Literature Review

Recognition is an important aspect of any burgeoning therapeutic outlet. Recognition in the contemporary culture creates an understanding of it as a process, an interest in pursuit of it and an uptake in prescription by traditional therapeutic outlets. By accessing and reviewing publishing’s on adventure therapy in higher education, child and youth care, and actual practice, we can create a road map to the standing and views of adventure therapy in contemporary North American culture. Three articles have been focused on in creation of this cultural understanding, An Environmental Scan of Adventure Therapy in Canada, Therapeutic Camping and Adventure Education in Child and Youth Care Literature, and The Use of Adventure Therapy Techniques by Clinical Social Workers: Implications for Practice and Training. Three defining concepts emerged from the articles and research in focus as the defining characteristics of adventure therapy today, the segmentation of adventure therapy, a lack of research and education about adventure therapy, and a growth of interest in adventure therapy as a concept. 

Adventure therapy as a concept is actually very old, with deep connections to spirituality and indigenous thought, “it is surprising more recognition is not given to the source of inspiration for many OA practices including traditional travel and living practices of First Peoples” (Harper, Pg. 75). Adventure therapy is also fairly widespread, both across North America and throughout other countries, with both the environmental scan and the scoping review finding works of adventure therapy produced globally. It is perhaps these two factors that have led to one of the largest downfalls in cultural competence of adventure therapy, there is too much segmentation and differentiating terminology. Each articles of focus defined their terms for adventure therapy as inclusion of many different terms for adventure therapy. 

“although authors have also referred to in the literature variously as ‘‘adventure-based counseling,’’ ‘‘adventure-based group therapy,’’ ‘‘adventure-based group interventions,’’ and ‘‘adventure-based group work’’” (Tucker, Pg. 334) 

“Adventure therapy is an ‘umbrella term’ capturing the confluence between OA and the practices of human service fields including social work, counseling, psychotherapy, health promotion and others” (Harper, Pg. 69) 

This incredibly diverse range of terms, all relating to each other directly or signifying slight differences in treatment or assessment criteria, have created confusion in the realm of cultural relevance as well as professional integrity, with two different works (Harper, Pg. 76), (Ritchie, Pg. 306), noting the specific array of information across many different disciplines creates a fundamental issue in congruent thought surrounding adventure therapy. 

“CATS final reports, which reflected a diminishing interest in formalizing a national body or network related to AT in Canada. Moreover, several comments in the reports offered reflections on the sociopolitical context in Canada, and the preference for provincial over national affiliations” (Ritchie, Pg. 314) 

Along with this very diverse range of terminology and practices around adventure therapy, there is also a push back to the creation of a governing body around adventure therapy, as quoted above, which Ritchie et. Al. attribute to the sociopolitical differences between the provinces. This difference in thought, difference in literature, and difference in legislation of outdoor practices across the provinces of Canada signal to a looming task of creating one, singular definition for adventure therapy or one school of thought of how best to implement adventure therapy in practices. 

A common trend identified in research is a lack of research itself. This is not to be confused with a lack of research overall, as said “A simple Google Scholar search for wilderness therapy produced 43,000+ hits and therapeutic camps produced 112,000+ hits at the time of writing.” (Harper, Pg. 75), however it is the focus of the research that is called into question, as Harper’s investigation led to only 63 included publications and Ritchie’s literary investigation led to only 113 articles fitting the criteria. Both researchers focused their reviews to terms in dealing with adventure therapy and adventure practices, between them commonly using keywords such as Nature, Nature-Counselling, Adventure, Wilderness, Therapeutic, Experiential. There was also a significant lack of Canadian research, noted by both authors who performed analysis on the literature. Such as Harper saying; 

“Of specific interest to this researcher, is the dearth of Canadian OA literature in CYC with only four publications meeting the criteria for inclusion. A similar history of program development and practice ideology exists in North America yet Canadian literature as research, conceptual/theoretical developments, or program descriptions is scarce” (Harper, Pg. 76) 

This focus around analyzing the history of adventure therapy in Canada stems from the authors own experiences and career within the realm of Canadian adventure therapy, and he is using this research paper as a way to urge readers to study and understand adventure therapy in terms of its Canadian development, in turn leading to more specialized and specific research for Canadian literature within adventure therapy. 

Secondary to this is the lack of formal education surrounding adventure therapy, Ritchie’s Environmental Scan found a total of 66 college or university programs related to the outdoors and health, however of these programs, only 13 directly related to adventure therapy, 10 programs with a single course, and 3 undergraduate programs that led to a specialization in adventure therapy. This was correlated by the findings of Tucker and Norton, amassing that only 6.6% of the people performing adventure therapy in their scope had formal training, yet 44% of those same practitioners identified an interest in formal education around adventure therapy. Both of the articles mentioned also encouraged an education push around adventure therapy in the summation of their work. 

“This will aid in the process of legitimizing and defining the field and help align with the existing credentialing and certifying bodies” (Ritchie, Pg. 316) 

“Specifically, exposure to a range of adventure activities for individual and group work, as well as training on how to adapt these activities to different populations, would improve both cultural and practice competency.” (Tucker, Pg. 341) 

Both authors held a belief in adventure therapy existing as a spectrum within the post-secondary education system, but for different reasons, Ritchie believed that the continued development of adventure therapy in a post-secondary nature would lead to a more direct and disciplined field, mentioning certifying bodies as quoted above, while Tucker Being a specialist in the social work field, saw it as more of an advancement or a specialization in social work programs, opting for professional development in a new technique at the educational stage of a prospective social workers career.  

In review, a final tenant that each article had in common with one another is their outlook on adventure therapy as a profession, each one touting it as a point of growth and interest in their own way; 

“It is argued that if adventure therapy is to continue as a credible profession, the ‘‘dual-trained practitioner’’ should be encouraged as the norm, not the exception” (Tucker, Pg. 340) 

“the dramatic increase in AT-related publications in the last 15 years suggests that scholarly interest in the field is increasing.” (Ritchie, Pg. 315) 

“While prominent voices in adventure therapy literature refer to the field as a developing stand-alone profession, others suggest the approach is too broad and diverse and should remain a collection of therapeutic approaches to be utilized across numerous professions.” (Harper, Pg. 69) 

These statements of interest and intrigue are corroborated by the numbers produced by the studies themselves, Ritchie showed a direct increase in the number of publications from 5 in 1995 to 1999, to 35 in 2005 to 2009, along with Tucker’s research, showing an increase in want of formal education on adventure therapy as well as a slight increase in college and university social work programs that include adventure therapy in the curriculum. “Currently, there are few educational opportunities in adventure therapy available for students, but several social work programs at the BSW and MSW level currently include specific curriculum on adventure therapy;” (Tucker, Pg. 340) 

Along with these slight increases in formal approaches to adventure therapy in education and research, there has been an interest in adventure education for job satisfaction, Harper directly included notes about the job satisfaction of employees, “The researchers found an overall high level of satisfaction for the nature of the work, but low levels of satisfaction for pay and benefits, and interestingly, a decreasing job satisfaction for field instructors after one year.” (Harper, Pg. 73) as well as a call to further research the retention of valued employees, an ongoing issue in residential adventure therapy “…examined high turnover rates of field instructors in wilderness therapy and found those who underestimated job stressors such as the demands of the therapeutic environment to have lower levels of job satisfaction.” (Harper, pg. 73) 

By examining and dissecting the namesake of adventure therapy from three different perspectives and from authors with three different interpretations of adventure therapy, we can create a diverse and accurate representation of what adventure therapy is in the contemporary North American culture, through the lenses of child and youth care, higher level education and current practice in social work. Three main points are found as the thread between these perspectives, the segmentation of adventure therapy throughout North America, a lack of research and educational avenues around adventure therapy, and a growth of interest in adventure therapy as a point of study and career development, as well as possible solutions and areas of growth to these intersecting points. 

 

References 

Harper N. J. (2017). Wilderness Therapy, Therapeutic Camping and Adventure Education in Child and Youth Care Literature. Children and Youth services Review, 83, 68-79. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.10.30 

Ritchie, S. Patrick, K. et. Al (2016) “An Environmental Scan on Adventure Therapy in Canada” Retrieved September 29th, 2018. Journal of Experiential Education. Vol. 39, Is. 3, Pg. 303-320. DOI: 10.1177/1053825916655443. 

Tucker A., Norton C. (2012). The use of adventure therapy techniques by clinical social workers: Implications for practice and training. Clinical Social Work Journal, 41, 333-343. doi:10.1007/s10615-012-0411-4