Thesis (M.A. (Recreation Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2006.

The concept outdoor team building implies a set of consecutive learning experience activities that are mainly conducted in the outdoors with the aim of positively influencing the behaviour of the participant (McEvoy & Buller, 1997:209). According to Wagner et al. (1991:53) this form of team building mainly comprises of centre-based team building programs and wilderness-based team building programs. During CBTB the participants live and eat indoors while the participation in structured team building activities takes place outdoors. In contrast to this, the participants in wilderness-based team building live outdoors and take part in strenuous activities such as rock climbing, mountain climbing, orientation, camping, canoeing and sailing. In the corporate world there is currently a tendency to make use of CBTB to increase organizational effectiveness (Buller et al., 1991:58; Irvine & Wilson, 1994:25; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4; DuFrene et al., 1999:24; lngram & Desombre, 1999:16; Salas et al., 1999:309-310; WiIliams et al., 2003:45). Notwithstanding the increasing popularity of these programs, there exists much scepticism concerning the real value of CBTB (Gall, 1987:58; Wagner & Roland, 1992:61; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4). The aim of this study is to determine whether there is a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness. According to Borrie and Roggenbuck (2001:3) the most innovative and comprehensive results of the dynamic nature of outdoor team building programs have been found in the wilderness or a type of wilderness environment, Ewert en McAvoy (2000:15) are of the opinion that the participation in activities in the wilderness can have a significant impact on the individual as well as the group. The test subject is identified by means of an availability sample and is randomly divided ahead of time into a control group as well as two separate experimental groups who participated in the CBTB (Venterskroon, Vredefort Dome) and the wilderness expedition (Central Drakensberg). This study is executed in the form of a quantitative pre-test post-test design (Thomas & Nelson, 2001:321-322). To measure personal effectiveness use is made of the Review of Personal Effectiveness and Locus of Control (ROPELOC) with a Cronbach Alpha-value of between 0,79 and 0,93 (Richards et al., 2002:1-4). The instrument focuses on psychological and behavioural aspects that are key components of personal effectiveness (Richards et al., 2002:1). The ROPELOC consist of 45 questions and is made up of seven main components of which three consist of various underlying subcomponents. The difference can be determined with regard to the main components as well as the underlying subcomponents. For the measuring of group effectiveness use was made of an improved version of Herselman’s (1998:149) group effectiveness questionnaire. It was aimed with this questionnaire to determine the effect of CBTB and the wilderness expedition on group effectiveness, as well as which advantages, if any, it has for the individual. This questionnaire consists of open and closed items on group aspects as well as individual aspects, to determine the participants’ attitude with regard to certain variables before and after exposure to the CBTB and the wilderness expedition. The results of this study showed that both experimental groups (CBTB and wilderness expedition) brought about successful change. With reference to personal effectiveness the paired t-tests showed that the CBTB lead to more change with regard to the main components as well as the subcomponents than the wilderness expedition. This change took place with regard to personal ability and beliefs, organizational skills, overall effectiveness, self-efficacy, time management and the coping with change. With regard to group effectiveness the wilderness expedition lead to more change than the CBTB with reference to group cohesion, leadership development, attitude change, success experience, self-concept, self-confidence and dealing with criticism. To determine whether there was a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, use was made of a covariance analysis. The results of these tests showed that with regard to personal effectiveness there was only one practically significant intergroup difference, namely stress management, and that with regard to group effectiveness two significant intergroup differences were found, namely creativity and group moral. In all of these cases the CBTB exhibited better. On the basis of these results the assumption that CBTB is more effective than a wilderness expedition, for the improvement of personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, cannot be made. It is recommended that CBTB be given preference if the outcomes of the program is personal effectiveness and wilderness expedition be used to improve group effectiveness. / Thesis (M.A. (Recreation Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2006

The concept outdoor team building implies a set of consecutive learning experience activities that are mainly conducted in the outdoors with the aim of positively influencing the behaviour of the participant (McEvoy & Buller, 1997:209). According to Wagner et al. (1991:53) this form of team building mainly comprises of centre-based team building programs and wilderness-based team building programs. During CBTB the participants live and eat indoors while the participation in structured team building activities takes place outdoors. In contrast to this, the participants in wilderness-based team building live outdoors and take part in strenuous activities such as rock climbing, mountain climbing, orientation, camping, canoeing and sailing. In the corporate world there is currently a tendency to make use of CBTB to increase organizational effectiveness (Buller et al., 1991:58; Irvine & Wilson, 1994:25; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4; DuFrene et al., 1999:24; lngram & Desombre, 1999:16; Salas et al., 1999:309-310; WiIliams et al., 2003:45). Notwithstanding the increasing popularity of these programs, there exists much scepticism concerning the real value of CBTB (Gall, 1987:58; Wagner & Roland, 1992:61; Wagner & Campbell, 1994:4). The aim of this study is to determine whether there is a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness. According to Borrie and Roggenbuck (2001:3) the most innovative and comprehensive results of the dynamic nature of outdoor team building programs have been found in the wilderness or a type of wilderness environment, Ewert en McAvoy (2000:15) are of the opinion that the participation in activities in the wilderness can have a significant impact on the individual as well as the group. The test subject is identified by means of an availability sample and is randomly divided ahead of time into a control group as well as two separate experimental groups who participated in the CBTB (Venterskroon, Vredefort Dome) and the wilderness expedition (Central Drakensberg). This study is executed in the form of a quantitative pre-test post-test design (Thomas & Nelson, 2001:321-322). To measure personal effectiveness use is made of the Review of Personal Effectiveness and Locus of Control (ROPELOC) with a Cronbach Alpha-value of between 0,79 and 0,93 (Richards et al., 2002:1-4). The instrument focuses on psychological and behavioural aspects that are key components of personal effectiveness (Richards et al., 2002:1). The ROPELOC consist of 45 questions and is made up of seven main components of which three consist of various underlying subcomponents. The difference can be determined with regard to the main components as well as the underlying subcomponents. For the measuring of group effectiveness use was made of an improved version of Herselman’s (1998:149) group effectiveness questionnaire. It was aimed with this questionnaire to determine the effect of CBTB and the wilderness expedition on group effectiveness, as well as which advantages, if any, it has for the individual. This questionnaire consists of open and closed items on group aspects as well as individual aspects, to determine the participants’ attitude with regard to certain variables before and after exposure to the CBTB and the wilderness expedition. The results of this study showed that both experimental groups (CBTB and wilderness expedition) brought about successful change. With reference to personal effectiveness the paired t-tests showed that the CBTB lead to more change with regard to the main components as well as the subcomponents than the wilderness expedition. This change took place with regard to personal ability and beliefs, organizational skills, overall effectiveness, self-efficacy, time management and the coping with change. With regard to group effectiveness the wilderness expedition lead to more change than the CBTB with reference to group cohesion, leadership development, attitude change, success experience, self-concept, self-confidence and dealing with criticism. To determine whether there was a difference between a wilderness expedition and a CBTB with regard to personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, use was made of a covariance analysis. The results of these tests showed that with regard to personal effectiveness there was only one practically significant intergroup difference, namely stress management, and that with regard to group effectiveness two significant intergroup differences were found, namely creativity and group moral. In all of these cases the CBTB exhibited better. On the basis of these results the assumption that CBTB is more effective than a wilderness expedition, for the improvement of personal effectiveness and group effectiveness, cannot be made. It is recommended that CBTB be given preference if the outcomes of the program is personal effectiveness and wilderness expedition be used to improve group effectiveness. / Thesis (M.A. (Recreation Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2006

Le domaine du plein air est un champ traditionnellement masculin où les filles et les femmes éprouvent généralement des difficultés à être reconnues par leurs pairs et subissent plusieurs formes de discrimination. Cette faible reconnaissance, ainsi que la discrimination subie par plusieurs d’entre elles, ont des impacts négatifs sur leur participation, leur confiance en elle, leur sentiment d’appartenance, le développement de leurs habiletés techniques, et même, sur leur longévité professionnelle dans le domaine. Plusieurs activités de plein air se déroulent en contexte de groupe dans lesquels les inégalités de genre du domaine sont susceptibles d’émerger et de se reproduire. Ainsi, les groupes d’expédition sont des contextes privilégiés pour observer comment opèrent l’émergence et le fonctionnement des inégalités de genre dans le domaine du plein air. Ce projet de recherche doctorale vise à développer une meilleure compréhension des processus entourant la reconnaissance sociale dans les groupes d’expédition éducative, et ce, en portant une attention particulière au genre. Une étude de cas ethnographique comprenant de l’observation participante au cours d’une expédition de canotage de quatre semaines a été menée auprès d’un groupe d’étudiants (17 hommes et 7 femmes) engagés dans un programme de formation universitaire de premier cycle en intervention plein air. Un cadre conceptuel sociologique bourdieusien a été utilisé afin de rendre compte des différents processus pouvant influencer la reconnaissance sociale des membres d’un groupe d’expédition. Les concepts de champ, d’espèces de capital et d’habitus ont permis de mener trois analyses distinctes mais interreliées. La première étude est basée sur la signification et la valeur symbolique des tâches et des activités inhérentes à la conduite d’une expédition de canot et porte sur la division sexuée du travail en expédition. Cette étude montre comment le genre, les représentations du genre de même que la classe sociale interagissent pour orienter les stratégies d’amélioration ou de maintien de statut. La deuxième et la troisième mobilisent certains constats issus des travaux sur les hiérarchies de statut dans les groupes ayant des objectifs à atteindre. Plus précisément, la deuxième étude est basée sur le postulat selon lequel la perception de 6 compétence et les attentes de performance à l’égard d’une personne jouent des rôles déterminants dans les processus d’attribution de statut dans les groupes. L’analyse des données a permis d’identifier différentes stratégies consistant à laisser implicitement sous-entendre, dans ses actions ou ses discours, la possession d’une certaine expertise. Cette analyse a aussi permis de mettre en évidence comment les rapports sociaux de genre jouaient des rôles importants dans les processus de distinction liés à la compétence et comment les compétences de certaines femmes étaient parfois ignorées ou encore utilisées par d’autres participants pour apparaître plus compétents qu’elles. Enfin, la troisième analyse s’appuie principalement sur les concepts de capital social et de champ comme espace de luttes dans lequel les agents cherchent à influencer le mode de perception et d’appréciation légitime. Cette troisième analyse a permis d’identifier des stratégies consistant à gérer les relations et les interactions sociales avec autrui de façon à en tirer des avantages en termes d’amélioration ou de maintien de statut au sein d’un groupe. Cette étude a permis de montrer comment les rapports sociaux de genre et de classe interagissent et influencent les relations et les interactions sociales dans le groupe et donc, les processus de reconnaissance sociale. L’ensemble de ces analyses permet de mieux comprendre les logiques d’action et le fonctionnement, en contexte d’expédition, des inégalités fondées sur le genre et la classe sociale. Parallèlement, ces études ont aussi permis d’examiner certains enjeux relatifs à l’apprentissage et à la gestion des risques en contexte d’expédition éducative. À cet effet, des pistes d’intervention praxéologiques susceptibles de favoriser une dynamique de groupe plus inclusive et d’accroître le bien-être des participants, leur apprentissage et leur sécurité ont été proposées. / The outdoor field is a traditionally male-dominated field where girls and women generally have difficulty being recognized by their peers and suffer from many forms of discrimination. This low recognition, as well as the discrimination experienced by many of them, have negative impacts on their participation, confidence, sense of belonging, development of their technical skills, and even on their professional longevity in the field. Many outdoor activities occur in a group context where gender inequalities in the field are likely to emerge and recur. Thus, expedition groups are privileged contexts to observe how the emergence and functioning of gender inequalities in the outdoor field operate. This doctoral research project aims to develop a better understanding of the processes underlying social recognition in an educational expedition group, with particular attention to gender. An ethnographic case study involving participant observation during a four-week canoeing expedition was conducted with a group of students (N=24; 17 men and seven women) engaged in an outdoor adventure leadership undergraduate program at a university in Quebec (Canada). A Bourdieusien sociological conceptual framework was used to examine the different processes that could influence the social recognition of expedition group members. The concepts of field, forms of capital, and habitus offered powerful heuristic tools to conduct three distinct but interrelated analyses. The first study is based on the significance and symbolic value of the tasks and activities of a canoe expedition and focuses on the sexual division of labor. This study shows how gender, gender representations, and social class interact to guide the strategies used by the participants to maintain or uplift their social status as outdoor leaders. The second and third studies built on and seek to contribute to the research on status hierarchies in tasks-oriented groups. More specifically, the second study is based on the assumption that perception of competence and expectations of performance towards a person play decisive roles in the status allocation process in groups. Data analysis allowed us to identify various rationales underlying the strategies used by group members to convey an impression of competence in their actions or discourse. This analysis also highlighted how gender relations play essential roles in competence8 related processes of distinction and how the skills of some women are sometimes ignored or used by other participants to appear more competent than experienced women. Finally, the third analysis is mainly based on the concepts of social capital and field as a space of struggles in which agents seek to influence the legitimate principles of perception and appreciation in force in the group. In this third analysis, we identified six relational strategies that consist in managing social interactions and relations with other group members in order to improve or maintain one’s status within the group. This study showed how gender and class interact and influence relationships and social interactions in the group and, therefore, social recognition processes. Taken together, these analyses provide a better understanding of the logic of action and how inequalities based on gender and social class work in the context of expeditions. Moreover, these studies examined some issues related to learning, risk management, and inclusion in educational expeditions. To this end, practical recommendations have been proposed to foster a more inclusive group dynamic and increase participants' well-being, learning, and safety.