Skip to main content

Four Lines of Analysis for Civil Security Crisis Simulations: Insights for Training Design

Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL,volume 30)

Abstract

Crisis simulation training is a common organizational tool to improve civil security preparedness. Although nowadays its overall benefits can’t be denied, the conditions under which these simulations offer improvement opportunities remain often unclear. The aim of this chapter is to derive new lines of analysis from a study conducted in a crisis simulation training program based on two principles: (i) confrontation of the trainees to stressful, complex, dynamic, and verisimilar situations and (ii) testing modalities of action and organization that were not prescribed, or only partially. Ergonomics methods (direct observations, field notes, interviews, and self-confrontation interviews) were used to document and analyze protection, rescue, and care stakeholders, and decision makers’ experience and actions during two crisis simulations in operational command posts. The results are developed along four lines: (i) enactment-reenactment, (ii) curriculum-discovery, (iii) perturbation-reassurance, and (iv) trust-mistrust. They allow us to precise the link between (i) typical simulation-based training experiences, (ii) actors’ dispositions to crisis management, and (iii) simulation training design principles likely to provide promising learning affordances in authentic settings.

Keywords

  • Simulation
  • Vocational training
  • Training design
  • Crisis management
  • Civil security

Simon Flandin would like to thank the Foundation for an Industrial Safety Culture (FONCSI - project n°AO-2017-02) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF - project n°PZ00P1_185903/1) for having funded parts of his research reported in this book.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-89567-9_3
  • Chapter length: 18 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-89567-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

References

  • Anderson, B., & Adey, P. (2011). Affect and security: Exercising emergency in ‘UK civil contingencies’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(6), 1092–1109.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Becerril Ortega, R., Vanderstichel, H., Petit, L., Urbiolagallegos, M.-J., Schoch, J., Dacunha, S., Benamara, A., Ravenet, B., Zagdoun, J., & Chaby, L. (2022). Design Process for a Virtual Simulation Environment for Training Healthcare Professionals in Geriatrics. In S. Flandin, C. Vidal-Gomel, & R. Becerril Ortega (Eds.), Simulation training through the lens of experience and activity analysis: Healthcare, victim rescue and population protection (Professional and practice-based learning series). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergström, J., Henriqson, E., & Dahlström, N. (2011). From crew resource management to operational resilience. In Proceedings of the 4th Resilience Engineering Symposium, 8–10 June 2011, Sophia Antipolis, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, J. M., & Carlström, E. D. (2015). Collaboration exercises: What do they contribute? – A study of learning and usefulness. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 23(1), 11–23.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Billett, S. (2020). Learning in the workplace: Strategies for effective practice. Routledge.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Billett, S., Harteis, C., & Gruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A. (2013). Desirable difficulties perspective on learning. Encyclopedia of the Mind, 4, 134–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borodzicz, E., & Van Haperen, K. (2002). Individual and group learning in crisis simulations. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 10(3), 139–147.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Borraz, O., & Gisquet, E. (2019). L’extension du domaine de la crise ? Les exercices de gestion de crise dans la gouvernance de la filière nucléaire française. Critique internationale, 4, 43–61.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Daniellou, F., & Rabardel, P. (2005). Activity-oriented approaches to ergonomics: Some traditions and communities. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 353–357.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Daugbjerg, M., Eisner, R., & Knudsen, B. T. (2014). Re-enacting the past: Vivifying heritage ‘again’. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20, 681–687.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Drakos, A., Flandin, S., Filippi, G., Palaci, F., Veyrunes, P., & Poizat, G. (2021). From exploration to re-enactment: Instructional uses of a desktop virtual environment for training nuclear plant field operators. Vocations and Learning, 14, 327–352.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Duchatelet, D., Gijbels, D., Bursens, P., Donche, V., & Spooren, P. (2019). Looking at role-play simulations of political decision-making in higher education through a contextual lens: A state-of-the-art. Educational Research Review, 27, 126–139.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Durand, M., & Poizat, G. (2015). An activity-centred approach to work analysis and the design of vocational training situations. In L. Filliettaz & S. Billett (Eds.), Francophone perspectives of learning through work (pp. 221–224). Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, T. (2003). Reclaiming and re-embodying experiential learning through complexity science. Studies in the Education of Adults, 35, 123–141.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Flandin, S., Poizat, G., & Durand, M. (2018). Improving resilience in high-risk organizations. Principles for the design of innovative training situations. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 32(2), 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flandin, S., Poizat, G., & Perinet, R. (2019). Contribuer à l’amélioration de la sécurité industrielle « par le facteur humain » : Un regard pour aider à (re)penser la formation. Collection Regards sur la sécurité industrielle. : FONCSI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flandin, S., Salini, D., Drakos, A., & Poizat, G. (2021). Concevoir des formations facilitant l’émergence de nouvelles significations face à des évènements inédits et critiques. Activités, 18(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornette, M. P., Darses, F., & Bourgy, M. (2015). How to improve training programs for the management of complex and unforeseen situations. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe (pp. 217–224).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, J. C., Cooke, N. J., & Amazeen, P. G. (2010). Training adaptive teams. Human Factors, 52(2), 295–307.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. (2015). Whose fallacies? Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 9(1), 55–58.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kouabenan, D. R., Cadet, B., Hermand, D., & Muñoz Sastre, M. T. (2007). Psychologie du risque. De Boeck.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, M. T., Kennedy, D. M., & Sommer, S. A. (2015). Team adaptation: A fifteen-year synthesis (1998–2013) and framework for how this literature needs to “adapt” going forward. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(5), 652–677.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, A., & Plazaola Giger, I. (2014). Dispositions à agir, travail et formation. Octarès.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, B. (2008). Reenactment and the fantasmatic subject. Critical Inquiry, 35, 72–89.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pettersen, K. (2013). Acknowledging the role of abductive thinking: A way out of proceduralization for safety management and oversight? In C. Bieder & M. Bourrier (Eds.), Trapping safety into rules (pp. 107–117). Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Récopé, M., Fache, H., Beaujouan, J., Coutarel, F., & Rix-Lièvre, G. (2019). A study of the individual activity of professional volleyball players: Situation assessment and sensemaking under time pressure. Applied ergonomics, 80, 226–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rix-Lièvre, G., & Lièvre, P. (2009). Self-confrontation. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 847–849). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samurçay, R., & Rogalski, J. (1998). Exploitation didactique des situations de simulation. Le travail humain, 61(4), 333–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schot, S., Flandin, S., Goudeaux, A., Seferdjeli, L., & Poizat, G. (2019). Formation basée sur la perturbation: preuve de concept par la conception d’un environnement numérique de formation en radiologie médicale. Activités, 16(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, N. A., Chambers, P. R., & Piggott, J. (2001). Situational awareness and safety. Safety Science, 39(3), 189–204.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Theureau, J. (2003). Course-of-action analysis and course-of-action centered design. In H. Mahwah (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive task design (pp. 55–81). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tutt, D., & Hindmarsh, J. (2011). Reenactments at work: Demonstrating conduct in data sessions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 44, 211–236.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking: The Mann Gulf disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright-Maley, C. (2015). Beyond the “Babel problem”: Defining simulations for the social studies. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 39(2), 63–77.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Flandin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Flandin, S. (2022). Four Lines of Analysis for Civil Security Crisis Simulations: Insights for Training Design. In: Flandin, S., Vidal-Gomel, C., Becerril Ortega, R. (eds) Simulation Training through the Lens of Experience and Activity Analysis. Professional and Practice-based Learning, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89567-9_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89567-9_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-89566-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-89567-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)