Introduction to special issue on being outdoors: challenging and celebrating diverse outdoor leisure embodiments and experiences

The inception to this special issue started long before the three guest editors ever met and certainly long before the call for papers was made. Mandi, as the instigator of the special issue, traces it to musings during the days writing her PhD. She could see that dominant discourses about how to ‘be’ in the outdoors were fairly limited and limiting. Outdoor recreation and education scholars were seeing this and calling for change (Allison and Pomeroy 2000; Gray 2018; Humberstone and Pedersen 2001; Warren et al. 2014). While these academic provocations were raising questions in her, it was something her aunt, a Native Canadian of the Nlaka’pumax nation, said that helped her think in new ways and question views that she had often assumed were universal. Her aunt’s conceptualization of land and possession was so different to the one Mandi had in her head, at the time. Mandi’s aunt understood people as belonging to the land. Thus, she identified Mandi as belonging to the Six Nations due to her birth and childhood being in that place. When Mandi protested that she did not belong to the Six Nations, her Aunt pointed out that it was the land she was born on so it was the land she belonged to. Rather than the land being a possession of Mandi’s, she was a (beloved) possession of that land. They were and are ‘her’ trees and rocks. Not to own but the ones that brought her comfort and familiarity and which, each time that she returns, give her a sense of home, peace and rejuvenation. Much like the relationship of a child to a parent or grandparent, Mandi was blissfully unaware of what her land provided her with at first but as she matured in her relationship with it, she recognized the need to exert care for it and the legacy it creates for the generations to come (Straker 2020). The land she belongs to deserves and requires her stewardship. This is a way of thinking that is deeply engrained in indigenous discourses around being, land and leisure (Henhawk 2018; Mowatt 2018; Wheaton et al. 2020). It has marked a profound and transformational shift away from discourses of outdoor recreation focused on mastery, quest, conquering and possession that are often propelled by popular and academic publications that see outdoor experiences as something solely for the outcome or accomplishment, a western and hegemonic masculine dominated construct (Zink and Kane 2015).

Within this context, being committed to the ethics and theory of poststructuralism does not in itself make you see, hear or reflect on blind spots or discourses that are not already familiar. In this context, it has been noted that ‘Not all who hear listen; not all who listen discern’ (Johnson 2008, 316). As Butler (2010) explained, we cannot think outside of the discourses we have access to. This makes the need to listen to new and different voices imperative. In order to extend our understandings, thinking and doing, we need to not only listen to stories and perspectives that are different to ours with an open, but not empty mind, as Charmaz (2006) so poignantly remind us, but our heart too. How much more could be possible if these voices about research, practice and experiences in ‘the outdoors’ were heard? How could the outdoors and the leisure experienced and sought within and through it change if we listened to and mobilized a variety of outdoor discourses?

Recognizing the importance of listening to multiple voices and taking different positions, bringing others into this journey of understanding Emma joined Mandi on the road to the creation of this special issue. Transforming ideas into outputs began with a call for papers for a session under the label of ‘being outdoors’ at the 2019 Australian and New Zealand Association for Leisure Studies (ANZALS) conference, in Queenstown, New Zealand (see Walters et al. 2019). This led to a series of presentations spread across multiple sessions. The call for conference papers then morphed into the current special issue in the Annals of Leisure Research focused on ‘Being Outdoors: Challenging and celebrating diverse outdoor leisure embodiments and experiences’ at which point Neil joined the editorial team.

The three of us decided early on that it was critical that the special issue made space for diverse, cross-disciplinary discourses of experience and embodiment of ‘being outdoors’. Thus, we did not want to make possible interpretations of ‘being outdoors’ too specific and risk narrowing or limiting the possibilities for articles. Consequently, the call for papers was deliberately wide, suggesting rather than limiting ideas through the imposition of boundaries. It was stressed in the call for papers that the locations, populations, range of sectors and topics were merely indicative of wider possibilities. We called on scholars and practitioners to question how experiences of ‘being outdoors’ can be reimagined. We were overwhelmed by the response. We received 67 abstracts and from this, 18 compelling articles have been published. Alongside this, we have now completed an edited book, Leisure in the Outdoors: Learning, and Challenging (Baker et al. 2021). It follows in the footsteps of this special issue to challenge dominant ideas surrounding outdoor recreation. Leisure studies, as a multi-disciplinary field (Carr 2021a), provides a fertile ground for examining being and becoming in the outdoors. In doing so, it draws in ideas and work related to the contested nature of leisure in the outdoors emerging from various fields, including, amongst others, sport (Symons, et al., 2017), geography (Hill 2021) and education (Goodenough, Waite, and Bartlett 2015).

The question of how to organize the articles that constitute this special issue into three separate parts to fit the requirements of the journal, with some kind of coherence, was a matter of significant debate. These conversations involved our desire not to replicate or create boundaries, or limit, bind or close down thinking about outdoor leisure experiences. At the same time, it was recognized that fundamentally the papers are all of one issue, rather than being three distinct parts. Consequently, it was always going to be the case that any boundaries imposed were going to be fuzzy and even fluid. With all this in mind, we have grouped articles based loosely on three interrelated issues centred on thematic experiences of ‘being outdoors’. Essentially, the division into three parts is a product of thematic analysis, where the aim is never to divide according to some preconceived conceptualization but to allow the data (in this case each paper) to tell individual and collective stories in as cohesive and beneficial a manner as possible (Braun and Clarke 2019). Collectively, the stories talk of difference and diversity, in both those accessing and seeking to access outdoor leisure and the nature of outdoor leisure. Rather, they are driven by the papers themselves. This is not to say that the conceptual stances of the co-editors played no role, which would be considered impossible from anything other than a positivist perspective. Consequently, in adopting a poststructuralist perspective regarding both the structure of this special issue, and the meaning of and access to outdoor leisure that prioritizes the notion of acceptance of diversity, of letting one thousand flowers bloom, it is recognized there is no one right way of doing or being. Instead, the structure provided is only meant to aid understanding of the meta-story told by all the papers presented and the field of study more broadly. Others may have structured things differently. In a postmodern world, acceptance of this difference is key, a recognition that there are multiple ways of knowing and being and all are equally valid.

There is no hierarchy of importance inherent in the ordering of the parts of the special issue. Similarly, the only ordering undertaken in each part is the positioning of the papers in such a way as to aid the flow of ideas throughout the parts of the special issue. The three parts deal with ‘Gender and Outdoor Leisure’, ‘Being in the Urban Outdoors’ and ‘Other and Othering’. The ‘Gender and Outdoor Leisure’ part of this special issue is outlined below. The second part, ‘Being in the Urban Outdoors’, is focused around a series of papers that break down the conventional view of outdoor recreation as existing in nature-based and often remote settings. The papers draw attention to the notion that being outdoors in urban and peri-urban environments is an equally valid outdoor leisure experience, and perhaps even more so in our increasingly urbanized, as well as COVID-19, constrained world. The final part of this special issue on ‘Other and Othering’ explores issues of resistance and empowerment through the other and othering to break down dominant views of outdoor recreation as the preserve of white, Anglo-Saxon, men from financially and educationally advantaged backgrounds (Gray et al. 2017; Warren 2016). Consequently, this part explores the outdoor leisure experiences of others.

This special issue, essentially a trilogy, seeks to generate and extend the conversation about how to open up possibilities for how outdoor experiences and subjects are understood and undertaken. Outdoor experiences have largely been made exclusive through discourses that articulate narrow participatory borderlines and definitions. So we hope through reading the contributions showcased in our trilogy that readers can reflect on, engage with and act on, breaking down dominant discourses about what it means to ‘be’ in the outdoors for the purpose of leisure. Individually and cumulatively, the papers in this special issue represent a critical engagement with the idea of outdoor leisure beyond the dominant paradigm associated with outdoor recreation. Of course, this special issue, and the papers within it, is not the first to explore outdoor experiences beyond the dominant narrative. Indeed, work has been done exploring masculinities (Kennedy and Russell 2021) and the experiences of women (Dilley and Scraton 2010) in outdoor recreation. We are also seeing the emergence of work on indigenous leisure in the outdoors (Waiti and Awatere 2019; Mowatt 2018; Wheaton et al. 2020), and of access to the outdoors for leisure by socio-economically disadvantaged groups (Goodenough, Waite, and Bartlett 2015; Hill 2021). The work presented in this special issue and that which has gone before it is pushing for change in the still pervasive portrayal of outdoor recreation as a privileged, white, male domain (Argus 2018). While predating the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in its conception, the special issue is especially timely now. The pandemic has highlighted the importance of outdoor leisure to individual and societal wellbeing (Dashper and King 2021). In doing so, it has reaffirmed the need to ensure that how we define outdoor leisure is democratic rather than elitist and that access to it is inclusive rather than exclusionary. The papers that make up this special issue have a variety of practical, conceptual and methodological implications. Of course, different papers focus on different issues but they all speak to the importance of seeing outdoor leisure through new lenses, as both researchers, participants and providers. This speaks to the applied and conceptual ground that leisure studies straddles and the need for researchers to produce not just blue-sky research but also material that has the potential to inform change (Carr and Berdychevsky 2021); in this case, for the benefit of the wellbeing of individuals and society. Above all else, the special issue pushes forward the position that outdoor leisure and the outdoors in which leisure takes place are diverse and that access to them must be for all, for the wellbeing of all.

Without undermining the importance of this special issue, it is not an or the end. While so many issues and voices are raised in this special issue so many are still to be talked about and given voice. Some have begun to be looked at through publications beyond the bounds of this special issue but there is still plenty that needs to be done. Without wishing to give an exhaustive list, in relation to sex/gender, as shown in this part of the special issue, there is much work that still remains. Questions around the position in and access to outdoor leisure of members of the LGBTQIA2S+ communities (Argus 2018) need to be examined, as does the position of heterosexual men who do not necessarily ascribe to or fit with dominant discourses of hyper-masculinity in outdoor recreation (Kennedy & Russell 2021). While, in part two of the special issue, the papers explore urban and peri-urban outdoor leisure, there is still work to do to explore the idea of the outdoor elsewhere, such as in e-space (i.e. electronic or virtual space). Finally, in relation to Other and Othering more is needed that explores the multitude of people who do not conform to the white, Anglo-Saxon image long-associated with outdoor recreation as they experience, or not, outdoor leisure. In the same context, there is a need to explore how the more-than-human experience outdoor leisure, both in their own right and in relation to human outdoor leisure that impacts upon them.

Before beginning the special issue, it is important to acknowledge the support of authors, reviewers, editors and publishers throughout the process that has led to the creation of this special issue, while having to survive the ongoing challenges imposed on us all by the COVID-19 pandemic is hugely appreciated. This pandemic has set a timely scene for a special issue calling for inclusion, compassion, justice and awakening to the effects of systems of power and reimagining of outdoor leisure.

The special issue trilogy begins with a critical commentary by Katherine Dashper and Jason King. In the tradition of critical commentaries in the Annals of Leisure Research, this one sets the scene for critically thinking about outdoor leisure. It talks of the contested nature of outdoor leisure and the barriers that many wishing to access it must overcome. Mirroring discussions elsewhere in the special issue Dashper and King’s critical commentary talks of the potential of the COVID-19 pandemic to act as an opportunity to rethink the outdoors and the leisure that can and should occur within it.

Part 1. Gender and outdoor leisure

This part of the special issue focuses on gender as one of the prime, if not the central, signifiers or difference and diversity, especially in a world that has increasingly recognized the diverse reality, rather than the simple dichotomy, of gender (Broussard et al. 2018). As such, the focus on gender is both important in its own right and as an exemplar of wider discussions of difference and diversity. In most cultural contexts outdoor recreation has long been associated with hyper-masculinity (Zink and Kane 2015; Kling et al. 2020). It has been constructed as a space in which men can be ‘men’ and boys can be transformed into ‘men’. In this context, what is not explicitly stated but is implicitly imperative is that they must be the right sort of men, heterosexual, rugged, strong and fearless men. Those who cannot or will not conform to such identities have been excluded from outdoor recreation to varying extents (Stanley 2020). As an example of this, the emergence of summer camps in North America can be traced back to the idea that outdoor recreation offers the potential for the development of strong, heterosexual men, the right sort of men that society required/requires. Indeed, Van Slyck (2006, xxii) has stated that prior to the first summer camps being created, there was a fear ‘that the sons of such households [urban, middle class] were becoming “sissies”, many worried that this erosion of manliness would undermine the military might required to pursue the all but imperial aspirations of the United States’. In just the same way, those working in outdoor recreation have been identified as having to conform to hypermasculine representations and identities, in the process creating barriers for others seeking careers in this field (King et al. 2021)

Awareness of this gender discrimination has been focused on a recognition of the struggles women often face in accessing outdoor recreation (Evans et al. 2020). This mirrors a wider recognition of the struggles women have long been forced to endure to gain access to a wider array of leisure experiences (Shores, Scott, and Floyd 2007). More recently, researchers and activists have been pushing for the recognition of the struggles others face based on the basis of their gender and/or sexual identity (Browne and Bakshi 2011; Carter and Baliko 2017). Members of the diverse LGBTQIA2S+ communities do not necessarily wish to conform to the Neanderthal (and that is probably an insult to Neanderthals, for which we apologize) era notions of hyper-masculinity that although increasingly contested still tend to dominant the outdoor recreation setting in general. This does not mean they do not wish to engage in traditional outdoor leisure activities long-associated with hyper-masculinity but that they seek to do so on their own terms (Argus 2018).

Yet the gender and leisure studies literature, which is such a strong component of the field, has long shown that women and other groups (i.e. those who are not heterosexual males) while facing multiple barriers to engaging in leisure are not passive recipients of such discriminatory behaviour. Instead, there is a long history of active resistance, of people discriminated against on the basis of gender and/or sexuality refusing to submit to social constructed definitions of identity and associated control and wielding of power (Dilley and Scraton 2010; Henderson and Gibson 2013; Shaw 2001). Instead, they have actively engaged in a process of resistance, empowerment and Othering. This process is an ongoing one that has been identified across leisure, including in outdoor leisure undertaken as both leisured individuals (Oakley et al. 2018; Stanley 2020) and employees of companies offering such experiences (King et al. 2021)

Against this background, we have seen increasing resistance to labelling and othering from within that most maligned of groups, the hegemonic male. Just as we have seen women and members of the LGBTQIA2S+ communities question and resist socially constructed definitions, we are seeing at least some heterosexual males question whether they must be dumped into the toxic box labelled hegemonic males and cast as pariahs at best to be held responsible for the sins of their forefathers (Carr 2021b). This links to the work that has been undertaken in masculinity studies and speaks to the recognition of the existence of multiple contested masculinities (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005; Gardiner 2002; Johnson and Cousineau 2018). Work in leisure studies has identified the same reality (Pringle et al. 2011; Robinson 2008; Wheaton 2000). This is helping to shift discussions beyond a negative blame game, associated with persecuting those responsible for the oppressed position of others or at least those who can be labelled as being at least related to those responsible. Moving beyond this blame game enables us to look forward and engage in the more positive process of enabling everyone, irrespective of gender and/or sexuality to engage in leisure in general and outdoor leisure in particular. This is not to say that looking at the past is not important. Far from it, doing so helps us to understand where we are and therefore gives us potential paths forward. However, the emphasis here is on looking positively forward, to empower and overcome discrimination.

This part of the special issue recognizes the reality of multiple and fluid genders and sexualities and the right of everyone to access the outdoor leisure experiences (indeed everything, not just leisure or outdoor leisure). In this context, the need to empower everyone to overcome existing barriers to outdoor leisure is also recognized though how this empowerment should occur is clearly a contested issue in need of much more work that will ideally be undertaken by researchers, policymakers and communities working in tandem. As part of this empowering process, there is clearly the need to tear down existing preconceptions about the gendered and sexualized nature of outdoor recreation that have been built and perpetually reinforced by the outdoor recreation industry and participants, and wider society in thrall to the allure of hyper-masculinity. Oakley, Potter and Socha (2018) speak of such a process involving all willing participants, seeing how everyone, irrespective of gender or sexuality, can be involved in a process of empowerment of the Other.

This part of the special issue opens with an article by Tim Engles. Through a study of two films he critical examines the position of hegemonic white masculinity in outdoor leisure. In doing so, the analysis takes the reader beyond ideas of masculine dominance of the outdoors, questioning old hegemonic beliefs. In the next paper, Mandi Baker and John Hannant-Minchel explore gendered discourses in the summer camp experiences of camp counsellors. The paper speaks of an active struggle between dominant discourses of gender and resistance to them through action. The questioning of dominant masculine narratives of outdoor recreation is furthered in the paper by Tiffany Low and her colleagues. They explore how women present themselves in and through their outdoor leisure experiences. In doing so, the paper questions not only masculine representations of outdoor leisure but also historically dominant representations of women in these spaces. Suzanne Kennedy and colleagues continue this theme as they study expeditions. Recognizing that the expedition, as an iconic outdoor recreation activity, has long been associated with hegemonic masculinity Kennedy et al. explore the experiences and perspectives of women as they undertake a sea-kayaking expedition.

Olivia McAnirlin and Callie Maddox take us back a step, towards the reality that while women are actively in the outdoors, engaging in a variety of leisure experiences, they are still facing multiple barriers. Looking at women in a co-ed community-hiking group, they talk about the benefits the women experience, but also the social and gendered biases/barriers they must continually overcome, to experience the benefits associated with being in the outdoors. Such overcoming may be empowering but it still speaks to discrimination and marginalization. The final paper in this part of the special issue, by Tonia Gray and colleagues, provides an examination of potential new ways of exploring outdoor leisure experiences. They talk about creative methodologies in general and arts-based research in particular, utilizing them to disrupt ideas of masculine dominance of outdoor recreation and at the same time enabling feminist perspectives and research orientations into a field too often dominated by discourses that may be said to be inherently masculine.