Journal Article Critique: The Effectiveness of Metaphoric Facilitation Styles in Corporate Adventure Training (CAT) Programs

Back

Gass, M., & Priest, S. (2006). The Effectiveness of Metaphoric Facilitation Styles in Corporate Adventure Training (CAT) Programs. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(1), 78-94.

            I selected this article for two main reasons. First, I have been consistently impressed with the work of both Mike Gass and Simon Priest over the course of my studies. Their articles tend to contain valuable content, yet are written in a clear and easily understood style. Second, I appreciate the real-world applicability of this research topic. I enjoy reading articles that add to my knowledge of how to become a more effective outdoor education facilitator.

            The purpose of this article starts to become clear upon the first reading of the title. The focus of the article is both basic and applied research. The basic research side of the article is in examining the comparative effectiveness of various metaphor-based facilitation techniques. This helps to explain the “why” of how facilitated activities cause change. The application potential for this research comes in providing quantitative data for active practitioners about the effectiveness of the same techniques for a certain population.

The authors of this article provide a very strong and well thought out argument to support their conclusions. The authors begin the article with a clear description of the problem and the relevant terminology. They follow with a succinct description of existing research in related areas. They do often reference their own work, but there are also references to numerous other authors as well, including those with differing opinions.

Next, the methods of the study are explained clearly and in such a way that the study could be generally replicated. This study contains many of the hallmarks of good research; it uses a control group, pseudo-random selection to conditions, takes a baseline measure of the dependent variable, and provides a level of follow-up to help determine the length of the change created.

The instrument the authors chose to use is widely accepted and established as reliable and valid. The final touch the authors provide in the conclusion is reasonable speculation as to the reasons for and meanings of their results. The issue is not ignored completely, nor are the results blown out of proportion.

There is, however, room for improvement within this study. There are several omissions that would help to eliminate doubts about confounding variables. There is no information provided about the activities used during the program, so the exact study could not be replicated. Second, while it is mentioned that the same facilitators led each of the four groups, it is not mentioned who these facilitators were. If the authors of the study were also the facilitators, it is possible that their knowledge of the type of treatment they were administering confounded the results. A final concern is whether an experienced facilitator would perform better on a metaphor based program because that is what the facilitator is used to doing. The lower scores on the non-metaphor based programs could then be participants reflecting the discomfort of the facilitator in providing an unfamiliar program type.

The authors provide a useful discussion of applications within their conclusion section. They encourage practitioners to use metaphor in debriefing as a way to develop lasting client change in the area of teamwork. They call for additional research into the effectiveness of metaphoric methods for other populations and outcomes. They mention that metaphoric methods have now been shown to be useful for European, Australian, and American cultures, specifically university resident assistants, adolescent males, national women’s sport teams, substance abusers, and bank executives. The authors also mention again the importance of not generalizing the findings of this study too broadly.

Active outdoor education practitioners reading this article would do well to take the recommendations here into account in their programming. This study drives home the importance of facilitator experience and training. Being able to co-create metaphors with the group you are working with appears to be a very effective method for creating lasting change in the ability of that group to work as a team. This study ties in well with much of the other work of the authors and future research might look to see how different variables might interact to create effective programming. (See for example: Priest, S. (1998) The Effect of Program Setting and Duration on Corporate Team Development. Journal of Experiential Education, v21, (2) p111-12.) The widely read article by Simon Priest and Mike Gass on Six Generations of Facilitation Skills (In Adventure Programming (1999), Miles & Priest Eds.) should be revised to incorporate the information from this study. Another interesting article topic would be to consolidate prescriptive research into outdoor facilitation to list, in one place, the different factors that have been found to increase program effectiveness.