Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

Tales of disaster: the role of accident storytelling in safety teaching

Original Article

Abstract

Is it appropriate to tell tales about accidents as a form of teaching? Storytelling about accidents is an intrinsic part of safety education, but the role and nature of these stories deserves critical consideration. Even accident reports themselves are reconstructed interpretations of events, and accident stories are at least one step further removed. Knowledge about specific accidents is uncertain and unsuitable as a learning outcome. However, accident stories play a role in teaching by creating learning experiences through which students can acquire threshold concepts in safety science. The realism of a well-told story, combined with uncertainty and subjectivity surrounding its interpretation, creates an environment that promotes transformative learning. Narrative choices can make the difference between effective story-based teaching and oversimplified hindsight explanations.

Keywords

Safety Education Threshold concepts Narrative Case studies 

References

  1. Alexander RD, Rae AJ, Nicholson M (2010) Matching goals and methods in system safety engineering. In: Presented at the IET system safety conference, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  2. Arezes PM, Swuste P (2012) Occupational health and safety post-graduation courses in Europe: a general overview. Saf Sci 50(3):433–442. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASSE (2004) Safety curriculum guidelines. Retrieved 9 April 2015, from http://www.asse.org/professionalaffairs/govtaffairs/ngposi18/
  4. Atherton JS (2013) Health and safety and threshold concepts. Retrieved 10 Nov 2014, from http://www.doceo.co.uk/tools/TC_HandS.htm
  5. Aven T (2014) What is safety science? Saf Sci 67:15–20. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baillie C, Bowden JA, Meyer JHF (2013) Threshold capabilities: threshold concepts and knowledge capability linked through variation theory. High Educ 65(2):227–246. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9540-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergman A, Gray B, Moffat J, Simpson E, Rivara F (2002) Mobilizing for pedestrian safety: an experiment in community action. Inj Prev 8(4):264–267. doi:10.1136/ip.8.4.264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter K (1993) The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education. Educ Res 22(1):5–18. doi:10.3102/0013189X022001005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cullen ET, Washington S (2007) Tell me a story…using stories to improve occupational safety training. In: Proceedings of ASSE’s safety 2007, Orlando, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Dannels DP (2000) Learning to be professional: technical classroom discourse, practice, and professional identity construction. J Bus Tech Commun 14(1):5–37. doi:10.1177/105065190001400101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson L (2008) Tragedy in the adventure playground: media representations of mountaineering accidents in New Zealand. Leis Stud 27(1):3–19. doi:10.1080/02614360701240972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dekker S (2011) The criminalization of human error in aviation and healthcare: a review. Saf Sci 49(2):121–127. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2010.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dekker S, Cilliers P, Hofmeyr J-H (2011) The complexity of failure: implications of complexity theory for safety investigations. Saf Sci 49(6):939–945. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.01.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delatte N (2010) Failure literacy in structural engineering. Eng Struct 32(7):1952–1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edwards D, Ashmore M, Potter J (1995) Death and furniture: the rhetoric, politics and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism. Hist Hum Sci 8(2):25–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Entwistle N (2000). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. In: Presented at the teaching and learning research programme conference, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  17. Frye N (1957) Anatomy of criticism. Princeton UP, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert J, Hipkins R, Cooper G (2005) Faction or fiction: using narrative pedagogy in school science education. In: Presented at the redesigning pedagogy: research, policy, practice conference, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayes J, Maslen S (2014) Knowing stories that matter: learning for effective safety decision-making. J Risk Res. doi:10.1080/13669877.2014.910690 Google Scholar
  20. Herreid CF (2004) Can case studies be used to teach critical thinking? J Coll Sci Teach 33(6):12–14Google Scholar
  21. Herreid CF (2007) Start with a story: the case study method of teaching college science. NSTA Press, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Hollnagel E, Goteman O (2004) The functional resonance accident model. Cogn Syst Eng Process Plant 2004:155–161Google Scholar
  23. Holloway CM, Johnson CW (2006) Why system safety professionals should read accident reports. In: Presented at the IET system safety conference, London. Retrieved from http://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_20060020178
  24. Houdmont J, Leka S, Bulger C (2008) The definition of curriculum areas in occupational health psychology, vol 3. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, pp 145–170. Retrieved from http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/960/
  25. Hunt P (1990) New directions in narrative theory. Child Lit Assoc Q 15(2):46–47. doi:10.1353/chq.0.0809 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (1991) Safety culture. International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  27. IOSH (2013) Accreditation of qualifications. IOSH, WigstonGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson C (2003) Failure in safety critical systems: a handbook of accident and incident reporting. University of Glasgow Press, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson C (2011) Competency management systems to support accident and incident investigators. Las Vegas. Retrieved from http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~johnson/papers/ISSC2011/investigator_training.pdf
  30. Katz SM (1993) The entry-level engineer: problems in transition from student to professional. J Eng Educ 82(3):171–174. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.1993.tb00097.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leveson N (1995) Medical devices: the therac-25. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  32. Leveson N (2011) Engineering a safer world. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Lundberg J, Rollenhagen C, Hollnagel E (2009) What-you-look-for-is-what-you-find—the consequences of underlying accident models in eight accident investigation manuals. Saf Sci 47(10):1297–1311. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2009.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mairal G (2011) The history and the narrative of risk in the media. Health Risk Soc 13(1):65–79. doi:10.1080/13698575.2010.540313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maitlis S (2012) Narrative analysis. In: Symon G, Cassell C (eds) Qualitative organizational research: core methods and current challenges. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 492–511Google Scholar
  36. Martin BE, Brouwer W (1991) The sharing of personal science and the narrative element in science education. Sci Educ 75(6):707–722. doi:10.1002/sce.3730750610 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCloskey DN (1990) Storytelling in economics. In: Nash C (ed) Narrative in culture: the uses of storytelling in the sciences, philosophy, and literature. Routledge, New York  Google Scholar
  38. McKee R (2010) Story: style, structure, substance, and the principles of screenwriting, 1st edn. HarperCollins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyer J, Land R (2003) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. University of Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
  40. Negrete A, Lartigue C (2004) Learning from education to communicate science as a good story. Endeavour 28(3):120–124. doi:10.1016/j.endeavour.2004.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Connor P (2011) Assessing the effectiveness of bridge resource management training. Int J Aviat Psychol 21(4):357–374. doi:10.1080/10508414.2011.606755 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perrow C (1999) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  43. Rae AJ, Hawkins R (2012) Risk assessment in the wild. In: Presented at the Australian safety critical systems conference, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  44. Rae AJ, Nicholson M, Alexander RD (2010) The state of practice in system safety research evaluation. In: Presented at the IET system safety conference, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  45. Rae AJ, McDermid J, Alexander RD (2012) The science and superstition of quantitative risk assessment. In: Presented at the annual European safety and reliability conference, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  46. Rochlin GI (1999) Safe operation as a social construct. Ergonomics 42(11):1549–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saleh JH, Pendley CC (2012) From learning from accidents to teaching about accident causation and prevention: multidisciplinary education and safety literacy for all engineering students. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 99:105–113. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2011.10.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sanne JM (2008) Incident reporting or storytelling? Competing schemes in a safety-critical and hazardous work setting. Saf Sci 46(8):1205–1222. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stone DA (1989) Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Polit Sci Q 104(2):281–300. doi:10.2307/2151585 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Turner BA (1976) The organizational and interorganizational development of disasters. Adm Sci Q 21(3):378–397. doi:10.2307/2391850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. TV Tropes (2013) Chekhov’s Gun—TV Tropes. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun. Retrieved 11 May 2015
  52. Tyler L (2005) Towards a postmodern understanding of crisis communication. Public Relat Rev 31(4):566–571. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.08.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vaughan D (2004) Theorizing disaster: analogy, historical ethnography, and the challenger accident. Ethnography 5(3):315–347. doi:10.1177/1466138104045659 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weick KE (1993) The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the Mann Gulch Disaster. Adm Sci Q 38(4):628–652. doi:10.2307/2393339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Woodcock K (2008) Content analysis of 100 consecutive media reports of amusement ride accidents. Accid Anal Prev 40(1):89–96. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2007.04.007 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Woodcock K, Drury CG, Smiley A, Ma J (2005) Using simulated investigations for accident investigation studies. Appl Ergon 36(1):1–12. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2004.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of HumanitiesGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations