The Effect Of An Outdoor Recreation Program On Individuals .

participants’ family members?, and (3)How are staff who administer the programming influenced by their involvement in Common Ground?MethodResearch SettingCommon Ground is an organizationin the American Mountain West that isfocused on providing inclusive outdoorrecreation opportunities for youth andadults with disabilities. Participants inCommon Ground regularly engage inrecreational activities such as downhillskiing, kayaking, canoeing, snowshoeing, hiking, rock climbing, and camping.The organization provides adapted equipment and support, which enables individuals with disabilities to participate in outdoor recreation alongside their peers. Inaddition to paid staff, Common Grounddraws upon volunteers, several of whomare recruited from a local university, toassist with programming. The primaryaim of Common Ground is to provideopportunities that reduce stereotypes,raise awareness, and empower individuals with disabilities to realize their fullpotential. Participants are encouraged toinvite their friends and family memberswithout disabilities to become involved inprogram activities alongside them. Individuals are invited to attend as many or asfew program activities as they desire, andthe program serves over 2,400 individuals with disabilities annually.ParticipantsSubsequent to approval by an institutional review board, purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants.This strategy was employed in an effortto sample participants who could provide varied and detailed insights into theways Common Ground affects participants and family members while main158taining a manageable sample size for indepth qualitative analysis (Bruce, 2007).Participants, their family members, andprogram staff at Common Ground wererecruited for participation to triangulateour understanding of the effect of Common Ground by gaining insights fromthe perspectives of multiple stakeholders(Patton, 2015).Seventeen individuals (10 males and7 females) agreed to participate. FiveCommon Ground participants (threemales, two females), aged 24–35 (M 30.0) years consented. They reportedhaving been diagnosed with the following congenital or acquired disabilities:spina bifida, traumatic brain injury, autism spectrum disorder, and scleroderma(i.e., the hardening of connective tissue).Participants reported having been involved with Common Ground betweensix months and 10 years (M 6.1 years).Four family members related to theseparticipants (two mothers, one father,and one wife), aged 23–68 (M 51.8)years, also took part in the research. Finally, eight program staff (six males andtwo females), aged 23–64 (M 34.3)years, participated, and reported havingworked at Common Ground between twomonths and eight years (M 3.1 years).The primary roles of these individualsranged from fundraising and staff oversight, to event coordination and daily activity planning.Research Design andData SourcesThe present study was designed using a case study methodology to evaluate Common Ground. This approachwas selected because case studies allowresearchers to “gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and its meaning for those involved” (Merriam, 1988,xii). In employing descriptive case studymethods (Yin, 2003), we were able to exOutdoor Recreation

plore and describe the experiences of theparticipants, staff, and parents, as well asthe meaning they assigned to and derivedfrom their involvement (Stake, 2008). Itshould be noted that, as a research group,we have both insider and outsider understanding of the Common Groundprogram. One author was an insider; shehad volunteered at Common Ground andbuilt rapport with participants and staff.While this insider understanding canhelp researchers gain access to the innerworkings of an organization (Marshall &Rossman, 1989), being too close to theparticipants and setting can also introduce biases. We were, therefore, intentional about balancing this insider perspective with the outsider perspectives ofthe other authors throughout the collection and analysis of data.Data were collected in focus groupsettings to document the nature andbreadth of stakeholder experiences. Focus groups were chosen to allow participants to stimulate, build upon, and queryone another’s ideas through discussion(Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2005). Separate focus groups were conducted withgroups of participants, family members,and program staff. All focus groups wereguided by semi-structured interviewguides (Patton, 2015) that began with thequestions, “What has Common Groundmeant to you as individuals?,” “What hasCommon Ground meant to your families?,” and “What has Common Groundmeant to you as a staff member or volunteer?”Following this opening discussion, aset of main questions was used to discernindividuals’ perceptions of how CommonGround affected participants and familymembers (e.g., “Has your participation inCommon Ground influenced any of yourfamily relationships?”). This portion ofthe discussion lasted about 60 minutesfor the participants and family members,Dorsch, Richards, Swain, and Maxeyand about 80 minutes for the programstaff. Throughout the focus group discussions, probes were used to further assessthe effect of Common Ground. This semistructured format allowed participantsto build upon one another’s thoughtsand opinions by directly questioning oneanother, sharing personal anecdotes, orexplicitly agreeing or disagreeing withpoints (Patton, 2015). Following eachfocus group, the moderator performed aconversation summary (i.e., a brief synopsis of the main points offered by studyparticipants). This strategy has been outlined by Krueger (1998) as providing participants an opportunity to extend and/or clarify their previous responses whiletogether as a group. In many cases, individuals recalled personal anecdotes oropinions and amended or adjusted previous remarks, thereby enhancing both thedetail and the trustworthiness of the data.Data Analysis and TrustworthinessFocus groups were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Followingtranscription, two researchers analyzeddata using a combination of inductiveanalysis and the constant comparativemethod (Patton, 2015). The analysis process began with each researcher independently using open and axial codingmethods. Open coding (i.e., the processof identifying themes in the data; Corbin,& Strauss, 2008) was implemented toinductively identify key themes in eachfocus group transcript. Axial codingfollowed open coding as the researchers developed the emergent themes intocoherent coding categories. The codingcategories were then developed into a codebook (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).Once each researcher had constructed a codebook, they used these codebooksto separately code all of the data from thefocus group interviews. This process embraced the constant comparative method159

as changes were made to the codebookin order to accommodate data that challenged or extended each category (Patton, 2015). After the data had been coded, the researchers individually reviewedtheir own codebooks and structured thecoding categories into first- and secondorder themes in order to communicatethe participants’ perspectives on experiences in the Common Ground program.At this point, the researchers comparedthematic structures. It was found thatthere were many similarities between thetwo independent structures and, following some discussion and negotiation, theresearchers came to consensus agreementon a final set of themes and subthemesthat informed the results of this study.In the present study, trustworthiness was addressed through data triangulation, researcher triangulation, andan audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2015). Data triangulation involvedinterviewing different stakeholders (i.e.,participants, family members, and program staff) about the same phenomenonand comparing and integrating theirperspectives. Researcher triangulationinvolved having different analysts codethe data across the two phases of analysis,and then comparing the resultant codingstructures to arrive at a final interpretation and representation. Finally, an audittrail was maintained throughout the research process by cataloging the progressmade by researchers as the data wereanalyzed. This helped to promote transparency and allow for communicationamong researchers.ResultsThe results of this study indicate thatparticipants, family members, and staffof the Common Ground program generally enjoyed their interactions and foundtheir involvement to be a positive fix160ture in their lives. Themes derived fromqualitative data analysis indicated that 1)participants perceived some social barriers to participating in physical activity;2) however, through the enactment ofits mission, Common Ground provideda way for individuals with disabilities toovercome those barriers; and 3) participants perceived intra- and interpersonalbenefits to program participation. Thesethemes and associated subthemes arepresented in the following sections, andare depicted graphically in Figure 1. Asthemes are introduced, we include quotations from the dataset. Pseudonyms areused for participants, and the role of thespeaker is acknowledged.Social Barriers to Participation inPhysical ActivityFor a variety of reasons, individualswith disabilities often experience “invisible barriers” to successful integrationinto society in a way that allows them toparticipate in the same activities as theirpeers without disabilities (Wong, Chan,DaSilva-Cardoso, Lam, & Miller, 2004).Participants, family members, and program staff recognized that there weresome barriers that limited individualswith disabilities access to and involvement in physical activity programs.Program participants, such as Emily, expressed insecurities related to theirdisability, which inhibited their comfortwith becoming active. She explained that,because of her disability, “I struggle withdepression, and for years before that Ijust existed, really. I didn’t go anywhereI didn’t do anything my family couldn’thelp me because I didn’t want the help.”She indicated that becoming involvedwith able-bodied peers was “devastating,” and mentioned that “having to sitat the bottom of the hill just to wait forthem to come back it was actually ratherupsetting. It got to my self-esteem.” EddieOutdoor Recreation

Social Barriers to Participation in Physical ActivityInhibited Self-Esteem and ConfidencePerceived LimitationsFamily as a Barrier to ParticipationDeveloping a Culture to Contest BarriersEncourage a Sense of CommunityFeelings of Safety and BelongingSee the Person FirstRecognized the Person before the DisabilityMaking the Impossible, PossibleOvercoming Social BarriersPerceived Benefits of ParticipationIncreased Confidence and SkillBuilding Self-Efficacy and Self-EsteemEnhanced RelationshipsBonding with Individuals with and without DisabilitiesElevated Quality of LifeDeveloping Skills that Transfer Beyond the ics)and subthemes(italics)Figure 1.Themes1.(standardfont)and subthemesrelated to participant,family member,relatedparticipant,familyGround.member, and program staffand programstafftoperceptionsof Commonperceptions of Common Ground.Dorsch, Richards, Swain, and Maxey161

(participant) agreed and noted that frustrations related to trying to be active withhis peers, saying, “They forget [I am in awheelchair] and will get these crazy ideasto walk up the side of the mountains andI can’t do that.”Common Ground participants andstaff members also spoke about how having a disability created a hopeless mentality or destructive temperament, and howthis limited their motivation to seek outphysical activity opportunities. As Jeff(participant) shared, “Those who havedisabilities might think because they aredisabled they can’t go out and do thethings that others can do.” This sentimentwas echoed by Melanie (family member),who stated, “[My husband] was gettingto a point where he was really startingto lose confidence in his ability, I suppose as a man, and being a provider forour home.” Eliza (program staff) notedthat perceived barriers to activity created“fears and anxiety” that prevent somefrom becoming active. Finally, programstaff recognized that participants’ disabilities might limit their family’s idea ofwhat they are able to accomplish. Linda(staff member) recalled a young girl whowas visually impaired and whose “familywould go on ski trips and if she got to goshe would go and hang out in the lodge while they all went skiing because theydidn’t think she could do it.” Eliza (program staff) emphasized thatIt’s important to note that thebarriers aren’t just coming upfrom the participants; largely it’sfrom their family. I think sometimes the barrier is the family.Some participants never try anactivity because their familiesdon’t believe they can do it there are a lot of misconceptionsrelated to what is not possiblefor someone with a disability.162Developing a Culture to ContestBarriersUnderstanding that there were somebarriers that prevented individuals withdisabilities from participating in regularphysical activity, Common Ground soughtto create a climate in which participantsfelt welcome and safe, and that sets thestage for growth and development. Importantly, Common Ground empoweredindividuals to challenge stereotypes, raiseawareness, and realize their full potential.Subcategories that arose from the analysis of Common Ground’s culture and philosophy included (a) encourage a sense ofcommunity, (b) see the person first, and(c) making the impossible, possible.Encourage a sense of community.Integral to the way in which CommonGround approached working with individuals with disabilities was creating asense of community among all involvedin the program. This required the creation of an emotionally safe environmentin which individuals could interact withone another and build positive relationships. The positive nature of the CommonGround community led parents to view itas “a safe place” (Natalie) that gave theirchildren “a sense of belonging” (MaryBeth). Jeff (participant) talked about howCommon Ground was “another opportunity to make new friends who share thesame interests as you.” Others viewedCommon Ground as an opportunity to interact with people who had a wide varietyof abilities. Rick (staff member) discussedhow a participant with disabilities wasable to form a relationship with his son,who did not have disabilities, on a raftingtrip: “It was kind of cool because he was a9-year-old child it was cool to see himbond with my 9-year-old son and seeingthem have a great time on the river andexperience things.”Outdoor Recreation

Essential to building the type ofcommunity that participants and familymembers discussed was the enjoymentand enthusiasm for the program that wasshared by everyone involved. Eliza (program staff) explained, “to me, one of thebiggest things that impacts these peopleis joy and fun that’s one of the biggestthings we’re giving them.” Larry (participant) said his parents initially forcedhim to participate in a Common Groundevent, but “it was so incredibly much funthat I continued to come that’s why Icall it the ‘bomb-dot-com-mon-ground’because they are an explosion of fun foreveryone! Totally awesome!” For Sam(program staff), the fun he had kept himcoming back to volunteer. He recalled aparticular event for which he was transporting participants and had to pickthem up at 4:00 a.m.: “The garage opensup and Larry comes bursting out in hiswheelchair and he is just yipping and yallering.” He continued, “the excitement hehad and the gratitude he showed me thatmorning just really hit me how much[the program] really does mean.”See the person first. There has beena widespread movement in the culturethat surrounds individuals with disabilities and those who work with them toview the person first (Bickford, 2004). Byrecognizing the person first, the hope isthat society views individuals with disabilities for who they are rather thanfor their disability. The person-first philosophy was clearly articulated amongparticipants, family members, and program staff in discussing the culture ofCommon Ground. Cecil (program staff)emphasized the importance of “lookingpast disabilities.” He noted that this was“something that we say in our [staff] orientations, but it really rings true whenyou get involved [with the program].”Another staff member provided someDorsch, Richards, Swain, and Maxeyelaboration: “there is a distinct mindset inthis office It doesn’t matter who it is, everyone is on the same level. It’s part of themission [and] part of the way peoplehave been trained” (Sam, program staff).Jimmy (participant and programstaff) discussed the importance of theperson-first philosophy and how it feltwhen people stopped treating him as ifhe were “disabled.” He explained, “whenpeople with ability forget that we havedisabilities it’s because they stop seeingit it’s because they really grow to loveand respect us for who we are.” Natalie (family member) provided a parent’sperspective on Common Ground’s mission related to inclusivity and seeing theperson first. She explained that there areso many participants “who go on different trips and nobody looks at them likethey’ve got disabilities you don’t seeany difference, and that helps.” Rick (program staff) explained how the program“changed my attitude about people withdisabilities. When I first came I was kindof nervous and treated everyone with kidgloves [because] I didn’t want to offendthem [but] now I don’t treat them anydifferent [than individuals who do nothave disabilities].”Making the impossible, possible. Atan organizational level, Common Groundsought to develop community and focuson individuals first. This was evident ineach focus group, as interviewees described Common Ground as helping todevelop an inclusive culture throughwhich activities became possible. A largepart of this involved adapting activitiesto meet the individual needs of participants. Emily (participant) had spina bifida, which made some physical activitiesdifficult. She explained how CommonGround staff implemented adaptationsthat allowed her to enjoy “one of my favorite things, cycling they have the163

kind of bike that is like a wheelchair witha front on it that extends toward youwith the hand crank so that you can handcrank it.” Lenny (participant) explainedhow “every time I come to CommonGround it’s so amazing and I feel so free there are ways for everyone to do mostanything, but without Common Groundit’s impossible. With Common Ground I felt like I could do it.” Natalie (family member) discussed how the programallowed her daughter, Kathleen, who experienced cognitive and physical delays,to become more active. After serendipitously stumbling upon Common Ground“we started coming here right away andshe’s been to every park in the state. Sheloves downhill skiing, dog sledding, andcamping. I never thought she would gocamping. She goes camping all the time!(laughs).” Rick (program staff) confirmedthe way in which individuals with disabilities have the opportunity to do thingsthey may not have a chance to do without Common Ground: “We can’t get all ofthem to climb a mountain to the top andlet them see the sunrise, but we will getthem as close as we can and give themthose experiences.”Second, Common Ground directlychallenged social misconceptions relatedto individuals with disabilities participating in physical activity. For Eliza (program staff) a huge part of the programmission was “breaking down barriersand helping people get past their fearsand anxieties.” Linda (program staff) reinforced this sentiment, when recallinga girl who was blind in a family of avidskiers:Because she was blind, they didnot think she could participateon family ski trips After thegirl experienced some successand realized that she could learnto ski, she stated, ‘I can go on my164family vacations now, I can bepart of my family!’ it just hitme, that’s a whole life of barriersthat [Common Ground is] ableto overcome.Dean (family member), whose son Larry had been participating in CommonGround for nine years, remembered howthe program made his son feel as if hewas able to do the type of things that individuals without disabilities participatedin through the program: “I went on one[whitewater rafting] trip with him. Hewas really excited about going to do [thetype of activities] that everybody else did.”For Edie (program participant), CommonGround was “a fun way to get out and godo things. People say, ‘I don’t think youcan do that,’ but

Dorsch, Richards, Swain, and Maxey 157 distinguished from its environment and that both affects and is affected by that environment (Smith & Hamon, 2012). Feedback from the environment provides the system with a measurement of devia-tion from the system’s goals. The system’