective
appraisal. One of the most important factors influencing this assessment was shown to be beliefs
of self-efficacy. The literature discussed the ways in which decision-making abilities and beliefs

42

of self-efficacy were developed. Both discussions noted the influence of previous experience on
the development of these abilities and beliefs. Ideal developmental situations were shown to
involve matching skill level to the challenge, thereby providing opportunities for mastery
experiences. The discussions also noted that the development of these beliefs and abilities takes
place against the background of the general development of cognitive, affective, and social
resources.
Various emotions are mentioned throughout the literature: fear, heightened arousal,
exhilaration, camaraderie, self-efficacy, boredom and anxiety. These emotions were seen to
affect risk decision-making and were in turn affected by the risk decisions. What you don’t see in
the literature, however, is the individual and situational factors underlying these emotions. The
approach used in this study enables us to see these factors, increasing our understanding of risk
decision making.
A non-deliberative type of decision making was also discussed. This method was shown
to involve two different processes. In one instance the decision-making was shown to be an
important characteristic of skilled behaviour, which included not only performance, but also
cognitive problem solving skills. This type of decision-making was shown to be situation
specific, reflecting long term learning processes and familiar environments. The other type of
non-deliberative decision making was shown to reflect habits acquired through the routine
activities of daily life. What is not known is how they show up in risk taking behaviour. Both
deliberative and non-deliberative forms of decision making need to be considered when we look
at the risk decisions of the white water kayakers.
In the experiential learning literature the various stages of skill acquisition, which
reflected qualitatively different modes of decision-making, were discussed. In the literature it
was noted that there was a continuous interplay between present and past experiences which in
turn affected future experiences. The nature of these experiences was shown to affect the
movement through the stages. Following ‘watershed’ experiences, movement through the stages

43

of skill acquisition was accelerated; however, even in the ‘bits and bobs’ experiences of everyday
life, learning continued. Learning was not only the result of some particularly meaningful
experience but accompanied all experiencing. Experience was understood in two ways: as a
resource and as an ongoing process, both inextricably intertwined. Key to all experiential learning
was the involvement of the participants. What is needed is an examination of the role of
experience in the development of the white water kayakers’ risk-handling behaviours.
The review examined the nature of involvement of individuals in the experience. It was
noted that one acquires the skills to perform by actually engaging in the process under conditions
of ‘legitimate peripheral participation’. This method involves participation as a way of learning
and involves the participant in the culture of the community. The participants leam by engaging
with others in attempting to understand and interpret the phenomenon for themselves. In this way
the participants were shown to assemble a general idea of what constitutes the practice of
community. It was shown that conditions that place the participant in adversarial relations with
masters or in conditions of involuntary servitude distorted the prospects for learning. We need to
look at the nature of involvement of the white water kayakers in the process of learning. This
information may provide suggestions for engaging other people in learning behaviours that will
improve their health and prevent injury.
The focus of this study is on the risk handling behaviour of white water kayakers. The
search of the literature exposed a need for situational analysis of risk behaviour to better
understand the role of individual differences. Risk-handling behaviour has also been identified in
the literature as a high priority research topic. It is the intent of this study to examine learning in
white water kayaking in depth and in so doing address these gaps. This examination will allow us
to more fully capture the nature of risk decision-making in the natural environment. In the next
chapter the approach to the study is discussed.

44

CHAPTERS
Approach to the Study

My objective in undertaking this project was to gain insight into the risk-handling
behaviour of white water kayakers. Behaviour was noted in the literature review to be
determined by the interactions o f the person, the person’s behaviour and the environment. It was
therefore my intent to enter the cultural environment of white water kayakers as a means of
gaining insight into their risk handling behaviour. Cadman (1996), who also looks at preventing
injury in high risk sports, says that most of the emphasis in injury research has been on injury
epidemiology and equipment design. What is lacking in this field, he states, is information on the
sociological factors influencing behaviour and the psychological factors that affect one’s
proclivity to engage in high-risk behaviours. As the purpose o f my research was largely
exploratory, an inductive approach was chosen. Qualitative approaches are inductive in nature
and are characterized by a “belief that theory should be grounded in the day-to-day realities of the
people being studied’’ (Palys, 1992, p. 410). This study examines these ‘day-to-day realities’ of
white water kayakers.
A strong tradition of qualitative research is present in mursing and in some other
disciplines but is seen less frequently in leisure research. Leisure scientists have expressed the
belief that interpretive research will better reveal the process and meanings associated with
leisure that are difficult to capture in traditional empirical design (Dawson, 1984; Howe, 1985;
Kelly, 1991). Samdahl (1999) notes that interpretive researchers are sensitive to individualized
meanings that often get hidden in broader generalizations. Whatever approach is used it is
important to emphasize, as Kuhn (1970) does, that to understand scientific knowledge one has to
understand the social processes by which and the social context in which that knowledge was
produced. The data and the data gatherer are inseparable. The researcher’s task is to present a
clear and articulate account of the study from objectives to conclusions (Palys, 1992). It is my

45

intent to do that by first providing a detailed description of the ethnographic approach used,
identifying the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.

The Ethnographic Approach
Knowledge was shown in the literature to be socially constructed, validated and
communicated in the social interaction within the everyday culture of the learning environment
(Driver et al., 1994). This study seeks to understand the cultiu'e of the learning environment of
white water kayaking to leam how the white water kayakers construct the knowledge that enables
them to handle the risks of the sport. To gain this understanding an ethnographic method of
qualitative research was chosen. This form of research design has the following five
characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•

Behaviour is studied in everyday contexts, rather than under experimental conditions created
by the researcher.
The main sources of data are observation and informal interviews.
Collection and interpretation of data does not involve following a pre set plan or using pre­
fixed categories.
The focus of the study is a single setting or group.
Data analysis takes the form of verbal descriptions and explanationsto interpret the meanings
and functions of hiunan actions (Hammersley, 1990).

This type of research design is ideally suited to this study as the risk-handling behaviour of white
water kayakers is learned and practiced in a wilderness river enviroiunent. Observing the
kayakers in this setting was key to understanding their culture and its impact on the learning and
practice of risk-handling behaviour. Participation in the natural setting allowed the generation of
data on social interaction in specific contexts as it occurred, rather than relying on people’s
retrospective accounts, and on their ability to verbalize and reconstruct a version of the
interactions (Mason, 1996).
The origins of ethnography lie in the writings of travellers concerned with informing their
fellows about other societies (Spradley, 1980). The data in these early accounts was often
misleading and the analysis was frequently speculative and evaluative. Hammersley (1990)

46

states that as the social science disciplines developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
there was recognition of the need to collect data in a systematic and rigorous manner.
The aim of social research is to capture the character of naturally occurring behaviour by
first hand contact (Hammersley, 1990; Lofland & Lofland, 1995; Palys, 1992). Ethnographers
argue that it is necessary to leam the culture of the group before you can produce valid
explanations for the behaviour of its members. These issues are the reason for the centrality of
participant observation and unstructured interviewing to ethnographic method (Hammersley,
1990). Another feature of qualitative research in general and current ethnographic approaches in
particular is a conception of the research process as inductive (Hammersley, 1990; Lofland &
Lofland, 1995; Palys, 1992). In this conception of the process, theoretical ideas are developed
over the course of the research rather than leading or shaping the research. The following
discussion of data collection techniques and data analysis describes the process by which the
theoretical ideas were developed in this study.

Data Collection Techniques and Ethical Considerations
There were two main data collection techniques used in this study: participant
observation and in-depth interviews. The participant observation approach allowed me to enter
the social group of white water kayakers permitting the identification of potential subjects for the
interviews. There are some methodological shortcomings to participant observation. Emotions,
prejudices, attitudes and values may result in faulty inferences or the observer may simply fail to
attend to aspects of the situation that are important to the group (Polit & Hungler, 1999). As the
observations are not recorded until a later time. Polit and Hungler (1999) suggest there is a
chance for memory distortions to occur. The fact that the observer is an involved participant in
the situation may affect the actions and behaviours of the other group members (Mason, 1996).
These issues are addressed in the following section.

47

Participant Observation
The site for my role as participant observer was a white water kayaking course held in the
Pacific Northwest. It was a five-day course for those interested in learning the sport. The group
involved in the course included the instructor and three other participants. “Immersion in the
setting allows the researcher to hear, see and begin to experience reality as the participants do”
(Marshall & Rossman, 1989, p. 79). Observing the characteristics, the causes and the
consequences of the actions of white water kayakers and participating in the experience myself
provided insight into the relationship between the learning process and the actions taken by the
participants. Spradley (1980) asserts that it is the task of the ethnographer to discover questions
that seek the relationship among phenomena that are conceptually meaningful to the people under
investigation.
The first day of the course was spent in a small lake while the second day was spent in a
large swimming pool. The remaining three days were spent on the river. These sites provided
the opportunity to develop a beginning awareness of the risks involved in the sport, the
behaviours and actions used to handle the risks, and the processes by which these risk-handling
behaviours were learned.
The behaviours that are likely to be available for observation depend on the position of
the observer. There is a range of involvement between complete observer and complete
participant. Palys (1992) views these as separate types of relationships: complete observer,
observational participant, participatory observer and complete participant. The difference in the
middle two categories is one of emphasis. Leninger (1985) views the observer’s role as evolving
through a sequence of four phases from primarily observation to primarily participation with
some observation, followed by a reflective observation phase. From my first encounter with the
group my relationship was one of observational participation. Spradley (1980) refers to this as
active participation. In active participation the ethnographer begins with observations but as
knowledge of what others do grows, the ethnographer tries to leam the same behaviour. In this

48

way the ethnographer observes others and learns from them, and he/she also learns by observing
him/herself (Spradley, 1980).
I informed the instructor and the other participants of my reasons for participating in the
course. The fact that I was forthright about my motives reduced the chance of ethical concerns
and enabled me to question the participants and instructor more directly. As noted earlier, the
presence of the observer can influence the behaviour of the participants. Palys (1992) suggests
that reactivity can be minimized if the observer closely resembles the participants. I therefore
wore the same gear as the other participants and participated fully in all the same activities. I
learned by doing rather than by just watching and listening. In this manner I was able to
holistically experience the adventure first hand.
Before I Joined the group I went over a list of questions that served to guide my
observations. The list began with broad descriptive questions as suggested by Spradley (1980).
What people are here, what are they doing, and what is the physical setting, are examples of the
questions on the list. These questions guided my initial observations, enabling me to gain an
overview of the situation. As I became more familiar with the group and with kayaking, I
became more focussed in my questions and observations, seeking answers to more specific
questions regarding risk handling behaviours and the learning process. In this way I was able to
attend to aspects of the situation that were important to the group.
During breaks in the training sessions, 1 casually interviewed the instructor and the other
participants. Casual interviewing is a key part of participant observation and often helps clarify
the meanings of observed behaviours (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). During the sessions I made a
mental note of specific comments, actions and environmental effects I had observed. Field notes
from my observations and casual interviews were jotted down when I returned to the car and
expanded upon as soon as I arrived home to minimize the time between the observation and the
writing. The field notes included descriptions of events, conversations, and the physical

49

environment. I tried to be as objective as possible in my descriptions. My emotional responses
and any analytical ideas or inferences were noted in brackets.
Participation in the kayaking course provided insight into the risk handling behaviours of
white water kayakers as well as the process of learning. These insights plus the theories of
experiential learning and risk decision-making discussed in the literature review directed the
development of the questions used in the interview guide. Through the established relationship
with the other participants in the course I received the names of other kayakers to approach for
possible interviews.

Intensive Interviews
Intensive or unstructured interviewing is “a guided conversation whose goal is to elicit
from the interviewee rich detailed materials that can be used in qualitative analysis” (Lofland &
Lofland, 1995, p. 18). This method encourages respondents to define the important dimensions
of a phenomenon and to elaborate on what is relevant to them, rather than being guided by the
interviewer’s notions of relevance (Polit & Hungler, 1999). This type of data collection is very
labor intensive but when the researcher is interested, as I was, in in-depth responses from a
relatively small group, this is seen to be the most effective form of data collection (Palys, 1992).
It allows the interviewer the flexibility to respond to new insights with unanticipated avenues of
questioning and makes it possible for participants to speak in their own words.
The interactive nature of the interview means that one must be careful about reactive
bias. Palys (1992) suggests that the interviewees become very attentive to cues the interviewer
emits, since they want to know whether they are “doing well” as participants. I was aware of this
possible bias and endeavored to keep my responses neutral while still being encouraging. I let the
participants know that except for my experience in the kayaking course, I was ignorant of the
usual practices of white water kayakers. Lofland and Lofland (1995) state that the investigator

50

who assumes the role o f one who is to be taught is in a good position to keep the flow of
information coming smoothly.
Sample selection. Potential participants were identified initially by the people in the
kayaking course and then by the participants themselves in a process known as network or
snowball sampling (Polit & Hungler, 1999). To enhance the likelihood of achieving a range of
participants, I chose both male and female subjects of different ages and varying levels of
kayaking expertise. The literature reviewed showed that experience is more complex than usually
portrayed and rather than being a static entity, involves a continuous interplay of the past, the
present and the future (MacLeod, 1996). Because of this understanding I sought to interview
kayakers who were in the process of becoming experienced and those who had experienced
different learning situations to allow for the emergence o f possible contrasting perspectives.
Seven kayakers were interviewed to ensure inclusion of both sexes, varying ages and varying
levels of expertise.
Name

Age

Sex

# o f years Kayaking

Marital Status

Ted

18 yr.

Male

1 yr.

Single

Betty

25 yr.

Female

2yr.

Single

Mary

27 yr.

Female

4 yr.

Single

Peter

33 yr.

Male

2 I/2yr.

Single

Jim

50 yr.

Male

15 yr.

Married

Jane

28 yr.

Female

2yr.

Married

Alice

50 yr.

Female

2yr.

Married

Figure 3. The participants (names are pseudonyms).
Each participant was contacted by phone and informed of the nature and purpose of the
research. I then requested the kayakers’ participation in an interview which would require
approximately one hour of their time. Appointments were made at a time and location that was

51

convenient for the participants. Out of the seven kayakers, four chose to be interviewed in their
own homes and three chose to be interviewed in my home.
Ethical considerations. The interview sessions began with an explanation of the nature of
the study and its importance in increasing the understanding of risk handling behaviour. I
explained that it was particularly important to gain insight into the process by which these
behaviours were learned. Permission to tape the interviews was requested. Taping the interviews
allowed me to concentrate more fully on the responses of the participants. A discussion of
informed consent ensued. Participants were given assurances that they would remain anonymous
and their responses would be kept in confidence. They were told that their names would not be
used in the interview recording, the transcription or any future publications that may result from
this research. On reflection I realized that in a small community there was the chance the
participants would be able to recognize other participants when asked to review the analysis.
These measures did, however, seem to be effective. The participants said that even though they
tried to figure them out, they were uncertain of the identity of the other participants. The
kayakers were advised that they were free to interrupt, ask for clarification or even withdraw from
the interview at anytime. Consent forms (Appendix A) were signed in duplicate, one for the
participant and one for myself. The consent forms included phone niunbers to call if the
participants had any ethical concerns or any questions regarding the study. I identified the
participants by pseudonyms in the transcripts and have stored the data in a locked file cabinet in
my home. This data will be disposed of five years following completion of my thesis.
The interview guide. A checklist was prepared to guide the interviews much the same as
questions guided my observations as an active participant. The literature review and my own
experience as a participant observer gave direction to the subject matter that was included in the
interview guide. Spradley (1980) describes three categories of questions that are used in
ethnographic research. These descriptions provided further direction for the development of the
guide. Broad descriptive questions were used to begin the interviews and to introduce the

52

different topics o f interest. These questions allowed the participants to speak freely in their own
terms, describing their experiences, their companions, their actions and the physical environment.
Structural questions as described by Spradley (1980) were used to elicit a more focussed
response. These questions were probes to determine the different kinds of kayaking companions,
risk-handling behaviours, and physical environments. Spradley (1980) describes the third
category of questions as contrast questions. These questions were used to help clarify the cultural
meanings by pointing out the differences. For example the kayakers were asked to describe their
best kayaking experience as well as their worst experience. The kayakers referred to desired
kayaking companions as the right people. They were then asked to describe the wrong kayaking
companions. The interview guide is included as Appendix B.
The interviews. A practice interview was held to test the capacity of the interview guide
to elicit a good response from the participants. This interview went well, generating rich data on
the participants’ kayaking experience, her risk handling behaviour and her process of learning
these behaviours. This interview was therefore included as one of the seven.
Once an explanation of the study was given and the ethical issues addressed I began the
interview by asking the participants to describe their best kayaking experience. This question
proved to be a good icebreaker, putting us both at ease and creating a relaxed atmosphere for the
interview. The relaxed atmosphere allowed the participants to be open with their feelings and
opinions. Except for the first question there was no strict ordering of the other questions. The
guide served more as a checklist to ensure I had covered all the topics. It was also a useful for
note-taking during the interview.
The open-ended questions allowed the kayakers to tell their own story of their kayaking
experiences as well as their learning experiences. “Narratives of skill learning provide a
description of the multiple realities constructed by different students as a result of their
experiences” (Langley, 1995a, p. 126). This type of interviewing, as suggested by Lofland and

53

Lofland (1995), allowed for in-depth probing and explanations of participants’ responses,
providing rich, detailed information to use in the qualitative analysis.
Immediately following the interview I jotted down my impressions of the interview. This
included the emotional tone of the interview, any particular difficulties I encountered and my own
insights and reflections about the experience. These observations were included as field notes. I
began transcribing the tapes the day following the interview and considered this careful review of
the data as one step in the process of analysis.

Data Analysis
Analysis of the data was ongoing throughout the study. Analysis is conceived as “an
emergent product of a process of gradual induction” (Lofland & Lofland, 1995, p. 181). It is the
ordering of the data. In qualitative studies data collection and analysis goes hand in hand
(Marshall & Rossman, 1989). I was always mindful of the purpose of the study: increasing the
understanding o f risk-handling behaviour and the process by which the behaviours were learned.
The purpose guided my observations as a participant in the kayaking course and directed the
questions, which guided the interviews. The insights gained in the initial observations and
interviews benefited future observations and interviews by adjusting my assumptions, allowing
me to ask more focussed questions of the situation or the interview participants.
Once the data were collected it was questioned in much the same way as I questioned my
observations and the interview participants. Analysis of the collected data is the first step in going
beyond mere descriptions of behaviour and things to discover cultural meaning (Spradley, 1980).
Transcribing the interview tapes was a slow process of going over the data again and again. This
process forced me to become familiar with the data in intimate ways. Polit and Hungler (1999)
state that there are no systematic rules for analyzing and presenting qualitative data; rather there
are styles of analysis. I chose an editing analysis style’ using a method described by Spradley
(1980). Spradley (1980) describes ethnographic analysis as “a search for the parts of a culture.

54

the relationship among the parts, and their relationship to the whole” (p. 116). I began the search
for the parts of the culture of white water kayakers by identifying basic units or cultural domains
such as kinds of kayakers or kinds of kayaker’s behaviours. Domains as described by Spradley
(1980) are cultural categories that are made up of three basic elements: cover terms, included
terms, and semantic relationships (see figure 4).

Cover Term

Included Terms

Semantic relationship
Ts a kind o f

Kayakers

Right people
Companion
Wrong people

Kayakers’ Behaviours

Wearing equipment

(principle of inclusion —places
them inside the cultural
domain)
‘is a way to’

Paddling skills

handle the risk

Exiting the kayak
Reading the river
Rolling the kayak
Figure 4. Domains
Identification of the domains led to more focussed questioning of the data. I identified
smaller categories included in the domains and looked for the ways in which the cultural domains
were organized. I was searching for patterns that pointed to the ways in which the cultural
behaviour and cultural knowledge was organized in a domain. I used what Spradley (1980)
referred to as taxonomic analysis to see how several cultural domains were organized. At this
point I was looking for patterns based on similarity. “Identifying salient themes, recurring ideas
or language and patterns of belief that link people and settings together is the most intellectually
challenging phase of data analysis and one that can integrate the entire endeavor” (Marshall &
Rossman, 1989, p. 116). Marshall and Rossman (1989) and Lofland and Lofland (1995) refer to

55

this stage of organizing the data as coding. My process of identifying the different domains was
very similar and “served to summarize, synthesize and sort many observations made of the data”
(Lofland & Lofland, 1995). I used a split screen on the computer to copy and paste the various
things (places, people, actions, etc.) identifled in the transcripts of the field notes and interviews
into domains identifying the included terms and the semantic relationship.
Spradley (1980) asserts that cultural meaning comes not only from patterns based on
similarity but also from patterns based on contrast. The next step then was searching for the
attributes (components of meaning) of the terms in each domain and asking, not how they are
similar but how are they different. Spradley (1980) refers to this stage of analysis as
componential analysis.
The final stage of analysis described by Spradley (1980) is theme analysis. In this stage I
searched for relationships among the domains and for how they are linked to the cultural scene as
a whole. Cultural themes as described by Spradley (1980) are principles recurrent in a number of
domains, tacit or explicit and serve as relationships that connect different subsystems of a culture.
Spradley (1980) asserts that searching for themes means discovering the relationships among
domains and the relationships of all various parts to the whole cultural scene. To aid in
identifying the various themes I used a process called diagramming to provide a visual
presentation of the emerging relationships among the identifled domains. The diagram that I
developed to help me begin the writing is appended as Appendix C. Writing up qualitative
research is an intensive process of writing, reflecting and rewriting, as meaning developed. The
identifled themes suggested a place to start in communicating the cultural meanings I had
discovered. In a way this was another level of analysis as domains were often regrouped as new
insights were gained during the reflecting and writing process.
Each participant was sent a copy of the draft data analysis, chapters 4, 5, and 6. I asked
the participants to review the analysis and to point out any misinterpretations of their stories. I
also asked them to add any comments that would give further insight into their risk handling

56

behaviours or their process of learning. There were no negative comments or requests to delete
any of my interpretations of the data. Several of the participants conunented that they recognized
procedures and processes and found it interesting to think about the different aspects of risktaking and decision-making they experienced.

Data Oualitv/Rigor
Ethnography and qualitative research in general have been criticized for not being
scientific when compared with quantitative approaches (Hammersley, 1990). Some of the
specific criticisms reported suggest that qualitative research suffers from a lack of precision as a
result of the absence of quantification. The reported criticisms also suggest that observation and
interviewing are subjective sources of data as they are not guided by structure that would
maximize the chances that another observer or interviewer would produce the same results.
Further reported criticisms suggest that small sample sizes produce findings that are not
generalizable and ethnographers are unable to identify causal relationships because the variables
cannot be controlled.
To address these criticisms and establish the truthfulness of the findings in this qualitative
study, I used the four constructs proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985). The first is credibility, in
which the goal is to demonstrate that the inquiry was conducted in such a manner as to ensure that
the subject was accurately identified and described. Hammersley (1990) states that it is
impossible to reproduce a phenomenon by describing it, as the researchers’ descriptions are
always selective. I therefore provide justification for my selections. The aim of this study was to
increase the understanding of risk-handling behaviours and the processes by which these
behaviours are learned. I drew on theories of risk decision-making and experiential learning as I
participated in the kayaking course and undertook the interviews, producing descriptions that
focused on situations and behaviours that reflected risk decision-making and learning.
Participating in a situation in which many of the risk-handling behaviours were learned and

57

interviewing kayakers of different ages and genders and at different stages o f skill development
allowed me to approach the subject of risk-handling behaviour from many angles. The rich data
obtained from using this approach allowed me to describe risk-handling behaviours and processes
of learning in such a way that the participants were able to readily identify with the descriptions.
Other kayakers reading this study will be also be able to recognize these behaviours and
situations as familiar.
The second construct deals with transferability, the ability of the researcher to generalize
the findings of one study to the population from which the sample was drawn or to other
populations presumed to be similar. It is not the intent of qualitative studies to prove broad
universal generalizations. The intent of ethnography is to develop detailed descriptions of culture
and cultiu-al life (Hammersley, 1990; Spradley, 1980). The rich, detailed descriptions of the
participants will allow others to evaluate the applicability of the findings to different contexts.
Dependability is the third construct used to establish the trustworthiness of a study. The
qualitative/interpretive assumption that the social world is always changing makes the problem of
replication of the study difficult, if not impossible (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). In my choice of
qualitative research, the intent was to study risk-handling behaviour in the natural environment
and gain insight into the complexity of situational contexts and interactions as they occurred. The
systematic collection and analysis of data and the thorough notes, recording each research
decision and its rationale provide an audit trail that others wishing to inspect my study can follow.
The fourth construct is confirmability. In my role as a participant observer 1 experienced
many of the emotions described by the interview participants. To enable me to be rigorous in my
analysis of the data, obtained through the observations and interviews, I recorded my emotions,
insights and assumptions. This allowed me to examine them and question their influence on my
interpretation of the data. 1 discussed my interpretations with my thesis advisor who critically
questioned my analysis. 1 also discussed my findings with other people who engage in high-risk
activities.

58

The strength of the approach taken in this study lies in its ability to generate the rich,
detailed material, which provided information on the risk-handling behaviour and the processes
by which that behaviour was learned. This information addresses a gap in the literature,
regarding risk handling in a natural setting and contributes to the existing research on risk-taking
behaviour. The information is relevant to those involved in health promotion and disease/injury
prevention and to those involved in adventure recreation. The following chapters reveal this
information.

59

CHAPTER 4
The Kayaking Experience

To understand how white water kayakers leam to handle risk it is first necessary to
understand what it is they need to leam. This chapter begins with a general account of the sport,
providing information on the equiptnent, the river environment and the skills which are required
to paddle a kayak in white water. The kayakers routinely engage in what to an outsider appears
to be high-risk activities. Exposure to these risk activities engenders intense feelings that affect
the kayakers' behaviour. In describing their feelings, the kayakers reveal what it is they value in
the sport. The chapter explores the kayakers’ tolerance for risk and describes how their level of
experience, their feelings and their stage of life affect their risk tolerance. The risk-handling
behaviour is described showing how the participants assess the situation, devise a plan to handle
the risks and then implement the plan. Differences are identified between the practices of the
experienced and the less experienced kayakers. These differences provide greater insight into
what it is the participants need to leam.

White Water Kavaking - the Sport
The rich data from the interviews and field notes provide a vivid description of the white
water kayaking experience. The boat, a kayak, is a decked stmcture between 7.5 and 12 feet
long, with a small oval cockpit opening that is covered with a spray deck made of neoprene or
nylon to keep the water out. The kayakers say that initially the spray deck causes them some
anxiety, a feeling of potentially being trapped in their kayak upside down in the river.
Kayakers sit almost on the bottom of their boats with their knees braced against the
sides. Ideally, the kayak is fitted to the paddler so that the boat moves together with the person’s
lower body. The kayakers think of wearing their boats rather than just sitting in them.

60

Maneuvering the boat is done using a double-bladed paddle. Most paddles are asymmetrical
with the blades curved and offset from one another on the shaft. The curve of the blade helps it
to grip the water. The offset reduces wind resistance from the non-active blade and puts the
kayakers’ wrists in a neutral position when paddling. The kayakers are able to navigate the river
by shifting their weight in the kayak and using various paddle strokes and techniques. Ted
describes how this is done. “You have to lean forward more in your boat so you won’t get
flipped back in a hole or a reciprocator. I just concentrated on keeping forward and keeping
really strong paddle strokes ’ (Ted, p. 4).
The basic white water moves are the eddy turn, pull out, and ferry. The eddy turn allows
the kayakers to enter an eddy (an area of calm water downstream of a rock or other obstacle) in
order to rest or survey the rapids below. White water kayakers generally put into rivers in eddies
with their boats pointing upstream, allowing them to enter the current with maximum control.
They use the pull out to reenter the current and proceed downstream. To cross from one side of
the river to the other side, the kayakers angle their boats to the current. This allows them to ferry
across, letting the river do most of the work.
Proper boat lean allows the kayaker to vary the effect the river has on the boat by
changing the hull shape to the current. This keeps them from flipping when entering or leaving
the current and helps them to steer the boat. Bracing strokes, slapping the paddle on the water,
can help save kayakers from flipping when their lean fails. When they do flip, they use a
technique called rolling to right themselves. There are many different types of rolls including the
Eskimo rescue, which allows one boater to help another by extending the bow of their boat to
assist the capsized paddler to roll up. When the kayakers are confident of their roll, they can
enjoy the thrill of remaining in the midst of difficult rapids, riding the waves, knowing it is likely
they can recover quickly and easily if flipped. Alice describes just such an experience. “I had

61

gotten my roll down well. There was a big wave and I felt quite confident for the first time to go
and play in it. It was really kind of exhilarating” (Alice, p. I).
When beginner kayakers flip over they use ‘the wet exit’ to get out of their kayak. This
involves tucking forward, kissing the deck’ as they flip over, to protect the face and torso from
rocks that may be encountered underwater. Protecting the face from rocks is not always possible,
as shown by the following descriptions. “She smashed her face into a rock and she knocked her
teeth fairly badly” (Jim, p. 20). “He was guarding his head like this and banged up his elbows
and his face a little bit. Another guy broke his nose once ” (Ted, p. 12).
To release themselves from their kayaks for a wet exit, the kayakers must let go of their
paddle with one hand, pull the grab loop on their spray skirt, put both hands on the boat and push
out. Exiting their kayak, however, does not always extricate them from the risk situation. The
kayakers still have to handle the river current. Wet exiting in Class IV or Class V water is
extremely dangerous, as in the turbulent water the kayakers are not able to control their actions.
The frigid water chills the kayakers even when they are wearing appropriate cold water paddling
gear. Once they have exited their kayak, they require rescuing by fellow kayakers. This is one of
the main reasons that kayakers paddle in groups. It requires time to drain the water out o f the
kayak and get going again; the wet exit is definitely not the preferred method of recovering from
a flip.
White water rapids are relentlessly powerful and totally ruthless. Paddling in these
rapids provides the thrill and also the risk of the sport. The rivers are rated according to
difficulty and danger from Class 1 - Class VI, with class 1 being the easiest and Class VI water
being rarely run, as it presents a serious threat to life. Kayakers sometimes refer to the higherclass water as ‘bigger water’ or when the creek is difficult but low volume, as technical’ water.
The kayakers in the study group run rivers up to Class V. The majority of the rivers they run are

62

in the Pacific Northwest and their level of difficulty changes according to the time of year and
water level.
The Kitimat River was just flooded, like it was just big time. And we went to the
Williams just yesterday and the river changed incredibly. I couldn’t believe ‘cause this
one big head wall was just washed right away and one of the waterfalls wasn’t even
barely there. (Ted, p. 17)
The white-topped waves are evidence of the power of the river. These waves are formed
when moving water is compressed into a narrow channel or gradient, or when the river bottom
changes abruptly or when fast moving water meets slow moving water. The kayakers describe
surfing on a wave, with the river rushing by, as one of the ultimate thrills in white water.
One of the dangers comes from entering a hole or hydraulic. These holes, like the
waves, are ‘play spots’ for the more experienced kayakers. The hole forms when water falling
over a ledge or other submerged obstacle, moves back and upstream below the drop, forming a
white frothy recirculation current. The following descriptions show the force of the water and
give some indication of the risk involved when caught in these holes.
Mary: These are just like little whirlpools, you know, like when the water goes down the drain.
The water actually does that in the canyon. And so you’ll be in one spot and then you’ll
go in one direction, the water will swirl you around and kinda turn your boat. And you
have to be like super strong to paddle against the force of the water, cause its pretty high
water and then it’s got no where to go except in the canyon, so it just does crazy things.
And I got flipped over, over a wave or something and couldn’t roll and the water felt like
it was almost sucking you out of your boat, (p.?)
Peter:

You get spinning around and then you feel yourself being released from it and you feel
like you are coming up to the surface and then it would grab you and pull you and you
can’t get air or anything (p. 6).

It does not take many encounters with the river environment before the kayakers are aware of the
power. One of the kayakers describes her relationship with the river:
In rivers, the water does whatever it wants. Sometimes you have a certain amount of
control, but the river does what it wants. The water is way more powerful than you are
and you can plan with it; then everything is fine but if you screw up and you don’t do
what you’re supposed to, then it will get you (Mary, p. 22).

63

Mary is aware of the power of the river and she respects this power. Being able to control her
actions against this power provides the kayaking challenge.
Overhanging fallen trees or branches are other hazards identified by the kayakers. They
call these hazards strainers, as the tree branches allow water to flow through them but can trap a
boater. Undercut rocks are also identified as hazards. This is due to the fact there is generally
little if any pillow of water to keep the kayakers away and the force of the river can trap them
against the rock. This is even more dangerous, should they flip out of their boats and become
swimmers.
The remoteness of the areas kayakers choose to paddle adds to the risk of the sport. If
they are in a canyon section someone may have to rappel down to get them out. Jim says that the
risks on wilderness trips vary “from grizzly bears to hypothermia to an appendectomy at the
riverside”. In fact, he comments “It’s surprising how few accidents there are, given the nature of
the environment that it takes place in” (Jim, p. 9).
These descriptions show the reality of the risks involved in white water kayaking. It is
the challenge these risks present that engenders the feelings experienced by the kayakers. These
feelings, as will be shown in the next section, lure the kayakers back to the sport and motivate
them to acquire the skills necessary to survive the risks.

Feelings Associated with the Kavaking Experience
The great attraction of the sport appears to be related to the intense feelings experienced
by the kayakers. There are differences in the feelings reported by the kayakers. The meaning
behind these differences is explored, as the feelings appear to affect the kayakers’ tolerance for
risk and their risk handling behaviour. Importantly, the fear expressed by the less experienced
kayakers seems to motivate them to develop the skills necessary to maintain some measure of
control in this high-risk sport.

64

Fear
The predominant feeling expressed by the less experienced kayakers is intense fear or
terror. Some of them express this feeling of terror when describing situations in which they
perceive themselves to be out o f control; when they are caught in a hole or flip over in a rapid
and are unable to roll up.
Mary; It was terrifying. I got stuck in an eddy, that was going round and round and I was
hanging onto my boat by one finger and I wasn’t able to breathe, (p. 8)
Jane:

I was just so terrified. I wiped in just this small little rapid and I couldn’t get up. (p. 7)
Other kayakers describe the feeling they experience when caught in similar situations as

weird rather than terrifying.
Alice: It was a weird feeling, that I wouldn’t want to be stuck, (p. 11)
Peter:

It is a real weird thing being in a boat and not being able to get out. (p. 23)

Betty: It was kind of a weird feeling when you are upside down in all that roaring water, (p. 5)
The dictionary describes “weird” as something that is incomprehensible or frighteningly strange.
Describing the feeling they experience as weird suggests that the kayakers cannot relate the
feeling to any previous experience. Ted confirms this perception when he describes his first time
being caught in a hole. He says: “It’s a big black hole underneath there and you’re trying to get
underneath and you can’t. It’s a whole new feeling” (p. 22). Peter admits he did not know what
the water was going to do with him. He says: “When you are doing that [spinning around in the
water and being pulled down] you don’t know if it’s eventually going to give you up or whether
it’s just going to keep doing this or not ” (p. 6).
These descriptions show that at times the less experienced kayakers find themselves in
situations where they are unable to control their actions. The river is in charge, spinning them
around and thrashing them about. They cannot relate this feeling to any previous experience and

65

so are unable to judge the outcome. They cannot identify strategies for regaining control of the
situation. The following example shows how this fear can escalate into a feeling of total panic.
I started panicking. George came over to do an Eskimo rescue and I grabbed up onto his
boat but I couldn’t roll up. I lost my paddle for some reason and I couldn’t get all the
way up. So we were going down the river and I was hanging onto his boat and I was just
sideways and trying to keep my head above water. And we were coming up to a really
big logjam. So George explained that I was going to drag both of us into it and we
would both be in trouble so he would have to push me off or I had to roll up right away
and I couldn’t. (Jane, p. 7)
This panic state may increase the danger of the situation, as the kayaker is unable to respond to
advice and react appropriately to the situation. Jane’s state of panic prevents her from rolling up
and causes her to put both herself and another kayaker at risk.
These descriptions show the intensity of the feelings experienced by kayakers when they
are unable to control their actions in the situation. They are aware of the danger of uncontrolled
fear and acknowledge it to be a risk factor in itself. Ted admits that: “fear is a guy’s biggest
enemy out there’’ (p. 33).
Controlling their fear becomes possible as the kayakers become more experienced. In
the following example, Betty does not exhibit terror or panic. ‘T he water was pulling me
underneath and was holding me underneath and that scared me a little bit ” (p. 6). Betty describes
the situation further providing insight into how she is able to control her fear.
I knew that if I hung in there that I would either do a roll at the bottom or else Bill would
be there for an Eskimo Rescue. So it wasn’t a bad experience. I also knew that the water
level was high enough that I wasn’t going to hit anything under water. It was all water. I
was hoping I would be able to hold my breath long enough but I knew that if I didn’t and
I wasn’t able to, the option was always there to swim. So I never felt that my life was in
danger, (p. 13)
It seems being “scared a little bit ” enables Betty to become more focussed, assess the situation
and determine options for regaining control. Betty shows confidence in her assessment of the
river; she is not worried about hitting her head on the rocks. She is confident in her ability to roll
up or do a wet exit if necessary. When the kayakers are able to identify ways of regaining
control of the situation they are then able to control their fear.

66

As the kayakers become experienced, they describe a feeling o f nervous tension rather
than fear when they challenge the white water environment. “You pump yourself up before you
go on the river and you get all that nervous tension” (Peter, p. 17). Peter says this nervous
tension makes him have respect for the rivers he is running. The nervous tension seems to help
them to focus more intently on the challenge of the sport. Peter’s comment indicates that even
the more experienced kayakers challenge the river with some trepidation. Fear is not the only
feeling experienced by the kayakers. They also experience a wonderful feeling of exhilaration.

Exhilaration
Exhilaration seems to be the opposite of fear. The following examples show that when
the kayakers face their fears and survive the risk situation they experience this feeling of
exhilaration.
Ted:

I’ve been pretty scared sometimes and I’m thinking: “I don’t know if I can .” But I get
down and I think: “Oh Yeah!” (p. 27)

Mary: It was beyond what you thought you were capable for and then you kind of push the limit
a bit and you did it and you survived. That’s when you get the gleam in your eye, right.
(P- 21)
Peter:

I actually came up with a smile on my face, ‘cause it was such an experience to be doing
it. (p. 8)
The kayakers value this feeling of success to the point where they say there is no reason

to participate if they do not get the feeling. They are willing to challenge their fears to achieve
this feeling of success. As Ted states: “I just basically threw away my fears and tried it again”
(p. I). Ted’s statement makes throwing away his fears sound effortless. The following
descriptions give an indication of the reality of the challenge.
Ted:

I’m swimming over drops, going off water falls and trying to get to shore and I’mjust
getting blown off the rocks. And I’m thinking; “Holy Cow! How am I going to do this? ”
I kept choking on the water and after I got to shore I was just going: “I don’t want to get
back into that boat.” But I had to do it again, no matter what. I didn’t want to leave like
that. (p. 13)

67

Mary: There comes a point when sometimes you are standing on the edge o f the river saying,
“I’m never going to do this again. This is so terrifying I never want to have to do this
again.” But there are so many parts of it that are so wonderful, (p. 13)
The adrenaline rush that even the experienced kayakers achieve when they have a successful
adventure appears to be the lure of the sport.
Peter:

There is definitely an adrenaline rush that does make the sport quite attractive. In
sections that I've run twenty times and I’m quite comfortable in going out there but there
are certain parts of the river that always get your heart pumping and the adrenaline. And
when you’re off the river, I guess because o f the adrenaline flow in your body, there’s
quite a natural kind of high and you feel really good. (p. 17)

The experience of success seems to stem from a feeling of being able to control the situation,
their actions or their feelings. If the river flips them over they want to be able to roll back up
again. If they are caught in a hole and spinning around they want to be able to control their fear,
get out of the current and get to shore. Jim clarifies the issue of control. “Not to control anyone
else, just to be in control of what I am doing ” (p. 32). This suggests that they value not only the
feeling of success but they also value the acquisition of skills, which enable them to handle the
inherent risks of the sport.
The thrill of surviving a risk experience is not the only lure to the sport. The beauty of
the wilderness environment draws all of them.
Some of the excitement always from day one was the environment. Just the beauty of
where I was and where these boats would let you go. You get to see places nobody else
does. The exercise, the fresh air, where it all takes place is very appealing. (Jim, p. 19)
Jim says this beauty rejuvenates him, both spiritually and physically. He maintains “It puts a
spring in my step” (p. 25). He also acknowledges that over his 20 years of kayaking his focus
has changed from the “rock’um sock’um white water” to the quieter enjoyment of wilderness
trips on a remote river. In order to enjoy any type o f white water experience the kayakers say
they need to have confidence in their ability to have a successful experience.

68

Confidence
The thrill o f success increases the kayakers’ confidence in their ability to control their
feelings and their actions in the white water environment. The sport becomes enjoyable when
they develop this confidence. For the beginner, this occurs when they are able to control just
getting down the river, when they are able to eddy out of the current. “I was building up
confidence and I was maybe enjoying it a little bit, now that I think about it. ‘Cause I would go
in the water and then eddy out and it felt okay and everything was good” (Jane, p. 9).
Each successful experience increases their level of confidence inspiring the kayakers to
challenge the play areas, the white water. Alice says, “It was the first time I had gotten my roll
down well. There was quite a big wave and I felt quite confident for the first time to actually go
and play in it” (p. I).
Ted’s description of a successful run through some Class IV plus water demonstrates
how his confidence increases during the run. “I just started paddling and then everything started
going good and my confidence just went up from there. I had a really good run and I felt really
confident after leaving that river” (p.l).
A successful experience gives the less accomplished kayaker the confidence to accept
the challenge presented by the white water environment. When kayakers are confident in their
abilities they anticipate a successful adventure. When they fail to meet these expectations they
express great disappointment in themselves. This indicates the challenges are self-imposed.
They are pushing their limits. Betty describes those times when she is disappointed in her
abilities as her worst kayaking experiences.
Betty: [When I am disappointed] in my ability to do what either the person leading us down
the river wants us to do; like eddying out in a certain situation, or flipping over and not
being able to flip back up and having to swim. Or when you realize if you tried one more
time, you would have been able to flip back up. Usually I’m always fairly excited when 1
get to the end of the run but there is always some disappointment if you feel frustrated by
how the run went or by your lack of ability to do things, (p. 12)

69

The following example o f a situation where Ted fails to do as well as he anticipates echoes this
disappointment in self. “Basically I just kind of let myself down in a sense because I did do bad
in a sense. I swam twice and I scared myself. — That was the worst feeling ever” (p. 8).
There are two reasons Ted feels disappointed with himself. He is unable to control his
fear and he is unable to control his actions in the white water. This disappointment in his
abilities is shown to affect his self-confidence. “I just didn’t like how I was paddling that day
and it really gave me a bad feeling, you know. And the next day on the river I’d probably feel
less confidence” (Ted, p. 9).
These examples indicate that when kayakers experience a bad trip down the river it
weakens their faith in their ability to have a successful experience. Ted feels this lack of
confidence puts a kayaker at increased risk. “You can really get yourself into trouble if you
don’t feel comfortable. You have to feel confident that you can do it” (p. 27).
It is important for the kayakers to have confidence in their ability to control their actions.
This means they need to feel confident that the consequences of an unsuccessful run are
manageable and acceptable. In order to maintain their self-confidence, the kayakers must
experience successful adventures on the river. This drive for success seems to come as much
from the fear of failure as firom the thrill of success.
The intense feelings expressed by the kayakers are closely related to the extent to which
their skill level matches the challenge of the situation. Their feelings range from extreme fear to
feelings of exhilaration, from crushing disappointment in their kayaking abilities to supreme
confidence. The kayakers are attentive to these feelings when they choose the kayaking
experience.

70

Choosing a Successful Experience
The choice of kayaking experience, to paddle the river or to walk out, depends on two
factors: the kayakers’ perception of the risk situation and their perception of their ability to
handle the risk situation. In the ideal experience, the kayakers’ skill level matches the challenge
of the situation. The kayakers’ perception of the risk involved in a certain situation and their
perception of skill level depends on a subjective assessment. The fact that this subjective
assessment may not always be accurate can have serious consequences for the kayakers.

Perception of Risk
It was a surprise to discover the kayakers, in most situations, do not perceive themselves
to be at risk. The lack of perceived risk may be attributed to the fact the kayakers are confident
in their abilities to control their actions in the risk situation. They anticipate a successful
experience. The following examples describe this feeling of confidence as the kayakers choose
their experience.
Alice: I am aware of the risks and they do not seem like risks to me at my knowledge level, (p.
5)
Ted:

I know what I am getting into. Like I personally know I have good judgement. Like I’ve
done stuff where somebody’s going to say; “You’re stupid, don’t even think about it. ”
But 1 know I can do it, right? (p. 25)

The kayakers’ assessments of their own skill level and the risk situation is a subjective
assessment that requires knowledge of the environment in different conditions and an awareness
of one’s abilities in different risk situations. Because of their lack of experiential knowledge and
their lack of awareness of their abilities in different risk situations, a less experienced kayaker’s
assessment may not always be accurate. The following examples show the risk situations that
developed because of inaccurate risk assessments.
Peter: We had done it the year before. It was like my first year paddling. We actually ran these
falls, which are about eight feet or so, just a simple drop into a pool. It was lots of fun.

71

so we thought: “Let’s do it again.’’ This time I went over the falls and got pinned
underneath the falls. The water was a lot more powerful, a lot more volume in it, so I
ended up underneath and I came out o f my boat, ‘^cause I realized I was not going to be
able to roll. And then I ended up getting, I guess you could call it turbining. You get
sucked down. (p. 6)
Mary: There is this one drop, CN drop and a lot of them would go up to the drop and they
paddle really slow and they kinda look at it like. Oh No! Here it comes. And they kinda
back paddle a little bit and you go over sideways. But nothing ever happened to them.
They would go over and maybe they would swim. But swimming was like no big deal,
so they never had to swim in big water. They didn’t understand that swimming is not
always your best friend- Knowing you can come out of a boat is not always knowing
that you’re doing something good for you. (p. 21)
Mary’s comments suggest that the kayakers have to actually experience an adverse situation to
develop an accurate perception of the risk involved. The kayakers' perception of the risk
situation is only one factor which influences their choice of kayaking experience. The other
factor is their tolerance for risk.

Risk Tolerance
Some of the kayakers admit to liking the risk while others say they are cautious and do
not like taking risks over which they have no control or where they feel their lives will be in
danger. In the following example, Peter describes his tolerance for risk.
Peter: Where 1 think my limit is, is one where the risk becomes totally based on luck and not so
much on skills. Where those rivers even the best paddler, if he just has a bad day or ends
up, you know the luck of the draw, being pulled some way that they never thought they
would be. And it has nothing to do with skill and it has serious consequences. That is
where I see my limit is. (p. 16)
Peter assesses the situation and determines whether or not he can control the situation. He says
that he is not willing to choose an experience where he could lose control and come to serious
harm. The paradox is that identifying the situations where he could lose control and come to
serious harm requires experience.

72

Ted admits when he first started kayaking he “just hoped for the best." He gets into
situations that are more dangerous than he anticipates. These experiences have an effect on his
tolerance for risk.
Ted:

So I’ve kinda been thinking more like why shock myself. Before I was just like: “ Yeah
let’s do it!” “Yeah right on! ” “‘Cause that’s what we were doing when we first started,
hey. And then I started seeing some pretty insane stuff and thinking: “Holy Cow! We
gotta settle down here and better start thinking a little more, you know” Cause actually
getting more experience has helped me get more focussed to see the risks that are worth
taking, (p. 36)

The kayaking experiences have had a profound effect on Ted. He is now aware of his own
mortality. He no longer believes himself to be invincible. Now he carefully weighs the benefits
of the experience against the potential costs.
Ted:

It’s called Kelly Drop, where two German guys died there. And I’m thinking: “Holy
Shit! I don’t want to do that.” I knew it looked crazy. Big Holes! My friends went
down it like cakewalk and I knew I could have done it. But there it was. It just didn’t
meet my eyes up, you know. I just didn’t think, you know. What am I going to get out
of it, a few seconds o f thrill or my life? So I just think I’m not going to do it. (p. 26)

Ted is developing a “practiced eye”. He consciously examines the situation. He weighs the
benefits of a few seconds of thrill against the cost of his life. In the following example Ted again
examines the situation. This time he examines the costs and benefits of the safe behaviour as
well as the risk behaviour.
It was a Class V and it was flood water right and it was just crazzzzy, like you wouldn’t
believe it, hey. First drop my buddy got flipped end over end in a big hole and he’s got a
long boat. End over end is big, hey. And we got there and we said, “well what are we
going to do?” You’ve not even hit the canyon yet, right? And we thought, “Oh Shit!”
And it was a big hike out. And we said, “ Well let’s not do it.” And we all said, “Okay
let’s go out.” And we packed our boats out for a couple of hours, trying to get over this
big mountain there. But you know, we knew we couldn’t do it. (Ted, p. 25)
The cost of the safe behaviour is an arduous hike out carrying their kayaks. The benefit is they
will survive to kayak again. With experience the kayakers become more discerning when
choosing their kayaking experience. At this experience level their decision is still made by
consciously identifying the risk and assessing their ability to handle the risk.

73

Jim, with 15 years of kayaking experience, does not always use this conscious rational
process to arrive at a risk decision. There is no obvious matching of skills to level of risk. His
feelings or intuition guide his risk decision. Jim describes his process of risk decision-making.
Jim:

Every once in a while when I go to the put in, every once in a while there’s this little
butterfly in my stomach that is still there, because I know there are two canyons in there.
I’ve paddled them many times. I’ve never had any injury in there. So I have no reason
to be afraid of them, but there’s something in my stomach that just kind of flutters. And
maybe it’s just to remind me that yes, at this put in it looks very nice and a lot of it’s very
safe and flat, but down river just be aware and I think it helps me to remind myself as
I’m paddling down to loosen up. (p. 12)

The “little butterflies’’ in his stomach keep Jim attuned to the river enviromnent. He observes
this environment with an experienced eye, alert to any subtle warnings of danger. In another
example of his process of decision making he describes the feeling as being “Zen like. ”
Jim:

I’ve been on rivers where I’ve paddled it dozens of times and I’ve done a certain drop
many, many times and every once in a while, you just get there and you look at it and
you say: “I don’t want to do that. I just don’t feel like it, something doesn’t feel right.”
Maybe the water is too high, too low; maybe you didn’t get a good sleep. There isn’t
just one thing. You look at it and its almost Zen like. For me anyway, it just doesn’t feel
right. “Do I feel like paddling this?’’ And if I do feel like paddling, it’s usually because
I’ve been paddling strong. I feel good. I don’t have any nagging injuries that have been
bothering me. “I can do that ” And so you just do it, hopefully, (p. 10)

Jim tries to rationalize this unconscious decision-making but is unable to pin point exactly what
it is that influences his risk decision. Dreyfus & Dreyfus (1986) refer to this ability to intuitively
respond to patterns without decomposing them into component features as “holistic
discrimination and association” (p. 28). This type of understanding “effortlessly occurs due to
discriminations resulting from previous experience” (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986, p. 28). This
again points to the value of experience in this high-risk sport.
The kayakers’ stage of life and gender affect their tolerance for risk. The young single
men admit to liking the risk and display a greater tolerance for risk than the young single women.
The women admit to being cautious, choosing their risk situations carefully. The kayakers’ stage
of life influences their tolerance for risk as well.

74

Most of the highest risk activities we have ever done were before we had a child. And
definitely even George has talked about it a lot. Once you have children it totally
changes. You are still out there and still doing your stuff, but your level of risk, at least
for us is waaaay lower. George can’t believe it. He says he’s been in situations that
before he would have done no problem and gone for it. But now he won’t do it. He just
thinks about what if anything was to happen. (Jane, p. 21)
Jim attributes his decrease in tolerance for risk to his age.
For the last year or two I’ve surprised myself a couple of times. I’ve left my boat and
walked a drop. I did not go blindly down a river and rely on instinct and reflexes. But
that’s just age. (p. 15)
The examples of the kayakers’ tolerance for risk indicate their tolerance changes as they develop
an awareness of their own mortality. The costs of an accident increase when the kayakers have
dependants to consider. They are aware that when they are older injuries take longer to heal.
The potential costs of the experience increase while the potential benefits remain static. The
results of the kayakers’ cost/benefit analysis decrease their tolerance for risk.
The descriptions show that for the most part the kayakers are not reckless in their
decision-making. They consciously endeavor to match their skills to the situation. This means
that as they gain experience and skills they continue to challenge themselves by choosing to
paddle more difficult water.
Peter:

I guess I don’t have a desire to do bigger water just for the sake of doing it. I think I’ll
probably do bigger water as I feel more comfortable in my abilities and if I’m on a trip
where there is bigger water, then I’ll feel comfortable in running it. But I don’t have a
desire to run the Stikine Canyon and other rivers right now. (p. 16)

Ted:

Yeah, like I wouldn’t even touch the stuff I’m doing right now. Before I’d just say.
Screw that, you know. But now I feel that I can do it and I know I can do it. (p. 27)

The kayakers want to maintain what Csikszentmihalyi (1990) refers to as flow: the pleasant
satisfying state that occurs when skill matches the challenge presented by the activity. If the
challenge is too easy, boredom results and if it is too difficult, anxiety is seen to be the outcome.
Choosing the right risk experience is the first step in handling the risk. Once the decision is
made the next step is connecting the strategies needed to maintain control and realize a
successful experience.

75

Realizing a Successful Experience
Realizing a successful experience requires many strategies that interconnect. For the
sake of clarity, these will be separated in to three phases; assessment, planning, and
implementation. The previous sections have discussed the risks involved in the experience and
the feelings these risks engender. The importance of an accurate assessment of the risk situation
and the kayakers’ skill level was seen to be critical in choosing the right kayaking experience.
This section describes how the kayakers conduct the assessment, assemble the plan, and put the
plan into action.

Assessment
There are three areas that need careful assessment: the river environment, the skill level
of the kayakers and the equipment.
Assessing the environment. The kayakers survey the river identifying potential hazards,
looking for a safe route down. Ted describes some of these potential hazards.
You have to find a route. You Just can’t paddle down river. ‘Cause this could lead to an
undercut and this could lead into a log. ‘Cause in Williams there’s so many little
boulders here and boulders there and the water’s running each different way. And
sometimes it lands on a big thing of rocks and sometimes it goes under another cut. (p.
17)
Ted shows an awareness of the strength of the river current. He knows the cturent is capable of
drawing a paddler into a hole or log. He looks for the route that will challenge him but also one
that will be safe.
I find that when you’re going down the river you are finding the tongue. It’s like the
water’s all green and on the sides it’s kinda white. You want to stay on the tongue. You
want to stay away from the actual thrashing white you know. (Ted, p. 18)
The kayakers say that the cardinal rule when assessing the environment is don’t paddle
beyond what you can see. The river bends and twists its way along. To see around these bends

76

the kayakers have to eddy out of the current and study the river, or if the situation warrants, pull
their kayaks to shore and walk down the river.
"Even if you’ve been on the river a million times just, you know, get out of your boat and check
it again. ‘Cause you never know.” (Ted, p. 17)
Mary describes how they assess the river firom the shore. This is not a task that is taken
lightly. The kayakers value an accurate assessment of the environment and they are willing to
take the time necessary to ensure a successful experience.
It’s a lot of knowing what’s coming up. So even that other, that drop, Sue’s drop that I
decided not to. It wasn’t that I just came up to it and went around it. I did go and look at
it. Like I’d been there a couple of times and seen other people run them and so and
people who did do it. We stand there for a long time on the edge of the river and we
throw things in and watch what happens to a piece of wood and everyone looks at this
and says, ’Okay, I think that line’s going to be good.” Or “I think that way is going to be
good, no don’t go there, this might happen. ” (Mary, p. 3)
Knowing what to observe requires experience. The above example shows that the assessment of
the river environment is a group process. Everyone has an opportunity for input. The kayakers
observe the piece of wood in the current. They are able to see the effects of the current on the
piece of wood. They look for a line or route that will get them through the white water without
coming to any harm. This is an excellent learning opportunity for a less experienced kayaker.
They observe, listen and leant from the “gurus ” on the river.
When paddling an unfamiliar river, the kayakers gain knowledge of the accessibility, the
terrain and the gradient by reading maps. Reading a map, however, does not cancel the need for
careful ongoing assessment. Jim describes how he paddles an unfamiliar river: ‘‘Obviously you
paddle a river like that different, much more conservative. You get out of your boat a lot more to
look at drops. You are aware that you are in new territory” (Jim, p. 15).
Being aware that they are in new territory indicates a heightened awareness of the need
for continuous observation. For the less experienced kayaker all rivers are new territories. The
hazards change with the level of the water and the time of year so that even if the kayaker has
paddled the river before, there is no guarantee the environment will be the same. Paddling with

77

kayakers experienced in the river environment is a definite advantage for the novice kayaker.
River assessment skills are critical for a successful experience. Developing these skills requires
exposure to the river environment. In addition to the river-reading skills, the kayakers need to be
able to assess their technical abilities in paddling and rolling.
Assessing skill level. Assessing the kayaker's level of skill is fairly straightforward. If
the participants do not have the skills, they are unable to navigate the river. The river gains
control and quickly flips the kayak. The paddler must then be able to roll back up or do a wet
exit and swim. Swimming, as discussed earlier, is not always the kayaker’s best option. A
kayaker must therefore have a “bomb p ro o f roll to paddle the river successfully. The less
experienced kayakers describe how they assess their ability to roll.
Betty: There’s always a time at first where I almost have to practice a roll to see if I could do it
in
the flat water to make sure that I still remember how. (p. 7)
Ted:

Oh yea, every time I go on the river, the first thing I do is roll. Every time. I don’t care
if it’s shallow. If it’s shallow, I just put my head under, have a drink of water and you
know, push myself up, ‘cause, you know, a lot of times you don’t have room to roll. And
the most important thing in the roll sometimes is just to push yourself up off the water.

The less experienced kayakers are often unsure of their abilities. They realize the importance of
knowing that they will be able to roll up when they need to. The practice roll is their way of
assuring themselves that they do have the skill to roll back up.
More experienced kayakers have confidence in their abilities. Because of many previous
experiences they know they have the skill to roll in almost any situation. The roll technique,
instead of being a step by step process, head down and hip flick, becomes a “natural movement
that corrects itself (Peter, p. 13). Jim does not practice in a formal sense but says that as he
drifts down the river he does a roll just to remind himself of the feel and to reacquaint himself
with the harsh reality of the cold water. He says that it provides an incentive to keep upright.
Jim also describes the roll technique as a natural movement. He admits that at times his roll is
not as smooth, strong, and automatic as he would like. At these times, he says he has to

78

reanalyze his roll step by step and then practice. This would suggest that Jim’s performance
fluctuates, from the Dreyfus Theory’s (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986) proficient level of skill
development to the expert level, depending on the situation.
At times the kayakers rely on more experienced paddlers to assess their skill level for
them. ‘They know how well I can paddle and they can always help me gage what I can do”
(Mary, p. 1). The kayakers are expecting the more experienced kayakers to assess their abilities
in relation to the present situation. They trust the experienced kayaker will keep them safe.
They trust the more experienced paddlers will not let them go into situations where they will be
unable to control their actions. This places a lot of responsibility on the experienced kayaker.
This relationship is explored more fully in Chapter 5.
Careful, accurate assessment of the river environment and the skill level of the kayakers
are critical. Another critical factor requiring assessment is the kayakers’ equipment. The
kayaker must have a sound knowledge of all the kayaking equipment that may be required for a
successful experience.
Assessing the equipment. The basic equipment necessary to get the kayakers into the
white water environment is the kayak, paddle and spray deck. The boats must be fitted to the
kayakers. If the boats are too loose it is difficult for the kayakers to do the hip flick, which is
necessary to roll. If their boat is too small they will develop cramps in their hips and legs and
may have difficulty exiting the boat. The spray deck must be tucked around the cockpit securely
to keep the kayakers in their boats when they flip but it must be loose enough to be easily pulled
off for a wet exit. The spray deck has a grab loop on the front to allow the kayaker to pull the
skirt off quickly. Kayakers are careful to make certain the grab loop is not tucked inside. The
following example shows what happens when the spray deck is too tight and the grab loop is on
the inside.
I had a really tight spray deck on and I couldn’t get out. I was upside down and I got
both my heels in the cockpit and it still wouldn’t come off so I couldn’t exit the boat.

79

Eventually I just ripped my way out of the thing and I had big bruises and stuff all over
my knees cause I just had to like rip it off. (Jane, p. 8)
The kayakers need to know how their boats handle in different situations. The following
examples show how the differences in boat design and weight affect the way the boat handles.
Peter:

You have to pack your boat heavy, you’ve got two weeks worth of gear in it. Boats
handle a lot differently when they are fully loaded. I was borrowing someone else’s boat
so it was a new boat and it didn’t handle the same as mine. I’d taken it out a week before
and gotten use to it. (p. 2)

Ted:

You can surf better in smaller boats and it is just more fun. I was in my bigger boat
before this little one, hey, and I was leaning back a little bit too far and it didn’t really
matter because you had so much more back on you. But now I started leaning back and I
would flip every time. (p. 9)

Peter is experienced enough to know his new boat will handle differently. To assess this
difference he takes it out for a trial run. Initially Ted is unaware that his new boat will handle
differently. He is unable to accurately assess his equipment. Because of this inaccurate
assessment of his equipment, Ted experiences an unsuccessful trip down the river and begins to
question his kayaking abilities. This once again points out the difference experience makes in
assessment abilities.
The paddle is necessary to maneuver the boat down the river. The kayakers sometimes
carry a ‘break-down’ spare paddle, especially when on remote trips. They must be able to keep
hold of their paddle when they flip, as they use the paddle to help right the kayak. If a kayaker
loses his paddle he must rely on his companions to retrieve it for him.
In addition to the basic equipment the kayakers need to know about the special
equipment required to keep them safe. When Ted was first learning to kayak, he wore his rockclimbing helmet, a helmet designed to protect the top of his head from falling rocks. It is not
designed, as is the kayaking helmet, to protect the back of the head. The lack of awareness of the
proper equipment could have had serious consequences for Ted.
The kayakers require knowledge about the type of life vest used for paddling. They need
a life vest that is buoyant enough to keep them afloat yet not so bulky that it interferes with

80

paddling. The rivers of the Pacific Northwest are always cold and hypothermia is a very real
concern as the kayakers spend considerable time in the water. The life vest alone will not protect
them in the water. The kayakers need to know about the type of protective clothing.
The appropriate clothing depends on the temperature of the day, temperature of the water
and the time of the year. So in the spring, it may be hot but I know the river’s quite cold
and I wouldn’t be able to stay in the water long with shorts on, like shorty wet suit. So I
would wear dry pants and maybe some thermal wear underneath. If I have a good swim,
the body would be able to survive in the water for a period of time. I wear a life jacket
and make sure it is a good one. That’s what I wear, a pretty good one. That is standard
gear for kayakers and then a dry top, which seals out the water if you do swim. (Peter, p.
18)
In spite of all precautions there are situations which require emergency rescue. The
kaykers rely on their companions for this rescue. A thorough knowledge of rescue techniques
and equipment is necessary. Kayakers need to know how to help companions flip up with an
Eskimo rescue. They need to know how to tow a swimmer to shore using their kayak or rescue a
swimmer from shore by hurling a throw bag to them. A throw bag is a bag attached to a rescue
line used to haul the swimmer into shore. Knowledge of how to set up a block and tackle system
may be required to rescue a kayaker from a logjam. The following equipment is needed for these
rescues: a rescue rope with a carabiner on the end, which is tied to their waist, extra rope,
carabiners and pulleys. Another practical piece of equipment carried by the kayakers is a knife.
Peter describes situations where this would be useful.
If you come into a fish net on the river and you end up swimming and you get caught in a
gill net on the river, you could cut yourself out. Or if you need to cut a rope quickly, like
if you were doing a river rescue and the way the ropes were set up, it was putting
someone in a dangerous situation, you could cut away the boat. (Peter, p. 18)
The kayakers attach a whistle to their life vest, which enables them to communicate an all clear
or an upcoming hazard to the other kayakers. First aid supplies and survival foods such as power
bars are also included in their list of equipment. The extra food is welcomed if the kayakers have
a long hike out.

81

Rescue operations do not always require fancy equipment. Ted describes a situation
where he gains awareness of the usefulness of duct tape.
‘Cause you know, we’ve broken two boats this year in Williams and so my buddy’s
going down in a full boat of water and its kinda dangerous ‘cause everything you hit you
know, is going to rip it that much more. So if we would have had duct tape we could
probably patch it up with a stick or something. (Ted, p. 32)
Acquiring all the safety equipment is expensive. The less experienced kayakers admit
they do not possess as much equipment as they would like but they state that they are gradually
gathering the “right gear”. This is another reason that it is advantageous for less experienced
kayakers to paddle with the better-equipped, experienced kayakers. Ted succinctly states the
importance of possessing the right equipment: “You gotta have equipment. You gotta know
what to do”(p. 28).
The equipment has been described. Knowing what to do includes not only being able to
assess the situation and skill level; it also includes devising a plan of action.

Planning

The kayakers plan carefully for their kayaking experience. They base this plan on the
“worst case scenario”. This means that they try to anticipate potential problems and they develop
strategies to address the problems. The following example shows how the plan is developed.
Everything has to be done ahead of time. Like you don’t; the shit doesn’t hit the fan and
you have no idea what to do. Before the shit hits the fan, you already have a plan of
what’s going to happen if a guy swims. You get to that guy before he moves around that
comer. You don’t know what’s coming up. You have everything solved and what you
plan to do before the problem happens. You have to have a plan. (Ted, p. 32)
Ted is continually observing what is happening around him. He is looking for potential problems
and developing solutions. He is aware that situations can change quickly. Some of the planning
is occurring during the run while other plans are made before the run starts. The pre-planning is
usually the role of the more experienced kayakers. The following example is a plan to negotiate
an area of white water.

82

Usually if we feel pretty sketch about a certain place, we’ll have one guy in a boat and
one guy on shore to throw a rope. So like if this guy is swimming, one guy can catch
him. And if he is not swimming, if he is stuck in a hole and his boat’s going down the
river, one guy can get his boat and one guy can throw a rope to him. So there should
always be some guy on shore with a rope that can actually pull him out instead of just
being in his boat and being helpless in paddling up and ending up in the same
predicament. So there should always be a person on shore that can get to him if he
actually swims. (Ted, p. 20)
Betty describes the plan that was devised to successfully navigate the Bulkley Canyon.
Right if I was to run down, say if I was to run Featherbed with a group o f advanced
paddlers, they’d all run down first and they’d sit themselves on either side of the river
waiting for me to come through, (p. 5)
Featherbed is a Class IV rapid and as such is one of the most difficult on the trip. The kayakers
name the rapids because of their particular qualities. Featherbed is an area of white frothy
aerated water. Because the water is aerated it lacks substance; therefore the kayaker may have
trouble using a slap brace on the water to keep from flipping. In the above plan the more
experienced kayakers pick their route down through the rapids first. The less experienced
kayakers have the opportunity to observe the route and the actions taken by the experienced
kayakers. The less experienced kayaker can then prepare for the run. Knowing that there is a
more experienced kayaker waiting to rescue her, should the need arise and having a plan, gives
Betty the confidence to do the run.
Jim uses another approach when paddling with less experienced kayakers.
They [less experienced kayakers] may need some advice and reassurance. In critical
situations an experienced, reliable paddler should “sweep” the river. If a paddler
broaches or has other problems, he is on his own when they are the last one down a run.
This is not a good idea in some situations.
Peter’s description shows that experienced kayakers station people below the rapids to prepare
for a possible rescue as well. “We had guys down river with throw bags prepared to assist with a
rescue, especially if you get into, you know, some of the holes in the river that may grab you and
keep you there for a while.” (Peter, p. 3)

83

The experienced paddlers know that they too can run into potential problems. The
kayakers respect the river environment and know they have to be prepared for the worst case
scenario. When they are prepared for any problem, they increase their chance of having a
successful experience. Evident in much of the discussion on planning was that kayakers do not
run the river on their own.

Implementation

The implementation phase is where the successful experience is realized. A successful
experience is one where the kayakers have confidence in their ability to run the river, where they
feel challenged and most importantly, where they have a favorable outcome. Betty gives an
example of what she considers to be a successful experience.
I really think I’ve had a really good experience when I’ve been successful at getting
down a river. Like when I went down the Bulkley Canyon and not having to swim the
entire time. Like that was a good experience for me. That showed me my skills and my
ability and to know that I could get through that without any help from anyone else. I
was really feeling in control over what I was doing. (Betty, p. I)
Betty matches her skills to the experience and is rewarded by a successful run. To ensure a
successful run Betty goes with a group of more experienced kayakers. The more experienced
kayakers support her assessment of the environment, her skills and her equipment. They
establish a plan for navigating the river. They ensure that there are kayakers prepared to rescue
Betty, should the need arise.
Implementation of the plan also requires that the kayakers control their fear and remain
focussed. This is not always easy.

just
you

Yeah, if you’re in a hole and it’s flipping you around and everything is pretty much
thrashing you everywhere and you gotta focus pretty much on your actual stroke. I mean
you can do it in pretty calm water but when it gets to the real turbulent water, you just
start panicking. You gotta go for air, right? So you just try to get a breath, right? And
start from scratch all over again. That’s what I find. — You just gotta really clear your
head and just stay focussed on what you have to do, ‘cause it all comes down to what
have to do when you’re in the water. There is nothing else. (Ted, p. 33)

84

Ted’s description points out that the most important consideration for a successful experience is
the ability of the kayaker. Kayakers must know what they are doing, they must be able to
concentrate and stay focussed on the task at hand, and they must be able to control their fear.
Summary
The discussion in this chapter reveals the reality of the risk situations in the sport of
white water kayaking. The feelings experienced by the kayakers when they are in these risk
situations are exposed in their descriptions. The descriptions demonstrate that the best moments
occur when the kayakers are stretched to their limit in a voluntary effort to accomplish the
challenge. The kayakers’ entire consciousness is focussed on the challenge at hand. When they
are successful in meeting the challenge, they appear to experience “ flow” (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990). Their beliefs of self-efficacy are shown to increase, enabling them to enjoy the feeling of
being able to control their actions in the midst of potentially dangerous forces. Experiencing the
beauty of the wilderness environment is important, but more important it is the intense focus: the
sense of exercising control in difficult situations which lures the kayakers to the sport.
The kayakers’ narratives reveal them to be considered decision-makers handling the risks
in the situations rather than irresponsible risk takers. Their risk-handling behaviours involve
developing skill and knowledge of the river environment and their abilities. The kayakers wear
protective equipment and gather together rescue equipment. They practice frequently, gaining
experience in different conditions. They develop the ability to identify the potential risks and
carefully weigh the benefits of the risk activity against the potential losses. As the kayakers
become more experienced, the quality of their risk decision-making improves enabling them to
be more selective in choosing the risk experience. Examples of skilled intuitive decision making
are given as well.

85

Individual and situational factors that affect the kayakers’ risk behaviour are identified.
Some of the kayakers express a greater tolerance for risk and therefore engage in higher risk
behaviours. Their tolerance for risk does not appear to be a factor in itself; rather their age, sex,
and stage of life and their beliefs of self-efficacy affect the kayakers’ risk tolerance. The strength
of the kayakers’ beliefs of self-efficacy are key in determining their ability to control fear and
identify options.
In the kayakers’ descriptions of the kayaking experience, the social nature of the
experience is revealed. This social environment is explored more fully in the following chapter
as are more of the situational factors that affect the kayakers’ risk behavioinr.

86

CHAPTERS
The Social Environment of White Water Kayakers

This chapter explores the social and cultural environment of white water kayaking. The
chapter begins with a discussion of the social organization of the kayaking group or team. It
examines how the kayakers form groups and identifies the qualities required for inclusion. It
looks at the relationships between group members, identifying gender issues and issues of
liability. How these issues affect the kayaker’s learning is discussed. The chapter moves on to
discuss the informal rules of conduct that promote effective group functioning. These informal
rules will be shown to guide the leadership of the group and the behaviour of the team members.
I will show that enforcement of these rules can be challenging for all kayakers, especially when
the rules support conflicting beliefs and values.

A Team Sport
In the initial examination of the interviews, white water kayaking was perceived to be a
solo activity. One individual, alone in a kayak, challenges the river environment. The kayakers’
descriptions of the sport indicate that they choose the kayaking experience to test their skills. It
is a personal challenge. The comments from Ted: “No one is going to paddle the river for you’’
(p. 38) and Peter: “I’m learning to do my own game ” (p. 14) supported this perception. These
kayakers appeared to rely solely on their skills for a successful kayaking experience.
On closer examination, the concept of white water kayaking as a team sport emerges.
The kayakers describe working together to achieve a successful experience. They describe
instances where they rely on their companions for rescue. They describe instances where the
kayakers as a group decide on the route down the river and instances where the less experienced
kayakers rely on the more experienced kayakers to assess their skill level in relation to the

87

situation. The kayakers’ descriptions indicate that the presence of other kayakers can increase
their confidence in their abilities to survive the kayaking experience. An effective team improves
the likelihood of a successful experience for all the members of the group. The effectiveness of
the team depends on the size of the group as well as the characteristics of the team members.

Team Size
The kayakers paddle in groups that range in size from two to 25 people. Groups of up to
six people are the preferred size, although Jim, an experienced kayaker, at times prefers paddling
alone or with one other person. “Ruiming a river with only yourself or one other can be a very
intimate and powerful experience as there’re fewer distractions, you can be more focussed” (Jim,
p. 17). Safety, crowding and group interactions are the reasons the kayakers give for their
preference. “Just to run two people down a river is more difficult to deal with emergency
situations, so three is a better number or four” (Peter, p. 13).
The kayakers love the sport because of the wilderness environment. When there are too
many people on the river the kayakers say that their enjoyment of the experience decreases.
Crowding can also be a safety factor. There is a limited amount of space in the river
environment so it is important for all members of the group to be aware of the location of the
other paddlers.
You gotta make sure that if you go down the river and there is two people in that eddy
and there is only room for two people, what are you going to do? You can’t knock those
two guys out and you got to run what ever is above you hey? So you gotta do a lot of
signals and you gotta make sure there is room for two. You gotta make sure; you always
gotta spread apart. You know it’s a team sport for sure. (Ted, p. 19)
The kayakers are functioning as a team. Each is conscious of the actions of the other
members. They communicate with each other during the run. Communication amongst the
group can be a problem if the group is too large. Jim says that personality conflict tends to
multiply rapidly when the group consists of more than six people. His comment suggests he has

88

experienced such conflict when paddling in larger groups. In a larger group of experienced
paddlers, where they are all testing their limits, wanting to do their own game, they may not
always be willing to work as a team. Jim justifies his decision to occasionally paddle on his own.
I’ve been at it long enough that I can look at an objective risk and decide whether or not
I’m going to paddle that. I’m going to walk around it or I can see the route down that I
feel comfortable in and if I don’t feel comfortable. I’ll get out o f my boat and I’ll carry
my boat. So I’m just able to look at risk now and decide for myself whether it’s truly
risky or not. (Jim, p. 2)
Jim is an experienced kayaker. There are times when he prefers the solitude of a wilderness
experience. He is confident in his ability to assess the river environment and his skill level. His
confidence allows him to feel comfortable kayaking on his own. The less experienced kayakers
prefer the company of other paddlers as they lack confidence in their abilities to handle all
situations. The less experienced kayakers need the support of the other team members.
The quality of the kayaking experience is affected by the choice of team members.
Because of the informal nature of the sport, the kayakers say that this choice is not always up to
the individual. Often someone starts making phone calls to kayaking friends. At times the group
forms at the riverside and whoever happens to show up at the river joins the group. The kayakers
admit they do not always know all the people in the group. This can sometimes be a cause for
concern.
Sometimes you want to choose. You want to keep the group amongst the people you
know and you know what they’re capable of. That’s more important for the more
difficult rivers. For the easier rivers it doesn’t matter. If you show up that’s great. You
need new people and new experiences. (Jim, p. 3)
When the kayakers choose their companions they want the right people.

The Right People
The primary quality possessed by the right people is a concern for the safety of all team
members. The kayakers with less experience look for other qualities as well. For them the right
people are those who can accurately assess the less experienced kayakers’ skill level and decide

89

whether they are capable of running a particular river. The right people are those who have the
skills to rescue the less experienced kayaker, should the need arise. They are people who are
comfortable with this responsibility. Betty explains: ‘They might have to be responsible for
rescuing me and they usually tell you whether they are comfortable with that or not” (p. 3). Ted
says, “I like to go out with a person who is pretty knowledgeable in rescue and just good
paddling, so I don’t have to worry about him as much as myself’ (p. 2).
Ted is gaining experience as a kayaker He still worries about the river challenges. He
has to concentrate fully on his own actions and is therefore not able to look out for the less
experienced kayaker. He is not totally confident in his ability to get down the river without the
need of rescue himself. He needs to know there are competent kayakers available to perform a
rescue operation. He relies on the skills of the right people to help him realize a successful
experience.
Peter has developed the skill and knowledge to get down the river but he still is not yet
comfortable accepting the responsibility for less experienced kayakers. He provides an example
of his limited ability.
I think there are like some new paddlers. I’m not totally comfortable in my abilities to
do river rescue and to recognize their abilities. And I just haven’t had enough rescue
experience in dealing with people in the water where I would feel comfortable in actually
paddling with them, because they may rely on me to do the rescue, where I’m not sure of
my total abilities. (Peter, p. 13)
Peter and Ted’s comments show that inexperienced kayakers, even when they are
concerned for the safety of all team members, do not yet possess the skill and knowledge to be
considered the right people. At their stage of learning they prefer to paddle with people who do
have the skills. Mary’s comment, “I had the right people with me so I was able to do it” (p.l)
shows that having the right people as companions can increase the confidence level of a less
experienced kayaker encouraging him/lier to try new challenges, to push his or her limits.

90

Experienced kayakers possess the skill and knowledge to be considered the right people
themselves. They prefer to paddle with others who possess common sense and a similar
tolerance for risk. They, like the less experienced kayakers, prefer to paddle with people who
value a successful experience for all team members. A successful experience as described in the
previous chapter relies on skills, experience and good decision-making abilities. The kayakers
are also concerned with identifying and avoiding the wrong people.

The Wrong People
The kayakers describe the wrong people as the risk takers, interested more in their own
fun than in the welfare of the group. They are the kayakers who race ahead down the river with
no concern for their companions. They lack good judgement. They are paddling for the
adrenaline high. The wrong people put themselves at risk as well as the rest of the team
members. Ted issues a warning about the wrong people. He says: “Beware of the adrenaline
junkie. He is not concerned for your welfare. He will push himself and you to go for the high”
(p.38). Peter has met this type of individual too. “I have paddled with people that I wouldn’t
recommend anybody leam from ’cause I think they’d probably push people beyond their limits or
not make you realize the risks” (p. 5). Paddling with the wrong people increases the risk of the
adventure, especially for the less experienced kayakers who may rely on the wrong people for
direction.
Jim because of his many years of kayaking experience is able to identify a less obvious
attribute of the wrong people.
The stretch of the river must mesh with the paddlers. You obviously don’t want someone
who doesn’t know what they are doing, who is new to the sport. But more importantly
perhaps some people just seem to be tuned into what’s around them. They seem to be
more aware of their environment and some people who have been paddling for a while;
they just don’t seem to be aware of the risks involved. They just don’t seem to be able to
look at a river and decide I should go here or I shouldn’t go here. (Jim, p. 3)

91

The experienced kayaker looks at the river environment as a whole, in tune to the subtle
warnings learned from many trips down the river. Jim earlier described this feeling as Zen like.
The less experienced kayakers rely on the conscious identification of hazards to warn of
impending danger. They have not “tuned in” to the environment as a whole but rather look at the
river current, rocks, and water level as separate hazards. Some are only concentrating on their
own actions and are not aware of the need for ongoing assessment of the environment. The
inexperienced kayaker or one who is not in tune with the environment can be a liability to the
more experienced kayaker.

A Kayaker’s Liabilitv

The less experienced kayakers may be considered to be liabilities when the experienced
kayakers are looking for a chance to test their skills. Having a less experienced kayaker as a
companion can have a major impact on the nature of the trip.
Taking a more beginner person out on the river, there is always the risk that the
experienced kayaker is going to have to do a long rescue or going to miss a certain play
spot or something on the river. And also if you’re taking a beginner who’s never been
down a certain river before, you’re going to have to guide them down. Usually you take
the easiest route down the river, rather than doing what they want to do and going down
like more drops or a more difficult line. (Betty, p. 4)
When the experienced kayakers consent to paddle with less experienced companions
they are accepting responsibility for their safety. Jim says that at times he chooses not to accept
this responsibility. “To be honest, I have backed out of some paddles that at the time I just didn’t
feel like going with a group of beginners. Right now I just don’t want to deal with that” (p. 23).
He prefers to have a trip where he can concentrate on his own actions and not have to worry
about the actions of another.
The less experienced kayakers realize they can be a liability to those with experience.
They make certain the experienced kayakers are informed of their skill level. “I always make
sure I would tell them my skill level and make sure they know that I’m not going to roll every

92

single time” (Betty, p. 3). Betty is telling the more experienced kayakers that she is expecting
them to be responsible for her. In doing this she is giving them the opportunity to choose
whether to accept her as a teammate. She confesses that she always brings along cookies as a
bribe, so the experienced paddlers will be more inclined to include her on the team. This
suggests that the less experienced kayakers are indebted to those with more experience, when
they are chosen as companions.
This knowledge o f being a liability affects the actions of the less experienced kayakers.
They try to limit the number of times they require rescuing by limiting the amount of risk
activities they choose. In this situation the less experienced kayakers are not drawn forward to
engage in new challenges but rather held back. The less experienced kayakers provide examples
of situations where they limit their risk activities.
Betty: Maybe we were intimidated by thinking: “Oh, I’m going to get on this wave. I’m gonna
sit on it for one second. I’m gonna flip over and have to get rescued or something. ” (p.
5).
Alice: I hadn’t felt really comfortable before because I knew they always had to chase me every
time I flipped over because I couldn’t roll up. (p. 2)
The kayakers’ inability to roll appears to be one of the main reasons for incurring the liability
label. The desire to overcome their liability status provides strong motivation for learning a
“bomb proof roll.”
As soon as the guys saw that I could roll in the river, like no matter where they put me,
no matter what happened, I seemed to be able to roll up. That made them a lot more
happy taking me with them. Like Bill would say: “I’m no longer a kayaker’s liability.”
(Mary, p.6)
Jim presents another reason for deciding the liability status of companions. “Equally important, if
not more so, is the ability to know and listen to one’s present limitations ” (p. 3). Another factor
that can have an effect on kayakers’ risk decisions and actions is the gender of the team
members.

93

Gender Issues
The kayakers describe differences in behaviour when the gender mix of the group
changes. When the entire group is of the same gender there is an increase in tolerance for risk.
Each group gives a different reason for this behaviour. When the groups are mixed, the female
kayakers rely on the male kayakers for support and guidance.
The female kayakers say that when they go out together they are not afraid of performing
poorly in front o f the other women. Because they are not afiraid of failing they try higher risk
activities, activities where they may flip over. Betty describes a situation where the lack of fear
allows her to tolerate an increase in risk activity.
Actually it is a lot different when a group of women go out. For example a group of
guys went off and did the Firth River and there were no intermediate paddlers around
here for a little while. Myself and a lot of the newer paddlers in Terrace and Kitimat,
most of them women, would go off on our own and do either the Kitimat or the
Wedeene. I think we took a lot more risks and got into a lot more of the play situations
as a group of women, instead of staying back and watching the men, like, “Oh that’s too
difficult for us” and sit in an eddy and watch them play. We would actually say, “Oh
that looks like a fun wave. Maybe we should try it.” And so we would go off and we’d
play in these waves that we would usually sit and watch the guys do, right, (p. 5)
The group support enables the women to be more adventurous. They do not feel they are a
liability to the other kayakers as they are all at the same level. There is no fear of failing. Betty
describes another situation where a male notices this difference in behaviour when he joins the
group of females.
Dave made an interesting comment. He came out on the Wedeene with us one day and
he said that it’s great paddling with a bunch of women paddling together because you
guys have such less egos than men. Like you guys will talk about how to get on the
wave, or will cheer each other on or something. Whereas men, he seemed to think, were
more interested in their own performance (Betty, p. 5).
The perception that the men are more interested in their own performance is reinforced by Jim’s
comment. “It’s [having women along on a trip] a nice leveling on the testosterone driven aspect
of the sport.” This comment seems to indicate that when the group consists solely of males, they

94

are primarily concerned with paddling at their own level and improving their own performance.
They push themselves to overcome the self-imposed obstacles. The women, on the other hand,
coach each other and encourage each other to try new activities. They are interested in each
other’s performance. The women are able to relate to the other women. Alice says, “If she can
do it, I can try that” (p. 9). This is especially so when the female kayakers are learning from a
female instructor.
And because she’s also a woman and she’s had some o f the same issues so she showed
me how to do stuff better. She said: “Okay, now I want you to punch out in front of your
face a bit more and you have to rotate your body more and you’ll get more power from
your back and your stomach, not just your biceps, which you don’t have any. (Mary, p.
15)
The physical differences between the sexes require the women to develop good stroke technique
to compensate for their lack of strength. Mary says that the men are better able to get where they
want to go on the river without worrying about it.
When the groups are mixed the women rely on the men to look out for them. Mary says,
“It’s like they’re my big brothers and so I definitely feel like they definitely look after me” (p.
15). The men also say this:
They [women] really look to you for direction, where, you know, guys might just watch
you and go ahead and take higher risks on their own. I would say there is a lot more sort
of fear of situations or I guess maybe they would be a lot more worried about certain
situations and be more what ifs and making sure they’re prepared. [They would be] a
little bit more nervous on certain parts of the rivers than maybe some of the guys would
when they are learning. There is definitely a difference in their comfort level initially so
you have to instruct them and develop the teaching techniques and they are like a lot
slower developing their comfort level, a lot slower than guys. (Peter, p. 4)
The fear of failing and the fear of being a liability to the male kayakers may cause the
women to appear less tolerant of risk situations. It appears that the women sacrifice the freedom
to risk without fear of failure for the feeling of safety that comes when paddling with a group of
males. Peter’s contunents suggest that males experience lower levels of fear and have a higher
tolerance for risk than females when they are learning to kayak. The male kayakers do not
appear as fearful of failing in front of their male companions.

95

In spite of the differences in described behaviour when the gender mix is changed, the
kayakers insist that gender is not an issue when it comes to choosing companions.
Ted:

All I see is just a paddler in a boat and if he can rescue me, I can rescue him. And how is
he going to affect my line. Do I have to rescue him more or do I have to pay attention to
what he is doing? It’s basically the skill of the paddler. It’s nothing really against sex or
how they perform, (p. 29)

Jim:

I know of nobody who doesn’t like having a mixture of the sexes on a trip. It doesn’t
matter if it’s male or female, as long as the person is capable of safely getting down the
river, (p. 8)

These examples reinforce the value that kayakers place on skill, experience and safety for all
members of the team. The composition of the team is the first step in building an effective team.
The team must follow rules of conduct to ensure that it functions effectively.

Rules of Conduct
The kayakers’ descriptions show that the attraction of the sport of white water kayaking
is the challenge of the wilderness environment and the freedom from the formal rules and
regulations that guide many other sports. Their descriptions also show that in spite of a lack of
formal rules there are unwritten rules that guide the actions of the team members. All kayakers
must follow these unwritten rules of conduct to be accepted by the group. These rules hold the
team together and enable it to function effectively. These unwritten rules govern the leadership
of the team and the behaviour of the team members. The rules also govern accepted safety
standards for the team.

Team Leadership
The leadership of the team is dependent upon the experience level o f the team. An
experienced team does not have a single leader as Jim’s description of his experienced team
shows. ‘The group I was with this summer, there were six leaders and everyone has their own
opinion because everyone was an experienced paddler” (p. 7). In this type of group the

96

individuals have the experience to be able to pick their own line down the river. They are able to
assess their own abilities and choose which risk situations they will accept. They do not require
a leader to guide them down the river but they do rely on the other team members for
companionship and for support, should there be a need for rescue.
When the team members are all at the same level of experience they take turns going
first. The lead position is the most dangerous as no one can be completely certain of how the
current of the river will impact on a planned course until they watch someone go down. One of
the kayakers likened this position to “first tracks” (Ted, p. 20). This is an expression used in
skiing when a skier makes the first tracks in the fresh powder snow. The increased risk of this
position brings an added thrill.
In a group where the kayakers have mixed levels of experience, they state that there is
nothing obvious, but the more experienced paddler will pick a route and the others will follow.
Following an experienced kayaker provides an excellent learning opportunity. The less
experienced kayakers can observe the route and the techniques the more experienced kayakers
use to safely navigate the river. The more experienced paddler can wait in an eddy and prepare
for a rescue if the less experienced paddler fails to navigate a particular section of the river.
Because the leadership position and the rules of conduct are informal, the experienced
kayaker is reluctant to appear the “big boss” and enforce rules on the less experienced kayaker.
“Like it wasn’t said you guys shouldn’t do this or anything. All kayakers are respected as peers
because they are doing the same kind of thing ” (Mary, p. 18). The experienced kayakers respect
the less experienced kayakers’ decisions but they also feel some responsibility for the safety of
the less experienced kayakers. One of the experienced kayakers describes how he handles this
situation.
I knew this one guy hadn’t been paddling much and I knew that there could be possible
danger. I do not like saying you cannot come. So in the first part of the river, I know the
river quite well. I’ve paddled it a number of times; I actually set him up to get into
trouble. But I knew it was manageable trouble. And after he got into trouble there.

97

which was to me quite predictable, I felt, “Okay, now I’m going to say something.” And
I actually suggested after that point that if he couldn’t handle that little problem, what’s
downstream is going to be very dangerous. And so he walked off. He carried his boat
up through the forest up to the logging road. (Jim, p. 4)
Rather than make the decision for him, the experienced kayaker puts the less experienced
kayaker in a position where he is forced to re-examine his previous assessment of his abilities.
This makes the experience an effective learning opportunity for the less experienced paddler.
There are times when a less experienced paddlers “freak out” because they’ve gone
through a couple of swims, they are cold, nervous and they become a danger to the other team
members. At these times the more experienced paddler assumes the leadership role. The leader
explains the situation and suggests that perhaps it would be better for the less experienced
kayaker to walk out. Mary gives an example of being in just such a situation.
I’d fallen out of my boat one day and I wasn’t feeling so great and he [an experienced
kayaker] just kinda made a judgement call. He said, “I would really be more comfortable
if you walked out of here.” And, “Yeah, you can totally do it, but we’ll come back next
time and do it when you feel better ” And he like made that judgement call and said like
you can go ahead if you want to but I think you should walk out of here. (p. 9)
Mary says that she felt that someone had just given her an out. She had set herself the challenge
of paddling that particular river. She was intent on meeting that challenge. When the more
experienced paddler makes her aware that she is not in the best state to do it at this time and
when he acknowledges that she does have the ability to do this section, it allows her to save face
by making the smart decision and walking out. In this way she does not feel a failure but rather
she feels pleased that she made the right decision.
The situation is a little different when the group consists of kayakers with similar levels
of experience. In this type of group the kayakers make certain the individual is aware of the risks
involved in a particular situation.
Oh yeah, that’s the first thing I ask, “What line are you going to take?” But you know,
it’s kind of a touchy subject, cause people don’t really want to be told what they can or
cannot do and I guess if a guy thinks he can do it, cause a guy doesn’t know. (Ted, p. 25)

98

Once the kayakers are certain the individual is aware of the risks, they respect the individual's
decision. They respect the individual's right to challenge the risks and they are prepared to
rescue him/her should the need arise.
Team leadership depends on experience. The experienced leader assumes responsibility
for the safety of team members. The leadership role is supported by informal rules of conduct,
which govern the behaviour of team members.

Team Behaviours
The primary rule of conduct for the team proposes that all kayakers must work together
to ensure the safety o f the team members. The kayakers go as a group and stay as a group for the
duration of the trip. As Ted says, “You gotta help your friends out and they gotta help you” (p.
19).
The concern for safety is evident at the start of the trip. The kayakers say that it is
accepted practice to do warm up exercises prior to getting on the river. Jim says, “Nobody leads
them, you just see people off bending and contorting themselves” (p. 13). The concern for safety
is further evident in their equipment check. The kayakers say that it is an expected norm for
everyone to do a mental checklist of all their equipment prior to an outing. They all wear
helmets, life Jackets and wet or dry suits in addition to carrying much of the emergency gear
described in the previous chapter. Betty says, “You pretty much have to have all the equipment
or else you’re not paddling. Like if you’re missing any of that stuff then you can’t do the run
basically” (p. 16). On the more difficult runs, the kayakers say they check around to see who has
the ropes and rescue equipment and they make certain the person who has them knows how to
use them.

99

Experieaced kayakers make exceptions to this rule. Jim admits that when the weather is
warm and he is only out for a short run on an easy river, he may not always wear all the gear. He
describes a situation where an experienced companion also makes an exception to the rule.
I was surprised to tell you the truth, when we arrived and Joe went to get in and I realized
he wasn’t taking a helmet. He said: “No I’m not going to bother” At first I thought:
“Oh well, that is interesting [and then I thought] let’s go, because he is very experienced.
I trust him implicitly, (p.27)
Jim is surprised because his friend is ignoring the primary rule of conduct. He appears to
rationalize his acceptance of his friend’s decision by focussing on his firiend’s level of
experience. He respects his friend’s right to make his own risk decision and so does not question
the wisdom of his choice.
The less experienced kayakers leam the rules of conduct from the more experienced
paddlers. They leam the mies by observing the actions of the more experienced kayakers and by
listening to their advice.
I was in a car once and we were doing a shuttle. One of the young guys was coming up
with us and two of the older guys were in the back. They were just kind of talking about
the paddling and everything and one of the older guys was just saying, “You guys are
coming along really well and I am surprised at the amount you are leaming” And then
some question was brought up like: “How do you think your judgement is?’’ or to the
effect like, “How do you think you’re doing as far as making good judgement calls?”
And it wasn’t really said like, “You should be more careful. ” But it was kind of brought
up like a discussion that they were able to like talk about it for a bit. And they got
commended for the fact that they were paddling with other people and they just kind of
supported like: “Yeah, don’t ever feel bad if you want to get off a river or something.
That is something that is good judgement. It means it will keep you alive in this sport. ”
(Mary, p. 19)
The experienced members of the group are encouraging the less experienced kayakers to
examine their risk decisions. The experienced kayakers positively acknowledge the correct
actions of the less experienced kayakers, developing skills and paddling in a group. The
experienced kayakers verbalize an important mle of conduct. If a kayaker decides against
paddling a particular part of the river, other kayakers will not only accept their decision, but they

100

will admire their good judgement. The informal rules of conduct do not condone kayakers
persuading others to engage in actions above their level of comfort.
They can’t say, you know: “Oh come on, do it” I’ve said it a lot of times and they don’t
say anything. You know, you just can’t. It’s very important not to bug somebody if
they’re not going to do it, ‘cause you have to do it yourself. (Ted, p.25)
If kayakers decide to sit out and just observe at a play area, their decision is accepted. The
kayakers realize that people have different levels of comfort at different times. They realize that
even though the team is there if a rescue should be required, it is the individual who has to
paddle the kayak by him/herself.
The less experienced kayakers have not developed the skill or confidence to know when
to question the risk decisions of the other paddlers. As described in the previous section the
experienced kayaker is able to influence the risk decisions of the less experienced kayakers in a
positive way. Mary expresses her concern regarding her ability to influence the risk decisions of
other paddlers.
I just sometimes wonder how to suggest things to people, cause you don’t want to ever
see them get hurt. For their sake and the sport’s sake and you always look around and
think: “God, we’re 10 k’s from anywhere. How the hell would we ever get anyone out
of here?’’ (p. 20)
Mary is concerned for the safety of the other paddlers but is unsure of an acceptable way to
address this concern. It appears that the less experienced kayakers when paddling together may
increase their level of risk if they do not leam how to question the risk decisions of other
kayakers.
Kayakers respect and admire other kayakers who possess the skill and courage to paddle
difficult rivers. Even when the kayakers are putting themselves at risk, there remains a reluctant
admiration for their courage. Peter is concerned that this admiration could be encouraging them
to increase their level of risk.

101

A lot of guys are quite amazed that they are actually running these things but I think that
is almost in itself egging them on because they are running stuff that nobody runs their
first year paddling and they are not having bad experiences. (Peter, p- 11)
The social and cultural envirorunent influences the kayakers’ behaviour. At times the informal
rule of conduct that supports the value of a successful experience seems to be in conflict with the
rule that supports the kayakers’ right to a challenging experience.

Summarv
In this chapter we saw how the kayakers are involved in communities of practice. These
communities were formed for reasons of safety as well as companionship. Engaging in these
communities o f practice, the kayakers acquired skill and knowledge. The nature of the
engagement was shown to affect the process of leaming. When the kayakers were in positions in
which they perceived themselves a liability to the group or in which they perceived themselves as
responsible for the group, it inhibited their leaming. Experienced kayakers were prohibited from
seeking new challenges and instead guided the less experienced kayakers down the river,
providing rescue when the need arose. The less experienced kayakers, aware they were a
liability, restricted their risk taking activities to limit the need for rescue. In this way both groups
were held back rather than being drawn forward.
There were, however, other instances in which the presence of experienced kayakers
increased the confidence of the less experienced kayakers, encouraging them to try new risk
activities. These instances appeared to draw the less experienced kayakers into the kayaking
community in conditions that Lave and Wenger (1991) refer to as legitimate peripheral
participation. The less experienced kayakers were drawn into discussions in which they were
able to build up their own knowledge of the river environment and the social and cultural
environment.

102

Issues of gender appeared to affect the leaming process. Women’s tolerance for risk was
seen to increase when paddling with other women. The support o f other women encouraged the
kayakers to try new activities. When the instructor was a woman the female kayakers talked
about how they understood the instructions more readily. Male kayakers talked about restricting
their risk taking activities when they accepted responsibility for the safety of female companions.
When groups of male kayakers paddled together they seemed to be more interested in their own
performance than the behaviour of other kayakers in the group. They appeared to be engaging in
their own personal challenges.
The less experienced kayakers were able to gradually assemble a general idea of what
constitutes the practice of the community. A sound understanding of the skills and values of the
sport were formed and communicated in the social interactions that occurred while paddling or
driving to the river. The issue of safety for all members of the group was a value that was
commonly supported and communicated. In their relationships the kayakers were also seen to
value the individual’s right to choose their own kayaking experience. These values were at times
seen to conflict. The more experienced kayakers resolved this conflict by first ensuring the less
experienced kayaker was aware of the potential risk. They then developed a plan to minimize the
risk of injury. The less experienced kayakers were frequently unsure of how to address the
conflict between supporting safety for all members of the group and the individual’s right to
freedom of choice. The kayakers’ descriptions revealed that they considered risk-taking without
regard for safety as unacceptable behaviour. Those who chose to disregard safety for themselves
and the other kayakers were labeled as the ’wrong people’ and were not socially acceptable
kayaking companions.
This chapter has described the social and cultural environment of white water kayaking.
It revealed how the manner in which the kayakers were engaged in this social and cultural
environment affected the development and implementation o f risk-handling behaviours. In the

103

next chapter we more fully explore the multidimensional process o f experiential leaming
described by the kayakers.

104

CHAPTER 6
The Learning Process

The previous chapters have shown that the kayakers handle the risks by developing
knowledge, skills and effective decision-making abilities. In this chapter I examine the process
by which the kayakers develop these strategies. Langley (1995a) suggests a narrative perspective
is a useful method to frame and communicate a student’s skill leaming experience. I therefore
begin the chapter by telling Ted’s story of his first kayaking season, a season where he
experiences many challenges. As a result of these challenges Ted exhibits growth not only in
skill and knowledge but self-awareness. The progression of the other kayakers’ leaming will be
compared with Ted’s experience and the positive and negative opportunities for leaming will be
identified. In this chapter we will see how Ted and the other kayakers are introduced to the sport.
The kayakers’ introduction to the sport influences the progression of their leaming. We will see
how some kayakers are actively seeking a thrill while others get into the sport quite by chance.
Their tolerance for risk will also be shown to affect their leaming. As we examine the
progression of the kayakers’ leaming we will see that over time changes occur in their sources of
leaming. The specific skills required in kayaking are leamed in different ways. These leaming
processes will be examined.

Ted’s Story
The progression of Ted’s leaming is the most dramatic of all the kayakers’ in the study
group. In just one kayaking season, from May to October, Ted progresses from a being a novice
kayaker engaging in risk situations often beyond his abilities, to being an experienced kayaker
carefully choosing the risk situation. What follows is the story of that experience.
White water kayaking was not Ted’s first exposure to a high-risk sport. He enjoys risk
activities and the outdoors. Previous sports activities included backcountry skiing and rock

105

climbing. Ted was actively seeking a new risk experience when he bought his kayak and entered
the white water environment. It was the month of May. He admitted, “We never knew anything
when we first bought them” (p. 10).

Ted’s Introduction to the Sport
Ted and his inexperienced friends introduced themselves to the sport. They did not
receive any instruction in paddling or rolling techniques. They did not even know how to do a
proper wet exit. They started kayaking in a shallow area o f a lake, in about three feet of water.
Ted said that if he was unable to roll he could always push himself up with his paddle. It was a
process of trial and error. He was anxious to progress so he did not waste any time moving out
on the river where he continued with the trial and error process of leaming.

Ted’s Initial Experiences
Ted swam frequently during his initial experiences. In this way he became familiar with
the force of the river. At this stage of leaming Ted claimed that he did not want to try too many
new things. His primary goal was to get down the river. In spite of his fear of flipping his kayak
Ted would try to surf on the play spots.
When paddling on the river, Ted and his friends met experienced kayakers who pointed
out flaws in their equipment and gave them some tips on wet exits and roll techniques.
Ted:

Basically, like when I first got my boat, I had a little rescue belt and I was clipping it
onto my boat and people were saying, “Don’t do that, if you get caught in a logjam or
something with your boat, you’re stuck with it. ” And I undipped that. (p. 21)
I was using my rock climbing helmet before and it was too high on my head and other
paddlers were telling us, “Yeah you guys should probably get some more protective
helmets.” (p. 7)
We found a lot of bad habits happening when we were going by ourselves. When we
would pull our spray deck to swim, we were always sticking straight up. You are
supposed to kiss the bow of the boat, so you don’t get hit by a rock, but it was so deep
there that we didn’t care, you know. (p. 7)

106

We met, I think John and Joe, in an eddy one time when we were in the Kitimat and they
showed us, “Yeah when you roll, keep your head back a bit and you’ll come up easier,
(p. 14)

Ted admitted that these tips helped. He bought a proper helmet and his roll became more
consistent. After practicing every day for two weeks Ted felt that he had mastered the roll
technique. Ted still had a whole summer of kayaking ahead.
Mastering the roll gave Ted a feeling of confidence in his abilities. He went out on the
river frequently, experimenting with more challenging situations, anxious to develop his skills
further. Other kayakers were becoming concerned for the safety of Ted and his friends and
suggested that they take a kayaking course.
I know there are new paddlers this season that are extreme sports enthusiasts. They took
up river ruiming this year and they started off basically just leaming themselves. They
didn’t take courses and didn’t paddle with people that are experienced. They were
basically leaming on their own until somebody suggested that maybe they should take a
course. We were just waiting for something bad to happen. Hopefully it won’t be a
serious experience. (Peter, p. 4)
This example again shows the kayakers’ reluctance to question the risk decision of another
kayaker. Some kayakers saw Ted and his friends as thrill seekers disregarding safety. Others
saw them as inexperienced kayakers unaware of the risks. The other kayakers were hopeful a
kayaking course would increase their awareness of the hazards and cause them to weigh their risk
decisions more carefully. Ted and his friends heeded the advice of the more experienced
kayakers and enrolled in a kayaking course.

Effects of the Kavaking Course
In the course Ted leamed different stroke techniques and how to read the river and
identify risk situations.
It helped a lot actually. I never even knew how to catch an eddy or get out of an eddy
before. Like you know when you want to leave an eddy, the water is coming this way
and you do a sweep and you grab your paddle and the water will kinda pull along this
way, right? But before I would go out there and it would want to flip me because I didn’t
know which way to lean. In the course he told us a lot of stuff, man. Yeah, we never
even knew half the stuff that was going to happen. You know, sweepers and logs and

107

undercuts and all kinds of stuff. Just kind of leamed to stay away from those and know
what you got to do, kind of thing. (Ted, p. 15)
Ted was unable to identify his mistakes from his trial and error method of leaming. With
instruction he came to leam the consequences of his actions. He leamed the proper paddle
strokes that were required to maneuver the kayak. He leamed how to lean the kayak and how to
use a slap brace to keep from flipping. After the course Ted was able to avoid many of the spills
that occurred in his initial experiences. The course also helped Ted to develop an awareness of
the potential hazards in the river environment. He realized he was putting himself at risk but this
realization did not appear to cause him concem. “I kinda actually like risk, I was kinda like
worried about it but nothing serious” (p. 15). At this stage of leaming it appeared to be more
good luck than good management that kept Ted from harm.
In the previous chapter one of the aphorisms taught in the course was shown to help Ted
control his fear in these situations. Ted remembered that when you are stuck in a hole and the
worst comes to the worst you can, “swim down low and catch the flow.” “Leaning forward and
kissing the deck” was another aphorism that taught Ted the safe method of exiting a kayak. The
value of taking a course was supported by Ted’s comment, “You need to take a course for sure”
(p. 6).
The course was instrumental in the development of Ted’s skill and knowledge. As Ted
gained skill and knowledge he found new sources of leaming in his ongoing quest for skill
development.

Other Sources of Leaming
When Ted was out paddling he continued to meet other kayakers who were willing to
give him instruction. As before, the tips from these other kayakers proved helpful.
It was weird ‘cause what happened was they said, “Why don’t you try to lean forward on
the drops, hey. ”And so I’m like, “Okay, I’ll try to lean forward.” I started leaning
forward in every hole. I punched through it and before I was just going, “COPS'.” and

108

flipping over right. So first drop I leaned forward and “Holy Cow, this works!” and then
I’m like, “Oh yeah! Right on.” (Ted, p. 9)
This one pointer from a more experienced kayaker put Ted on the right track. He was now able
to keep from flipping his kayak when going over drops. Ted stated that even if someone teaches
you, the best practice is just doing it yourself. He therefore continued to paddle every day and
cited this practice as another reason for his improvement.
The reason we improved so fast ‘cause every day we were paddling, every single day.
You know what you’re doing wrong; so the next day, “Okay, I can’t do everything” so
you do something different and it works. “Oh yeah, cool. ” And the next day you go out
and you try again and you get better.—You have to keep going again and again, cause
the next time you’re probably going to forget what you did wrong and you’re going to
start doing it again. So it helps to practice a lot at first. (Ted, p. 21)
Another source of leaming accessed by Ted had had both positive and negative elements.
Oh yeah, I got some kayaking videos here and it makes me see. Actually I don’t really
watch the actual kayak. I watch the river, what lines they’re taking. And I’ve leamed a
lot of river reading skills just by watching the video, pretty much. Just by seeing, you
know, how the water’s falling, the tongue and you’re always hoofing really hard, jumping
off the top of waves and clearing holes. And actually I leamed a lot off of the videos, to
tell the truth. And knowing what I can do, like I’ve seen stuff where if I hadn’t seen the
video and seen somebody do that I would probably think, “Holy Cow! There is no
possible way you can do that. ” But now I know you probably could. It could be
dangerous in a sense watching these crazy videos but then I don’t know. (Ted, p. 22)
The videos helped Ted to improve his skills in reading the river but as he suggested they have the
potential to encourage people at Ted’s level of experience to enter into risk situations beyond
their abilities. For a person such as Ted who already pushes his limits this could have serious
consequences. This demonstrates how leaming occurs whether or not it is intended.
Ted says that some of the knowledge, the mental preparedness necessary for kayaking,
was transferred fi-om his participation in his other high risk sports, like backcountry skiing and
rock climbing.
Rock climbing is really, like you’re used to being in those kinds of situations where you
get accustomed to it. You’re looking a thousand feet down and you’re looking at the
ground and you’re just hanging from a little piece of gear in a rock. You feel a little more
comfortable being in high-risk situations. You know how to handle the situation; you
just gotta clear your mind, kind of thing. (Ted, p.33)

109

Ted cited his familiarity with high-risk situations and his willingness to engage in these situations
as another reason for the rapid progression of his leaming.
It’s really important to take risks, I feel. ‘Cause I wouldn’t be around right now, if I
hadn’t done something before and been scared shitless to do it and I’ve done it. And I’ve
thought, “Holy Cow! I’ve done it! And that wasn’t so bad.” That’s a big part of it. You
gotta go out and try new things. You can’t just expect to become a Class IV paddler.
You gotta go out and try it. — ‘Cause I know when I leamed to roll, we went out and
tried it in all the rivers we could. You know paddling in some pretty crazy stuff. Maybe
the first few times we were probably pushing it but after we pushed it, the next time yoiu"
paddle was good. (Ted, p. 30)
Ted was gaining skill and knowledge because he enjoyed the risk situations and was able
to push his limits. He did, however, expose himself to the risk of serious injury. He was
fortunate that neither he nor his friends experienced severe injuries in the process of leaming
though they were not entirely injury free.
We were doing middle Williams one time and we were trying to roll upside down over a
big boulder field and he was guarding his head like this and banged up his elbows and his
face a bit. Another guy broke his nose once. And I got a boat on the elbow trying to mn
off a drop backwards and my buddy was just sitting there with his boat and banged my
elbow pretty good. Other than that it was nothing serious at all. 1don’t think that we
have had many bad injuries at all (Ted, p. 12).
Ted’s statement indicated that he saw only the actual injury. He did not contemplate the
possibility of more severe injuries arising from his activities. In this way he appeared to
minimize the injuries and the amount of risk to which he was exposing himself. When Ted
experienced these mishaps that he considered minor or when he witnessed the mishaps of others,
he did acquire knowledge that in tum aftected his behaviour.
My buddy was paddling Kleanza Creek a few months ago and got pinned undemeath a
waterfall. He went off a waterfall and his boat got caught and some how this narrow wall
of waterfalls was pounding like this and he couldn’t get out. He got stuck in his boat and
couldn’t get out of his boat and Holy Cow! He was under the water for 20 seconds and he
pulled his deck and his boat filled up with water and came mshing off the snag and he
was a big strong guy and he couldn’t get out of his boat. Maybe if you had a knife if you
couldn’t get out you could cut your legs out, you know. So that is why I bought a knife,
just you know if snags or a rope gets caught on you, you could get yourself out. (Ted, p.
31)
Witnessing his buddy’s misadventure increased Ted’s awareness of potential hazards. This new
awareness prompted Ted to augment his safety gear to prevent a similar situation from happening

110

in the future. Ted said that his awareness of rescue techniques also improved when a friend took
a rescue course and shared the information with Ted.
Towards the end of his first kayaking summer Ted went with his friends on a kayaking
holiday. He described this adventure as his “best travelling trip ever” (p.l). During this holiday
Ted experienced his best as well as his worst kayaking adventure. He admitted, “It is really hard
when you are out kayaking, you just want to do it all. It’s hard to say no” (p. 28). Ted said that at
times he was afraid for his life. He did not know what was coming up. He would be flipped
over, exit his kayak and be caught in holes not be able to get air, thinking, “Holy Shit!” “I’d
better get out of this thing” (p.l3). These experiences put Ted in touch with his own mortality.
They caused Ted to look at the risk situations differently.
I have been a little more safety conscious. I kinda want to live a little longer now, ‘cause
actually kayaking has been a little more dangerous than I thought it was going to be apart
from anything else. It kind of opened my eyes on the future more or less than just the
now kind of thing. I don’t want to crip’ myself and not be able to paddle anymore or
anything like that.— I find from doing high-risk sports, I became a lot more safety
oriented because I know what can happen. I know you’re not going to walk away if you
don’t. (Ted, p. 36)
Ted has taken an important step. He is now looking to the future instead of focussing on
the thrill of the moment. He wants to be able to continue kayaking for many more years and
realizes that he needs to choose his risk experiences carefully. Interestingly when Ted discussed
how he would teach someone else to kayak, he says that safety would be his first concem.
I’d make sure they know how to roll and I’d make sure they know river smartness. Not
so much reading the river but know that if you’re waist deep in water you don’t stand up
cause your foot could get caught and you could get pulled under and you’d drown ‘cause
you can’t get back up. And I’d make sure they had a basic understanding of how to roll
and be able to swim. Like you can’t just swim into an eddy, you gotta do a body roll unto
it and you have to know how to climb onto the back of your boat if you have to rescue.
I’d make sure they know the basic hazards to watch out for before they start kayaking in
serious water, you know. I think safety would have to come first before you leam the
actual paddling skills. (Ted, p. 23)
Ted’s concem for safety seems to have risen out of his new respect for the hazards of the
sport and a change in his focus from the thrill of the moment to a desire to continue to have
enjoyable kayaking experiences in the future. He said that it all comes back to judgement, that

Ill

you have to be comfortable with the risk you are taking and be confident that you can handle the
situation.

Summarv of Ted’s Experience
In one kayaking season, a period of 5 - 6 months, Ted progressed from tentative
experiences in the lake to challenging experiences in Class IV white water. At the end of the
season Ted felt confident in his abilities to handle almost any situation. “I feel now that I can do
it” (p. 27). “I can read a river pretty good now” (p. 17). Ted’s leaming was rapid but not always
safe. In Ted’s introduction to the sport and during his initial experiences, his leaming was
delayed because of his trial and error methods and his lack of confidence in his abilities to try
new situations. During this time his inexperience and lack of proper equipment was shown to
increase his level of risk. Instmction from other paddlers and a kayaking course resulted in an
accelerated leap forward in his leaming. Participation in the course helped Ted increase his river
reading and paddling skills. Ted gained an awareness of the potential hazards in the river
environment but awareness alone did not appear to alter his risk taking behaviour.
Experiencing more dangerous risk situations and fearing for his life did give Ted a new
appreciation for the benefits of a successful experience. A successful experience was described
earlier as one where the kayakers have confidence in their ability to mn the river, where they feel
challenged and most importantly where they have a favorable outcome. At the end of his first
season Ted appears to have developed the skill, knowledge and experience to enable him to
choose a successful kayaking experience. It appears that he now takes “smart risks.” Ted’s
leaming experience will be compared with the experiences of the other kayakers in the study.

The Other Kavakers’ Experiences
The other kayakers in the study are also active individuals with a love of the outdoors.
They hike, bike, canoe and backcountry ski. These kayakers were introduced to the sport in

112

different ways: some through a kayaking course, others with experienced fnends. Some of the
kayakers were like Ted, actively seeking a new experience while others say that they felt
pressured into leaming.

Introduction to the Sport
Jim’s introduction to the sport occurred 20 years ago. He says that at this time it was
difficult finding experienced people as companions. Kayaking, especially in the Pacific
Northwest, was a relatively new sport. Jim took a one-day course in a pool where he was shown
how to roll and then he and his inexperienced friends went out on the river to leam on their own.
Betty and Alice were introduced to kayaking through a kayaking course. Alice had some
previous experience canoeing but Betty had never seen a kayak and was totally unaware of the
risks involved in the sport.
Betty: I never even knew what white water kayaking was. I’d never seen pictures or displays or
videos of it. If I had I probably wouldn’t do it. But I said, “Yeah, kayaking. I’d like to
do that.”—So we all decided to take it together and so I guess that’s kinda how I got into
it and I’m still really nervous when I go to the river and just like skiing or biking or any
sport like that. I’m always extra cautious. ” (p. 20)
These women appear to be seeking a new leaming experience, a new outdoor sport, rather than
the thrill of a risk experience.
Friends who are experienced kayakers introduced Peter and Mary to the sport. Peter and
Mary’s first experience in a kayak occurs on the river. Peter says, ‘The first time I was in a
kayak, I ran a river. I put my faith and tmst in the people who were taking me down” (p. 5).
Mary actually went out expecting to be canoeing.
I was supposed to go canoeing and I showed up at the river, where I was supposed to be,
with all my dry clothes. Bill had someone else to go in his canoe, so he gave me a kayak
and I went down the river and I liked it a lot. (p. 5)
The above kayakers voluntarily choose to engage in a new experience. They show
excitement at the prospect of leaming a new sport, experiencing the wilderness environment in a
new way. Jane, on the other hand, admits to feeling pressured into leaming this new sport.

113

We both [she and her husband] like canoeing right, so I love the water and so we both
thought that we would really like kayaking.
So he bought a kayak and went for it and
started learning rolls and he bought me all the kayak stuff. And there was quite a bit of
pressure there, (p. 2)
The kayaking equipment is expensive. Jane now feels that she has to like the sport to justify the
expense. Right from the beginning Jane confesses to a “major fear about that spray deck” (p. 1).
This feeling of fear and her perceived lack of freedom in her choice of activity have a significant
effect on her process of learning. The kayakers’ introduction to the sport, with experienced
friends, with inexperienced friends or with a course, affects the progression of their learning.
This will be evident in the discussion of their initial learning experiences.

Initial Learning Experiences
The importance of learning a “bomb proof’ roll has been discussed. This section begins
by describing the other kayakers’ experiences before they develop the ability to roll anywhere in
any situation. This is the time when they are considered a liability to the more experienced
kayakers. When out with other less experienced kayakers, this is the time when they are most at
risk.
Jim’s initial learning experience was similar to Ted’s, He has some basic instruction on
the roll technique and then, as with Ted, it was a process of trial and error. For Jim, there were
few experienced kayakers in the area to provide instruction and the kayaks were not as
maneuverable as they are now. It therefore takes Jim longer to master the roll technique. Mary
and Peter are fortunate to have experienced friends who are willing to provide instruction. Mary
has some initial instruction in the roll technique and then she “practices like crazy” (p. 5). She
says that you just remember what they say, “Head down and hip flick” (p. 5). In three weeks she
masters the roll. After Peter’s initial trip down the river, his friends take him to the lake and
provide instruction on the roll technique. He too practices on his own and masters the technique
in a short time. With initial instruction Mary and Peter leam the correct technique rather than

114

learning faulty techniques which would delay their learning and which could increase their risk of
injury.

Betty and Alice fail to master the roll technique in their first kayaking course. They go
out a few times in the season but are reluctant to experiment with the water because they lack the
ability to roll and because their tolerance for risk is lower than that of the male kayakers. They
are a liability to the group at this stage of learning. Betty does not have her own equipment,
which limits the number of times she is able to get out on the river. The following season they
both take the kayaking course again. They practice in the pool, the lake and the river. Their roll
becomes stronger during their second season kayaking giving them the confidence to try some of
the fun spots. The experiences of Alice and Betty demonstrate, when instruction is not followed
by frequent practice, that leaning progresses slowly.
Jane starts with a kayaking course and continues to practice weekly all winter in the pool.
She becomes confident in her ability to roll in the pool and in the spring she moves onto the lake
to practice. She claims, “it was totally different between the pool and the lake because I hate
freezing water” (p. 3). She describes a learning experience in the lake where George tries to
teach her to roll.
It was probably Lake Kathlyn and George wasn’t in a boat and I was in a boat and we
were just practicing rolling. It was really shallow and I almost hit my head on the ground
when I went over and he would stand there and I would open my eyes and I could see
him standing there. He would guide my paddle through it and that was okay. (p. 3)
Having George nearby to assist her with her roll helps to allay Jane’s anxiety but she says, “it was
taking me a lot longer to catch on and he was pretty patient teaching me to roll but he was getting
frustrated.” (p.3)
George finds other kayaking companions, who like himself are progressing at a faster
rate. Jane lacks the confidence to go out with George and his new companions, as she does not
have a solid roll. She says that she was always apprehensive about the spray deck. In the pool
where it was warm and she could see well, she felt confident but when she went in the lake where

115

she couldn’t see as well and the water was cold, she felt “totally uncomfortable” (p. 4). Jane’s
progression of learning is slow and is not enjoyable. Her progress is impeded by her fear and by
the fact that she feels pressured into learning a sport that terrifies her. She appears finstrated by
her inability to keep up with her husband in this sport. This suggests that spouses may not always
be the ideal instructors.
There are several factors identified that account for a positive learning experience. Initial
instruction seems crucial for the kayakers to develop the correct technique; however, instruction
alone does not ensure that the novice will leam quickly. Instruction must be followed by frequent
practice in which the kayakers have successful experiences. The kayakers appear to progress
more quickly when they have a keen desire to leam and are willing to take risks. When the
kayakers progress at the same rate as others who are leaming, the experience appears to be more
enjoyable. A description of the kayaking course provides further insight into the kayakers’
process of leaming.

The Kavakine Course
The course that Alice and Betty take is similar to the one in which Ted participated. I
also took this course as a participant observer. What follows is a description of the teaching
methods used and the effect of these methods on the kayakers’ process of leaming.
The first dav. The kayaking course starts out in a small lake. The would-be kayakers are
given what the instructor calls the “safety spiel. ”
Bill says that kayaking is a high-risk sport. He says that we should not be coerced into
doing it by anyone. It is a sport one should choose to take up of their own free will but
they should be aware of the risks involved. He says that he will do all he can to ensure
our safety by teaching us what to do and keeping an eye on us but there are sometimes
things that can happen, so be aware and know what you are getting into. He says that the
course will progress at the level of the slowest member. No one is pushed to go father
than the level at which they are comfortable. (KCDl, p. 1)

116

This statement introduces the kayakers to one of the rules o f social conduct. Kayakers should not
coerce others into uncomfortable situations nor should they let others pressure them into these
situations.
During the first evening o f the course the learners are taught how to do a wet exit. They
are then shown the basic paddle strokes and when to use them. There is much practice and
correction of technique. A booklet describing common river obstacles, the implications of these
obstacles, rescuing techniques, universal river signals, and a glossary of river terms is given to the
learners at the end of the session. The instructor tells the learners that they must read the booklet
prior to the next session.
Prior to leaving for the pool for the second session, I read the booklet. The booklet
mentions all the things that can go wrong when out kayaking.
I thought the booklet would be on the paddle strokes and how to kayak. The entire
booklet was on rescue techniques and how to get out of trouble. It made me realize even
more that this is a high-risk sport. (KCD2, p.l)
The second and third dav. In the pool the learners are shown the Eskimo rescue, how to
roll with the assistance of another kayaker and how to roll unassisted. This is a safe environment
for experimenting with the various techniques. The third evening, the learners go into a little
creek to practice the different strokes that were taught on the first night of the course. The
learners are shown how to use these paddle strokes to eddy into and out of the current. Once the
learners become comfortable with their meager skills and kayaks they enter the main river and
practice ferrying across the river using the current. The instructor is constantly correcting the
learner’s strokes, praising when something is done well and correcting the learners when
something is not done right. Whenever someone flips over, the instructor explains why this
occurred. The instructor identifies clues, which enable the learners to read the river and to know
which places to avoid.
He [the instructor] talks about being forced against immovable objects in the river and
not being able to get off. He indicates that the bridge is one of these objects. He says
that if we get pinned against the bridge we have to keep leaning downstream and try and

117

pull ourselves around the object and try and break free. He says that if we lean upstream
we will flip and then become pinned against the object. He says that if that happens he
will have trouble rescuing us. We are at all times to keep an eye on him and follow his
course down river. He makes us go over the hand/ paddle signals and how to do a wet
exit and how to swim in the river if we got dumped. (KCD3, p. 7)
The instructor is teaching the environmental assessment skills, which are described in an earlier
chapter. He is also teaching the need for careful ongoing assessment of the river and the need to
plan for the worst case scenario. If something were to happen, the learners say that they are
confident that they know enough to survive. Creating awareness o f the possible hazards serves to
keep the kayakers focussed on the tasks at hand.
All the learners had a look of intense concentration on their faces. Everyone was hanging
on the instructor’s every word. I commented on the look on everyone’s faces. The
instructor said that it would cost extra if you wanted laughs. Kayaking at this point is
serious business. (KCD3, p. 7)
The fourth and fifth dav. These days are full day trips down the river. Equipment is
checked prior to departure. Life jackets and helmets are checked to see that they are snug and
that no straps are dangling. The universal river signals described in the booklet are reinforced.
Stretching exercises are done. Once in the kayaks everyone is asked to check that the grab loops
on their spray deck are out. Again the learners are asked what they would do if they flipped over
and how they would swim in the river, if they had to do a wet exit.
The ritual of checking the equipment, going over the river signals, and verbalizing a plan
of action should they flip, is done in the same manner every time the group goes out. The
instructor is helping the learners to develop safe habits. He anticipates that by repeating the litany
again and again, the verbal responses will become automatic actions for the learners. The
instructor is very patient with the learners, praising when something is done right but very quick
to point out when something is done wrong. When mistakes are made, the instructor always asks
the learners to tell him what they should have done instead. Drawing attention to their actions
encourages the learners to reflect on the consequences of these actions.

118

The instructor takes every opportunity to identify hazards and to teach the learners the
importance of ongoing assessment.
He showed us how to back ferry so you could read the river and decide which route to
take. He said that if you could not see in front of you that you should take your kayak out
of the water and walk to where you had a better view. He showed us logjams and talked
about strainers and about being pinned and getting caught on sweepers. He would point
out these hazards when he was talking about them. He showed us boils and whirlpools.
Just when I would start to feel more comfortable he would mention another hazard.
(KCD4, p. 10)
As shown earlier, the awareness of the risk involved keeps the learners focussed. In this example
the instructor is also demonstrating one of the important safety rules of conduct: don’t paddle
beyond what you can see.
The group puts ashore for lunch on the beach. Now that they do not have to concentrate
on paddling their kayaks, the learners become aware of the beauty of the environment.
The river valley is beautiful. You can smell the trees and the water. Fresh deer and
moose tracks are evident in the sand. Behind the sandbar there is a large clearing almost
covered by a canopy of trees. On a wet day you could probably sit under this canopy and
never get wet. There is no underbrush, only a carpet of needles. The sun is filtering
through the trees. Truly an idyllic spot and one that is only accessible by boat. (KCD3,
pll)
Even the learners with a low risk tolerance enjoy the beauty of the environment. The beauty
alone can lure them back to the river. The instructor discusses environmental issues and the
importance of preserving these areas. He is very careful about picking up all his garbage and
belongings. He sets the standard for the group and so the learners do likewise.
In the following example the instructor demonstrates the social rule of conduct that says,
“if kayakers go out as a group they stay as a group”. Kayakers must be concerned for the safety
of all members of the group.
Alice and Betty collide in their kayaks and Alice flips over. Betty is unable to help her
up with an Eskimo rescue so Alice does a wet exit. The river is quite fast at this point.
The instructor tells the rest of the learners to stay in the eddy while he goes to rescue
Alice. I am unable to stay in the eddy, the current pulls me out and I am off down the
river. I try desperately to stay in the next eddy and manage to succeed. The instructor
firmly points out that he had told me to stay in the eddy. We must all stay together. A
little further down, I again fail to eddy out with the rest of the group. I am floating off
down the river on my own. This is a scary feeling. Who would rescue me if I flipped? I

119

paddle very hard, trying to ferry into another eddy. The instructor immediately tells the
group to follow me. It makes me realize how the actions of one person can impact on the
whole group. The instructor had wanted the group to practice eddying in and peeling out
of the current. Because I couldn’t make it into the eddy, the entire group has to move on.
(KCD4,p. II)
As a less experienced kayaker, I am a liability to the group. If I had been out with other kayakers
wanting to enjoy a play spot, my actions would have affected their experience. At this point I am
not able to keep myself out of risk situations and must rely on the experienced instructor to keep
me safe. This shows the importance, especially for beginner kayakers, of choosing kayaking
companions carefully and of making sure they are willing to accept responsibility for your safety.
A few times during the course the group encounters fishermen also enjoying the river.
The instructor imparts another kayaking rule of conduct. The learners are advised to be quiet and
stay away from the fishing lines. The instructor demonstrates respect for others who enjoy the
river environment.
One of the other learners, a young male, appears to have a high tolerance for risk and an
eagerness to leam. He flips more often than the rest of the group but his skills are developing
more quickly. The instructor says, “experience is the best teacher. Those that spill, leam faster.
You leam by making mistakes’’ (KCDl, p. 2). I, on the other hand, have a very low tolerance for
risk. I am not willing to risk flipping over just to improve my skills. My leaming progresses
slowly. I do, however, leam to control my actions when I do flip over.
We continued around a bend in the river, the current is fast and goes against a rock wall.
I get a stuck against the wall. I lean downstream for a few minutes as instructed trying to
get away. For one second, I try to steady the kayak and lean upstream. Over I go. I very
calmly, lean forward, find my grab loop and pull the skirt off. I push my butt out and
come to the surface. Just the way I had told the instmctor I would do every day. I feel so
pleased with myself. I do not feel panicky at all. (KCD5, pl5)
The constant repetition of what to do when you flip over did become an automatic response. I
knew what I had to do and I did it. Knowing what to do enabled me to control my fear. There
was a tremendous feeling of accomplishment on being able to do this procedure in the river
environment. My level of confidence increased dramatically.

120

The last day of the course, the instructor teaches rescue techniques. I had a turn at being
the swimmer waiting for rescue.
I flipped and exited my kayak, grabbed my paddle and headed downstream on my back,
feet first. When I came near the rope throwers, they hurled a grab rope at me. Their
throws were short and the rope does not reach me. I thought about swimming for it on
my stomach but it had been so drilled into us to swim on our backs, feet fîrst, that I just
kept going. The experienced paddler paddled up to me and towed me to shore. I waited
like the instructor said, until the water was very shallow before I stood up. He had said
not to stand up in water more than knee deep as your foot could get caught in the rocks
and you could fall over and drown. I was having trouble walking in the river current.
The experienced kayaker suggested I walk downstream. He said that it would be a lot
easier. There sure is a lot to leam. (KCD5, p. 17)
One practice session is not enough to teach proper rescue techniques. It does give the learners an
awareness of the difficulty in performing a rescue, getting the throw rope in just the right place
for the swimmer to grab. It shows the learners the necessity of paddling with those who have
experience in rescuing other kayakers. While swimming in the river, the kayakers are able to feel
the power of the current. This experience helps them leam respect for that power.
This comprehensive course values and communicates strategies that enable the kayakers
to experience the benefits of a risk experience without experiencing the losses. Alice and Betty
leam about the hazards in the river environment. The course teaches them the correct techniques
for paddling, rolling and wet exiting the kayak. There is a gradual progression from the safe
environment of the lake and pool, to a small stream and then into the actual river environment.
The instructor points out the correct techniques rather than leaving Alice and Betty to try to
identify the correct method in a trial and error manner. Participation in a course provides the
opportunity for Alice and Betty to leam the social mles of conduct. Knowing and practicing
these rules of conduct makes the kayakers more acceptable kayaking companions.
Prior to participating in a kayaking course, Mary had been paddling for 2 1/2 years. She
supports the benefits of instmction when she describes the leaming that takes place after she
participates in a kayaking course.

121

We did some flat water stuff, working on strokes and then we did some stuff playing on
waves and that was interesting 'cause I’d never really been able to figure out how to do it,
so having some instruction helped. (Mary, p. 15)
Betty shows her support for the teaching methods used in this course when she describes
how she would teach someone to kayak.
I guess making sure it was a gradual progression. Starting out on flat water. Just
showing the strokes and that sort of thing. Strokes that you’d need to know once you got
on the river. Starting with a low level of current and building your way up to more
technical or difficult situations. I guess this is just coming from the way I learned
because I feel that was a successful experience. (Betty, p. 11)
This method of teaching enables the learners to develop confidence in their abilities while
remaining within their comfort zone. In this course no one was pressured into an uncomfortable
leaming experience. Jane is not so fortunate.

Jane’s Experience
Not all courses are positive leaming experiences. Jane participates in a course where she
feels pressured into leaming. The people in the course are all males, willing to take a few risks
and progressing at a faster rate. The instmctor is a male who believes that leamers must take
risks in order to leam. Jane says, “We could have walked but there was real pressure from the
instructor just to do it, otherwise you’re not going to leam. I would have gladly walked around it,
but I felt I had to do it” (p. 6).
This is not a comfortable leaming experience for Jane. She is feeling intimidated by the
other kayakers. This type of leaming environment does not foster the value of a successful
experience for all members of the group. This course pushes the slowest person to keep up with
those progressing at a faster rate, rather than respecting the individual’s tolerance for risk.
The other kayakers like Ted are always seeking to improve their skills. As they progress
they access additional sources of leaming.

122

Additional Sources of Leaming
The kayakers appear like sponges, soaking up kayaking knowledge wherever they can.
They value the acquisition of skills. They leam from other kayakers, from practicing and trying
new activities. Some o f the kayakers leam from videos and reading books. They leam different
skills from the different sources. These will be discussed.
Tips from other kayakers.. When describing the social environment of white water
kayakers, I mentioned that the kayakers are reluctant to give advice to someone engaged in what
might appear to be a risky situation. They respect the decisions of the other kayakers. On closer
reflection I notice that when the kayaker asks for advice or appears eager to leam, the more
experienced kayakers are willing to pass on any tips they may possess. The kayakers in this study
support this view.
Mary: I learned from all the guys who were on the river and they had no problem like telling me
how to do stuff, (p. 15)
Betty: There have been other people, like intermediate paddlers in Terrace, who offer tips and
advice and things like that, when you’re going down a specific river. They’ve been
helpful, (p. 10)
Jim:

I just picked their brains and went with them a lot and I Just leamed from them. (p. 10)
The other kayakers do not always have to offer instmction to aid the beginner’s leaming.

Simply observing other kayakers’ actions appears to be an effective method of leaming. “When a
group of us beginners went out, you definitely leam different things from the others’ mistakes and
you also leam from watching what they do well” (Betty, plO). The “different things” that the
beginner kayakers leam from other kayakers include river reading skills, rolling and paddling
techniques and equipment knowledge.
River reading is one of the skills that appears to be best leamed from paddling with
experienced paddlers. At times the kayakers leam by observing the route the more experienced
kayakers take on the river. “I would watch the lines where they had trouble” (Peter, p. 4). At
other times the more experienced kayakers point out the hazards. “Mark introduced me to a

123

couple of new rivers and he showed us a couple of nice little pointers and what an actual hole
looks like and what to avoid” (Ted, p. 17). Kayakers with a lower tolerance for risk appear to
leam from a combination of the above methods combined with discussion about the hazards.
The first time is usually following someone down the river that knows where they are
going. 1 think it’s just after that, you sort of develop skills about knowing what to look
for. At first you’re told like, “Do you see that rock?” And, “Do you see this?’ And, “Do
you see that?” Then after it’s like, “Okay, what do you have to look for down there?
Then the next step is, okay, you just take your own line and go down through this and
when you get through that, you’ll know whether you’ve taken the right line or not.
(Betty, p. 9)
This appears to be a very effective method for teaching the beginner kayaker how to read the
river. Initially the hazards are pointed out to the beginners. Next the beginners have to identify
the hazards on their own. Once the kayakers are able to recognize the hazards they are able to
pick their own route down the river. For those with a lower tolerance for risk, following close
behind an experienced kayaker helps to allay fears.
You talk to the guys and I talk to Jim and Bill and they both totally know how to do
things. And so I was like, “Okay, I’m just going to go out in the middle and then paddle
like hell over to the other side.” And he’s like, “Yeah. ” Then I think I asked Bill if I
could follow him a little bit ‘cause it just sometimes makes it easier. Even a hundred feet
behind them, no not that far, fifty feet behind them, so you can see what line they are
taking and yeah, it worked out fine. (Mary, p. 4)
Discussing the route with the more experienced kayakers is a method whereby beginners can
verify their decisions. Following close behind the more experienced kayaker allows the beginner
to observe the route and the techniques that are used to maneuver the kayak. Jim advises it is
important that the experienced paddler is aware the beginners will be following their line. “If you
are not aware, then you may be surprised to find someone following you into places where they
shouldn’t be - the lemming effect” (p. 4).
Peter demonstrates how he is “learning to do my own game” by paddling with
experienced kayakers.
They’re very level-headed and they’re very cautious. If we had ran the river even a week
before and there was an increase in water level, we’d always get out and scout difficult
sections. So now I’m not just, you know, go and do it just because somebody else did it.
It’s how I’m feeling and how the day’s going and whether I run stuff or not that’s okay. I

124

just decide on my comfort level and one day I might feel comfortable in doing it and
another day I just say no. It’s just not there, (p. 14)
The other kayakers are teaching Peter several rules of conduct. Don’t paddle beyond what you
can see; listen to your feelings; be comfortable saying no.
Leaming about the specific technical skills like paddle strokes and rolling is enhanced
with tips given by other kayakers. This is especially helpful for Mary when the other kayaker is a
woman.
I actually leamed a lot about paddle strokes from a woman from Stewart. A lot of people
when they have really strong upper bodies can get away with sloppy strokes ’cause they
have the power to move themselves around in the river. When you don’t have a lot of
muscle strength, you have to be a little bit strategic in how you do it. (Mary, p. 15)
Mary’s comment suggests that women may find leaning the specific paddling strokes easier when
instruction is offered by someone of the same sex.
In Jane’s case the other kayaker is her husband. She describes a situation where he is
trying to teach her to control her fear and leam to roll.
I was practicing on the lake with George and he made me go under and hold my breath as
long as I could before I got out of the boat. I mean he couldn’t force you to stay under
there but he made me count to ten or something before he would help you because you
have to relax. Like I know watching the more experienced kayakers, they are better
because they don’t panic in the rapids if they get flipped. They’ll wait and instead of
spending all their energy trying to flip in the middle of a huge wave, they’ll ride it out
’till its gone and then they’ll roll up without much effort. (Jane, p. 6)
Because of Jane’s low tolerance for risk when in a kayak, this method does not appear to be a
positive leaming experience. The pressure Jane is feeling to leam the sport appears to be
increased when her husband is the instructor. In the previous chapter we saw that the kayakers
were able to control their fear when they had confidence in their abilities to control their actions.
Jane expresses a great fear of the spray deck. At this point in her leaming she has to rely entirely
on George for rescue. She is not in control of her own actions. This was shown to be a feeling
that the kayakers dread.

125

Experiential Learning. Experience appears to be an effective teacher for all kayakers.
Much of their learning comes from going out on the river paddling. Gradual progression appears
to be a key factor for a positive leaming experience.
I got my comfort level up so I could do the Kitimat and then stepped up to the Wedeene
and then up to the Clore and the Bulkley Canyon was kind of like the next step after that.
So it was just a gradual progression.” (Betty, p. 8)
When the kayakers experience a mishap their awareness of risk increases dramatically.
Yeah, that was a good thing for me, just that constant reminder. Because I think that if I
continued to have positive experiences and not have anything that scared me, then I
would continue to push the risk until something possibly more serious happened. (Peter,
p. 9)
Following a mishap the kayakers become more selective in choosing their kayaking experiences.
The experience appears to motivate the kayakers to take actions that reduce the level of risk and
prevent injuries. Peter discusses the mishap that increases his risk awareness.
In that situation, there was another fellow that was probably a little more experienced
than I was. Because I had no trouble before, I just hopped in the boat and without really
seeing the perfect line that I probably should have done and maybe if I’d had a little more
respect, I might have let him run it first. He had a lot more skill in rolling and reading the
water. I just jumped out in front of him. I just thought I was totally prepared for this.
And so it brought me a complete step back and I just realize that at any given time you
could really have a bad experience unless you’re totally concentrating and not taking
anything for granted on the river. ‘Cause that’s when it usually gets you. So I’m a lot
more cautious now. I know what the risks are and I guess when I’m not comfortable. I’ll
walk around it. (Peter, p. 9)
Prior to the mishap Peter experiences successful kayaking situations. These successes increase
his confidence in his abilities to handle any situation. At this point in his leaming he lacks the
experience that would have enabled him to assess the situation more accurately. Experiencing the
mishap teaches Peter the value of careful assessment of the situation. It also teaches him the
importance of matching his skill level with the situation. Peter becomes a more cautious kayaker
following this mishap.
Mary describes how experience affects the progression of her leaming.
Just like after that experience and getting out of my kayak and not trying more rolls and
just getting to the point when you have to exit your boat. That was just scary, being
crashed up against the wall. I just kind of panicked for a minute and got out of my boat.

126

When now that I know what can happen in high water when you get out of your boat, I
would make every effort to stay in my boat. Now I am smarter. That one experience is
definitely going to affect other ones. There was somewhere I was paddling after that and
it was big water and it was a bit different but it was still like big and hard and I rolled in a
really awkward spot. But 1 made myself come up and I rolled again not 20 meters
downstream and I was like, “Fm not swimming in this canyon. Forget that!” That was
bad last time so that really motivated me to think about this one and go, ‘EERUMPH!"
(Mary, p. 12)
Mary initially believed that exiting her kayak and swimming would get her out of a difficult
situation. After experiencing the mishap she realizes that swimming is not always the best
option. The next time she is in a similar situation her new awareness prompts her to try harder to
stay in her kayak and roll up.
Experience teaches the kayakers about the proper equipment. After her mishap Mary
realizes the need for good equipment. She does not want to experience that type of mishap again.
I bought a new lifejacket. Hopefully it will give me more flotation ‘cause I was like
using an old one. So I got rid of that one and got one with more floatation. The same
thing happened to a guy who had a similar experience. He did almost the same thing I
did and got sucked down and couldn’t breathe and was Just totally overwhelmed by it.
And he bought a new lifejacket the next day ‘cause like he had a pretty low volume life
jacket. So he bought the one that is a big puffy one from the Co - Op. Like this is not
going to happen again. (Mary, p. 3)
Jim says “ F ve had enough experiences where I know that at any time 1 may be in the water. So 1
wear the appropriate clothing” (p. 16). He says that when he first started paddling he and his
companions would discuss their equipment, checking that amongst the group there is enough
equipment to do a rescue. As he gained experience he says that he became conEdent in his ability
to know the required equipment and to remember to bring it along. He trusts that his experienced
companions will do the same.
When I was first leaming, we talked about it much more than we do now. We would
almost go through a checklist, “So do you have your throw line? Do you have your
safety line? I’ve got the first aid, do you have any?” Now you just take what you take
and assume that everyone else is going to be also. (p. 16)
Unfortunately this assumption is not always correct. Jim recounts an outing where no one had the
required equipment.

127

We couldn’t believe it. There were three or four very experienced paddlers on the trip
and not one of us had our fîrst aid kit because we all had our first aid kits at home getting
ready for an extended trip we were about to leave on. So we had no first aid kit. We just
made do with what we had. You rip up a T-shirt and you try and patch it up until you get
out. (p. 21)
This mistake shows the need for constant surveillance. Experienced kayakers who have leamed
injury prevention strategies can be negligent when they become complacent.
Books and videos. Some of the kayakers in their quest for skill and knowledge access
books and videos as a source of leaming. Initially they read books and magazines that describe
paddling and rolling techniques and river rescue. The kayakers share the books that they find
useful, especially those on river rescue. As Alice says: “You read and become more
knowledgeable about what [equipment] you need” (Alice, p. 10)
Mary does not find reading about rescues helpful.
I know Jason read the whole thing front to back. I wouldn’t even read it. 1 didn’t want to
know of all those people dying and how they died. That’s all I need to be thinking of
going down a river. That’s great! Just think I could be just like that person who got hung
up on a log by a life jacket. (Mary, p. 11)
Mary is a cautious kayaker. She has a low tolerance for risk. She is able to control her fear
because she has confidence in her ability to handle the experiences she chooses. She feels that if
she reads about the mishaps of other kayakers that she will not be able to control her fear. In
previous chapters it was shown that Mary paddles with experienced kayakers. She relies on their
expertise for rescue.
Jim’s comments show that as the kayakers gain experience the focus of their reading
changes.
I don’t buy paddling magazines any more. I used to and then I started to realize a bunch
of what they were putting in their paper was just trying to sell me stuff and I already had
the stuff. I read a much different type now. I read more about trips now, about
wilderness trips, because that’s where my focus is. (p. 19)
The kayakers appear to be continually seeking new experiences as well as seeking the skills,
knowledge and equipment to make their experiences a success. When Jim’s focus changes from
the “rockum sockum” white water to longer trips on remote rivers he seeks to leam about the

128

different locations, where to go hiking in the areas. He is also interested in leaming about
outdoor cooking and camping skills.
Some of the kayakers find that watching videos helps them develop specific skills.
Initially they watch the videos to help them visualize the roll technique. As they become more
confident in their abilities to get down the river, they want to leam other skills such as surfing the
waves.
Yeah, he has a lot of really good videos that I watch. ‘Cause now I’m not just into going
down the river, it’s like I want to start playing on the stuff and that’s a different technique
and it takes a bit of time to figure stuff out. So now I’ve started watching these videos
that show you how to do it. (Mary, p. 16)
Watching the videos allows Mary to study the kayakers’ actions. This is difficult on the river
where the action happens so quickly and the observer is unable to get close to the kayaker.
Leaming from other sports. The other kayakers, like Ted, acknowledge that some of the
skills that they learned to handle the risks in other sports are applicable to white water kayaking
as well.
I ended up taking a cross-country skiing course and it was a Level I Instructor Course. I
didn’t want the instmction and I don’t even cross-country ski that well. That’s not why I
took it. It was all the safety aspect. You leamed to use a compass. You leamed to dig
igloos. I mean I didn’t need an igloo in the summer but you leamed to start a fire with
wet wood. You leamed all these outdoor survival skills that I felt even though it was
summer and we were boating, I could use them the same way. (Alice, p. 13)
Outdoor survival courses teach individuals how to prepare for the “worst case scenario. ” Each
sport has its own particular hazards but the basic skills of risk awareness appear to be easily
transferred from one sport to another. Peter says that for him it is the mental preparedness that is
transferred from one sport to another.
r ve carried the same kind of mental preparedness that I have for, you know, a serious
incident in back country skiing. I just carried it to kayaking. They are totally different
skills I guess but the mental preparedness would be the same. Looking at the worst case
scenario. “Are you prepared to deal with it?’’ “What if something happens?’’ “What are
you going to do?” ‘W hat are your options?” (Peter, p. 21)
Jim says that once you have the ability to assess a risk situation you can transfer some of that
knowledge over into a new situation. He also says that the ability to stand back from a situation

129

and realize there’s nothing wrong if you don’t feel like taking the risk is transferable. “If you
don’t feel like skiing down there, don’t ski down there. If you don’t feel like paddling down
there, don’t paddle down (p. 28). Jim’s comment implies that it is acceptable to say no to a risk
situation. It may be that some o f the rules of social conduct that support the practice of risk
handling behaviours in white water kayaking are transferable to other high risk sports.

Summary
A wide range of different research traditions relating to education share the position that
knowledge is not transmitted directly from one knower to another, but is actively built up by the
learner (Driver, et al., 1994, p. 5). In this chapter we followed Ted’s joiuney into the sport of
kayaking and compared his experience with that of the other kayakers. In this way we saw how
the kayakers actively built up their skills and knowledge and leamed to practice risk-handling
behaviours. Individual and situational factors that affected the kayakers’ leaming were identified.
Most of the kayakers were actively seeking a new leaming experience. The one kayaker
who felt pressured into leaming did not progress at the same rate and indeed was much slower in
leaming the skills. Initial instmction in paddling, rolling, and river-reading created an awareness
of the inherent risks of the sport and showed the kayakers how to handle these risks. When the
kayakers lacked instmction and instead employed a trial and error method of leaming, they
unknowingly exposed themselves to the risk of injiuy. Lacking initial instmction, they were
unable to identify the risks involved and were therefore also unaware of the specific strategies
required to reduce the risk of injury in the river environment.
Instmction alone did not impart knowledge to the less experienced kayaker. The
kayakers were shown to require constant practice to develop the risk-handling behaviours. The
kayakers who lacked the equipment, time or motivation to practice frequently, even though they
had received initial instmction, failed to develop their skills, while the kayakers who went out
frequently to practice quickly mastered the technical skills. Helpful hints from experienced

130

kayakers augmented their learning. Actually experiencing a mishap where the kayakers felt their
lives were in danger caused a quantum leap in risk awareness. This new awareness of the risks
involved appeared to be the factor that most influenced the behaviour of the kayakers. All who
had experienced such a situation altered their behaviour. They bought better equipment, they
developed their skills and they evaluated the risk situations more carefully following the
experience.
The kayakers’ skill, knowledge and understanding of the river environment were built up
by paddling with experienced kayakers. Through discussion, differing perspectives were
provided. The less experienced kayakers were able to reflect on these differing perspectives and
thus make the ideas and practices personally meaningful. The experienced kayakers were seen to
value and support the practice of risk-handling behaviours and thus were an excellent source of
leaming for the less experienced kayakers.
Watching videos and reading books reinforced the practical leaming. There were pros
and cons to the use of videos as leaming tools. They were shown to help in the development of
technical skills and also as Ted indicated, with the development of river-reading skills. The
greatest potential difficulty for videos was their potential for promoting high-risk behaviour. The
less experienced kayakers were previously seen to lack the ability to accurately assess their skill
level and may perceive themselves as having the skills to attempt some o f the high-risk activities
witnessed on the video.
All the kayakers had participated in other high-risk sports. They indicated that much of
their risk-handling knowledge had been gained in previous survival courses and by participation
in other high-risk activities.
Social interactions were seen to affect the leaming process. When the less experienced
kayakers were supported and encouraged by the more experienced kayakers, they had the
confidence to try new activities. When they were confident in their abilities they were more
likely to succeed. Successful attempts resulted in further gains in confidence and skill

131

development. On the other hand when the kayakers were coerced into trying new activities they
were less likely to master the new activity. Failure to master the activity lowered the kayakers’
confidence and reduced their tolerance for risk.
The kayakers’ leaming journey is seen to be a multidimensional experience that included
objective and subjective components. The kayakers developed knowledge and specific skills but
it was not until they had experienced hazardous situations that the knowledge became personally
meaningful and changed behaviour. A summary of the findings and the implications o f this study
are discussed in the following chapter.

132

CHAPTER?
Summary and Conclusions

Introduction
This study explored the risk-handling behaviour of white water kayakers. Interviews
with seven white water kayakers of different ages and sex and at different stages of skill
development were conducted over a period of three months. These interviews were transcribed
and the transcriptions analyzed. The interviews revealed that the kayakers, rather than merely
selecting among options that happened to present themselves, more aggressively tried to
formulate options that reduced the risks of kayaking without sacrificing its benefits. Formulating
options was shown to involve a complex, dynamic process of decision-making. This process of
decision-making was the major theme developed in this study. In this chapter I review the
individual and situational factors that affected the kayakers’ risk decision-making, and their
leaming and practice of risk-handling behaviours. In doing so, I draw out the implications for
Community Health Care and Adventure Recreation Programs and provide suggestions for future
research. The limitations of this study are also addressed.
The original aim of the research was to increase the understanding of the risk-handling
behaviour of white water kayakers. Yates (1992) claims that risk handling, because it has been
recognized for such a short time, must be considered a high-priority research topic over the next
several years. Risk-taking behaviour is a central concern to me in my role as a community health
nurse involved in health promotion and disease/injury prevention. A misunderstanding of how
people deal with risk can misdirect educational efforts (Yates, 1992). It is my expectation that
increased understanding of the risk-handling behaviour of this group may lead to the development
of more effective risk-handling strategies for other populations engaging in high-risk behaviours.
White water kayakers were chosen for this study as they were purported to handle the risks of the
sport effectively and as a result were purported to experience few serious injiuies.

133

In Chapter 3 ,1 described the approach used in the study. I chose a qualitative
ethnographic approach using participant observation and in-depth interviews. The interviews
were guided by broad, open-ended questions that allowed for the emergence of the kayakers’
stories of their kayaking experiences. By participating in a white water kayaking course myself, 1
was able to gain entry into the social and cultural environment of white water kayaking.
Participation in the course provided additional insights into the process by which the kayakers
leamed the risk handling behaviours.
The kayakers actively chose the white water kayaking experience because of expected
benefits. Some of them were seeking the challenge of testing their skills, while others were
seeking the peace and beauty of the wilderness environment. In either case they voluntarily made
the choice to engage in an activity considered by many to be an activity that has a high risk of
injury. To achieve a successful experience, where the kayakers felt challenged but did not sustain
an injury, they needed to engage in many risk-handling behaviours. The kayakers put on
protective equipment. They leamed how to paddle and roll their kayaks and how to provide
rescue and they acquired knowledge of the river environment and an awareness of both the
strength and limitations of their kayaking abilities. These risk-handling behaviours were
implemented following a complex, dynamic process of risk decision-making.

Risk Decision-Making
The search of the literature examined several of the predominant theories and models that
have been developed to explain why individuals engage in risk activities and why they engage in
actions that reduce their risk of disease or injury (Janz & Becker, 1984; Bandura, 1986;
Weinstein, 1987; Yates, 1992; Wilde, 1994). These theories, while useful in helping to predict
behaviour, fail to capture the dynamic nature of the decision-making that takes place in the sport
of white water kayaking. There are two processes of risk decision-making identified in the study.
One is a process of careful deliberation, while the other process is non-deliberative.

134

Deliberative Risk Decision-Making
For most of the kayakers in the study, the decision of whether or not to kayak was merely
the first in a series of complex decisions. Once they made the decision to kayak and decided on
whom to paddle with, and what equipment to wear and bring along, the kayakers had to continue
evaluating their decision against new hazards presented by the constantly changing river
environment. They followed rules such as, “Don’t paddle beyond what you can see.” They
asked themselves, “Will I try to surf on that wave?” and “Will I paddle this section of the river, or
will I walk out?” The answer to these questions involved weighing the perceived benefits against
the potential losses. The weight of the perceived benefits and losses depended on the kayakers’
assessment of the river environment and their assessment of their own ability to handle the risks
identified in the river environment.
White water kayaking is a social sport and the actions and opinions of other kayakers
influenced the decision making process. Another factor influencing the kayakers’ risk decision­
making was the strength of their beliefs of self-efficacy. The intense feelings of fear and
exhilaration generated by participation in the sport challenged these beliefs and thereby
influenced the kayakers’ risk decisions. The kayakers cited a difference in levels of risk tolerance
as a factor influencing the decision making process. Analysis of the kayaker’s description
however, revealed their basic tolerance for risk was overshadowed by other factors: age, sex,
stage of life and most importantly beliefs of self-efficacy. The study showed that the kayakers
did not always use a process of careful deliberation before engaging in risk behaviours. At times
they “just went for it.”

Non-Deliberative Risk Decision-Making
There were different reasons for not deliberating the risk decision. These differences
were influenced by the kayakers’ level of experience. The less experienced kayakers, who “just

135

went for it” either fmled to recognize anything unusual in the situation or they were able to
identify the risk in the situation, but they mistakenly felt that they had the skills to handle the risk.
Their lack of knowledge caused them to make an inaccurate assessment of the situation. They
focussed on the expected benefits of participating in the risk activity, ignoring the possibility of
loss. Failure to accurately assess the risk situation impaired the quality of risk decision-making,
as the kayakers were not able to identify options that would reduce the risk of injury. This failure
was shown to put the less experienced kayakers in terrifying situations.
The more knowledgeable kayakers also did not always engage in deliberative risk
decision-making. Frequently they observed the situation with experienced eyes, alert to subtle
warnings of danger. They chose to participate in the sport because of the expected benefits but
they were also aware of the potential for loss. Because of many years of experience they were
better able to assess their level o f skill quickly and acciurately. The more knowledgeable
kayakers’ risk decision-making depended on experience-based intuition rather than a process of
rule-following deliberation, weighing possible benefits and losses. Dreyfus & Dreyfus (1986)
state the skilled behaviour of the expert is “based on holistic pairing of new situations with
associated responses produced by successful experiences in similar situations” (p.35). The most
experienced kayaker described his process of decision-making as being “almost Zen like” (Jim,
p. 10).

Development of Effective Risk Decision-Making Skills
The process by which the kayakers leamed effective risk decision-making was complex,
involving the development of skills, knowledge and beliefs of self-efficacy. The social
environment in which the leaming took place affected the development of these resources and a
discussion of its role is included as each of the resources is considered.
Skill Development. Handling the risks involved in paddling white water required skill.
The kayakers needed the ability to correctly match their skill to the challenge of the situation. If

136

they were not able to successfully roll their kayaks in any condition they needed to recognize and
avoid situations that would require this skill. They required the ability to right their kayak after
being flipped over by the white water and they needed to be able to do this in very difficult
conditions. They needed strong paddle strokes to navigate the rapids and to brace the kayak to
prevent flipping. The kayakers needed to be able to provide rescue should the need arise. This
included towing a companion to shore or setting up a pulley system to rescue a companion from a
logjam.
The interviews revealed different processes through which the kayakers leamed these
skills. Initial instruction provided in a kayaking course or when paddling with experienced
kayakers was crucial to the development of correct techniques. Without this initial instruction the
kayakers developed faulty techniques, increasing their risk of injury. When the instruction took
place in a safe environment such as a pool or lake, it allowed the kayakers to focus on skill
development rather than worrying about the hazards of the river environment. The kayakers were
given short rules to follow to aid in remembering the techniques. Rules such as, “lean forward
and kiss the deck” to wet exit and “head down and hip flick” to roll. These rules helped the less
experienced kayakers to remain focussed in threatening situations. The Dreyfus Model of Skill
Acquisition (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986) states that at the novice level participants follow rules
that are “context free”. The kayakers’ actions supported this model. As the kayakers became
more experienced they realized there were some situations in which the rules did not apply. It
was not always safe to “lean forward and kiss the deck” and wet exit; rather it was safer to stay in
their kayak and try to roll up. The kayakers’ past experiences began to serve as a base for
decision making. As their skills continued to develop, the kaykers’ actions became automatic
responses but the skills were situation specific. The kayakers may have an automatic roll in one
area of the river but when overturned in a more difficult area of the river they may revert to rulefollowing behaviour.

137

Following the initial instruction, the kayakers practiced frequently to master the skills.
Those who failed to practice did not progress. Ail kayakers leamed from paddling with
experienced kayakers. They watched the experienced kayakers and tried to imitate their actions.
Many kayakers read books and watched videos on kayaking and river rescue. They took first aid
courses and wilderness survival courses. They expressed a keen desire to develop the skills
which they believed would provide options that would minimize their risk of injury, while still
allowing them to experience the thrill of paddling in white water. The psychomotor skills were
the most quickly leamed elements of effective risk decision-making. Developing the knowledge
about when and where to apply these skills required more time.
Knowledge Development. The kayakers’ ability to plan ahead to be prepared for the
worst case scenario was essential in enabling to them to see a variety of options in the risk
situation. Preparing for the worst case scenario required that the kayakers had a thorough
knowledge of the river environment. They needed to know how to assess the river, how to read
the currents and how to recognize upcoming hazards. They needed to know how to assess their
equipment, to know what type of equipment was best for the situation, and to know how to use
the equipment. The kayakers also had to be able to accurately assess their skill level and the skill
level of their companions.
The less experienced kayakers developed this knowledge primarily by paddling with
experienced kayakers and by engaging in many different situations themselves. The knowledge
was developed in a manner described by MacLeod (1996); the kayakers became experienced by
experiencing. The kayakers’ leaming accompanied changes in noticing and understanding the
river environment and the effect of their actions on this environment. Their leaming was also
made possible by noticing, understanding the environment and trying out new actions.
The kayakers’ leaming was influenced by the nature of their engagement in the social
environment. When the kayakers were in positions described in the literature as “legitimate
peripheral participation” (Lave & Wenger, 1991), they stretched themselves to leam and take on

138

new challenges. It was important for the less experienced kayakers to paddle with experienced
kayakers who were concerned for the safety of the group and were willing to share their
knowledge. When the kayakers were in positions where they perceived themselves as being a
liability to the group they were held back from learning.
Knowledge development was an ongoing process. Some knowledge was built up over a
long period of time, paddling the river at different times of the year, over many seasons. At other
times knowledge was gained quickly. These were the times when the kayakers experienced a
mishap, when they felt they were at risk of injury or death and were unable to control their
actions. Experiencing these crisis situations or watching others experience a crisis situation
created the greatest awareness o f potential losses. These were the types o f experiences described
by MacLeod (1996) as “watershed” experiences. These experiences gave the kayakers a reality
check of their assessment skills. It was following these situations that the kayakers reported
being more selective in choosing their risk experiences.
As stated earlier, kayaking is a social sport. The risk decisions were made while paddling
in a social environment. The decisions were discussed and evaluated as a group. Initially the less
experienced kayakers merely listened and observed the complex process of risk-decision making.
They relied on the decisions of the more experienced kayakers to enable them to handle the risks.
Later, as knowledge and skill developed, the less experienced kayakers became more involved in
the decision making process. They discussed the situation with the other kayakers, attempting to
understand and interpret the meaning of the situation for themselves. In this manner the kayakers
progressed from broadly peripheral positions into positions of full participation. They learned
from actually participating in the social interactions and the discussions, from observing the
experienced kayakers and their peers and from making decisions and paddling the river
themselves. In this way the kayakers learned to identify and evaluate the benefits and possible
losses associated with the choice. In the literature it was noted that loss identification is a major

139

part of formal risk analysis (Yates & Stone, 1992). As they became more aware of the potential
risks in a situation the kayakers became more selective in choosing their risk experiences.
During the social interactions the experienced kayakers also communicated their values
to the less experienced kayakers. The experienced kayakers valued safety for all members of the
group. Through discussion, the less experienced kayakers learned that it was socially acceptable
to say “no” to any risk activity where they were not confident of a successful outcome. The fact
that experienced kayakers valued the acquisition of psychomotor skills and the development of
good decision-making skills motivated the less experienced kayakers to develop these skills
themselves. The less experienced kayakers learned the right to participate in a risk activity also
came with the responsibility to ensme no one else was put at risk because of the actions of the
risk taker. The values supported in the social environment encouraged the less experienced
kayakers to leam rescue techniques and acquire rescue equipment. In this experiential type of
learning situation the kayakers also developed beliefs about their ability to handle the risk.
Development of beliefs of self-efficacv. The kayakers’ belief in their capabilities to
maintain control of their actions in a particular situation was the most important factor
influencing their risk decision-making. As Bandura (1990) states, self-efficacy is the belief that
one is capable of succeeding at an endeavor. It was strong beliefs of self-efficacy which enabled
the kayakers to confront their fear and actively seek out the risk experience, anticipating the thrill
that came when they successfully challenged the river environment. Those kayakers with strong
beliefs of self-efficacy were eager to develop their skills and knowledge and they therefore
progressed quickly.
The development of skill and knowledge further enhanced beliefs of self-efficacy.
Supportive, experienced companions ensured that the less experienced kayakers were in
situations where they would be able to achieve success. Experiencing success in a ventme
appeared to be the most important factor in strengthening beliefs of self-efficacy. Experiencing
success in past performances gave the kayakers the confidence to try new challenges.

140

Unsuccessful experiences also affected the kayakers’ beliefs of self-efficacy. The effects
of a misadventure varied depending on the strength of the kayakers’ beliefs. Those who had
experienced many successful situations and developed strong beliefs of self-efficacy viewed the
mishap as a challenge and were strongly motivated to get back in their kayaks and try again.
Keyes (1985) states that there is a point of useful risk taking where fear is met, confronted and
used as a source of both caution and energy (p. 276). The kayakers’ descriptions showed that
feelings of fear alerted them to the potential for loss but also helped them to focus more clearly on
the task at hand. When they focussed on the task at hand they were better able to identify the
options that allowed them to handle the risks. If they were unsuccessful in their venture, the
presence of experienced kayakers who were able to provide rescue afforded another option that
reduced the risk of injury.
Those kayakers who had not developed strong beliefs of self-efficacy had their
confidence in their abilities further undermined by an unsuccessful experience. They judged their
performance partly through comparison with others in the group. If they were not able to
experience success in an activity that was successfully completed by others in the group, it had
the effect of weakening their beliefs of self-efficacy. When they did not have strong beliefs of
self-efficacy the kayakers did not anticipate a successful outcome. They were fearful of new
challenges. In a challenging situation, those kayakers who did not have strong beliefs of selfefficacy were less likely to identify options that would enable them to regain control of the
situation. They were more likely to panic in a risk situation, further increasing the chance of
failure. This showed how important it was to correctly match the level of skill to the challenge
of the situation.
Flow. Flow experiences are closely linked with the development of beliefs of selfefficacy. It was noted in the kayakers’ descriptions that there were many times in which their
concentration was so focussed they had no attention left to think of other worries or fhistrations.
When this intense focus caused them to successfully control the situation they experienced a

141

“natural kind of high” a feeling of “Oh Yeahî” This appears to be the feeling described by
Csikszentmihalyi ( 1990) as ‘fiow’. It was this feeling that kept the kayakers coming back,
seeking greater challenges. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) found that no activity could sustain flow for
long unless both the challenges and skills become more complex. Seeking the flow experience
caused the kayakers to stretch themselves to develop better skills and more knowledge. In doing
so the kayakers developed stronger beUefs of self-efficacy. Their experiences also appeared to
make the present more enjoyable for the kayakers. All the kayakers appeared to have a zest for
life.
It was the active participation of the kayakers in the social environment of white water
kayaking that seemed to be the most effective process by which the kayakers developed skill,
knowledge and strong beliefs of self-efficacy. Their active participation in the kayaking
community allowed the kayakers the opportunity to experience the consequences of their riskdecisions in a safe environment. By participating in the social community they learned to
recognize and respect the rights of other kayakers.
This study has increased the understanding of the individual and situational factors which
influence the learning and practice of risk-handling behaviours. These findings have implications
for those involved in adventure recreation and also for those involved in health promotion and
disease/injury prevention.

Implications
The search of the literature revealed a need for increased understanding of the concept of
risk handling to better direct educational efforts. The increased understanding o f risk handling
developed in this study has significance for those involved in health care who develop programs
aimed at promoting health and preventing disease and injury and also for those in the field of
adventure recreation who develop white water kayaking programs.

142

Adventure Recreation Implications
The beginner kayakers were most at risk of injury. Developing programs that enable the
less experienced kayaker to leam, not only the technical skills of paddling, but also the more
important skills of effective risk decision-making may reduce their risk of injury. It was shown
that when the kayakers challenged themselves and experienced ‘flow’ their beliefs of selfefficacy were strengthened. Strong beliefs of self-efficacy were shown to improve decision
making abilities by increasing the kayakers’ ability to identify options in the risk situation. The
kayakers’ experiences lend support for developing programs which follow Csikszentmihalyi’s
(1990) suggestions for transforming physical acts so as to produce flow. These strategies provide
guidelines for program development.
The kayakers who received initial instruction learned correct techniques and developed
an increased awareness of the risks involved in the sport. If sports outfitters, magazines and
videos promoted the benefits of instruction it may persuade more people to em-oll in kayaking
courses, helping them to more quickly develop the skill and knowledge necessary for effective
risk decision-making.
Helping course participants set overall goals and as many sub-goals as feasible, and then
establishing ways of measiuing progress in terms of the chosen goals, may help to develop flow
experiences (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Group learning in the natural river environment, where
there is an opportunity for discussion, is an important means of building a sense of community
and imparting the value of safety for all members of the group. Group discussions involving risk
decisions help the beginner to identify not only the potential risks in the situation, but also options
for handling the risk.
Instructors need to attend to the progress of the group. A gradual progression, allowing
the learners opportunities to experience success in their endeavors, is necessary for the
participants to experience flow and to develop strong beliefs of self-efficacy. It may be necessary
to form groups based on the characteristics of the learners (e.g., sex, age and tolerance for risk) to

143

allow the learner the opportunity to experience a feeling of success, as learners judge their
progress based on a comparison with others in the group. There should be opportunities for the
learners to practice in the natural environment accompanied by experienced kayakers.
Once the learners have confidence in their abilities to succeed it is equally important to
provide unsuccessful experiences in a controlled situation. Experiencing mishaps when the
learners have developed strong beliefs of self-efficacy creates an awareness of the current
limitations of their abilities and serves to motivate the learners to gain further skills and
knowledge. Programs following these guidelines provided opportunities for kayakers to leam the
effective risk decision-making skills necessary for handling the risks of the sport. Using these
guidelines to develop programs which promote health and prevent disease and injuries, may also
help participants develop the effective risk decision-making skills necessary for handling the risks
of life.

Health Promotion. Disease/Iniurv Prevention Implications
Developing effective decision making involved the development o f skills, knowledge and
strong beliefs of self-efficacy. Developing these abilities, then, should be the goal of disease and
injury prevention programs. To be effective a program has to first reach its target audience, hi
the literature we saw that people engage in risk activities because of expectations of positive
outcomes (Fromme, Katz & Rivet, 1997). The white water kayakers’ behaviour supported this
finding. Programs which focus on the increased benefits that can be anticipated if people develop
effective risk decision-making skills may therefore be more effective than programs which focus
exclusively on the negative aspects of a risk activity. The findings suggest that using a positive
message, where people anticipate receiving some benefit through integrating or learning the
information, may motivate them to more carefully evaluate the information in the
communication. For example, programs and messages intended to persuade people to quit
smoking may be better received if they focussed on the positive effects of not smoking rather than

144

the negative effects of smoking. A message that talked about the benefits o f clean smelling hair
and fresh breath combined with information regarding methods and services available to assist
people to quit may be more effective in actively engaging people’s thought processes. This
approach contrasts with current messages that focus exclusively on the negative aspects of
smoking by showing a picture of a blood clot in a brain or a person smoking through a
tracheotomy.
Once people are interested in learning how to develop effective risk decision-making
skills, the information may be more effective if presented in a group situation. Group
presentations allow the opportunity to actively involve the learners in the activity. In this study
knowledge was transmitted through the social interactions that occurred while paddling the river.
Information can be presented by drawing on the experiences o f the participants. When
opportunities for group discussion regarding risk decisions are provided, the learners gain an
awareness of the possible losses resulting from their actions. Loss identification was shown in
the literature to be a major part of risk analysis (Yates & Stone, 1992). In these group discussions
health care providers may gain a better understanding of the benefits people anticipate from
engaging in their risk activities. This discussion may help participants identify options that
reduce their risk of disease or injury.
People need to feel they are capable of preventing disease and injury through their own
actions. They need to be given instruction on how this may be done and then allowed the
opportunity to practice the activity in a safe environment. Instructors need to attend to the
progress of the group as the kayakers did, to ensure people have the opportunity to experience
success in their endeavors. For example, in a seniors fitness class which has the ultimate goal of
preventing falls, it may be helpful to have an instructor who is also a senior conduct the sessions,
starting with slow paced, relatively easy exercises. As suggested in the adventure recreation
implications, it may be helpful to have the seniors establish clear goals and then determine ways
of measuring their progress against these goals. One way of doing this would be to add some

145

weight training to their exercise program. Being able to increase the amount of weight lifted is a
clear indication of progress. When the seniors find they are able to do these exercises and
increase the amount of weight they can lift, they may be more inclined to take on other
challenges, such as walking or dancing.
Once people believe they have the ability to handle the risk, it is important to create an
awareness of the current limitations of their risk-handling abilities. This could be done by role
playing, providing simulated experiences or as is currently done in the Steady As You Go Falls
Prevention Program, by having the participants keep a record of all their falls and near falls and
allowing time for discussion of these events. This may motivate people to continue with the
program.
None of these ideas are new. What this study has done is incorporate the Bndings from
several bodies of research: adventure recreation, risk decision-making, experiential learning and
health promotion and disease/injury prevention. The study provides support for Fromme, Katz
and Rivet’s (1997) suggestion that health promotion and disease/injury prevention strategies
could recognize the appeal of risk activities while encouraging steps towards minimizing risks. It
has provided suggestions for marketing health promotion and disease/injury prevention programs
with a positive focus to attract interest. It has also provided suggestions for creating awareness of
the risks in a situation to help those who are unaware of the risks of their activities.
Reviewing the adventure recreation literature and exploring a different population of risk
takers has revealed important information on how risk handling behaviours are fostered. The
study has revealed the benefits of engaging in an activity that produces ‘flow’. If more people
experienced ‘flow’ it may be that there would be fewer people engaging in less socially
acceptable risk behaviours. Those involved in recreation who advocate for more of these
recreational opportunities may benefit from the support of those involved in health care.
This study has examined one group of risk takers and the process by which they learned
to handle the risks. This information has provided guidelines for developing programs to help

146

people leam to effectively handle the risk situations present in our daily life. It also showed that
engaging people in discussions, helping them leam to identify and then leam to handle the risks
involved in their activities may better enable them to take control over and improve their health,
the ultimate goal of health promotion.

Suggestions for Future Research
The qualitative methodology of this study allowed for in-depth exploration of the white
water kayakers’ experiences in learning to handle the risks of the sport. This methodology
yielded rich, detailed descriptions of the kayakers’ risk-handling behaviours and the processes by
which these behaviours were learned. While the study provides in-depth information about the
meaning of white water kayaking and risk-handling behaviours it also points out where further
research is merited.
The literature revealed that there was a lack of situational analysis in the study o f risktaking (Yates, 1992). This study identifîed some of the individual differences between the white
water kayakers and identified some of the factors in the white water environment which affected
the kayakers’ risk-taking behavioiurs. It was noted that the size of the group, the nature of the
companions and the nature of the engagement of the kayakers in the group affect learning and
risk-taking behaviours. Future research in natural settings examining other groups of people
engaging in high-risk sports would further increase the understanding of the role of individual and
situational differences in risk-taking behaviour. Group development came out in the data as
being important to the development of risk-handling behavioiurs but it is beyond the scope of this
thesis to explore this literature to the extent it merits. The process of group development in risk
decision-making is therefore recommended as being an important area for future research.
This study has shown that beliefs o f self-efficacy influenced perceptions of risk and
appeared to account for some of the perceived gender differences in tolerance for risk. There is a
need for further research to develop explanatory theories for these individual differences. Future

147

research will benefit from the examination of the transferability of effective decision-making
abilities and risk-handling behaviours from one area of life such as recreation to other areas of
life, such as driving safely or engaging in other preventive health behaviours.

Summarv
This study has increased the understanding of the risk handling behaviours of white water
kayakers. Included in this understanding of their risk handling behaviour is an awareness of the
complex, dynamic process of risk decision-making. The kayakers’ process of risk decision­
making and subsequently their risk-handling behaviour varies across situations and individuals.
These risk-taking behaviours are imperfect indicators of the actual risks the kayakers are taking.
A less experienced kayaker may be at far more risk of injury in a relatively easy stretch of river
than is an experienced kayaker in Class IV white water.
Not all kayakers in the study engage in a process of careful, deliberative risk decision­
making. The more experienced kayakers intuitively respond to cues in the environment, fluidly
implementing strategies, which allow them to experience the thrill of the sport without coming to
harm. The less experienced kayakers, lacking knowledge or over-estimating their level of skill,
focus only on the possible benefits of the activity without regard for the potential losses. Without
a process of careful decision-making, they are unable to define choices and implement strategies
to keep them from harm. It is these kayakers who are most at risk of injury.
The kayakers need skill, knowledge and strong beliefs in their abilities to handle the risks
before they are able to integrate all the information necessary for effective risk decision-making.
The development of these attributes is a process which occurs over time, with instruction and
with experience.
This research demonstrates the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. In
adventure recreation the focus is on providing challenging recreation opportunities, focussing on
the positive benefits of a risk experience. In health care the current focus is on reducing or

148

eliminating the risk experience. By working together, those in health cate can gain a fresh
perspective on risk activity and those in adventure education can encourage participants to
transfer the effective risk decision-making skills learned in their programs to other areas of their
lives. This study supports a philosophy of disease/injury prevention that recognizes risk activities
have positive as well as negative consequences. It provides guidelines for developing programs
which teach people the skills to handle the risks, thereby enabling them to take responsibility for
their own health.

149

REFERENCES
Adler, N., Kegeles, S. M. & Genevro, J. L. (1992) Risk taking and health in F. Yates (Eds.) Risk
taking behaviour. ( 2 3 1 —255). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice. San Francisco and London: Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy; Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological
Review. 84. 191 -2 1 5 .
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1988a). Perceived self-efficacy: Exercise of control through self-belief. In J. P.
Dauwalder, M. Perrez, & V. Hobi (Eds.), Annual series of European research in behavior
therapy 2. 27 -59). Lisse (NL): Swets & Zeitlinger.
Bandura, A. (1990) Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology. 2. 128 - 163.
Bandura, A. & Wood, R. E. (1989b). Effect of perceived controllability and performance
standards on self-regulation of complex decision-making. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 56. 805 —814.
Benner, P. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice.
Menlo Park, California: Addison-Wesley.
Benner, P., & Tanner, C. (1987). How expert nurses use intuition. American Journal of
Nursing. January. 23 - 31.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning.
London: Kogan Page.
Bromiley, P. & Curley, S. (1992). Individual differences in risk taking in F. Yates (Eds.) Risktaking behaviour. 87 —132. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Cadman, Robert, Edwin (1996). Ski iniurv prevention: An epidemiological investigation of the

150

social, behavioural and environmental determinants of iniurv. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of British Columbia, Canada.
Carroll, K. A. (1988). A study of personality characteristics common to individuals who
participate in high risk leisure activities (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 49. 2389A.
Committee on Trauma Research, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council &
Institute of Medicine (1985). Iniurv in America. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1990). Flow. Harper & Row: New York:
Dawson, D. (1984). Phenomenological approaches to leisure. Recreation Research Review. 11
18 -23.
Dreyfus, H. L, & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine. The power of human intuition and
expertise in the era of the computer. New York: The Free Press.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, L, Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific
knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher. 23. (7) 5 —12.
Ewert, A. (1989). Outdoor adventure pursuits: Foundations, models and theories. Scottsdale,
AZ: Publishing Horizons.
Ewert, A. (1994). Playing the edge. Motivation and risk taking in a high-altitude wildemesslike
environment. Environment and Behavior. 26. 1,3 —24.
Ewert, A. & Hollenhorst, S. (1989). Testing the adventure model: Empirical support for a model
of risk recreation participation. Journal of Leisure Research. 21. 2, 124- 139.
Ewert, A. W. & Johnson, B. (1983, April) Current trends and issues in outdoor recreation.
Paper presented at the Pacific Northwest Recreation and Park Association Conference,
Coeur d’Alene, ID.
Federal, Provincial & Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health. (1999). Toward a
healthy future. Second Report on the Health of Canadians. lOn-linel www.hc-sc.gc.ca.

151

Fischhoff, B. (1992). Risk taking: A developmental perspective. In J. F. Yates (Eds.) Risktaking behavior 133 - 157. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Fromme, K., Katz, E., & D’Amico, E. (1997). Effects of alcohol intoxication on the perceived
consequences of risk-taking. Experimental and Clinical Psvchopharmacology. 5. 14-23.
Fromme, K., Katz, E. C., Rivet, K. (1997). Outcome expectancies and risk-taking behavior.
Cognitive Theraov and Research. 21. 4, 421-442.
Glaser, R. (1987). Thoughts on expertise. In C. Schooler & K. W. Schaie (Eds.) Cognitive
functioning and social structure over the life course. 81 —94. Norwood, New Jersey:
Ablex.
Groves, D. (1987). Why do some athletes chose high risk sports? The Phvsician and Sports
Medicine. 15 (2), 186 - 193.
Hale, A. (1987). National safetv network: Annual review 1986. Bellefontaine, OH: National
Safety Network.
Hammersley, M. (1990). Reading ethnographic research: A critical guide. London: Longman.
Holmes, D. L. (1983, October). Who are we: A demographic profile of American sky divers.
Parachutist. 19 —22.
Howe, C. Z. (1985). Possibilities for using a qualitative research approach in the sociological
study of leisure. Journal of Leisure Research. 17. 212 —224.
Janz, N., & Becker, M. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education
Quarterly. 11 (1) 1-47.
Kelly, J. R. (1991). Leisure and quality: Beyond the quantitative barrier in research. In T. L.
Goodale & P. A. Witt (Eds.), Recreation and leisure: Issues in an era of change. (3'** ed.)
397 - 411). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Keyes, R. (1985). Chancing it. Whv we take risks. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2“*ed.). Chicago: University of

152

Chicago Press. Originally published in 1962.
Langley, D. (1995a) Examining the personal experience of student skill learning: a narrative
perspective. Research Ouarterlv for Exercise and Sport. 66. 116 —128.
Latham, A. M., & Cassady, H. (1997). Analysis of performance: how to nurture pupils analytical
skills. British Journal of Phvsical Education. 28. (4) 28 —32.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated leamine: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Le Breck, D. B. (1989). Clinical judgment: a comparison of theoretical perspectives. In W. L.
Holzemer, (Eds.) Review of research in nursing education. 33 —55. New York:
National League for Nursing.
Leninger, M. M. (1985). Life-health-care history: Purposes, methods and techniques. In M. M.
Leninger (Ed.), Qualitative research methods in nursing. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Lewin, K. (1952). Field theory in social science. London: Tavistock.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Cuba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Linder, S. H. (1987). On cogency, professional bias and public policy: an assessment of four
views of the injury problem. The Milbank Ouarterlv. 65. 2, 276 —301.
Lofland. J. & Lofland, L. (1995) Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and
analysis. (3^“*ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Maddux, J. E. & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised
theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
19,469-479.
MacCrimmon, K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. (1986). Taking risks: The managemet of uncertainty.
New York: Free Press.
MacLeod, M L. P. (1996) Practising nursing-Becoming experienced. Edinburgh: Churchill
Livingstone.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1989). Designing qualitative research (1" ed.). CA: Sage

153

Publications Inc.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
McClure, C., & Grubb, I. (1999) HIV transmission. Guidelines for assessing risk. (3"*ed.)
Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Aids Society
Mortlock, C. (1978). Adventure education. Old Fisherbeck, Ambleside, Cumbria, United
Kingdom LA22 ODH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 172 994).
Palys, T. (1992). Research decisions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Toronto:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Canada Inc.
Plant, M. L., Plant, M. A., Peck, D. P., & Setters, J. (1989). The sex industry, alcohol, and illicit
drugs: Implications for the spread of HIV infection. British Journal of Addictions. 84
5 3 -5 9 .
Pitz, G. (1992) Risk taking, design, and training. In J. F. Yates (Eds.) Risk —Taking Behavior.
283 —320. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Polit & Hungler, (1999). Nursing research: Principles and methods (6“*ed.) Philadelphia: J. B.
Lippincott Company.
Prain, V., & Hickey, C. (1995). Using discourse analysis to change physical education. Quest,
4 7 ,7 6 -9 0 .
Rasmussen, J. (1982). Human errors: A taxonomy for describing human malfunction in industrial
installations. Journal of Qccupational Accidents. 4. 311 —335.
Rasmussen, J. (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge: Signals, signs, and symbols, and other
distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Svstems. Man and
Cybernetics. 3. 257 —268.
Rippetoe, P. A., & Rogers, R. W. (1987). Effects of components of protection-motivation
theory on adaptive and maladaptive coping with a health threat. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 52. 596 -604.
Robinson, D. W. (1992). A descriptive model of enduring risk recreation involvement. Journal

154

of Leisure Research. 24. 1, 52 - 63.
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change.
Journal of Psychology. 91. 93 —114.
Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change:
A revised theory of protection motivation. In J. Cacioppo & R. Petty (Eds.) Social
Dsvchophvsiology. New York: Guilford Press.

Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education
Monographs. 2. 328.
Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning theory and the health
belief model. Health Education Ouarterlv. 15. 175 —183.
Samdahl, Diane (1999). Epistemological and methodological issues in leisure research. In Edgar
L. Jackson & Thomas L. Burton (Eds.) Leisure studies : Prospects for the twenty-first
century. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley
Schempp, P. G. (1997). Developing expertise in teaching and coaching. Journal of Phvsical
Education. Recreation and Dance: JOPERD. 68 (2) 29 —38.
Schuett, M. A. (1991). Testing the adventure model for outdoor recreation participation.
(Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International.
(University Microfilms No. 9210982).
Schuett, M. A. (1993) Refining measures of adventure recreation involvement. Leisure Sciences,
15^205-216.
Schuett, M. A. (1994). Environmental preference and risk recreation: The case of white water
Kayakers. Journal of Environmental Education. 25. 2, 9 —14.
Silverman, S. (1991). Research on teaching in physical education. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport. 62. 352 —364.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science. 236. 280- 285.

155

SMARTRISK Foundation (1995, December) Heads up. Issue No. 2.
Sparkes, R. E. (1982, April). The educational value of high risk activities in the phvsical
education program: a social philosophical perspective. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of The American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance, Houston,TX.
Spradley, J. (1980) Participant Observation. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers.
Tanner, C. A. (1983). Research on clinical judgment. In W. L. Holzemer, Review of Research
in Nursing Education. 2 —32. New Jersey: Slack.
Tanner, C. A. ( 1987). Teaching clinical judgment. In J. J. Fitzpatrick & R L. Taunton (Eds.)
Annual Review of Nursing Research. 153 - 173. New York: Springer.
Van der Molen, H. H., & Boetticher, A. M. T. (1988). A hierarchical risk model for traffic
participants. Ergonomics. 31. 537 - 555.
Von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, D. (1986). Decision analvsis and behavioral research.
Cambridge, England: University Press.
Wagenaar, W. A. (1992) Risk taking and accident causation. In F. J. Yates (Eds.) Risk-taking
behavior. 257 - 28. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won’t happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and
susceptibility. Health Psychology. 3. 431—457.
Weinstein, N. D. (Ed) (1987) Taking Care: Understanding and encouraging self-protective
behaviour. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Wilde, G. (1994). Target risk. Toronto, Canada: PDE Publications.
Wilson, B. A. & Jonah, R. J. (1985). Identifying impaired drivers among the general driving
population. Journal o f Studies on Alcohol. 46 531 —537.
Yates, J. F. (Ed.) (1992). Risk-taking behavior. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Yates, J. F., & Stone, E. R. (1992). The risk construct. In J. F. Yates (Eds.) Risk-taking behavior

156

1-26. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Zuckerman, M. (Ed.) (1983) Biological bases of sensation seeking, impulsivity and anxiety.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zuckerman, M., Simons, R., & Como, P. (1988). Sensation seeking and stimulus intensity as
modulators of cortical, cardiovascular and electrodermal response: a cross-modality
study. Personality and Individual Differences. 9. 361 —372.

157

APPENDIX A
CONSENT FORM

The Risk Handling Behaviour o f W hite W ater Kayakers and How it is Learned
AGREEMENT O F PARTICIPATION
This thesis research for my Masters degree in Community Health at the University
o f Northern British Columbia in Prince George involves an exploration o f the ways white
w ater kayakers leam to handle the risks o f the sport.
If you agree to participate, I will ask you to donate your time for one interview,
approximately one hour in length. All interviews will be held at a time and place chosen
for your convenience. All interviews will be kept strictly confidential and the interview
transcript will not be available to anyone else but me. Your name will never be used,
including in the interview recording and transcript and you will not be identified by any
means in future publications that may result from this research.
If you agree to participate in this study, you may withdraw at any time, without
explanation.
If you have any ethical concerns about this study please call Dr. Max Blouw, Dean
of Graduate Studies, 250-960-5820.
If you have any questions or wish to contact me, please call me at work, xxx-xxxx
or at home, xxx-xxxx.
Your signature below will indicate that you understand and agree to the terms o f
participation in the study. Please sign two copies and keep one. Thank you for your
assistance.
Sally Rigoni
Health and Human Sciences
University o f Northern British Columbia
3333 University Way
Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9
Name__________________________________ Signature_____________________________

Date____________________________________Witness_______________________________

158

APPENDIX B
THE INTERVIEW GUIDE
Can you describe your best kayaking experience?
Probes: What made it go particularly well?
Where were you? What was the Class of river?
Who was with you? Right people/wrong people
What is the usual number in your group?
How do you choose your kayaking Mends?
How is the group organized? Leaders/ followers?
What are the characteristics of the leaders?
Are there any differences in paddling with a group of women or a group
o f men?
What did you see as the risks involved?
How did you feel about these risks?
How did you handle the risks? equipment? skill/ knowledge?
How did you leam to handle the risks?
Can you describe your worst kayaking experience?
Probes: Who was with you?
What did you see as the risks involved?
How did you feel about these risks?
How did this experience differ from your best kayaking experience?
How has this experience affected your present kayaking behavior?
Was there a particular person or situation that you learned from?
Probes: Why was the learning so effective for you?
Has the source o f your learning changed over the time you have been kayaking?
How would you teach others?
What would you do if you saw another kayaker taking what you would consider
to be a stupid risk?
How does the natural environment affect your actions, the remoteness of the location, the level of
the water, the weather?
Probes: Has the areas of the rivers or location of the rivers you choose to paddle changed
since you first started?
Can you tell me about your equipment?
Probes: What do you take with you on an outing?
Why do you include these items?
How did you leam about the equipment?
How do you ensure that you have all your equipment with you?
What do other kayakers take with them?
Do you participate in other potentially high-risk sports? If so, has the experience gained in white
water kayaking influenced your behaviour in other sport or your daily life?
How has your experience in other high-risk sports influenced your kayaking behaviour?

APPENDIX C

159

Diagramming Stage - Interim step in analysis process.

Choosing the Experience
(Risk Decision Making)

Feelings

Social Environment

Fear
Exhilaration
Beliefs of Self Efficacy

Team Sport
Size of team
Kinds of people
Right people
Wrong people
Kayaker's Liability
Males / Females
Rules of Conduct
Team leadership
Team behaviours

Perception of Risk
Risk Tolerance

White Water Kayaking
(The Risk Experience)
Risks Involved

Risk Handling Behaviours
(Realizing a successful Experience)
Assessment;
• Environment
• Skills
• Equipment
Planning
Implementing the Plan

1
Process of Learning the
Risk Handling
Behaviours
Introduction to sport
Initial Experiences
Kayaking Course
Other sources of
Learning
• Other kayakers
• Experiential learning
• Books
• Videos
• Learning transferred
from other sports

160

APPENDIX D
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Bigger water: areas that are more difficult to paddle because of larger waves and greater volume
of water.
Eddy: the relatively calm spots found on the downstream sides of rocks, pilings, etc. Eddies are
sanctuaries for resting or scouting.
Eddy out: to leave the main current and enter an eddy.
Eskimo Rescue: a method of rescuing an upside down paddler with neither the rescuee nor the
rescurer coming out of their boat.
Hole: an area of recirculating water that can be difficult to get out of.
Reciprocator: another term for hole.
Strainer: a partially submerged tree with branches.
Sweeper: a tree that is either partially submerged or just above river surface.
Swimmer: a paddler who has come out of their boat while still in the water.
Technical water: difficult areas with a low volume o f water.
Turbining: a term used by the kayakers when they were caught in a hole.
V-shaped tongue: a clear path through a rapid, usually the deepest water.