Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 59–77

Making Firefighters Deployable

Article
  • 326 Downloads

Abstract

Although sociologists have devoted a considerable amount of research to exploring high-risk organizations, they have not yet developed an adequate explanation as to why individuals working within such organizations place themselves in harm’s way and how organizations ensure they remain there. This article addresses this gap by analyzing how the United States Forest Service motivates wildland firefighters to participate in life-threatening activity. Drawing on ethnographic research and content analyses of official documents, it describes the process by which firefighters come to develop a specific disposition towards risk taking, a disposition through which they view firefighting as an activity void of danger, and how this disposition maintains its shape, and even grows stronger, after confronting its biggest challenge: the death of a firefighter.

Keywords

Firefighting High-risk organizations Risk Human error Death 

References

  1. Bourdieu, P. (2000 [1997]). Pascalian meditations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. (2001 [1998]). Masculine domination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burawoy, M., et al. (1991). Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005). Household data survey. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.Google Scholar
  6. Chetkovich, C. (1997). Real heat: Gender and race in the urban fire service. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, L. (2005). Worst cases: Terror and catastrophe in the popular imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, L., & Short, J., Jr. (1993). Social organization and risk: Some current controversies. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 372–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coleman, J. (1974). Power and the structure of society. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  10. Desmond, M. (2007). On the fireline: Living and dying with wildland firefighters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Douglas, M. (1986). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  12. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Driessen, J. (2002). Crew cohesion, Wildland fire transition, and fatalities. Missoula: Forest Service Technology and Development Program.Google Scholar
  14. Dwyer, T. (1991). Life and death at work: Workplace accidents as a case of socially produced error. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  15. Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  18. Goode, W. (1978). The celebration of heroes: Prestige as a social control system. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Haas, J. (1972). Binging: Emotional control among high steel ironworkers. The American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haas, J. (1977). Learning real feelings: A study of high steel ironworkers’ reactions to fear and danger. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 4, 147–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heimer, C. (1988). Social structure, psychology, and the estimation of risk. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 491–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hutter, B. (2001). Regulation and risk: Occupational health and safety on the railways. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hutter, B. (2005). “Ways of seeing”: Understandings of risk in organizational settings. In B. Hutter & M. Power (Eds.), Organizational encounters with risk (pp. 67–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaufman, H. (1960). The forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kimmel, M. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In H. Broad & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 119–41). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Lyng, S. (2004). Edgework and the risk-taking experience. In S. Lyng (Ed.), Edgework: The sociology of risk-taking (pp. 3–14). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Maclean, J. (1999). Fire on the mountain: The true story of the South Canyon fire. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  28. Maclean, N. (1992). Young men and fire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Manning, P. (1971). Talking and becoming: A view of organizational socialization. In J. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life: Toward the reconstruction of sociological knowledge (pp. 239–56). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  30. Manning, P. (1977). Police work: The social organization of policing. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  31. March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mills, C. W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review, 5, 904–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nelkin, D., & Brown, M. (1984). Workers at risk: Voices from the workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Paap, K. (2006). Working construction: Why white working-class men put themselves—and the labor movement—in harm’s way. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Perrow, C. (1999 [1984]). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies, Second edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rabinow, P. (1977). Reflections on fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  39. Roy, D. (1954). Efficiency and “the fix”: Informal intergroup relations in a piecework machine shop. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 255–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. (1994). Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Short, J., Jr. (1984). The social fabric at risk: Toward the sociological transformation of risk analysis. American Sociological Review, 49, 711–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simmel, G. (1959 [1991]). The adventurer. In K. Wolff (Ed.), Georg Simmel, 1858–1918, (pp. 243–58). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  43. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2004). Demographic profile of the federal workforce publication. Washington, DC: Office of Personnel Management.Google Scholar
  44. Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban police department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 207–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Vaughan, D. (1997). Targets for firefighting safety: Lessons form the challenger tragedy. Wildfire, 6, 29–40.Google Scholar
  47. Wacquant, L. (2004). Body and soul: Notebooks of an apprentice boxer. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Weick, K. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weick, K. (1996). Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 301–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wolfe, T. (1979). The right stuff. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Society of FellowsHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations