Advertisement

Eliciting Expertise, Harvesting, and Representing Knowledge

  • Theodoros Katerinakis
Chapter
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)

Abstract

The exploration of human communication and its consequences to aviation safety delivers a knowledge framework, configuring this chapter. A bottom-up approach from qualitative data gathering to relation identification between actions and interactions with iteration and refinement is described and allows core concepts to emerge with theoretical sensitivity, using a rich depository of data guided by grounded theory (GT). This chapter explains the core concept of situation awareness (local, transitory, and global) as the catalyst of “what we need to know” for aviation safety. Preconceptions, interviews, questioning tools, and an Ishikawa diagram are analyzed, considering operations, cultural, technical, and commercial parameters in aviation realities. A GT approach is the guiding path to knowledge construction through notions of perception, comprehension, projection, sorting, comparing, coding, and reenactment. GT immersion in the data searches for the following knowledge-construction elements: (i) the relevant conditions in which participants act in the various flight-related situations, (ii) how the actors respond to changing conditions and unexpected events, (iii) what are the consequences of their actions or lack of action, and (iv) what is the essence of expertise in critical environments (i.e., the expert complies to the “letter of the rule” and to the “spirit of the rule” or deviates when he/she identifies an exception or exceptional case). Lastly, four schematic figures offer a picturesque description of the above steps of inquiry, depicting the backbone of the study for this book, while cross-references “connect the dots.” The textual aspects found in the experts’ replies are interpreted using with discourse analysis and close reading guidelines.

Keywords

GT SA Projection Logic abduction Sorting-coding Discourse analysis Close reading 

References

  1. Adams, M., Tenney, Y., & Pew, R. W. (1995). Situation awareness and the cognitive management of complex systems. Human Factors, 37, 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anosis SA (Prd). (2000). Silence in the air (Aerines Siopes) [Television Series]. Athen: Mega.Google Scholar
  3. AOTS. (1985). Statistical methods for quality improvement. Tokyo: Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship (AOTS), Chosakai, Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Ashman, A., & Telfer, R. (1983). Personality profiles of pilots. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 54(10), 940–943.Google Scholar
  5. Awbrey, J., & Awbrey, S. (1995). Interpretation as action: The risk of inquiry. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 15, 40–52.Google Scholar
  6. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Cambridge/London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Charmaz, K. (2009). Shifting the grounds: Constructivist grounded theory methods. In J. M. Morse, P. N. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz, & A. E. Clarke (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second generation. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  8. Christiansen, Ó. (2011). Rethinking “quality” by classic grounded theory. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 3(2), 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connell, L. (1995). Pilot and controller communications issues. In B. G. Kanki & O. V. Prinzo (Eds.), Proceedings of the Methods & Metrics of Voice Communication Workshop. Washington, DC: FAA.Google Scholar
  10. Cookson, S. (2009). Zagreb and Tenerife: Airline accidents involving linguistic factors. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 22.1–22.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cozzolino, A. (2012). Humanitarian logistics: Cross-sector cooperation in disaster relief management. Newyork: Springer Briefs in Business.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dalrymple, M. A., & Schiflett, S. G. (1997). Measuring situational awareness of AWACS weapons directors. Situational awareness in the tactical air environment: Augmented Proceedings of the Naval Air Warfare Center’s First Annual Symposium (CSERIAC SOAR Report# 97-01). Ohio: WP-AFB.Google Scholar
  14. Dekker, S. W. A. (2010). Pilots, controllers and mechanics on trial: Cases, concerns and countermeasures. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 10(1), 31–50.Google Scholar
  15. Department of the Navy (DoN). (1993, September). Systems approach to process improvement (Instructor guide) (pp. 5-15–5-27). San Diego, CA: OUSN Total Quality Leadership Office and Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
  16. Dismukes, R. K., Berman, B. A., & Loukopoulos, L. D. (2007). The limits of expertise: Rethinking pilot error and the causes of airline accidents. London: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Endsley, M. R. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (Vol. 1, pp. 97–101). Santa Monica: Human Factors Society.Google Scholar
  18. Endsley, M. R. (1994). Situational awareness in dynamic human decision making: Measurement. In R. D. Gilson, D. J. Garland, & J. M. Koonce (Eds.), Situational awareness in complex systems (pp. 79–97). Daytona Beach: Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Endsley, M. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Endsley, M., & Jones, D. (2012). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design (2nd ed.). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  21. Flach, J. M. (1995). Situation awareness: Proceed with caution. Human Factors, 37, 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. (1972/1995). The archeology of knowledge (R. Sheridan, Ed., Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Freeman, J. T. & Cohen, M. S. (1995). Methods for training cognitive skills in battlefield situation assessment (Technical Report 95-2). Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: US Army Research Institute.Google Scholar
  24. Garland, D. J., Phillips, J. N., Tilden, D. S., & Wise, J. A. (1991). Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: Towards an objective measure (Tech. Rep. No. CAAR -15498-91-1). Daytona Beach: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Center for Aviation/Aerospace Research.Google Scholar
  25. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  26. Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. J. (1984). Opening pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Glaser, B. (1992). Emergence vs. forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  28. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Grover, S. L., Hasel, M. C., Manville, C., & Serrano-Archimi, C. (2014). Follower reactions to leader trust violations: A grounded theory of violation types, likelihood of recovery, and recovery process. European Management Journal, 32(5), 689–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & T. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Hall, S. (1997). Introduction. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (pp. 1–12). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Hallberg, R.-M. L. (2006). The “core category” of grounded theory: Making constant comparisons. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 1, 141–148.Google Scholar
  34. Hellenic Republic Ministry of Transport and Communications (HRMTC). (1998). Accident investigation Report for AeroSvit AirlinesYakovlev-42 Flight at Pieria Mountains on December 17, 1997. Athens: Ministry of Transportation & Communications/Aircraft Accidents Inquiry Council.Google Scholar
  35. Hildebrand, B. (2004). Gemeinsames Ziel, verschiedene Wege: Grounded theory und Objektive Hermeneutik im Vergleich. Sozialer Sinn, 4(2), 177–194.Google Scholar
  36. Hone, G. N. (2003, November). The myth of SA. Presented at the Symposium: NEC – The Human Dimension, The Defence Academy of the UK, Shrivenham.Google Scholar
  37. Hone, G. N. (2008). Awareness introductory remarks (Guest editorial). International C2 Journal, 2(1). http://www.dodccrp.org/html4/journal_v2n1_00.html
  38. Hone, G. N., Macleod, I. S., & Smith, S. J. (2005). Awareness and scenario-based requirements. In Proceedings of the Human Systems Integration Symposium. Washington, DC: American Society of Naval Engineers. Published on CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  39. Hone, G., Martin, L., & Ayres, R. (2006). Awareness-does the acronym “SA” still have any value? In Proceedings of the 11th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium: Coalition Command and Control in the Networked Era, At Cambridge UK. Washington, DC: The DoD-CCRP (on CD-ROM).Google Scholar
  40. Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Baltimore: Penguin Education, Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  41. ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization). (2001). Αircraft accident and incident investigation/Annex 13 to the convention on international civil Aviation (9th ed.). Montréal: ICAO (Annex 13/Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation. ICAO Accident/Incident Reporting Manual -Doc 9156). Online. Available HTTP: http://www.emsa.europa.eu/retro/Docs/marine_casualties/annex_13.pdf. Accessed 3 Nov 2013.
  42. Ishikawa, K. (1968). Guide to quality control. Tokyo: JUSE.Google Scholar
  43. Jantunen, S., & Gause, D. C. (2014). Using a ground theory approach for exploring software product management challenges. The Journal of Systems and Software, 95(2014), 32–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kelle, U. (2005). “Emergence” vs. “Forcing” of empirical data? A crucial problem of “Grounded theory” Reconsidered [52 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Art. 27e. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0502275
  45. Kochan, J. (2009, December 10). HCEP lecture: ‘In search of the expert pilot- A research Odyssey in human factors’, Drexel Human Cognition Enhancement Program (HCEP at http://www.drexel.edu/research/humancognition/). Online Video File at: http://media.irt.drexel.edu/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=8f7355a186f947798bd6bf7db224fefe. Accessed 6 May 2010.
  46. Konstantaras, D. (2007). 24 seconds (24 Defterolepta). Athens: Kastaniotis Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Krock, L. (2006). The final eight minutes of the deadliest plane crash. NOVA Public Broadcasting Service. PBS Online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/final-eight-minutes.html (Posted 10.17.06).
  48. Leveson, N. (2012). Engineering a safer world: Applying systems thinking to safety. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Loukopoulos, L. D., Dismukes, R. K., & Barshi, I. (2009). The multitasking myth: Handling complexity in real-world operations. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  51. Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2009). Information technology in education: Some reasons for optimism. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Martin, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mavor, A. S., Kidd, J. S., & Prince, C. S. (1995). Tactical display for soldiers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  54. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Muller, M. (2014). Curiosity, creativity, and surprise as analytic tools: Grounded theory method. In J. S. Olson & W. A. Kellogg (Eds.), Ways of knowing in HCI (pp. 25–48). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Muller, M. J. & Kogan, S. (2010). Grounded theory method in HCI and CSCW. IBM Watson Research in Cambridge. Report: 10-09.Google Scholar
  57. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (2010). Loss of thrust in both engines after encountering a flock of birds and subsequent ditching on the Hudson River, US Airways Flight 1549, Airbus A320-214, N106US Weehawken, New Jersey, January 15, 2009. Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-10/03. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  58. Nelson, L. M. (1998). Collaborative problem solving. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 241–267). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.Google Scholar
  59. Newby, T. J., Stepich, A. D., Lehman, J. D., & Russell, J. D. (1996). Instructional technology for teaching and learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  60. Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. London: Continuum International Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  64. Reichertz, J. (2007). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 214–228). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reinhardt, R. F. (1970). The outstanding jet pilot. American Journal of Psychiatry, 127(6), 732–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Retzlaff, P. D., & Gibertini, M. (1987). Air force pilot personality: Hard data on the right stuff. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 22, 383–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2004). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage Publishers.Google Scholar
  68. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioners- researchers (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell publishing.Google Scholar
  69. Roitsch, P. A., Babcock, G. L., & Edmunds, W. W. (1978). Human factors report on the Tenerife accident. Washington, DC: Air Line Pilots Association.Google Scholar
  70. Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shaw, R. L. (1985). Fighter combat: Tactics and maneuvering. Annapolis: United States Naval Institute.Google Scholar
  72. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  73. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  75. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tague, R. N. (2004). The quality toolbox (2nd ed., pp. 247–249). Milwaukie: American Society for Quality, ASQ Press.Google Scholar
  77. Tsolakis, A. D. (2013). Dare! A way of life (Tolma! Enas Tropos Zois). Athens: 11Aviation Publications.Google Scholar
  78. Turner, D. (2010). Orally-based information. Journal of Documentation, 66(3), 370–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Turner, D., & Warren, A. (2010, June 21–24). Investigating oral information. Paper presented at the Conceptions of Library and Information Science Conference, London, UK.Google Scholar
  80. U.S. Air Force (n.d.). Process Improvement Guide - Total Quality Tools for Teams and Individuals, p. 33. Air Force Electronic Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command.Google Scholar
  81. Wagner, S. M., Lukassen, P., & Mahlendorf, M. (2010). Misused and missed use – Grounded theory and objective hermeneutics as methods for research in industrial marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Woods, D. D. (1988). Coping with complexity: The psychology of human behavior in complex systems. In L. P. Goodstein, H. B. Andersen, & S. E. Olsen (Eds.), Tasks, eros and mental models. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  83. Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theodoros Katerinakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Drexel On-Line CouncilDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations