You can click here for an audit trail of evidence and additional information about this discussion.
In an unscripted and unedited conversation, I spoke with my friend and colleague Dr. Graham Pringle to explore the ethical challenges and systemic issues within outdoor therapies (specifically related to our professional community in wilderness and adventure therapy), particularly concerning our experience as researchers trying to publish research about youth experience, clinical excellence in outdoor therapy, and America’s troubled teen industry.
RSVP for the Kids These Days Launch Team for access to the second part of this interview.
Graham describes the rejection of his accepted abstract from a recent adventure therapy conference. The workshop abstract (focused on human rights and experiences of harm) was initially accepted but later declined after revisions were requested repeatedly due to its supposed controversial content, which was not hurting kids in the name of therapy. While the ultimate dismissal of his workshop is alarming, this is sadly not so surprising in our experience of trying to lift the veil on traumatic and harmful practices. I describe some of my experiences further (calls for retractions, plagiarism, and more in Part 2)
Graham argues that human rights should be the minimum standard for all therapeutic work, including adventure and wilderness therapy. We discuss the tragic event in the US, where a young person suffocated in a sealed bivy bag during a wilderness therapy program, highlighting the dire consequences of inadequate standards and how, when living in evidence-based times, research can enable these practices to continue. Graham critiques the lack of consensus on human rights and minimum standards of care, noting that peer-reviewed literature often endorses practices he considers human rights violations, such as denying adequate shelter or food, which have persisted since his training in the late 1990s.
This discrepancy has real-world implications, such as funding cuts for outdoor therapy in Australia due to its association with coercive wilderness therapy practices, highlighting a global credibility crisis in bringing therapy to the great outdoors.
Graham’s journey into this issue began as a foster carer, leading him to question why certain activities failed for youth with complex trauma. His PhD research faced significant resistance, with an 18-month review process marked by a 42-page critique, suggesting pushback and intentional delays against his challenge to the dominant narrative. Similarly, an open letter they co-authored, advocating for accountability and ethical standards, faced attempts to edit it after it was signed, reflecting the tensions in the outdoor therapy academic universe.
This conversation is both a critique and a call to action. As researchers, we must embrace discomfort, listen to those who have been harmed, and adopt ethical, rights-based practices. Confronting these issues, we envision a community of therapeutic workers (the change artists) that deviate to support youth development, moving beyond a legacy of harm to one of healing and empowerment.
