PORTABLE COMFORT ZONES

AUTHOR Jack Reed

Jack Reed is a Ph. D. candidate at The University of Edinburgh. His research explores mobile technologies and social media in residential outdoor education as well as contemporary formulations of society and culture as they are developed and sustained in postdigital space.

Outdoor Instructor Perceptions On Mobile Technologies And Portable

COMFORT ZONES

In the first part of this four-part series (see Horizons issue 99), I outlined why technology in the outdoors should not be the elephant in the room. Centering on the acknowledgement that young people are more connected than ever, how might the field of outdoor education critically engage and reflect on the place and use of mobile technologies and social media in practice? Part two of this series presents data which seeks to lay an empirical foundation to this question and draws on the first part of my PhD research where I interviewed twenty members of instructional staff from three Outward Bound Trust (here on referred to as “Outward Bound”) centres in the UK.

The research context

Beginning in October 2020, this PhD has been a collaborative project between The University of Edinburgh and Outward Bound. Funded by the Economic and Social Research Council with in-kind funding from Outward Bound, the explicit purpose of the research from the outset has been to explore the relationships between young people’s uses of mobile technologies and social media and how these influence experiences of residential outdoor education in the UK. Following orientation visits to Outward Bound centres in 2021, and my engagement with the present literature and senior members of staff at Outward Bound, three research questions were constructed.

Research questions

• How do instructional staff perceive mobile technologies and social media use by young people during residential experiences at Outward Bound?

• In what ways do the presence or non-presence of mobile technologies at Outward Bound affect how young people experience their residential outdoor education trip?

• What impact might online media and gaming have in shaping how young people engage with outdoor spaces and places when at Outward Bound?

Between January and May 2022, I interviewed 20 members of instructional staff at three Outward Bound centres in the UK. Seeking to answer research question one, I spent approximately one hour interviewing each member of staff to understand how mobile technologies are perceived in their practice. All instructors have been assigned pseudonyms and places of work are defined as “case one, case two, case three” to preserve participant anonymity.

Two key themes are described in this article from the instructor data and are presented as statements:

1. “Phone-free outdoor experiences are more impactful for young people in contemporary society”.

2. “Phones extend narratives of comfort and provide young people with a portable comfort zone”.

Theme one: Phone-free preferences in practice

Most instructors preferred their practice to be phone-free, often encouraged young people to leave their phones at the centre, and frequently hoped young people would not bring their phones to Outward Bound at all. For instance, Liam (case two) described how his practice is situated within “a little bit of a culture at Outward Bound of ‘no, it’s the good old outdoors, you go out with nothing’”. This speaks to the work of Strong (1) and their characterisation of the outdoors being a space to return to the “good life” and to escape from the fast-paced, fluid, nature of our technological societies.

Meanwhile, for Anne (case three) phone-free practice means “you’re showing them [young people] that they can exist without their phones”.

This was expanded upon by Helen (case one) who described phone-free time at Outward Bound as “that detox, and I think it’s really good for them (to not have their phones)” and continued to say that “for me, I just think, it’s [an Outward Bound programme] just a detox, get rid of it [phones]”. Staying in case one, Lauren extended on this, suggesting that social media use must be challenged in outdoor education as online interaction and engagement is not “real”. Through saying that social media “is not true, and it is not real, it is digital” and that phones provide “the distraction from connecting to the real world” (Lauren, case one) it became clear that these instructors viewed Outward Bound courses as spaces which challenge the dominance of technology in the lives of young people.

Alongside narratives of phone-free practice facilitating a detox for young people, and social media interaction being considered “fake”, Max (case two) argued that phone-free space in practice “can really help facilitate other powerful experiences that they [young people] might be missing, so things like solitude, time for self-reflection, moments of mindfulness”. With the absence of phones identified as an important factor which helps young people fully experience the power of outdoor education, Naomi (case three) described how the presence of a phone “distracts from being there, doesn’t it? … Just being there in the moment and appreciating rain and wind and weather”. Phones are therefore positioned as a primary distraction to the purposes of participating in residential outdoor education.

Elements of distraction came through as a significant reason as to why phones should be left behind when at Outward Bound which was reinforced by Charles (case three) when suggesting that “for us [Outward Bound] to truly deliver on our mission, then the phone does become a genuine disconnect to our outcomes”. This aligns with research findings from Outward Bound Canada (2) where awareness of and presence in nature were considered achievable so long as learners were taken “away from the normal distractions of everyday living” (p. 86). The data has demonstrated that the presence of mobile technologies on programme are perceived to distract from the fundamental purposes of residential outdoor education and that this provides a rationale for leaving phones behind.

Theme two: Contemporary constructions of a portable comfort zone

During my interview with Euan (case two), he alerted me to an extension to the well-versed concept of the comfort zone, a model which encourages learners to step beyond their comfort zone into their stretch zone to achieve maximum benefit in outdoor education (3). For Euan, “(Outward Bound) want them [young people] to do something different that gets them out of their comfort zone. And a phone is a portable comfort zone in a lot of ways”. However, for Ian (case two), the portable comfort zone (e.g., having access to a phone) meant young people can “just take two minutes just to check whatever the social media platform it is that they want to be on. They might feel like they’re a little bit home, a little bit with some friends, and have that company again that they’ve been missing, and that might help just give them that relief for a couple of minutes”. Phones were therefore considered important in offering young people a comfortable place to pause during challenging moments.

Charles (case three) agreed with the presence of a phone possibly helping young people to engage in activities when suggesting that “some people are so full up on their comfort cup just by being here, that just putting on a new pair of boots might be enough to tip them over the edge. So, when you say ‘you can’t have your phone anymore’, that might just be the bit that goes ‘well, I’m out of here’”. This acknowledgement is important for outdoor education researchers and practitioners who evaluate and employ the comfort zone model as it is now necessary to include the presence or non-presence of mobile technologies in these considerations.

Whilst instructors such as Ian (case two) and Charles (case three) acknowledge the importance of allowing young people access to their portable comfort zone to aid participation, other instructors took a different approach. For instance, Callum (case one) suggested that the presence of a portable comfort zone may inhibit a young person’s ability to fully immerse themselves in a course. “A big part of Outward Bound is encouraging people to stretch themselves out of their comfort zone. At that moment, when you’re feeling uncomfortable, scared, and unhappy, if you’ve got access to ring home with a mobile then you can go off with your phone” (Callum, case one). Although this narrative featured fewer times than portable comfort zones as vehicles to increase participation, it does demonstrate the other side of the portable comfort zone coin and perhaps offers a glimpse into an important conversation for residential outdoor education moving forward. Naomi (case three) reinforced the narrative that a portable comfort zone might be a reason to allow young people to have their phones when suggesting that a young person’s portable comfort zone is akin to “giving a baby a dummy and going ‘you’re fine. We don’t need to cry. You’ve got your dummy. And yet I’m going to ask you to stick through this other bit’” of a challenging activity.

Some instructors also extended beyond notions of portable comfort zones in activities themselves and looked holistically at the role a portable comfort zone might play in the residential setting. Louise (Case two) summarised these descriptions when suggesting that “a lot of (young) people would struggle to even come away if they couldn’t bring their phone with them”. The data indicates the ways in which instructors are intentionally considering the role of mobile technologies in their practice. Whilst the majority of instructors prefer young people to be phone-free, they also acknowledge the important, comfortable, familiarity a phone can offer a young person who may already be outside their comfort zone just by being away from the home environment.

Brief thoughts and reflections

The findings from instructor interviews presented here hold key insight for policymakers, researchers, and instructors. What has become apparent is that instructors are often very clear on their reasoning for including or excluding the mobile technologies of participants. When excluding mobile technologies, the rationale often centres on the culture of “no technology here” in outdoor and adventurous environments. Alongside this, narratives of Outward Bound programmes offering young people a space to “detox” from their always-connected lives are present and that phones distract from the core outcomes associated with residential outdoor education.

As colleagues and I wrote recently (4), the data presented here encourages those involved in taking learning outside to think critically about what role mobile technologies play in the development of learning objectives and outcomes. Alongside this, in relation to the portable comfort zone model described in this article for the first time, we must also consider the affordances mobile technologies can offer. For the instructors included in this study, the affordances provided by a young person having a mobile phone in their pocket centred on how this simple act may offer young people a comfortable space which may enhance their participation and learning in residential outdoor education.

Next time

Of course, with this being the 100th issue of Horizons, I hope the second of this four-part series offers pause for reflection. Across the 99 previous issues, we have seen profound changes in relation to the influential role technologies play throughout society and in young people’s lives. No doubt, the next 100 issues will give rise to yet more significant change which I am sure the outdoor education sector will be well-placed to address and respond to. In issue 101, I will present data which was generated during the second phase of this study which centres on young people’s experiences of mobile technologies and social media at Outward Bound. Here, I will discuss the roles of TikTok, Netflix, and Minecraft as I have seen these online spaces relate to young people’s perception and participation in residential outdoor education p

References

1. Strong, D. (1995). Crazy mountains: Learning from wilderness to weigh technology. New State University of New York Press.

2. Kirwin, M., Harper, N. J., Young, T., & Itzvan, I. (2019). Mindful adventures: A pilot study of the outward bound mindfulness program. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 22(1), 75-90.

3. Brown, M. (2008). Comfort zone: Model or metaphor?. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 12(1), 3-12.

4. van Kraalingen, I., Hills, D., Reed, J., Beames, S., & Munge, B. (2022). Digital technology and networked spaces in outdoor education: reflections upon presenting at an international webinar. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 1-14.

IMAGES