The Use of Adventure Therapy Techniques by Clinical Social Workers: Implications for Practice and Training Literature Review

Alex Easey (00615334)

IDIS 3000

Dr. Tracy Penny Light

Oct. 29th, 2018

 

This research paper is an analysis on the usage and comprehension of adventure therapy throughout clinical social work practice. This was managed by creating a survey around adventure therapy and sending it out to a randomized group of 2500 social workers registered with the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). The survey sent out was created with specific questions around adventure therapy, its uses, their experiences, and an overview of their clientele as well as themselves. Additionally, a list of adventure activities was created for them to select which activities they have done, this list was created in conjunction with the Association for Experiential Education (AEE) and their research on the most frequently used practices in adventure programming (See table 3). Of the 2500 surveys sent out, 42 were sent back as unlisted addresses, and 646 were sent back completed in full. This breadth of 1812 uncompleted surveys were accounted by the researchers as expected, as most practitioners with no connection to adventure therapy would not bother with the survey, justifying their results as remaining valid.

With any data collection stream, the survey has given an enormous amount of data to comb through, culminating in the following set as identified relevant to the current scope of research, the type of activities used with clients*3 as well as usage of adventure therapy*2, training and want of formal training in adventure therapy practices*1. In addition to these larger data points, one number is directly connected to this research, out of the 646 returned surveys, 227 or 35.1% has or currently does use adventure in clinical practice as a therapeutic intervention, and that of the random sampling size, 2500, 10% use adventure therapy in their clinical practice.

All of this raw data can lead to some distinct conclusions about adventure therapy as it is used in practice today, one such conclusion is the general uptake in adventure therapy proceedings and usage to social workers, with a larger number utilizing these techniques than a decade ago, and a larger number still interested in formal training around adventure therapy, 47.9% of those currently using adventure therapy, 39.8% of those who used to use adventure therapy, and 24.8% of the respondents who have never used adventure therapy before*1 (Tucker & Norton, Pg. 339).

The opposite side of this conclusion is the lack of adventure therapy training within the usage of it, of respondents who use or have used adventure therapy, 6.6% have had formal training and 17.9% have had any kind of training (Tucker & Norton, Pg. 339). This issue is one of the main points brought up by the authors from the very beginning of the research project, positing early on that adventure therapy is a specific tool to be used in the context of different therapeutic endeavors, and that lack of training in its use, but use nonetheless, could possibly create larger issues and do more harm, despite the good intentions of the practitioner. This idea carries on in the paper, citing the specific measurement tools, lesson plans and avenues created for someone to achieve their goals within adventure therapy.

Finally, the authors leave a call to action for the social work profession and training as a whole, going into specific details about the possible avenues for learning adventure therapy techniques as an individual, as well as calling for foresight on behalf of the current education system of social work, specifically citing the need for training in wake of the action already taking place by professionals in the field.

“Social work supervisors, trainers and BSW and MSW programs need to seek out more education on this modality of intervention, especially considering the current study found one in 10 of the respondents engaged in adventure therapy in their practice with little education and training” (Tucker & Norton, Pg. 341).

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

 

 

 

*1Training of Clinical Social workers in adventure therapy (formal/institutional & informal/self-led)

Currently using AT Currently using AT Used to use AT Used to use AT
n % n %
Total 119 100 108 100
Has had formal training 11 9.2 3 2.3
Has not had formal training 108 90.8 105 97.7
Would want formal training 57 47.9 43 39.8
Informal training 28 23.5 12 11.1

 

*2Average usage of adventure activities

Usage % of Practitioners
Daily 20.5
2-3 Times per week 9
Weekly 45
Occasionally 4.4
Annually 4.4

 

*3Table 3. Type of adventure activity used therapeutically with clients

Activity* Previous Use (n=108) Current Use (n=119)
n % n %
Multiple 88 81.5 70 58.8
Co-op games, problem solving challenges 41 38.0 58 48.7
Low/ High ropes, challenge courses 28 25.9 26 21.8
Hiking 24 22.2 18 15.1
Overnight camping at campground 19 17.6 13 10.9
Overnight camping in wilderness 10 9.3 7 5.9
Canoeing 14 13.0 8 6.7
Rock Climbing 11 10.2 10 8.4
Orienteering 4 3.7 8 6.7
Biking 2 1.9 5 4.2
Equine 2 1.9 4 3.4
Cross country skiing/snowshoeing 1 <1 5 4.2
Sailing 2 1.9 3 2.5
Caving 3 2.8 0 0
Fishing 1 <1 3 2.5

*participants can report using multiple activities; hence percent’s do not add up to 100 %

Note: Reprinted from The Use of Adventure Therapy Techniques by Clinical Social Workers: Implications for Practice and Training. (2012) Copyright Tucker, A., Norton, C. & Springer Science & Business Media, LLC