UKH

If you participate in any of the following:

climbing, BASE jumping, big wave surfing, mountain biking, kayaking or wing suit flying

Please complete the following questionnaire towards my PhD to help us understand motives in extreme sport. 

https://app.onlinesurveys.jisc.ac.uk/s/southwales/motivations-for-participa...

Thank you!

You will find that your use of the term "extreme sport" brings a lot of negative feedback, and frankly you will deserve it.

Climbing is a broad and diverse thing, and to suggest that everybody who enjoys any aspect of it is a "participant in extreme sport" comparable to wingsuit flying or big wave surfing is beyond ludicrous. People doing alpine style first ascents in the Himalayas? Sure. People who go toproping at the climbing wall on Sunday afternoon (no less legit in terms of "participation in climbing")? Not so much. And there are a lot more of them.

Phew, glad someone said it. The post had been up for over half an hour and I was starting to fear that there had been some sort of shift in the nature of reality.

Slightly disappointed that Extreme Ironing wasn't included.  Clearly more dangerous than kayaking because it starts with the word "extreme."

If I understand the questionnaire correctly, you select a sport in which you participate (either 'extreme' or 'non-extreme'), then answer how much you agree with a number of statements about it. 

It might have been a good idea to not include the grouping of extreme / non-extreme in the questionnaire, and just ask for the sport (certainly if the author realised how nitpicky the UKC audience is😉).

And yes, breaking them down further would be wise, as there's a big difference between bold trad and indoor top-roping (and similarly there'll be differences for styles of kayaking and MTB).

Your style of "hypothermia or frostbite at the slightest screwup" adventure strikes me as admirably extreme. But I suspect you're unlikely to be making an appearance on Redbull TV

Define extreme MTB?

Agree the whole idea of 'extreme sports' is dubious but if it exists I suspect this might qualify as an extreme MTB ride

youtube.com/watch?v=cdO-hdTOX8c&

(cycling the Cuillin ridge)

I think all this goes to show a rather fundamental flaw in this study is that everyone who fills it in will have their own definition of what an "extreme sport"🤢 is. 

(That and the massive sample bias you will inevitably get by asking a totally random unknown subset  of people on the internet)

What about 'extreme commuting'? I always felt that I was more at risk of death and serious injury when I used to commute by bike through Manchester than when I was climbing/kayaking/MTBing etc.

And yes, I *chose* to commute by bike, rather than *had to* (had a car, could have driven).

I'm always surprised there isn't more interest the fast paced action of 'slowly plodding through snow.'

What made you select these 6 activities as they don't seem to have much in common?

A lot of my responses to your questions would have been preceded by "It depends...". It was all just too vague. I would suggest that if you really want to get some insight into peoples motivation you really need to talk to them in some depth.

Done. Good luck with your research 

What happened to people in the climbing community being encouraging & welcoming, regardless of level? Telling someone they deserve negative feedback is uncalled for & shows huge lack of tact on your part.

Anyway, little Alan, I’m sure OP is grateful for the increase in publicity following your outburst.

Yes - but kayaking starts with the word "kayaking". And you could get wet. At least with the ironing thing you generally wait for stuff to dry first. Or is it wet ironing that makes it extreme?

Thank you for taking the time to comment on our study. However, your comment is made without  knowing our hypotheses, and/or the specific manner in which our data (and the inclusion of climbing) will be analysed. You are correct that top roping (and other forms of climbing) is not an extreme sport, but others certainly are. I would like you to feel confident that our experienced team of researchers and climbers very much know what we are doing, and we would still love it if you complete the survey!

The great thing with extreme ironing, is that it can be combined with many sports.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_ironing

I'm very welcoming to climbers, just not to researchers trying to recruit people for their research using lazy clichés. This is not a kid asking for help with their school project - somebody doing a PhD should at the very least have learned to be rigorous and careful about defining the terms they use.

And unlike you I have the honesty to express my opinions under my real name instead of creating an anonymous account to make sneering childish jokes.

Could you clarify that a bit for me?  Do you mean you want people for whom climbing is definitely not an 'extreme sport' to respond to your survey? (ie: the overwhelming majority of participants all the time, and everyone else as well most of the time.)

Does this also apply to kayaking?  Are you interested in paddlers who don't routinely risk their lives or do you only invite responses from people who habitually paddle grade 5/5+ and hurl themselves off waterfalls etc.?

Actually, perhaps what I could really do with you clarifying for me is what actually is an 'extreme sport'.  How would you define it?

Edit to add:  I had a go at your survey and fell at the first hurdle - perhaps I'm over thinking it, but I honestly couldn't make up my mind whether I participate in extreme sport or not.  My climbing definitely isn't - some of the kayaking might very occasionally qualify I think, in the sense that it's potentially quite dangerous, but I'm really not sure.

On your University Bio you state the following;

‘My PhD research focusses on the parallels between extreme sport and addiction.’

This is not mentioned in the questionnaire introduction; please clarify?

OK. Despite reservations about the term "extreme sport" in relation to climbing, I've completed the survey.

We get a lot of requests on here to complete undergraduate level surveys of this sort. I always complete these, and seldom complain about the construction of the survey. It seems to me that these are about helping the student along the path to their first degree and that the purpose of the survey is not to advance human knowledge - just to advance the student's education.

This however is a PhD level survey, so I think we can perhaps be more critical.

There seemed to be a number of questions in the first part that simply duplicate each other. Do I get a "rush of chemicals". Are the "physical sensations" great, Do I get a "physical thrill" or a "physiological buzz", do I "enjoy the sensations". Have I missed something here?

Then there are a series of questions which are phrased ambiguously or which make assumptions about my current mental state. I found some of these impossible to answer (but when I tried to leave a question blank I was told the answer is required - I resent that a bit). Failing a more satisfactory alternative, I answered all these with the the mid-point answer. Examples follow:

"The emotions I experience are more intense than in other areas of my life". OK, they are more intense than in many other areas of my life, but not all other areas of my life. How should I answer?

"I feel like I have satisfied my immediate need for a thrill". I don't think I ever experience an "immediate need for a thrill".

"My sport would make me less depressed". I'm not at all depressed at the moment (luckily).

"My sport would help me calm down". I don't think I need calming down at the moment.

"My head would be clearer right now if I could do my sport". My head feels completely clear right now (fortunately).

"I often feel a kinship with animals and plants". I often feel a kinship with animals but never with plants - how should I answer?

Good luck with the survey. Hopefully other respondents will have less difficulty with it.

Martin

Indeed, I'd personally feel more at risk cycling across London, than down any black run. 

Sounds more like an 80s nightclub at 0155, last dance, last chance! Or Trainspotting.

To be blunt with you....your language/phraseology in your first post wasn't ideal and this comment confirms it for me.

Shouldn't that be all explained so participants are giving informed consent when taking part? Surely whatever subject you're doing you're PhD, it will have to show the research has been done ethically?

I completed the questionnaire, but like you I got frustrated with unclear terminology, repetitions of the same question in slightly different guises, and the sheer impossibility of answering some of the questions at all, so I answered about a third of all questions with the neutral middle option.

I also couldn´t get rid of the impression that the researcher was intent upon proving a thesis: namely, that all practicians of "extreme" sports do so in order to compensate for their general incapability of experiencing strong emotions/being in control/being fulfilled etc. in the rest of ther lives. This may be the case with the likes of Hermann Buhl or Alex Honnold, but to lump them together with your average indoor toproper and to classify tham all as participants in an "extreme" sport is, I think, a fundamental mistake which undermines the validity of the whole questionnaire and thus the PhD itself.

It always amazes me that stuff like this actually gets past the supervising professor.

Just for clarity, how is this research funded?

I gave up. I didn't really understand a lot of the questions.

I completed the survey yesterday.

After a while, I had the distinct feeling that the 'real' question you wanted to ask was: "Because extreme sports give induce an adrenaline high, you pursue these extreme sports, putting yourself at risk, to chase that high - don't you, buddy ?"

Would that be a fair observation?

Speaking only for myself, I came to climbing because it was the only way to get to the top of a mountain when the footpaths I took came to an end. I climb to get somewhere, not to feel a chemical rush.

Mountain biking came about similarly.

UKC is has many people like me, and few 'adrenaline junkies'.

All that said, you'll get some interesting data to help you, and others, in your study.

"JF", in the survey.

Yes, it seems very focussed on adrenaline / addiction, without any exploration of other motivations. Competition / proving prowess? There was a bit about changed psychological environment. I'm not really sure about the comparators...often more interactive and overtly competitive.

It's hard to get a balance of questions within a length people are likely to tolerate. The risk is that what is an analysis of a limited area gets used as a more general description.

I take part in unremarkable climbing which is about as thrilling as sitting on a park bench in the rain.  Sorry I don’t qualify for your survey.

PS Also a minor tip concerning the title: it´s "Research into ..." or "Research on ..." (a specific field), never "Research in ..."

Probably an act in Parliament?

Had to stop on page 3 as the questions were repeating themselves. Not sure if this is some trick to see if my answers change as I go on or a mistake but I bailed out part way.

What is your own experience of participating in what you lump together in extreme sport?

I've completed the questionnaire, Odetteh. The section on Craving was very difficult to interpret as it was asking if I wanted to be doing my sport now etc. Other things in life that you're not going to find out out about in your survey can displace any favourite activity, so "now"-based questions are going to be personal context driven. Whether rephrasing the questions or clarifying the intention would help I leave to you.

Secondly, try looking at the subjective/religious/worldview  section through the filter of formal religion and you'll see catechetical answers that don't have anything to do with extreme sports and be difficult for you to interpret without knowing why they were given.

UKC might be a very useful place to undertake a shredding exercise for any prospective questionnaire before going public- but surely this should be done with your peers 'in-house'.

Where's the bit about Ronhill fetishism? Massive part of some climbers' motivation.

I normally answer the surveys that people post on here as well as possible with an open mind, and they can get negative reactions on UKC which aren't usually merited (especially for undergraduate projects). I tried my best with this one but didn't complete it after I got to this question:

"I feel like I have satisfied my immediate need for thrill"

If I say no, it sounds like I have an immediate need for thrill that hasn't gone away, and if I say yes it sounds like I managed to overcome my immediate need for thrill. What if I never felt an immediate need for thrill?

I should say that perhaps unlike some other commenters, I do engage in the more extreme end of climbing from time to time, with alpine soloing and sketchy ice climbs. But it's still not an adrenaline sport and I would never describe it in terms of immediate thrills. 

I don't feel I can answer this survey in an honest way that I would be happy could contribute to published science.

If someone posted a survey about whether alpine climbing was connected to some deep urge to suffer for no good reason, I would be more receptive

As a fellow academic I'd advise you to get hold one of several good books on PhD questionnaire design.

I'd add many sports labelled as extreme and supposedly motivated by adrenaline are well researched to indicate they are usually not, especially climbing, even when risks are high.

I'd add that unless this is a psychology experiment on this website (for which you would need site permission) your response about knowing what you and your team are doing is unhelpful (and not well evidenced by some of your poorly worded questions).

Best of luck with your research, irrespective.

The phrasing and vagueness of the questions would suggest otherwise, what grade mtb, rock, ice, mixed, river etc do you consider to be extreme? Versuses those not extreme but not really suitable for a novice in one of the disciplines? Without knowing this you can't really get past your first questions. 

I fell at the first question because you haven't told me what are extreme sports and what are non-extreme. So I can't answer the first question.

Forgive me, but this is so basic that it makes your questionnaire pointless. Please talk this through with your superviser and start again.

For your information, I climb, and I run. None of my climbing is "extreme", I am a numpty. Some of my running might alarm the faint-hearted because I trundle around off-road on my own in bad weather, but I wouldn't describe it as extreme. Some running - like the Spine Race - is potentially life-threatening.

I hope that indicates why you can't label any one sport as "extreme".

I also failed at the first hurdle. If you're only looking for extreme sports types rather than climbers you probably don't want half the people here though. 

Version 1.2 has or had a list.

Extreme - Climbing, Mountain Biking, BASE Jumping, Wingsuit flying, Big Wave Surfing*, Freestyle skiing or snowboarding and kayaking. 

*Yet there was no option for that to be actually select if that was your sport which is odd.

Under non extreme, the otherwise stated as low risk, list was Rugby, Football, Golf, Swimming, Gymnastics, Running and other (though no box for you to say what other sport you participated in).

How big is a big wave, I've surf kayaked stuff that was 10', 3m ish and it's pretty intimidating when you're sitting at water level, but I can roll and swim, so I'd never describe it as an extreme sport(although I did once off Barmouth cartwheel unintentionally in the kayak and got spat out). I wasn't chasing highs, filling some inner need, just out for a few hours fun, or relaxation as if you paddle out and just bob around waiting for one you feel like it's pleasantly calming! 

https://www.firstaid4sport.co.uk/blog/most-common-rugby-injuries

One in 4 players injured per season doesn´t sound like low risk to me ...

Trampolines in gardens must have a fairly high rate, horse riding too.

Running in certain places in Glasgow would be classed as ‘extreme’.

No idea how big. Anything much above flat calm was big to me in the limited sea “sports” I tried 🫣!!

Yes, I was very surprised with rugby being stated as low risk. Even school level rugby has never been without risk. How the OP defines risk would be interesting to hear.

And then there´s this: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/125567224/tiddlywink-stuck-up-christchurch...

Weird list of extreme stuff? I raced motorbikes for years, that was an adrenalin sport. Onsight cave snorkeling was just stupid. Roller coaster fanatics? Bungee jumping? I don't climb for the adrenalin, that's normally a sign of it going wrong. Especially with soloing. 

Maybe reassess your target audience? 

Ok Odette, you´ve justifiably got a lot of stick here, so I´ll give you some additional information (AMH59; AH59 would have had good chances of not being unique, you didn´t think that one through either).

I´ve been a passionate climber for over 40 years, and I would not consider myself in any way to be a practitioner of an extreme sport. Sure, there are moments when I get into awkward situations with uncertain outcome, but I´ve learnt that in such moments I become very calm. I definitely do not seek these situations; I have family and loved ones, and the last thing I want is consciously to endanger those pleasures or cause grief for those whom I would leave behind. I gave up serious Alpine climbing nearly 30 years ago when my son was born, because Alpine climbing has way more objective dangers than an ambitious day at the crag.

There have been a few situations in which I had at least a 50% chance of dying; several times in the Alps, and once in my early career soloing on Gritstone. All caused by lack of experience, (very) inaccurate weather forecasts, sloppily used equipment, failure to read the guidebook properly etc. Immediately after having got out of them, my first thought was always of a shower in the hut or a pint with my friends. For an observer these situations would probably have qualified as "extreme sport"; for me they were definitely not what I had been hoping to experience. I had no chemical rushes, just immense relief mixed with pride that I´d kept my cool and made it. I repeat: I most definitely did not aim to place myself in such situations; they happened, and I had to deal with them. And I certainly was not looking for ways of compensating for a lack of strong emotions or rewarding feelings in my life.

I don´t consider climbing as a whole to  be on a par with, for instance, BASE jumping, wild water kayaking or extreme skiing. In all these 3 sports you have huge imponderables: wind gusts when you´re 5m away from the wall, treacherous currents, and ice patches or hidden rocks in that 70 degree couloir. In my opinion: if you want to get meaningful and relevant data from extreme climbers, you should seek them out and ask them for interviews. As you´ve probably realized: this is the wrong place for research, because your blanket definition of all sorts of climbing as an "extreme" sport just doesn´t fit the profiles of the huge majority of us on this site.

Hope that helps a bit, and good luck with your PhD

You´ve replied exactly once in 52 posts, not answering the main points raised. I´d assumed that a PhD researcher would be interested in communicating with those who had taken the time to answer the questionnaire, and in replying to our criticism of your method and terminology (a fair proportion of our answers probably came from academics). Of course we don´t know your hypothesis, but I think we have a pretty good idea. Would be nice to hear your reaction. Have written to  your prof and suggested he should keep an eye on the thread.

PS we´re not usually as severe with this sort of thread, but as others have pointed out: a PhD is on another level and must be defendable in all aspects.

Good post. I'm case the OP is listening I'd say this applies to 95+% of climbers. An adrenaline rush is almost an indication of failure rather than what is being aimed at.

That‘s it in nutshell.

Valid points above, but they only need repeating so many times.  The OP is under no obligation to respond and you can't really blame her if she doesn't - this thread has turned into a pile-on now, it's brutal and it's time to stop.

I‘m not piling on, I was trying to give some constructive additional information. I spent a while on my main post, and if she chooses to stay out of the discussion, that’s not my problem. The whole construction and phraseology of the questionnaire is way below what I would expect from someone who is aiming for a doctoral title, and I would expect that she should be able to defend herself against valid criticism. 

If you think this is brutal, then look away if they take this into their viva exam and use the same line of defence with the examiners. 
 

This should have been piloted before it came anywhere near actual participants, to pick up and iron out the problems people are pointing out. And the OP may choose not to engage with posters, though some might consider it good form if they did, given they are asking people to give up their time to help; but I really hope they are taking stock of the replies, and that they will be discussing them with their supervisors. 

I’ve completed the survey best I can. As most people on here I don’t consider what I do as extreme. Mainly I climb ice and if I’ve had a big adrenaline hit something has gone badly wrong and lessons need to be learnt. It’s not something I crave or pursue, I do like to push myself later in the season, but apart from the objective hazards which I avoid like the plague, hopefully the worst that can go wrong is to break something. 
 

I have designed some surveys at work (about safety culture) and I think yours could be significantly simplified, which would greatly increase the participation rate if you could say that the survey would only take a couple minutes to complete.  Don’t underestimate how low people’s attention span is these days. Sorry if that sounds patronizing, but it’s just my experience. 

The reply reads rather oddly to me.  It doesn't encourage engagement, and the references to experienced team etc seem odd for the project...was it written by the OP?

And as others have said, better to get some flak now than in your viva.

So long as they've paid their fees....................

Assuming this PhD does eventually get written up, the OP has a long road to travel between now and then.  But even if the viva were brutal what wouldn't happen is a feeding frenzy of people jumping in to repeat a point that has already been more than adequately made, while others find ways to rephrase what they've already said over and over again.

"I'm just giving the op constructive feedback" - yeah, I'd have believed that of your first reply or even the second.  You might be kidding yourself that it's still the case now, but it's really not.  Something else is going on, something quite tribal, and ugly.  In short, it has turned into bullying now.  The OP has had quite enough of a kicking and it's time to let it lie.

Thread

Does anyone think their sport extreme? From the little I know of e.g. BASE, the aim is still to be in control and not a sort Russian roulette adrenaline junky activity 

For me, the difference would be one of controllability of the risks. If pretty much all of the risks can be largely eradicated by technical provision, e.g. indoor climbing, most sport climbing and most bouldering, then you can take part without choosing to accept significant risk. A good proportion of trad routes would fall into this category too, but far from all.

If, however, mitigation of the risks relies largely on personal judgement or skill, e.g. Alpine climbing, soloing, DWS, then there's an argument for putting these activities in a different category. Call it "Extreme" if you like, it's just a name.

I don't think many people will seek out the adrenaline rush from when things go very wrong, but I do think there's a lure to judging things well enough such that the line between success and catastrophic failure is approached but not passed. How close people choose to get to that line, and how frequently, will determine to what extent their pursuit should be classed as 'extreme'.

Seems like a good way of putting it. More about judgement and hopefully controlled risk taking than adrenaline and fear. Would suggest to me some interesting questions about how people acknowledge, judge, manage and accept risk in various sports might.be Illuminating

True. But some problems can’t be fixed later, you can’t unbake a cake- and if the survey is going to be used to build from in another phase of the work, then everything that follows will be compromised unless the survey is robust. Yes, supervisors should pick problems up; but they don’t always. A colleague who did a PhD reached their viva to be told there were serious flaws in their data collection processes. The data collection was long since completed, and going back to do it again was not possible. The whole thing hung in the balance- it looked possible that he would end up with nothing to show for it. A resolution was found- but that haunted me throughout my own doctorate- where was the fatal flaw that I and my supervisors- always supportive, encouraging, but very busy- might have missed?

But even if the viva were brutal what wouldn't happen is a feeding frenzy of people jumping in to repeat a point that has already been more than adequately made, while others find ways to rephrase what they've already said over and over again.

No, it could be worse - two people dissecting the last 3 years of your life, and finding irredeemable errors, would be much worse than reading a thread on here. And one person’s feeding frenzy is another’s establishing consensus that this is a genuine issue that should be addressed by the candidate, rather than a couple of random opinions off the internet who can be ignored. I agree that any more comments about whether climbing is an extreme sport or not are adding nothing at this stage- but some posters have given quite detailed accounts of the way they experience their climbing in relation to this, which I think are helpful to illustrate the point; and there are posters who have cited specific questions where, for example, the phrasing makes unwarranted assumptions and forces a choice between options none of which are applicable. That feedback is well made and I hope the OP has registered it, and appreciates the time people have taken to help them.
 

Indeed the responses here do make me wonder if qualitative interviews, and something like Thematic Analysis, would give richer and more interesting data than a questionnaire; it may be the OP has this planned already, and if so some of the replies in this thread would be useful in thinking about the interview guide.

Are you confusing me with someone else? Until now I’ve only made one reply in this thread. 
 

Indeed.  As I said, wholly valid points made above (some a little more sneeringly than absolutely necessary but never mind). 

A 'pile on' is what occurs when others steam in to repeat those points again, and again, unnecessarily.  The effect is that it begins to look very much like bullying by the group, even though the individuals who make up the group would hotly deny that they're bullying anyone.  (And indeed that they're participating in a 'pile on', even though they're restating points that have already been made several times before and perhaps even more emphatically restating points that they themselves have already made.) 

The OP is presumably a student of psychology, so might be better equipped to not take this personally than most.

No, I was paraphrasing another poster as I saw a parallel between what they were saying and what you were saying.  Didn't make that very clear though, sorry.

Couldn't agree more, what a depressing thread. No wonder the op hasn't been back. 

This strikes me as a good point.  I agree that few will seek out the adrenaline rush from dealing with things that have gone very wrong - but perhaps it is as good a definition of an 'extreme sport' as any that people are seeking an 'adrenaline rush' at all.

Perhaps by approaching the 'line' between success and catastrophic failure that you mention - but then again perhaps it's even more clearly an 'extreme' pursuit when the individual is deliberately looking to experience fear regardless of objective danger.  For example by participating in a commercial bungee jump, which may be a terrifying experience but actually very safe.

In climbing terms it raises an interesting contradiction - that perhaps the participants in a 'charity abseil' signing up to abseil down a viaduct somewhere, under instruction, tied in to a toprope and separately belayed are participating in an extreme sport, whereas a climber making a sketchy abseil to retreat from an unsuccessful attempt at a new route is not.  Because of the two of them the former is the one deliberately setting out to experience and confront their fear, whereas the latter might just be calmly finding a way to retreat to safety from an objectively far more dangerous situation.

I think this is a function of the forum design- once threads get quite long, I doubt new posters read through every post on them. Many (most?) will be unaware that the same point they are making has been made multiple times already. I think this thread has passed that length already, and has digressed into conversations between other posters about some of the points that have come up. I can see how it can look like a ‘pile on’, especially if OP is unfamiliar with the site- but more likely it’s a succession of people, in isolation, each thinking they have come up with an interesting point. Tone- is always hard to judge in plain text messages. I think it’s been mostly civil. But then I sometimes look at X- never for very long though, it’s like swimming in filth. UKC remains a corner of decency, by and large…

And- if I’m right, the  irony is that our posts will disappear into the pile, and new people will continue to make the same points, until the thread runs out of stream and gets archived…

Very interesting post in reply to John. 

I’ve only ever had an “adrenaline rush” once that I can remember, on a greasy scramble in Snowdonia, having climbed up something I knew I couldn’t reverse, and not knowing what was still to come. It was horrible, an experience I hope I never repeat- shaking uncontrollably, full “flight or flight” reaction, but to a situation where I could do neither. It was a long way from the ‘buzz’ from something objectively safe but ‘exciting’, or the calm I’ve experienced doing something hazardous but feeling in control of the situation. 

AT86 here. I really struggled with the questions. I have been climbing for 16 years. My climbing is quite a wide spectrum of experiences. First of all, even when I get myself into dangerous situations, adrenaline means I’ve screwed up. I do not actively chase situations I would describe as screwing up. This makes it difficult to answer half the questions. Would I be planning the next time I go climbing right now? Yes, and I do some form of climbing most days of the week. Would I be planning the next time I put myself in uncontrolled danger? No. Would going climbing now be fun? Yes. Would going off route and finding myself 20m above gear on choss half way up a mountain fun? No, it would be a situation I would have to remain extremely calm to resolve, I cannot treat it as fun or not fun, it’s not the right spectrum to put it on.

If there was a version of this that explicitly asks us about situations that could be classified as extreme in the activity we undertake it would be much easier to answer, I feel!

Anyhow, best of luck with your research!

I agree with a lot of your post but I wonder if extreme activities are those where the risk can't be mitigated by skill/judgement/experience etc? By that I mean those where there is so much going on with the activity itself and the environment it happens in that humans can't always bring judgement etc to bear?

What are you thinking of?

Skills, not thrills, init!

I was thinking about wing suit flying. It happens in a medium that humans aren't familiar with and at a pace where human reflexes maybe can't keep up. However, I wonder if by my own definition I might need to include most of the things John mentioned too? Anything involving unforecast changes in weather or unavoidable avalanche risk would seem to fall under that heading. I guess the problem is that everyone thinks they can mitigate these things to differing degrees and nobody wants to self identify as an extreme sports person!

Horse riding on trampolines in garden is extremely extreme let me tell you.

"I feel like I have satisfied my immediate need for thrill"

A leading question like many in the questionnaire.  Plus also allow for the fact that the climbing was nothing to do with thrill seeking and in fact a state of flow and calmness that could be considered the opposite.

But people do mitigate the risk of avalanche through judgement and skill.  Well, not the chance of an avalanche actually happening but their risk of being caught up in it, through route choice and planning.

I think wing suit flying is an environment that wing suit flyers have trained themselves to become familiar with, and have learned conditioned reflexes to cope with.  On a more mundane level you do the same when you learn to ride a bike, or a motorbike, or to ski, skate etc..  And they'll do it the same way those other skills are learned - by practising first in an environment where the consequences of getting it wrong are not so high.  In the case of wing suit flyers by first wearing their wingsuit and learning to control it whilst skydiving well away from any massive cliffs and well above the ground.

You train reflexes to control the situation faster than your conscious brain can keep up, and you learn to use anticipation to compensate for things coming at you faster than you can purely react to.  None of this comes naturally to humans, we're a uniquely adaptable animal.

I think the only thing that would really fit into your definition of "the risk can't be mitigated by skill/judgement/experience etc." is pure chance.  Perhaps the kind of 'dare' that adolescent boys might take on to try to impress each other.  It's a form of gambling - in that case not for money but for social status.

I think plenty of people are willing to self-identify as an 'extreme sports' person, but only in the sense that they participate in 'extreme sports' as defined by, well, by what various posters above are describing as a lazy cliche.  It's a circular argument.

What I think they're less willing to admit to is being a "thrill-seeker", ie: one who takes risks on just for the hell of it, for the 'adrenaline rush' of getting away with it.  That has perjorative connotations, perhaps because it's associated with the kind of adolescent behaviour that we tend to regard as immature and rather stupid once we're a bit older.

Climbing is a funny one.  Personally I'm pretty sure I've experienced more fear during my life whilst climbing than doing any other activity, and yet I don't think I've ever once consciously chased an 'adrenaline rush' doing it as I have, occasionally, whilst doing other things.

Ooh, yes - there's an interesting thing to explore!  The difference between seeking a "thrill" and seeking to experience a "flow state" in a risky situation.

Maybe that's the answer to what I was wondering in my last paragraph above.  "Thrill seeking" is perhaps about relinquishing control, rolling the dice and taking your chances whereas the "flow state" thing is about maintaining control.  Though perhaps both cases involve the conscious mind stopping its chatter and taking a back seat for a while.

When the term 'extreme sports' came into use, it described sports with a very real risk of death or serious injury. In climbing terms, that meant high altitude mountaineering, free soloing, etc. People wanted to do these sports for all sorts of reasons but they sought to reduce the risks wherever possible. It was the activity that was the draw and not the risk.

Since then, the term has been widened to also include activities with virtually no risk at all, such as bungee jumping and charity abseiling. It seems that any excitement inherent in extreme sports may be nothing to do with assumed risk at all, rather emerging from a lack of personal control. Where the risk is real, such excitement is usually minimised; where it isn't, such excitement is often maximised. The two approaches could hardly be more different.

That would explain why many participants in extreme sports seem to have widely differing motivations for involvement, and why many climbers don't relate to the 'extreme sports' label as commonly used about ziplining.

This^^^^

The start of my trade union involvement was a fellow PhD student in social sciences employed on the same RAD contract I was. They failed their PhD due to supervisor incompetence that somehow was missed at all the supposed independent checks. When someone is about to spend so much time (on average well over 3 years) and something is obviously wrong it's best people are honest with them.

The OP is free to contact me if they wish, through email from my profile. I've worked with PhD ethics committees and on setting central University research quality frameworks across all subject areas for over 20 years.

Almost half of the experimental work for my PhD was a single 2 year long experiment with monthly sampling. Before I started I had a meeting with someone in the university stats department (head of department I think but it was a long time ago)  to discuss sampling regime, duplication etc.  I went back while writing up to get some further advice on data analysis to find there had been a change of staff & the new guy looked at my experimental design & said it was terrible. I got my PhD but I suspect if my external had been more of a statistician than a plant ecologist I may have had problems.

To the OP, good luck but take on board the comments here, I tried to fill in your questionaire but didn't get very far, seems I wasn't the only one.

I’ve filled out your questionnaire. Good luck with your PhD.

I mean I do more than one "extreme " sport and it only lets you chose one, but the one i consider most dangerous aka back country skiing isn't on the list. 

Some interesting points in this thread. I am also a bit concerned about the research question if this work is going to survive a PhD viva. 

Supervisor's publication record: 

https://pure.southwales.ac.uk/en/persons/david-shearer/publications/

Climbing publications:

"Addiction in Extreme Sports: An Exploration of Withdrawal States in Rock Climbers" https://pure.southwales.ac.uk/en/publications/addiction-in-extreme-sports-a...

"Development and initial validation of a rock climbing craving questionnaire (RCCQ)" https://pure.southwales.ac.uk/en/publications/development-and-initial-valid...

Shearer works largely in team sports and his only publications related to rock climbing both frame it as an addiction. We can recognise this is a common perspective amongst non-climbers. Two publications, only one as first or last author, does not constitute great experience or interest in a field in my view and I'm surprised he has taken on this PhD.

In reply to Martin Hore and others:

Repeating the same question in a slightly different form is common in psychological questionnaires. It's a bit irritating for participants but it is supposed to give a truer picture. 

In reply to ScraggyGoat, TobyA and others:

Regarding the opacity of the research question, of course human research should generally adhere to the principle of informed consent which includes knowing the question being asked. However, concealing the research question in psychology can be considered ethical when knowledge of the question might influence participants responses.

The OP shouldn't be surprised an audience with so many people active in research should be interested in the question. Her slightly defensive responses (in writing) will hopefully have softened by the time she gets to her viva. 

A leading cave diver -arguably one of the most extreme sports - said that during a dive the last thing he needed in his body was adrenaline…

Ok, I've not read the paper in detail, but a cursory look suggests that you could replace 'climbing' with (say) 'playing the piano' or 'playing with my kids' with much the same results. Surprise, surprise, people who like doing something get pissed off when they are prevented from doing it.

Perhaps 'parenting' should be treated as an extreme activity!

It also came over as a pretty bad case of confirmation bias: Make a hypothesis and then look for evidence to support it. Academic rigour? Depressing.

Are you a senior social worker ?

Very interesting post. And a little worrying. 

I've emailed David Shearer twice since this thread began. First time just to alert him to the thread. I received a considered reply confirming that he was already aware of, and was following the thread.

My second, longer email explained the difficulty I, and others, have had completing the survey. I noted that "extreme" is not well defined in the introduction to the survey, and that "climbing" covers a whole spectrum of activity which at one end of the spectrum (eg Honnold's "Free Solo") could certainly be categorised as extreme, and at the other end of the spectrum (where most of us operate most of the time) would not be considered extreme by those who participate. 

I also noted that for those of us who, as others have noted, gain satisfaction in climbing through making sound judgements, keeping calm and controlling the risks (as well as enjoying moving well over the rock, in the great outdoors, in the company of good friends) the survey gave very little opportunity to express these motives. Too many of the questions seemed to assume that our motivation was the need for a thrill or an adrenaline rush, which for many of us is the antithesis of why we climb. I've not yet received a reply to this second email (though it was sent fairly recently).

I've now followed the links to David Shearer's previous publications in your post and read the abstracts (only). Superficially, at least, it does appear that he may have already convinced himself that climbing is an addiction, that many of us, especially "high performers", do it for the immediate thrills, and that we experience withdrawal symptoms, similar to drug users, when deprived of the opportunity. Is there, as Marek suggests above, a danger of "confirmation bias" in this latest research? 

This is quite worrying, particularly given the criticisms on this thread (including by experienced academic researchers in other fields) of the quality of this current survey. Also because of the doubts as to whether respondents will be a representative sample of climbers, particularly as those climbers (most of us, I think) who do not climb primarily for the immediate thrills, are more likely to have given up on the survey and not completed it - as several have admitted above.

Does it matter? I think it does. "Academic" reinforcement of a public perception that climbing is dangerous and/or reckless makes it more difficult for us to explain, especially to spouses and family, and also to worried landowners, why we do it. And it does nothing to combat the increased insurance premiums with which we are regularly faced.

The final paragraph of your second linked David Shearer abstract reads "However, if as shown here, craving for climbing (and potentially other extreme sports) is similar to that experienced by drug-users and addicts, there is the potential that climbing and other extreme sports could be used as a replacement therapy for drug users." I'm not sure I would want to be part of that experiment - on either end of the rope!

Martin

If you hunt around (will try to find link again) part of the express stated motivation for this research is to evaluate the potential of extreme sports as a treatment for substance dependency.

I share your concerns about climbing being cast as an 'extreme sport' in all cases, let alone an addiction.  But do you not see how repeatedly emailing the OP's supervisor to mither them about it could be perceived as a little bit, erm.. over enthusiastic? 

Have you considered just winding your neck in a bit?

Which would potentially be a valid area for research, however flawed the OP's questionnaire and potentially lazy assumptions about what actually constitutes an 'extreme sport' might be. 

A friend of a friend was working on a PhD a few years ago looking into the potential of weight training and bodybuilding as a therapeutic treatment for drug addiction. 
(At one of the Sheffield Uni's - he was something of a gym bunny himself at the time, I don't know whether he submitted the thesis and successfully completed his PhD in the end.)

I'd hypothesise that any exercise gives the required endorphin hit, which is already well documented as being addictive, but also beneficial to so many mental health conditions. The sport, extreme or otherwise isn't likely that relevant as 99.9% of us aren't doing anything that constitutes an extreme sport. 

I suspect your hypothesis might well turn out to be correct, subject to.. y'know.. further research.

I would hope that academic research into potential therapeutic applications of "extreme sports" might at least involve coming up with a working definition of what one is though, rather than just relying on cliched lazy assumptions about what is, and isn't, "extreme".

Possibly valid. But I'm not sure one substantive email (the first was really just notifying him of the thread) counts as "repeatedly". I wrote to David Shearer (rather than Odette) because it appears (confirmed by "flaneur"'s links) that it's his research interest that sets the agenda for his team. I think Odette has probably come in for enough stick on here.

Martin

I'm glad you did. The problems were clearly also indicative of issues above the responsibility of the OP.....  a new questionnaire was produced after this thread on another thread (and presumably there is now a better awareness of issues in questionnaire design that are essential for PhD success). 

Some posters here have been awful to students and disparaged entire subject areas in the past... you were trying to be constructive in the face of some worrying looking evidence.

I think it's more a sign of our times, how many people get their exercise 24/7/365 artificially in gyms on machines and don't do any sport. Or those who feel walking up just one hill for a little over a hour constitutes bragging rights on national radio, social media etc.. so the thought of people who might wear a wet suit, harness, helmet... for their activity, they are extreme relatively speaking! 

Was it?

Nah.  I love a good shout at the clouds myself, but I can't get with you on this one. 

The OP's supervisor has mostly published research around participants in competitive team sports, some at an elite level with the arduous training regime that comes with it.  They are the baseline against whom people who do a few routes at the wall a couple of times a week and go cragging now and again when the weather is nice are considered 'extreme'.  (Because there's absolutely no risk of hurting yourself as, say, a professional rugby player, after all!)

Another thread with a similar title and text did briefly appear, but I think it has been removed...

presumably that was it (I though it was just a duplicate post)

(edit to add original post)

Maybe they'll claim their research field of 'athletes' was sourced from this extreme sports forum. 

I saw that one too, thanks.  You're quite right though, it was just a duplicate post with a link to same questionnaire - the OP started two different threads simultaneously.  (The other one was in 'Rocktalk' I think.)

My apologies,  I just assumed they had, as climbing was removed on the new OP as being extreme and comments were more positive.

Irrespective, the importance of rigorous questionnaire design in a PhD can't be overstated. Best case the candidate will have to rely on other evidence. Worst case the candidate will need to start some work again based on a new questionnaire. Any PhD student requiring questionnaire based reserach data should be made aware of these issues from the start, and the University resources that are available to help.

It annoys me when undergrad supervisors don't properly ensure this let alone research teams. Seeing a friend and academic colleague fail after 4 years of hard research work because of bad advice and sloppy supervision is horrible.