ERIC ED413130: The Current Status of Women's Employment in Outdoor Leadership.

12 Pages·1996·0.29 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
RC 021 214
ED 413 130
Loeffler, T. A.
AUTHOR
The Current Status of Women's Employment in Outdoor
TITLE
Leadership.
1996-00-00
PUB DATE
10p.; In: Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Research
NOTE
Symposium Proceedings (3rd, Bradford Woods, Indiana, January
12-14, 1996); see RC 021 207.
Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)
Research (143)
Reports
PUB TYPE
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Administrator Attitudes; *Adventure Education; *Employed
DESCRIPTORS
Women; *Employment Level; Employment Practices; Foreign
Countries; Organizational Climate; Outdoor Education; Salary
Wage Differentials; Sex Discrimination
*Outdoor Leadership
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
A common assumption in the outdoor field has been that
women's development as outdoor leaders has not kept pace with their
participation in outdoor adventure activities. A survey about women's
employment was mailed to 103 outdoor education programs with an adventure
component; 62 responded. The programs served 160,585 participants in 1994, of
which 41 percent were female. The programs employed 3,401 staff, of which 45
percent were female. However, women made up only 38 percent of executive
staff and 38 percent of governing board members. However, organizations that
specifically recruited women did not have higher percentages of women
employees. Organizations with an affirmative action hiring policy tended to
have higher percentages of women employees overall, but not in the executive
category. Among administrators responding to the survey, women had
significantly lower salaries than men, and this salary gap was not related to
educational level or experience. Female administrators were much more likely
than males to have felt discriminated against in the field of outdoor
leadership based on their gender. Contains 23 references.
(SV)
********************************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
*
********************************************************************************
107
THE CURRENT STATUS OF WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
IN OUTDOOR LEADERSHIP
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
ft
(193
received from the person or organization
originating it.
T. A. Loeffler
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
la Pic'
Assistant Professor
Points of view or opinions stated in this
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Memorial University
document do not necessarily represent
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
official OERI position or policy.
determine women's rep-
The study analyzed women's employment rates from 62 outdoor organizations to
under-represented in outdoor
resentation in the outdoor field. Statistical analysis revealed that women were
Additionally,
organizations at the executive and management levels using a proportionality standard.
discrimination occurrences than their male coun-
women reported lower salaries and higher gender-based
terparts.
KEYWORDS: Outdoor, employment, discrimination, women
1992; Mitten, 1985; Warren, 1985), few studies
Women are participating in outdoor adven-
have focused on women in outdoor leadership
numbers
ever-growing
activities
in
ture
1987; Page,
positions (Miranda & Yerkes,
(Miranda & Yerkes, 1982; Stringer, 1993). Si-
1986). Relatively little is known about the num-
multaneous with this surge in participation in
ber of women currently employed in outdoor
outdoor recreation has been a significant in-
leadership positions. One of the few statistics
offering
crease in the number of organizations
currently available in print is that 30% of the
outdoor adventure programs. Such organizations
National Outdoor Leadership School's instruc-
employ outdoor leaders to guide these outdoor
tional staff is women (Hampton, 1994).
experiences. A common assumption in the out-
door field has been that women's development
Several authors have recognized the need
their
as outdoor leaders has not kept pace with
for research about women and outdoor leader-
in outdoor adventure activities
ship (e.g., Miranda & Yerkes, 1982; Knapp,
participation
1994), and that
1993; Hampton,
1985; Warren, 1985). Knapp (1985) identified
(Absolon,
women are not very visible in leadership posi-
many potential "gender traps" in outdoor expe-
tions in outdoor adventure. This is illustrated in
riential education that needed to be examined
a statement by a female mountaineering student
(p. 16). These gender traps included discrimina-
at the National Outdoor Leadership School
tion in hiring, pay equity issues, outdoor skill
and leadership competency, traditional gender
(NOLS):
roles, and communication dynamics. He con-
As I've gotten involved in more technical
cluded that gender dynamics in outdoor pro-
and extensive outdoor adventures, I've seen
grams have not been investigated thoroughly.
the number of women leaders decrease
greatly. I think if I would have had a female
Miranda and Yerkes (1987) conducted one
instructor on my NOLS course, I would
of the only studies done exclusively on women
have felt as if I had someone I could relate
in outdoor leadership. In their study, entitled
to more in terms of a role model. (Hampton,
Women Outdoor Leaders Today, they surveyed
1994, p. 1)
200 women outdoor leaders in the United States
Though some writing and research has been
and received 130 responses. In the study's in-
done on women's participation in outdoor ad-
troduction, the researchers outlined their major
venture activities (e.g., Bean, 1988; Gal land,
assumption:
1980; Henderson & Bialeschki, 1986; Jordan,
T. A. Loeffler, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the School of Physical Education and Athletics, Memorial Univer-
sity of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, A1A 1C8, CANADA; [phone]; fax [phone];
[email protected]
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
108
LOEFFLER
their organization such as number and gender
Gender is a fundamental dynamic factor in
composition of staff, gender composition of
the career development and professional ad-
program participants, type of program, and em-
vancement of women. This is itself a con-
ployment policies. On the personal level, the
troversial question among outdoor leaders
program administrators were asked to answer
and is not fully tested in this survey. How-
ever, there are some indications that women
questions as individuals. The second part of the
share a belief that gender is either problem-
survey was developed by adapting an instrument
atic or positively significant in their profes-
designed by a researcher at the University of
sional lives (p. 17).
British Columbia (Frisbee & Brown, 1991). In-
Their study examined four major areas: educa-
formation was collected from respondents re-
tional background, motivations, perception of
garding their individual demographics, career
women leaders, and professional opportunities.
path, and career satisfaction.
Miranda and Yerkes found that over 90% of the
Once the survey was developed, it was re-
survey respondents indicated that "gender has
viewed for content validity and structure by an
had a marked influence on their careers" (p. 19).
expert panel and then the survey was pilot
The authors concluded that their study was just
tested. The outdoor programs for the sample
a beginning and further research was necessary
were chosen from the 1994-95 Membership Di-
to develop a greater knowledge base about gen-
rectory and Handbook of the Association of Ex-
der related concerns in outdoor leadership. This
periential Education, a professional umbrella
call for further study was one of the major ra-
organization for experiential educators which
tionales for the present study.
listed 360 member organizations. Since the As-
The present study investigated gender re-
sociation of Experiential Education represents a
lated employment concerns in outdoor leader-
wide variety of experiential education organiza-
ship. The research addressed gaps in under-
tions, including schools, hospitals, and outdoor
standing by examining how many women were
education organizations, a criterion-based sam-
employed by outdoor leadership organizations,
pling technique was used. Programs that had the
the ratio of women to men employed and the
words "adventure," "out," or "wilderness," in
types of positions in which women were em-
their names were chosen for inclusion in the
ployed. Along with this description of the cur-
study because they would most likely meet the
rent status of women's employment in outdoor
criterion of an outdoor education program with
organizations, the study used a statistical analy-
an adventure component. This sampling tech-
sis of gender ratios, salary and reported inci-
nique yielded the 103 programs that were sur-
dence of discrimination to further explore po-
veyed in the present study.
tential gender traps (Knapp, 1985). Finally, the
The researcher utilized Dillman's "total de-
research concluded by discussing some of the
sign method to survey research" because it is
implications of the results for outdoor organiza-
recognized as one of the most effective ap-
tions.
proaches to maximize response rate (Babbie,
1989). The study produced a response rate of
METHOD
60% (n=62 of N=103). The survey research lit-
The study utilized a mailed survey to fa-
erature suggests that a response rate of 50% is
cilitate the collection of data from a large sam-
generally considered to be "adequate" and a re-
ple of outdoor programs and program adminis-
sponse rate of 60% is generally considered
trators. The survey was developed in order to
"good" (Bainbridge, 1989).
solicit information on two levels: organizational
demographics and individual perceptions of
The statistical analyses of survey data were
outdoor program administrators. On the organ-
done using the Excel spreadsheet software pro-
izational level, the outdoor program adminis-
gram and the SPSS version 6.1 statistical soft-
trators were asked to provide information about
ware program for the Macintosh personal com-
3
109
CURRENT STATUS OF WOMEN
50 gender ratio' in the breakdown of the staff
of the sam-
puter. In order to gain an overview
frequencies,
(e.g.,
statistics
(x2[1, n=3401] = 30.68, p < .01).
descriptive
ple,
standard deviations) were cal-
ranges, means,
Of the 3401 staff members, 51% (n=1734)
culated for the respondents' socio-demographic
(n=1667)
were employed year-round and 49%
characteristics. In addition, descriptive statistics
the peak
were additional staff hired to cover
each survey
were calculated on the responses to
of
season. Table I provides a visual overview
question to investigate the shape of their distri-
participant gender ratios and staff gender ratios
butions. Since the present study was exploratory
for various employment categories. Most of the
attain
in nature, statistical tests were required to
year-round employment categories showed fe-
results to be considered
an alpha of .05 for the
male numbers equal to or greater than the par-
significant (Babbie, 1989).
ticipant female numbers. The executive staff
Statistical analyses were selected to match
category, however, had a ratio of 38% women to
the types of data collected and the purpose of
62% men. Again, using the one-dimensional
chi-square goodness of fit test (Howell, 1992),
each survey question. The survey questions that
produced nominal or ordinal data were analyzed
all of the employment categories except support
using nonparametric statistical procedures and
staff and seasonal management showed signifi-
and
cant differences from a 50-50 gender ratio at
tests such as frequencies, cross-tabulations,
reported the
chi-square. The survey questions that produced
p < .05. The outdoor programs also
gender breakdown of their governing boards.
interval data (Likert-type responses) were ana-
There were a total of 493 governing board
lyzed using parametric statistical tests such as
members and 38% (n=186) of the members
correlation and analysis of variance (ANOVA).
which
were women and 62% were men (n=307)
The choice of parametric tests may be ques-
represented a significant difference in the gen-
tioned for a non-random sample. After extensive
der breakdown of governing board members
study, however, Kerlinger (1973) contended that
from a 50-50 split (x2[1, n=493] = 29.7, p < .01).
unless the sample is "seriously non-normal and
variances are heterogeneous, it is usually unwise
It is interesting to note that of the 62 pro-
place of a
to use a non-parametric test in
gram administrators who returned surveys, ap-
parametric one" (p. 287). Additionally, accord-
proximately 55% (n=34) were women, while
ing to Kirk (1982), most parametric tests are
approximately 45% (n=28) were men. This gen-
robust enough for use with non-probability
der ratio is significantly different (x2 [1, n=62] =
samples.
6.93, p < .01) from the year-round management
staff gender ratio. The survey instructions asked
RESULTS
the person receiving the survey to give it to the
The outdoor programs in the sample serv-
person at the organization who was most re-
iced 160,585 participants in 1994. Of these par-
sponsible for the hiring and supervision of field
ticipants, 41% (n=65,840) were female and 59%
staff such as a program director or staffing co-
(n=94,745) were male. The outdoor programs in
ordinator. The significant finding could indicate
the sample employed 3,401 staff in 1994. The
that women who are being employed at the ad-
overall staff gender ratio was 45% women
ministrative level are more responsible for
(n=1,539) to 55% men (n=1,862). Using the
one-dimensional chi-square goodness of fit test
(Howell, 1992), it was determined that this ratio
1 The theoretical 50-50 gender distribution was used
50-
was significantly different from a theoretical
in the chi-square test for the expected frequencies
because it closely resembles the gender distribution
in the overall population of the United States.
Women tend to slightly outnumber men but the 50-
50 distribution was used for ease in calculation and
understanding.
4
110
LOEFFLER
TABLE 1
Gender Ratios for Participants, Governing Board Members, and Various Staff Categories
% of
% of
Significant
Category
Women
n
Difference at
Men
p < .05
Participants
160,585
59
41
yes
Overall staff
3401
45
55
yes
Year-round overall staff
46
1734
54
yes
Seasonal overall staff
1667
45
yes
55
Year-round field staff
1071
yes
59
41
Seasonal field staff
1451
45
yes
55
Year-round support staff
44
147
no
56
Seasonal support staff
120
48
no
52
Year-round office staff
219
yes
76
24
Seasonal office staff
49
74
26
yes
Year-round management
216
42
yes
58
Seasonal management
47
40
60
no
Year-round executive staff
32
68
81
yes
Governing board
493
68
38
yes
through college placement offices and employ-
human resources or that the initial contacts
ment fairs. Some (n=4) of the organizations re-
tended to pass the survey on to women because
cruited women by sending program directors to
they would be more interested in filling it out.
conferences to network with other organiza-
The organizations in the sample were asked
tions, hold informational meetings, and inter-
if they specifically recruit female staff. Fifty-six
view potential female staff. One organization set
percent (n=30) of the organizations answering
aside special scholarship money for talented
the question said they recruited women staff
female students on its instructor course and pro-
members, while 44% (n=24) said they did not
vided special technical skills development op-
specifically recruit female staff. As a follow-up
portunities for female staff in a single gender
question, the organizations were then asked how
setting. Two of the organizations tracked tal-
they recruited women. The two most frequently
ented women students in their programs and
mentioned methods were through word of
then specifically invited them to apply for staff
mouth (n=15) and through advertisements in
positions. Another organization had an instruc-
outdoor jobs newsletters (n=18) such as the As-
tor development program for female staff.
of Experiential
sociation
Jobs
Education
Gender ratios were calculated for programs
Clearinghouse. One program stated that it al-
that specifically recruit women and those that
ways included the phrase "women and minori-
don't. In the categories of overall year-round
ties are encouraged to apply" in all its advertis-
staff, year-round executive, and seasonal field
ing of positions. Ten of the programs recruited
organizations
staff,
specifically
recruit
that
5
111
CURRENT STATUS OF WOMEN
ence in the staff gender ratios between the two
of women com-
women had a lower percentage
types of organizations, although there was a sig-
pared to organizations that don't specifically
nificant difference in the gender ratios of staff at
recruit them. Organizations that specifically re-
cruit women had a higher percentage of women
the year-round management level (x2[1, n=54] =
in the year-round and seasonal management
4.0, p < .05). When the number of year-round
management level staff was summed for profit-
categories.
based organizations, the ratio was 32% women
Although none of the differences mentioned
to 68% men. When the number of similar staff
above were statistically significant, they raise
was totaled for non-profit organizations, the ra-
some interesting questions. Some might expect
tio was 43% women to 57% men.
organizations that specifically recruit women
As part of the survey, respondents were
would have higher percentages of women, but
asked to identify their salary range. Table 2
this did not hold true for all categories in this
sample. It may be that organizations that spe-
summarizes their responses. A one-way analysis
cifically recruit women have this policy because
of variance (ANOVA) suggested that there was
hiring
they have experienced
significant difference in the salaries of year-
difficulty
in
women staff, hence the lower percentages. It
round female and male program administrators
could also indicate that the recruitment practices
(F [1, 53] = 6.29, p < .01). Following up on the
being used are ineffective. Since the survey did
ANOVA, several measures of central tendency
not gather staffing information over a number of
were examined. The mean salary range for year-
questions cannot be answered
was
administrators
these
years,
program
round female
$25,000-$29,999, with the mean salary ap-
within the present study.
proximately $25,833. The mean salary range for
The organizations were also asked if, ac-
was
directors
program
male
year-round
cording to federal guidelines, they were equal
$30,000-$34,999, with the mean salary ap-
opportunity employers and affirmative action
proximately $32,599. The modal salary range
employers. Eighty percent (n=43) checked that
for year-round females was $25,000-$29,000,
they were equal opportunity employers, and
while the modal salary range for year-round
39% (n=21) indicated that they were affirmative
male program administrators was over $45,000.
action employers. It is interesting to note that
Respondents were also asked to rate the extent
almost half (48%) of the program administrators
to which their expectations about salary had
surveyed did not know if their organizations
been met in their outdoor leadership careers.
were affirmative action employers, since these
The results were analyzed using one way
program administrators are responsible for hir-
ANOVA. There was a significant difference
ing within their organizations.
between the responses of the female and male
Organizations listing themselves as equal
administrators in the area of salary expectations
opportunity employers showed either slightly
(F [1, 58] = 7.38, p < .009); female administra-
lower or equal percentages of women employ-
tors were less satisfied (mean = 1.64, range =
ees compared to the organizations that did not.
1-3) with their salaries than male administrators
On the whole, organizations listing themselves
(mean = 2.11, range = 1-3).
as affirmative action employers tended to have
To further examine the issue of salary dif-
higher percentages of women employees com-
ferences, some possible explanations were ex-
pared to the organizations that did not have an
plored statistically. Although there was a sig-
affirmative action hiring policy. The category of
nificant difference for salaries between educa-
executive staff was the only exception to this
tion levels, (F [4, 56] = 2.92, p < .03), there
trend.
were no significant differences in the education
The staff gender ratios for non-profit and
levels reported by female and male program
profit organizations were also calculated and
administrators. Additionally, there was no sig-
compared. Overall, there was very little differ-
nificant interaction between gender and
6
LOEFFLER
112
Table 2
A Summary of the Program Administrators' Reported Salaries
MALE
FEMALE
SALARY
n
n
%
7.1
18.2
Under $14,999
2
6
10.7
$15,000-$19,999
6.1
3
2
7.1
15.2
2
$20,000-$24,999
5
4
14.3
30.3
$25,000-$29,999
10
17.9
4
$30,000-$34,999
12.1
5
10.7
3.0
$35,000-$39,999
3
1
$40,000-$44,999
7.1
2
9.1
3
25.0
Over $45,000
7
2
6.1
(n=11) and 21% of the men (n=6). Twelve per-
education variables when a two-way ANOVA
cent (n=4) of the female administrators reported
was performed on the salary data. Thus, differ-
against three
or
four
discriminated
feeling
ences in education cannot be used to explain the
times, and 11% of the male administrators re-
differences in salary.
ported similarly. No male administrator reported
Another possible explanation for the differ-
feeling discriminated against five or more times
ences in program administrators' salaries is the
on the basis of his gender but a large portion of
number of years of experience. Program ad-
the female administrators (27%, n=9) reported
ministrators were asked to provide information
feeling discriminated more than five
times
about their outdoor leadership work history and
based on their gender.
length of employment in several employment
Analysis (one-way ANOVA) found that
categories. Means were calculated for years of
there was a significant difference in the levels of
experience in the various employment catego-
gender-based discrimination reported by female
ries. Follow-up analysis revealed no significant
and male administrators (F [1, 60] = 13.43,
differences in the years of experience between
p < .001). Of the administrators reporting at
female and male program administrators in any
least one incident of discrimination, 73% were
employment category. Additionally, no signifi-
female while 27% were male. The female ad-
cant difference was found when total years of
ministrators reported a greater incidence of gen-
experience was compared. Therefore, differ-
der-based discrimination (mean = 2.35, range =
ences in years of experience cannot be used to
1-4) as compared to the male administrators
explain the differences in these program ad-
(mean = 1.42, range = 1-4). When the results
ministrators' salaries.
were adjusted for differences in sample size (to
Finally, the program administrators were
allow comparison between groups), the female
asked how often they had felt discriminated
administrators reported at least 56 cases of dis-
against in the field of outdoor leadership based
crimination based on gender while the male ad-
on their gender. Twenty-nine percent (n=10) of
ministrators reported at least 12 such cases.
the female administrators reported never feeling
DISCUSSION
such discrimination, while 68% (n=19) of the
men reported likewise. Feeling discriminated
Some of the results pertaining to the current
against once or twice were 32% of the women
status of women's employment in outdoor lead-
7
113
CURRENT STATUS OF WOMEN
office staff. Please note that these findings relate
ership were surprising and challenged current
to the organizations in the study sample only,
assumptions in the outdoor adventure field,
with no attempt to generalize to the field.
while other results confirmed them. Many out-
door programs aim to have the number of fe-
In her study of the corporate environment,
male staff they employ, match or exceed the
Kanter (1977) noted that women are underrepre-
number of female
participants they
serve
sented in male-dominated organizations because
(Hampton, 1994). If the number of women em-
of the interaction of three variables: opportunity,
ployed does not match the participant numbers,
power and proportion. Opportunity refers to an
women employees are defined as underrepre-
individual's perceptions of her or his prospects
sented. This defining process is similar to the
to move up the career ladder. Power refers to the
"proportionality measure" that is one method
amount of influence that an individual wields
used to assess compliance with Title IX in col-
within an organization and to the existence of
lege sports (Acosta & Carpenter, 1988). A col-
mentors and supportive peers. Proportion refers
lege is said to be in compliance with Title IX if
to the ratio or numbers of a particular group
the resources given to female athletes matches
within an organization. In this study, proportion
the proportion of female students in the under-
refers to the ratio of female staff to male staff in
graduate population.
outdoor leadership organizations.
Prior to the present study, a wide-spread
Kanter (1977) found that within corporate
belief was that women were underrepresented in
environs, the people which have the greatest
(Absolon,
leadership organizations
outdoor
similarity in terms of socio-demographic char-
It was assumed that
1993, Hampton, 1994).
acteristics to the administration are the ones
women were underrepresented at all levels of
most likely to be hired and promoted. She de-
employment, such as field instructors, program
fined this process of hiring employees who are
administrators and executive staff. Using the
similar to the dominant group as "homologous
outdoor program version of the proportionality
reproduction" (p. 48). Since historically women
measure as a standard, women, as expected,
in outdoor organizations have had less opportu-
were underrepresented at the executive and gov-
nity, less power, and fewer numbers than their
erning board levels. Women's employment at
male peers, their continued under-representation
the field instructor, support staff, and office
may be attributable to homologous reproduc-
staff levels exceeded the female participant pro-
tion.
portion. This result was surprising since the as-
sumption was that women were underrepre-
IMPLICATIONS FOR OUTDOOR
sented at all levels. Though it is common prac-
ORGANIZATIONS
tice for outdoor organizations to use their par-
The above findings have several implica-
ticipant gender ratio as a benchmark for evalu-
tions for practice. First, during the study it be-
ating their staff gender ratios (Hampton, 1994),
came evident that two standards for determining
many of the survey respondents thought that
under-representation exist within the field of
outdoor programs should aim to have gender
outdoor leadership: the proportionality standard
ratios in their students and staff match that of
and the overall population standard. As seen
the general population. One study participant
above, the choice of standard influences the out-
expressed this thought: "My theory is that we
come of the analysis. Further study is necessary,
are conditioned to expect there will be less [sic]
at both the organizational and field levels, to
women in outdoor organizations. We are sur-
determine the most appropriate standard for use
prised and happy when we've reached 30-40%
by outdoor organizations and for doing future
representation. Why shouldn't we expect 50%?"
analysis. Second, additional research is needed
If a 50% male 50% female gender proportion is
to "break open" (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 75)
used as a standard, women in this study were
the gender ratios found in this study to better
underrepresented in every staff category except
8
114
LOEFFLER
understand the additional factors that influence
procedural changes to maximize women's ca-
women's employment (Loeffler, 1995).
reer opportunities.
Salary is another indicator of occupational
The present study investigated the current
status. Many female respondents expressed con-
status of women's employment in outdoor lead-
cern about the amount of remuneration they re-
ership. The study analyzed women's employ-
ceive. Several said that early in their
ment rates from 62 outdoor organizations to
careers
F.
they did not care about salary issues, but later
provide a clearer overall picture of women's
realized they needed to start planning for
representation in the field. Statistical analysis
re-
tirement. Many women mentioned they
were
determined that women were under-represented
contemplating leaving the field of outdoor lead-
in outdoor organizations at the executive and
ership because of their low salaries. One woman
management levels using the proportionality
summed up her decision by saying:
standard and under-represented at all levels ex-
cept office staff using the population standard.
I'm leaving outdoor leadership because I
Further analysis determined that women re-
don't want to retire in poverty. I didn't
ported lower salaries and higher gender-based
much think about the money early in my ca-
discrimination
reer because I was having so much fun. It
occurrences
than
their
male
wasn't until I was older that I began to see
counterparts. Further study is recommended to
the implications of subsistence living.
further understand all of these and other vari-
ables influencing women's employment in out-
The study results support Knapp's (1985)
door leadership.
identification of pay equity as
potential
a
"gender trap" for outdoor organizations. One
female respondent commented that although her
REFERENCES
organization had several "pro-women policies,"
she suspected that women in her organization
Absolon, M. (1993). Women at NOLS. The NOLS
were paid less than the men. Three other women
Leader, 10 (1).
also mentioned concern over pay inequities and
Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (1988). Perceived
overall, women were less satisfied with their
causes of the declining representation of women
salaries than their male counterparts. In the pre-
leaders in intercollegiate sports: 1988 Update.
sent study, male administrators reported salaries
Unpublished manuscript, Brooklyn College.
that were significantly higher than female ad-
Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research.
ministrators and this difference could not be
(5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
explained through differences in education or
Bainbridge, W. S. (1989). Survey research: A com-
years of experience. Issues of salary and pay
puter-assisted approach. Belmont, CA: Wad-
inequity are key for women employed in the
sworth.
outdoor field. Outdoor organizations need to
Bean, M. (1987). Women in risk recreation. Women
examine their remuneration policies for gender
in Natural Resources, 10 (2), 26-28.
bias and further research is necessary to exam-
ine the effects of low salaries on staff retention.
Frisbee, W., & Brown, B. A. (1991). The balancing
act: Women leisure service managers. Journal of
In this study, women reported the incidence
Applied Recreation Research, 16 (4), 297-321.
of gender-based discrimination at a significantly
Galland, C. (1980). Women in the wilderness. New
greater rate than men. Further study is necessary
York: Harper and Row.
to investigate and disclose the nature of such
discrimination and it's influence on women's
Hampton, M. (1994). Women 's careers at NOLS.
employment in outdoor leadership. Once the
Unpublished manuscript.
better understood, outdoor
discrimination
is
Henderson, K. A., & Bialeschki, M. D. (1986). Out-
programs will be able to make programmatic or
door experiential education (for women only).
115
CURRENT STATUS OF WOMEN
tional. (University Microfilms Publication Num-
Proceedings of the 1986 Association of Experi-
ber 9541337).
ential Education National Conference, 35-40.
Miranda, W., & Yerkes, R. (1982). The need for re-
Howell, D. C. (1992). Statistical methods for psy-
for
education programs
outdoor
search
in
chology. (3rd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent.
women. Journal of Physical Education, Recrea-
and
Jordan, D. (1992). Effective leadership for girls
tion, and Dance. April.
of Physi-
women in outdoor recreation. Journal
Miranda, W., & Yerkes, R. (1987). Women outdoor
cal Education, Recreation and Dance, 63 (2).
leaders today. Camping Magazine, 59 (4).
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corpo-
Mitten, D. (1985). A philosophical basis for a
ration. New York: Basic Books.
women's outdoor program. Journal of Experien-
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral
tial Education, 8 (2).
research. (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart,
Page, L. (1986). Women and outdoor leadership.
& Winston.
Women Outdoors Newsletter. 7 (1).
Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of quali-
for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). Belmont,
tative research: Grounded theory procedures
CA: Brooks/Cole.
and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
Knapp, C. (1985). Escaping the gender trap: The
Stringer, L. A. (1993). Gender-role conformity as a
ultimate challenge for experiential educators.
constraint to women's participation in outdoor
Journal of Experiential Education, 8 (2).
recreation. Unpublished manuscript.
influence
that
Factors
(1995).
A.
T.
Loeffler,
Warren, K. (1985). Women's outdoor adventures:
women's career development in outdoor leader-
Myth and reality. Journal of Experiential Edu-
ship. Doctoral dissertation, (Ph.D.). University
cation, 8 (2).
of Minnesota. Dissertation Abstracts Intema-
10