Introduction

During the summer of 2021, after applying to lead a 13-day backcountry flatwater canoe trip for our university’s School of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, we were assigned to work together as trip leaders. Having recently defended his dissertation research on masculinity in outdoor adventure education, Jay approached Anna about the possibility of participating in a collaborative ethnographic research study about how gender might influence outdoor leaders’ experiences in the backcountry.

Jay Kennedy: [Biographical information for positioning of the journal entries] I am white, cis, heterosexual, able-bodied, and middle-class man benefitting from many privileges associated with these intersecting identities.

Anna Parker: I am a White, cis, heterosexual, able-bodied woman, who has also benefitted from privileges associated with these intersecting identities.

Our similar backgrounds, education, and other imbricated identities (e.g., White, cis, heterosexual, able-bodied) are well suited to a consideration of the topic of gender as it is one of few aspects on which our positionalities may differ. Further, our common identity markers make us representative of the demographics of the Canadian outdoor adventure education field as a whole (Warren et al., 2018). We recognize, however, that our perspectives may differ from some outdoor educators given our backgrounds and Euro-Canadian culture, as well as the nature of this specific expedition. We will endeavor to offer insights into the lived experiences of outdoor adventure education leaders, from our situated viewpoints, following the tradition of qualitative research methodologies (Ellis, 2004).

We apply Connell’s hegemonic masculinity theory as a guiding framework throughout our critical data analysis. Connell’s (2005) theory posited that not only does a hierarchy exist that maintains the domination of men over women, but that hierarchy also subjugates certain masculinities, or gendered performances by men, by valorizing an idealized and hegemonic form of masculinity. Men, then, attempt to portray as many of the valued characteristics as possible to optimize their status within the hierarchy. Connell (2005) noted that the valued norms included displays of, “toughness, physical and sexual prowess, aggressiveness, and the distancing of femininity” (p. 94). In later chapters, characteristics such as wit and (heterosexual) sexual prowess were also included in this list. Further, Connell (2005) later amended the theory to concede hegemonic norms were dynamic and were often amended to suit specific contexts.

Connell’s work has also been the subject of critiques and extensions. One example of an extension upon hegemonic masculinities theory is Bridges and Pascoe’s (2014) concept of hybrid masculinity. The hybrid masculinity theory posits that privileged men will often obfuscate hegemonic values beneath a façade of socially acceptable progressivism consistent with current contextual (e.g., local, regional, organizational) and group (e.g., class, race) mores, thereby maintaining the gender hierarchy (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014).

Connell’s (2005) theory has proved immensely popular, resulting in its wide application across multiple fields of study, including outdoor adventure education (OAE). In OAE men and women must adhere to a variety of masculinized subcultural norms. For example, the outdoor adventure education community often lionizes the figure of the rugged individualist (Warren, 2016), who is independent and risk-taking. More tangibly, Newbery (2003) asserted that physical strength is requisite to be acknowledged in outdoor adventure education. Similarly, technical skills, which are often gendered as masculine (Warren et al., 2019), gain one esteem in the field. Finally, despite resources in the industry (Martin et al., 2017) detailing a variety of leadership approaches, a directive leadership style and an assertive tone are most valued in practice (Gray, 2016; Newbery, 2004; Warren, 2016). However, women can face a double bind as outdoor leaders, as women who demonstrate too masculine a physique (Newbery, 2004; Russell et al., 2013) or forceful a leadership approach face ridicule and devaluation (Gray & Mitten, 2018; Newbery, 2004) from students and colleagues.

Much research has critically analyzed the influence of gender norms in the outdoor adventure education (OAE) field. However, extant research is limited in viewpoint, considering either men’s perceptions and actions through a male lens and leading to questions of blind spots (Kennedy, 2023), or women’s perceptions of their professional or recreational outdoor experiences and, often, men’s gendered actions (Avery, 2015; Botta & Fitzgerald, 2020; Gray et al., 2017, 2020; Howard & Goldenberg, 2020; Oakley et al., 2018). A few studies have studied gender effects on outdoor adventure education student outcomes and perceptions of a common backcountry experience. However, these studies have produced somewhat contradictory results, with Overholt and Ewert (2015) surmising students’ differential levels of resilience was influenced by gender socialization and a recent study by Blaine and Akhurst (2021) asserting that any differences were due to individual factors and that the role of gender in previous research had been overstated. No research that the authors could find in the English and French literature available to us directly compares men and women outdoor leaders’ experiences of a backcountry excursion. This study attempts to bridge this gap by engaging in collaborative autoethnographic research, using a man and woman outdoor leaders’ journal entries on an outdoor adventure education backcountry excursion as items for comparison and reflection.

Literature Review

Although overt sexism is on the decline (Offermann et al., 2013) in many work environments, women find themselves devalued or excluded by men through various subtle means (Karpowitz & Mendelberg, 2014). This is particularly true in masculinized sectors or work environments (Kang & Kaplan, 2019). One domain that is masculinized contextually (Humberstone, 2000; Kimmel, 1995) and demographically (Gray et al., 2017) is outdoor adventure education.

Within outdoor adventure education, women outdoor leaders have described derogatory experiences resulting from gendered performances and inequitable treatment from male co-leaders and students. Performances include competitiveness (Botta & Fitzgerald, 2020; Oakley et al., 2018), an individualist focus (Lugg, 1998), mansplaining or invalidation, the sexual objectification of women, (Botta & Fitzgerald, 2020; Howard & Goldenberg, 2020), dominance, entitlement, or exclusion of women (Howard & Goldenberg, 2020), creating a “boys’ club” (Allen-Craig et al., 2020, p. 126) within the work environment, and subtle verbal slights, such as microaggressions (Botta & Fitzgerald, 2020; Offermann et al., 2013). Men who perform such actions, according to some researchers, seem unaware that their behaviours could be viewed as biased or derogatory (Avery, 2015; Offermann et al., 2013) to their women colleagues, perhaps owing to male privilege and entitlement (Botta & Fitzgerald, 2020). Similarly, some students may be unaware that gendered language or biased actions are received as devaluing (Avery, 2015; Gray et al., 2020; Kennedy, 2022).

Jacobs (2018) found that men often do not perceive gender as a significant influence in their lives to the same extent that women do and are more likely to perceive the outdoors as a genderless environment. Although they may recognize overt sexist actions or statements, men seem less able to recognize more subtle gendered devaluation (Gray et al., 2020) and may unknowingly perpetuate it (Kennedy, 2022). However, some recent studies indicate that men are becoming more attentive to gender issues in the outdoors (Allen-Craig et al., 2020; Davies et al., 2019; Gray et al., 2020), including masculine norms and stereotypes (Kennedy, 2022), which may increase their ability to detect and avoid gendered language and actions.

Direct comparisons between men and women outdoor leaders’ perceptions of the same experiences are scarce in the literature. Understanding similarities and differences in perceptions of the same phenomena can facilitate understanding and elucidate the effects of gender norms on outdoor leaders’ practice. In doing so, the findings may highlight women’s feelings of devaluation and exclusion as well as increase men’s awareness of problematic and microaggressive behaviours. Alternatively, data could provide additional support for the increasing gender awareness in the field demonstrated by Davies et al. (2019) and Allen-Craig et al. (2020).

Our literature review and personal experience have led us to the following research question(s): How might a man and woman outdoor leaders’ perceptions of an outdoor adventure education backcountry excursion resemble or differ from one another? What might these perspectives indicate about perceptions of gender and acceptance of hegemonic gender norms in the outdoor adventure education field?

We explore these questions through a collaborative autoethnographic methodology by presenting a selection of journal entries that illustrate the day-to-day experiences of leaders on a backcountry outdoor adventure education excursion in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Moreover, we reflect on the meanings and patterns that exist in our entries and the differences between them, considering how situated perspectives and normative gender socialization may affect our respective interpretations. Finally, we engage in critical discussion of the texts to consider what can be learned through collaborative examinations informed by extant literature in the field, a practice recommended by Chang et al. (2016).

Methodology

Consistent with Ellis et al.’s (2004) interpretation of autoethnography, we endeavored to participate in research grounded in our personal experience of a backcountry, university-facilitated flatwater canoe trip and explore issues of social justice and identity in practical settings. In autoethnography, the sociocultural context within which the narrator experiences a given event or phenomenon is considered as well as how contextual norms act as lenses for the narrator’s perceptions of the same (Adams et al., 2014). Engaging in such a project, we eschewed any claims to objectivity, recognizing our viewpoints to be necessarily situated. The methodology was chosen specifically because it holds the potential to upend the predominant White, masculinist, middle/upper-class, able-bodied perspective pervasive in academic work, specifically more positivist and post-positivist approaches (Chang et al., 2016). Moreover, as Ellis et al. (2011) state, the narrative format and use of thick description make such research more personal and accessible, thereby opening its use to a broader spectrum of readers.

The interpretations presented here are not generalizable and are located in our own specific viewpoints. In autoethnography, the focus is rather on the self-reflexivity of the authors, which helps them to situate themselves, identify their assumptions, thereby increasing the validity of the conclusions (Pillow, 2003). In addition, generalizability in autoethnography is considered differently than other forms of research (Ellis et al., 2011) as the focus of the methodology is more on issues of practical application. The accessibility of a text to readers is a primary objective and the generalizability rests in how applicable or relatable the narratives and insights presented are to them and their lives (Ellis et al., 2011). Further, it is up to the reader to determine how well the researcher has critically considered and elucidated taken-for-granted processes or topics in their interpretation (Ellis & Bochner, 2000).

Chang et al. (2016) highlight an issue with autoethnography, which is its ability to examine the self. Autoethnography, as a method, limits both accountability and critical awareness of one’s assumptions (as one cannot examine that which one views as implicit or taken-for-granted) (Pillow, 2003), following Pillow’s (2003) notion of “uncomfortable reflexivity” (p. 188), that knowing oneself and one’s positionality and privilege is likely always partial. As a way to increase the diversity of critical perspectives focused on an author’s narrative, Chang et al. (2016) recommend the emerging research methodology of collaborative autoethnography. It provides the self-reflexive and personal aspect of autoethnography while providing a collective examination of perspectives, by two or more participant-researchers, that may illuminate narrators’ assumptions. An additional benefit of collaborative autoethnography is that it enabled power-sharing in the research process. Both researchers held a specific area of dominance within the research team: Jay as PhD and contract lecturer in the Faculty of Education (where Anna was a master’s student at the time of data collection) and Anna as a more experienced and skilled backcountry guide. By both authors becoming participants in the research through sharing and collaborative analysis of narratives, Chang et al. (2016) claim that this can upset any existing power dynamics, creating a more democratic research team. An example is Chapman and Sork (2001), in which power dynamics were muted between a professor and his graduate student.

Our study employed a concurrent collaborative autoethnographic method wherein both researchers participated in the same 13-day university-sponsored backcountry outdoor excursion, leading 5 adult male students. In total, there were 6 men and 1 woman present for the duration of the trip, creating an interesting gender dynamic. Both researcher-trip leaders recorded written narrative journals each day of the excursion, employing a self-observational model (Chang et al., 2016). Journals were composed separately, often in our respective (solo) tents in the morning or at night. Such a data collection method facilitated individualized narratives and our separate living arrangements also permitted time for individual reflection upon the days’ events, as recommended by Chang et al. (2016) to avoid conflation of information or perspectives. An additional method of data collection was also initially included in the research design. To add additional insights into the data, we prepared a questionnaire that was sent to students only once grades and evaluations for the excursion had been submitted, removing any implied pressure for them to participate. This was suggested by our institution’s REB as requesting face-to-face interviews, as noted by Chang et al. (2016), may have created undue pressure resulting in biased responses. However, the data from questionnaires does not appear as only one student responded, furnishing data too limited to be included in the study.

Following the trip, the two researchers scheduled regular times to meet to discuss the data and research process. In so doing, researchers alternated between group and solo work, permitting multiple perspectives to be brought to bear on the data, along with time for self-reflection and articulation of each researcher’s viewpoint on the journal texts, a benefit associated with collaborative autoethnography (Chang et al., 2016). Over several months, we engaged in an iterative process of initial data analysis and interpretation. We individually read our own journal and each other’s, recording our insights and initial codes. By engaging in this process, we could identify and compare areas of commonality and difference between our two narratives (Cruz et al., 2020) as well as our interpretations of the data. The juxtaposition of our codes on the same texts provided interesting insights into our viewpoints and supplied, “a scholarly space to hold up mirrors to each other in communal self-interrogation” (Chang et al., 2016, p. 26). Our initial method of coding took the form of what Chang et al. (2016) describe as micro-coding, line-by-line examination of the texts, without pre-existing codes identified from previous literature, making the coding more organic and specific to the data. From there, we took a more macro view to consider recurring topics, amending or amalgamating the initial codes as necessary. Later, we discussed categories and themes that could be derived from the initial coding, as described by Chang et al. (2016). We concurrently engaged in reflective meaning making and interpretation. As codes were being refined, journal texts were uploaded to Atlas.ti and codes allocated, to more efficiently view and organize the journal data.

As the two of us have worked as outdoor professionals, both authors are somewhat enmeshed in the structures and assumptions of OAE, maintaining an insider status (Acker, 2000). To combat possible blinkering due to familiarity with the culture, we used Enloe’s (2007) concept of “feminist curiosity”. Although typically focused on broader structures (e.g., militarism, colonialism), it can be applied to more quotidian activities. Enloe (2007) provides a series of questions to guide enquiry into such realms, such as: Are skills in the labour environment gendered? How does gender influence labour roles and social hierarchies? Enloe’s questions helped us as participant-researchers to consider how gender affected our recorded experiences and interactions.

In the subsequent sections, we present our journal entries in pairs (one Anna’s, one Jay’s) followed by a discussion. Due to the length of the journals, selective sharing of certain entries was necessary to provide snapshots of the topics considered. Journal entries were selected based on their ability, alone or as a date-specific pair, to illustrate specific themes identified in our interpretation. Brief discussions following the journal excerpts combine summaries of themes raised in the texts with personal reflections on the topics identified. We acknowledge that our text structure is somewhat divergent from typical autoethnographic articles, however, given its recent emergence, Chang et al. (2016) encourage experimentation with the collaborative autoethnographic method and its presentation. Finally, we recognize that our perspectives are partial and therefore we may fail to comment on points that some readers will notice, this is the nature of autoethnography (Chang et al., 2016) as situated in the experiences and viewpoints of the participant-researchers.

Journal entries

We begin by presenting the two journal entries of Day 3 of the trip. They both offer similar descriptions of the day’s events, though with different details highlighted through the juxtaposition of the two texts. As context for these entries, Anna and Jay were assigned as co-leaders of the flatwater canoe trip and had little interaction before the prep days other than corresponding about the possibility of performing the data collection and loosely defining our roles in the research project over email. The trip was a 13-day backcountry flatwater canoe trip in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. The participants were five fourth-year university students, all male, in the School of Outdoor Recreation, Parks, and Tourism. In their studies the year previous, the students had taken a course in which they worked as a group to plan the route, necessary gear, and food for the expedition. The students only met their trip leaders (Jay and Anna) days before embarking on the expedition. The roles of the trip leaders were to safely guide the group through the students’ pre-planned objectives on the trip, while also encouraging an increasing level of ownership and leadership from the students as the trip progressed. In presenting the journal excerpts, the text has been preserved as written to maintain fidelity to the authors’ voices and communication styles. Therefore, some grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors remain.

Day 3 Journal (Anna)

Today was great. Got to paddle with a student who opened up and had a great conversation about politics, the climate crisis, and the Black Lives Matter movement. One on one the students seem like very thoughtful and respectful young men. I’m noticing that as a group, a lot of discourse has been around “pushing” and “getting through” and “toughing it out”. Tried to address this a few times by encouraging stops, slowing the pace down, and outright mentioning it in the debrief. Noticed on portages today that individual students were getting visibly tired and shaky when loading/unloading. Culminated in 2 injuries even though I continually reminded students to slow down and take the time to watch their step. I have a feeling because they are not yet comfortable enough with each other to not worry what each other think - that they all feel they have to push and suffer in order to be valuable to the group. This feels like a very male way of thinking.

Anna expressed her enjoyment of one-on-one conversation with a student in their canoe. She mentions with concern the “pushing” and “toughing it out” narrative that seems pervasive in the students and her attempts to encourage a more reasonable and group-appropriate pace. She notes how this narrative is harmful by its ability to push students past their physical limits, resulting in injuries. Anna notices the dynamics of the group and explicitly mentions that students seem to be jostling for status within the group and notes the gendered nature of the status being sought.

Day 3 Journal (Jay)

The day began as we were woken early by thunder and lightning at about 6:00 a.m. Anna got out of her tent and moved a food bag so that it was under the tarp and I got up to see if anything else needed to be done, especially as the lightning-thunder interval was approaching 15 s. We both went back to bed until just after 7:00 a.m., when we got up to start prepping coffee. The students got up quickly and had a conversation about television programs over a breakfast of leftovers (ham & cheese toasted on bread) and/or oatmeal.

We got off the site 35 min. earlier than the day before and paddled quickly to the first portage. Student 2, the student in my boat, and I moved quickly. We unloaded our boat and got it across the portage. It felt good to move quickly as the trip has, so far, not been as physically demanding as I had anticipated. We did the same on every portage for the rest of the day. I later felt bad about this as we should have worked to support the other students at the start of the portages. I rationalized it to myself that I was helping students to load canoes at the end (I only sometimes did this).

On portage #2 Student 1 slowly stepped into the water and got wet (again). Everyone laughed and so did he. Student 3 slipped at the end of the portage when putting down his canoe and hurt his ankle. He sat down and Anna offered to bandage (tensor) it for him. Student 3 seemed upset that he had hurt himself.

On portage #3, Student 4 hurt his back (minor) pulling a barrel out of a canoe. Also, just after talking about “A Star is Born”, Student 1 again tried to step into the water and went chest-deep. Anna was in hysterics because he stated something about it looking shallow just before stepping out. I sang a heartfelt rendition of part of the chorus of “Shallow” from “A Star is Born”.

We had lunch at the end of portage #4 (which students erroneously believed to be our last due to their method of marking maps). During lunch, a student (Student 1) was talking about a sports star (Harding?) getting thrown out of Houston strip clubs. I didn’t hear his next comment but Anna replied that she didn’t think the comment was funny. Having not heard the comment, I did not weigh in.

Lunch time also began a period wherein Student 1 or Student 2 would say something and Anna would (correctly) correct them. They started calling her “Google” for a brief time. This later changed to “Siri” at the campsite.

We searched for a campsite for a while having landed at one marked on our maps and knowing one or two others were nearby. One had people on it, we could not find the other and returned to the first one.

Note

I felt bad today as we arrived at what, to me, was clearly the portage (#2). I asked the students if they thought that was it. They said there was no flagging tape. I said that portages are sometimes marked in the park with a blaze on a tree (one was present). They still did not think it was the portage. I saw that there were two swifts ahead but lots of room to look at the shore and decide if a portage was present. I let the students pass by the portage, look beyond and turn around. On arrival, Anna told them to always check first if there might be a portage. I let them fail that portage identification as a lesson and they were admonished for it. I didn’t say anything to Anna but will try to bring it up with her tomorrow.

Jay’s descriptions focused on individual contributions and mention the speed and economy of the group, the desire for which was a regular focus in his journal. Jay’s entry seems to revel in the physical nature of the day and, in fact, ignores or is oblivious to the signs of fatigue that Anna described. Anna’s recording of the day’s events considers the motivation of the group and the narrative on display in debriefs, which she addresses. It also provides an account of the use of misogynist language which was not recognized by Jay until Anna raised the issue. Though Jay has not recorded anything about openly espousing an objective-focus and desire to move quickly, Jay’s enjoyment of the physicality and focus on time may tacitly influence the group and their “pushing” narrative. Jay’s account describes him teasingly singing a song after a student’s unfortunate second slip into the water. Jay also doesn’t hear, or is unaware of, inappropriate student conversations, leaving Anna to intervene. Further, two students good-naturedly tease Anna for her knowledge and correcting their erroneous statements. Finally, Jay described an incident that clearly demonstrates that his risk tolerance is higher than Anna’s and let that interaction pass without addressing it with her.

Day 9 Journal (Anna)

Woke up an hour earlier today to beat the winds on Whitewater. Ended up having smooth waters and sun for most of the day and pushed fairly far. Definitely a sense of accomplishment for having a big paddling day - even though it was challenging for some group members even despite the good weather. In debrief I think many students fell back into celebrating the push, then catching themselves. I definitely understand the sense of accomplishment after a long paddle but I still think it’s interesting that this group still discusses the need to “push” and “buckle down” and “put their heads down and get to work” when the days planned are short and I don’t think the group would enjoy a harder trip at all.

Anna’s brief entry indicates the pleasure the students took in paddling a long distance. She also acknowledged the challenge experienced by some members of the group on such a long paddling day. She mentioned the persistence of the “pushing” narrative in the debrief but also indicated the students were now aware of it and working to combat or critically consider it.

Day 9 Journal (Jay)

We got an early start to today as the anticipated significant winds on Whitewater Lk. We awoke to a dense mist on the lake and blue skies. As we prepared breakfast and packed up the site the mist lifted. It had a good amount of time to do so because the students did not seem motivated, despite my “Tiny Dancer” wake up.

Once on the water we kept up a consistent pace. Anna and I were in the 3-person canoe with Student 1. We joked for some time about Student 1’s statement upon opening the tent that he would “kill a man to be home right now” as juxtaposed with his statement in his check-in with us that he was (surprisingly - to him) having a good time.

Spirits were largely high throughout the morning as the paddle went quickly and the sun shone. Student 2, again, refused to wear sunscreen. I do not know why. At lunch, Student 2 and Student 1’s usual banter (of trading friendly insults) continued but Student 2 was tasked with making tuna salad, a meal suggested by Anna during our packing check. Student 2 (and this has been a pattern across the trip) good naturedly made teasing/taunting comments to Anna about how she forced him into making the meal.

After lunch, the paddle continued well. We stopped to assess one site then, deciding the first wasn’t spacious enough, tried to find the next one on the map. After some confusion (we saw a site on the opposite side of the lake to what we had marked on the map and couldn’t find one where it was marked), the group decided to push on the 4 kms to the final marked campsite before the next portage (onto Grayson Lk.). On the paddle we had to use lines to get up a swift, which Anna facilitated.

When we arrived at the site, we were prepared for the worst, but it is glorious! At the fire pit we found a birchbark basket with feathers, rounds of wood, a shell, and some tobacco. Also, the tent sites and wood were plentiful. I fetched some wood and a center pole for the tarp and Anna put up the tarp and rearranged the barrels.

We had Kraft Dinner for dinner and Anna and Student 1 were not impressed. We spoke to Student 4 before his debrief because he wanted to run the question by us. Initially, he wanted to focus on “soft skills” even though he didn’t know what those were. His use of the now out-of-fashion terms was very interesting to me. However, we finished the debrief and did some other clean up (e.g., burning the brown bag) and then Anna announced she was going to bed. The students said goodnight but then announced it was just “the boys” left up. I left shortly thereafter.

Note

The next day, Anna talked with me while the students searched for a portage and said the guys waited for us to go to bed and started into vivid masturbation stories. She posited that such stories are a gendered (masculine) phenomenon. I agreed.

Jay’s entry is comparatively long. He highlights individual roles, rather than focusing on the wellbeing or dynamics of the group. He mentions a student who refused to use sunscreen. This refusal resulted in a significant sunburn that required Jay and Anna to insist he turn his hat around to protect the burned area on subsequent days. Although an extreme example, this instance was demonstrative of a general lack of self-care and ongoing risk-taking from the students. The entry highlights the banter between two students and how teasing was directed at Anna. One event of lining up a small rapid, seems to demonstrate an individual attribution rather than considering the group as a whole. The same is true of Jay’s descriptions of activities on the campsite. It is worth noting that he takes the more physical job of collecting wood while Anna organizes the food. Jay notes a student’s use of gendered outdoor adventure education terminology. He further describes a scene wherein “the boys” is used collectively to include him and exclude Anna. The sexualized stories that occurred after the instructors had gone to bed was interesting both for its discussion between the researchers but also in its absence from Anna’s journal, as if it was so mundane and expected as to be unworthy of mention.

Discussion

Sharing and comparing journal entries produced new and interesting insights both about what each researcher chose to share but also about omitted events. Through the discussion process, and using Enloe’s (2007) feminist curiosity, self-reflexive insights were gained, revealing adherence to certain gender norms despite conscious awareness of them. Jay’s performance of stereotypical and hegemonic masculine norms is particularly interesting considering his academic work to critically engage with and highlight the enactment of these norms in the outdoor adventure education field.

Given the composition of the group (6 cis men, 1 cis woman), masculine norms of physicality and “toughing it out” were expressed throughout the experience. This is not surprising as the outdoors and “wilderness” environments, in which the trip was situated, are popularly considered a masculine environment due to its associations with the frontiersman trope and rugged individualism (Humberstone, 2000; Kimmel, 1995), as well as outdoor physically focused labour and embodied masculine identity (Loomis, 2017). Moreover, although outdoor adventure education as a field often professes to promote equity (Martin et al., 2017), a gendered hierarchy exists as masculinized norms are valorized in the hidden curriculum of the field (Warren et al., 2018), such as valuing physical strength (Avery, 2015; Newbery, 2003), technical skills (Hickman & Stokes, 2016), and a persisting narrative of personal development through overcoming challenge (read: toughing it out) (Lugg, 1998). Such contextually informed hegemonic masculine norms (Connell, 2005) are often attributed to the militarist origins of outdoor adventure education, as well as the recognized men-heavy demographic of the field (Gray et al., 2017).

Jay’s highly individual focus (e.g., repeatedly noting leaders’ roles and tasks each day) and Anna’s consistent consideration of the group’s mood and efforts to elevate it with games and activities may demonstrate performance of gendered norms. As noted above, individualism is a hegemonic masculine norm and, in this case, may be magnified by the norms described above in the outdoor adventure education subculture and by the current Western economic focus on competition, freedom of choice, and uniqueness (Connell, 2005). Neoliberal policies have affected educational institutions by limiting educators’ focus to objectives and devaluing caring and emotional support (Connell, 2009). Likewise, care work is stereotypically gendered as feminine both in broader society (Connell, 2005; Fine, 2010; Kimmel, 1995) and in outdoor adventure education (Warren et al., 2018). Further, it is noteworthy that Anna often avoided mention of her individual efforts. On multiple occasions, she attributed actions to “we” (the co-leaders) when, in fact, she largely led the actions and Jay assisted her. Such deflection of credit is a pervasive norm for women in the workplace, helping to avoid sanction for being perceived as too attention-seeking or as threatening men’s capacity (Fine, 2010). Such pervasive gender norms may affect Anna’s practice, if only subconsciously (for example, when Student 3 twisted his ankle and she offered to look at it). However, recent publications have placed a focus on care and relational work, indicating that such skills are foundational in outdoor adventure education (Ewert & Sibthorp, 2014; Hickman & Stokes, 2016) and require more attention. In fact, Overholt and Ewert (2015) asserted that well-developed communication and relational skills are hallmarks of more effective and resilient trip leaders. Therefore, Anna’s focus on group wellbeing may be less a factor of gender socialization and instead indicate her higher level of skill and development as an outdoor leader than Jay.

Jay’s habit of focusing on time, efficiency, and the objective may also be indicative of a stereotypically masculine norm of rationality (or the desire to be seen as possessing the same), per Connell (2005). Another obviously gendered norm demonstrated in the journal text was the “pushing” narrative that Anna worked to highlight and combat. Jay, while not openly espousing “pushing” certainly modeled a desire to be active and physical, consistent with dominant masculine norms of strength and toughness (Connell, 2005; Fine, 2010) reflected in outdoor adventure education culture (Newbery, 2003). In addition, Jay, and the students, demonstrated a significantly higher risk tolerance, consistent with masculine norms (Kahan et al., 2007). As noted above, Jay found it particularly shocking when reflecting on the journals after the trip to see how mired he remained in masculine norms despite his keen awareness of them. This may be due to a lack of reflexivity in the moment. Alternatively, it may be attributable to the challenge, demonstrated by Breunig and Rylander (2015), of translating intellectual awareness of gender norms into more practical settings. Likewise, it may have been a compensatory measure enacted to save face while acting as the subordinate trip leader on the excursion. Regardless, Jay seems to demonstrate a hybrid masculinity, as described by Bridges and Pascoe (2014), whereby a privileged White man presents a progressive front, but subtly supports hegemonic masculine gender hierarchy.

All-male (or male-heavy groups, in this case) tend to foster bravado and one-upmanship (Warren et al., 2018), and to overestimate their strength and skill (Musa et al., 2015), which may have been at play in the use of the “pushing” narrative. The environment on the trip could be described as homosocial (Flood, 2008), in that it was clear that certain students were performing (e.g., toughness, banter) for each other. As Anna noted, these performances seemed to be designed to help students find their place in the group and maintain status, consistent with Kimmel’s (1995) assertion that men perform masculinity for other men. Another example of the homosocial bonding was the comment of just “the boys” being left together after Anna went to bed on Day 9. The fact that this statement was followed by explicit sexual stories dovetails with Flood’s (2008) conception that sexual stories are currency and a method of both gaining status and closeness with other men and prioritizing the group by denigrating women. Jay and Anna’s acceptance of this phenomenon as a masculine idea seems to demonstrate a “boys will be boys” narrative, and acceptance of the practice.

The “banter”, or joking in a teasing manner, evident in the journal entries (not to mention Jay’s focus on reporting it more than Anna) is also demonstrative of a laddish, stereotypical masculinity that fosters camaraderie through a sort of verbal competition (Nicols, 2018). Jay engaged in this when singing the song from A Star is Born, indicating his recognition and tacit acceptance of it as a method of communication and communion. That banter included Anna (See: Day 9 Journal (Jay) could have been meant to include her as “one of the guys”, granting her andro-privilege (Barton & Mabry, 2018). In doing so, the students were perhaps setting her in contrast to denigrated spouses and other women seen as outside the group.

However, Anna was also primarily responsible for maintaining students’ decorum and appropriate language. In the strip-club anecdote (Day 3 Journal (Jay), Anna was forced to confront sexualized comments. Jay, at least initially, is unaware or does not “hear” the comments, potentially demonstrating Becker and Wright’s (2011) contention that men do not recognize gendered discrimination or downplay its significance. The lack of concern from Jay and the students seems isolating to Anna. However, the fact that the strip-club anecdote (Day 3 Journal (Jay) and the sexualized banter after she went to bed on Day 9 was not recorded in her journal perhaps indicates that such events are so common an occurrence as to not be seen as worth recording.

Conclusion

The collaborative autoethographic practice afforded comparison of, and critical discussion about, the journaled experience of two White, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied, middle-class co-leaders on an outdoor adventure education excursion, whose positionality differed only by gender and experience. In our discussion of the excursion and our journal recordings of it, we realized that many (mostly masculine) gender norms had affected both of our experiences of the trip. The experience and the attendant realizations (Chang et al., 2016) afforded by the collaborative reflexivity on the journal data created numerous opportunities to learn about ourselves and the deep influence gender norms exert in outdoor adventure education practice, often despite efforts to resist them.

Our collaborative autoethnographic process provided the unique opportunity to consider our lived experiences and actions from the perspective of another. The comparison of the researchers’ journal entries afforded insights into differing viewpoints and foci. In this specific context gender, masculinity more specifically, could be spotlighted, given the demographic constitution of the trip group.

One could argue that we were not critical enough or the opposite, that our discussions and interpretations of the journal entries were too heavily influenced by Connell’s (2005) theory of hegemonic masculinities. Ultimately, the process presented here was the product of our individual and combined viewpoints. Jay’s research on hegemonic masculinity clearly influenced the interpretation. Another critique could be leveled, asking why we would choose to support the gender binary by conceiving the research in this way. We acknowledge that the voices and experiences of the LGTBQ + community are under-reported in the outdoor education literature. However, our research is a product of our assignment to the same excursion and we took the chance we were given to record and compare our viewpoints. Our article is meant to highlight the pervasive nature of the gender binary and adherence to polarized gender norms. Awareness of our, often unconscious, performance of these norms may be helpful to our practice as outdoor educators. Having completed the manuscript, we are left with questions, such as: What happens now? How do we use the insights gained from this process? Perhaps continued self-reflexivity and continued collaborations are methods to question our assumptions and hold a mirror up to our assumptions and practices. Engaging in the comparative autoethnographic process was enlightening and we recommend the process to other outdoor professionals as a method of increasing the rigour and criticality of their own reflections on practice.

Another consideration that we must attend to is the ethics of implicating others in our narratives (Chang et al., 2016). In this case, the students are somewhat exposed in that we have detailed some of their attitudes and conversations in our journal entries. However, by providing the option to answer a questionnaire, we offered the students an anonymous venue to include their voice to our research and detail their experience. Further, all student names were anonymized. As the events took place in a backcountry environment and the two researchers were the only ones with access to the journals, we feel that these mechanisms provide a degree of anonymity. According to Chang et al. (2016), there are no established ethical guidelines for such processes in autoethnographic methods but we have endeavored to protect the privacy of all involved to the degree possible. Ellis (2007) notes that, “relational ethics requires researchers to act from our hearts and minds, to acknowledge our interpersonal bonds to others” (p. 4), we have attempted to do just that by recording these events faithfully, as witnessed through our own lenses. We do not shrink from the idea that these viewpoints are situated however, we have worked to demonstrate the gendered tensions that may exist in any outdoor adventure education experience.