Understanding the Decision-Making Process of Individuals
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN A WHITEWATER CRITICAL INCIDENT OR ACCIDENT: A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY by MARCUS ROBERT DUSSLER III (Under the Direction of Corey W. Johnson) ABSTRACT This grounded theory study examined the decision-making process of individuals involved in a whitewater critical incident or accident. The decision-making literature in the outdoor adventure education texts is incomplete and under-theorized. It is assumed that the texts include pertinent information that will ultimately guide students’ professional practice. Theories, models and related discussion need to mirror how people make decisions in practice and serve as a tangible resource for aspiring outdoor leaders. Participants in this study were purposefully sampled with nine individuals ultimately participating in the study. These participants engaged in in-depth conversations regarding their critical incident or accident experiences in whitewater boating. Eight cases involved recreational whitewater kayaking with once case involving commercial rafting. Grounded theory coding and analysis yielded three conclusions: (a) decision-making in whitewater critical incidents and accidents is a process that involves six distinct steps – anticipating and assessing, awareness of problem(s), active information gathering, option weighing, decision, and evaluation; (b) personal and contextual factors including training and education, intuiting and instincts, time, group dynamics, ethics, mentorship and responsibility, inform and influence all six stages of the process of decision-making in whitewater critical incidents and accidents; (c) challenges and inconsistencies in the decision-making process imply that whitewater training and educational programs need to be amended. Theoretically, this research builds upon existing decision-making theories and advances the knowledge and literature base of the outdoor adventure education field. Practically, this research provides recommendations for improving whitewater training and education programs. Pedagogically, this research informs how I will proceed in discussing and teaching decision-making with my students. INDEX WORDS: decision-making, whitewater, outdoor education, adventure education, grounded theory, critical incident, accident UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN A WHITEWATER CRITICAL INCIDENT OR ACCIDENT: A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY by MARCUS ROBERT DUSSLER III B. A., St. Edward’s University, 1991 M. Ed., Georgia College & State University, 2002 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ATHENS, GEORGIA 2014 © 2014 Marcus Robert Dussler III All Rights Reserved UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN A WHITEWATER CRITICAL INCIDENT OR ACCIDENT: A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY by MARCUS ROBERT DUSSLER III Major Professor: Corey W. Johnson Committee: Kathleen P. deMarrais Douglas A. Kleiber Electronic Version Approved: Julie Coffield Interim Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2014 iv DEDICATION I dedicate this work to all of those who have lost their lives adventuring on whitewater rivers, and to the families and friends they leave behind. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank my wife Anna for tolerating, supporting and loving me during this most demanding process. I say thank you to my children, Gus and Tillie for waiting for me to get home. Thanks Mom and Dad for your emotional and financial support. Thank you G.W. Frazier for waking me up and to Sister Madeline Sophie Weber for believing in me. Thank you to all of my professors at The University of Georgia who pushed me and supported me in my education, namely my Committee Chair – Corey Johnson and the other members of my Committee – Kathleen deMarrais, and Doug Kleiber. I greatly appreciate the nine individuals who participated in this study. You gave your stories so freely and authentically. I hope that this study has appropriately honored your experience. Many thanks to Young Harris College for providing me with tuition assistance and scheduling flexibility in support of my pursuit of the doctorate. A big thank you to Brian Kumm – your humor and counsel were invaluable at the writing retreat. Thanks to Mike Elrod of the Young Harris College Library for helping me create the visual model of the theory in Photoshop. Thank you to the members of the Grateful Dead – Jerry Garcia, Mickey Hart, Bill Kreutzmann, Phil Lesh, Ron McKernan, and Bob Weir for writing and preforming “Dark Star” February 13th and 14th, 1970 at the Filmore East, New York – the music saw me through so many times on my way to and from Athens. Thanks to the Owl on top of the AT sign at Dicks Creek Gap that cold and snowy night – I was not alone. To my dear friend Joseph Pate – what more needs to be said – I wouldn’t have made it without you. Thank you all. And lastly, to The River – Roll On! vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................1 Problem Statement .......................................................................................8 Research Purpose .........................................................................................8 Significance of the Study .............................................................................9 Definitions..................................................................................................11 Researcher Role in Interview Process ........................................................15 Subjectivities Statement .............................................................................15 2 Literature Review .............................................................................................18 Optimal Experience ...................................................................................19 Critique of Adventure Education Texts .....................................................24 Adventure Education as a Profession ........................................................39 Adventure Education Research on Decision-Making ................................43 Nursing Research Related to Decision-Making .........................................46 Chapter Summary ......................................................................................47 3 Methodology ....................................................................................................48 vii Grounded Theory – Historical Developments and Clarifications ..............48 Epistemological and Theoretical Premise of Grounded Theory ................55 Conception of the Qualitative Interview ....................................................58 Ethical Considerations – Interviews Involving Sensitive Topics ..............60 Issues of Power and Gender in Interviews .................................................62 Reflexivity ..................................................................................................67 Sample Selection ........................................................................................68 Sample Size ................................................................................................71 Theoretical Saturation ................................................................................71 Data Collection ..........................................................................................73 Data Analysis .............................................................................................74 Memo Writing ............................................................................................76 Trustworthiness ..........................................................................................77 Limitations .................................................................................................80 4 Findings ...........................................................................................................82 The Participants .........................................................................................84 Overview of Process Categories ..............................................................115 Overview of Personal and Contextual Categories ...................................130 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................146 5 Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations ........................................149 Key Structures of the Study .....................................................................150 Summary of the Findings .........................................................................152 Conclusions ..............................................................................................153 viii Implications for Practice ..........................................................................153 Limitations ...............................................................................................162 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................166