Feeling safe enough: Psychological safety in the mountain guiding and avalanche profession

This article examines perceptions of psychological safety among 2SLGBTQ+, women, BIPOC, or trauma-affected members of the avalanche and mountain guiding profession. It draws on in-depth interviews conducted in Canada, USA, Switzerland and France within a profession that is overwhelmingly White, cis-gender, hetero, and male. Psychological safety was defined by research participants as feeling safe enough to show one’s full self and to speak up when feeling unsafe due to either mountain or human-caused hazards based on the principles of trust, interconnection, and reciprocity within a group. Factors that supported psychological safety were (in order of strength in the data) vulnerability, teamwork, physical safety, and gender diversity. Psychological risk in relation to human-caused hazards was found to significantly affect physical safety from mountain hazards for both members of the profession and their clients. Human-caused hazards in the profession include exclusion, harassment, and discrimination based on identity factors, such as stigma related to trauma or mental health challenges, racism, ableism, sexism, misogyny. The study revealed that while significant work remains to be done to ensure psychological safety within the avalanche and guiding profession, there is also much to celebrate. Human-caused hazards are entirely dependent on human choice, and are determined by human agency. Members of non-dominant groups demonstrated their abilities to carve out psychologically safe-enough spaces to be able to thrive with authenticity within a competitive, hierarchical and hyper-masculine professional culture.