Common Adventure Concept

The common adventure concept emerged in the 1970s. Focusing on mutuality and democratic “leaderless” outdoor activity at the lowest possible cost, it has remained a model of noncommercial group activity since. While every group activity that shares cost, planning, and responsibilities without having a designated and compensated leader could technically be called a common adventure, the model is used mainly by clubs and universities who want to encourage their students or members to go on outdoor trips.

An early form of the common adventure concept was developed almost simultaneously at various American universities beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Most notable among the early proponents of the concept is Gary O. Grimm, who served as Outdoor Program Coordinator at the University of Oregon. Grimm wrote a paper titled “Union Outward Bound: An Educational Experiment” in 1970, which can be regarded as the first theoretical basis for the common adventure concept. The paper draws on B.R Skinner's psychological theories and is based on an antiauthoritarian belief in the benefits of a “learner-controlled” environment. While the paper does not mention the term common adventure, many of the ideas that inform the concept can already be found in his paper.

The term common adventure was first introduced in 1972, when Richard A. Wyman wrote a paper focusing on the legal ramifications of the common adventure concept for University of Oregon. Wyman takes the term from the 1930s court decision Murphy vs. Hutzel, in which the judge decided not to grant any damages to the suitor on grounds that both the plaintiff and the accused had been “common adventurers” and had thus shared responsibility. Wyman argued that stressing the aspect of a joint enterprise might protect the university's outdoor program from lawsuits. He did not, however, recommend relying on this exclusively, pointing to the weakness of his defense and the possibility of charges of negligence that could be brought, if the court ruled that the university program did not provide its participants adequate supervision and leadership. As a result, Wyman advised that program personnel should not be paid by the university in order to avoid claims of negligence under common carrier law, one of the aspects Wyman was most concerned about.

Both of Wyman's suggestions were later misunderstood, leading others to develop two principles coming originally from a legal perspective but entering the level of general ideology of the common adventure concept. These principles stated that personnel could not be paid for their participation in common adventure trips (if they were employed by a university or club they had to participate in their off time) and that personnel could not share their expertise while on a trip.

Not only did the latter go against the original idea underlying the concept, but both of these points were invalidated on a legal level in a court decision in the 1980s, when the court ruled that participating in trips was a “natural extension” of the program personnel's job. As a result, many universities introduced written waivers signed by the participants. The misconceptions going back to Wyman's paper, however, still remain in the common adventure community.

...