“As far as is Reasonably Practicable”: Socially Constructing Risk, Safety, and Accidents in Military Operations

Turner, Nick; Tennant, Sarah J.

doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0065-5

Cited by 36 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our analysis locates this ambiguity at the individual-organization interface and explores the contests over the meaning and value of pit sense as a form of risk assessment. In the military, ambiguity over the meaning of risk, safety and accidents results in safety being constructed 'as far as is reasonably practicable' (Turner and Tennant, 2009). Following Swan et al (2002: 482), who see power 'not as a commodity possessed by one group over another, but as a relational characteristic inherent in social practices', we argue that the relational aspect of power is equally pertinent to the creators of pit sense who are acutely aware of their potential for resistance.…”

Section: Theorizing Pit Sense: Knowledge As Situated Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For Collinson (1999: 592) this is attributable to the fact that 'those in senior positions are often hierarchically, geographically and culturally separated from local practices'. It also highlights the fact that safety and risk assessment are always contested (Carroll, 1998;Turner and Tennant, 2009). …”

Section: The Onset Of Bureaucratic Control: 'Putting It To the Men'mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pit sense: Appropriation of practice-based knowledge in a UK coalmine

Kamoche

Maguire

2010

Human Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pit sense is a form of knowledge constituted by tunnellers as a way to navigate and assess risk. We discuss how this form of tacit knowledge that was situated in everyday practices came under threat when management introduced more bureaucratic procedures rationalized on the basis of commercial outcomes and health and safety. Yet, while managers were prone to vilify pit sense even though they had grown up with it earlier in their career, they were prepared to turn a blind eye to it as long as it delivered 'yardage'. We examine the implications of this managerial ambivalence towards pit sense, and demonstrate how, rather than seeking to codify tacit knowledge in order to ensure its diffusion as the literature proposes, the bureaucratization of procedures and work practices not only challenged the legitimacy of pit sense, but also cast pit sense and formalized procedures into an uneasy alliance.

show abstract

Section: Theorizing Pit Sense: Knowledge As Situated Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Onset Of Bureaucratic Control: 'Putting It To the Men'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pit sense: Appropriation of practice-based knowledge in a UK coalmine

Kamoche

Maguire

2010

Human Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social aspects of risk have of course been addressed in the past [46,47]. Risk and safety have even been considered a social construction sometimes [12,35,48,49]. The establishment of safety of technology in general however, and of military UAS safety in particular, is in STS and safety literature normally not considered a social process explicitly, leaving the ramifi cations and implications of this unknown.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social construction of safety in uas technology in concrete settings: some military cases studied

Bakx¹,

Nyce²

2012

Int. J. SAFE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unmanned aerial systems (UASs) in general and UAS safety in particular have so far received little attention in the science, technology and society (STS) literature. This paper therefore reports on several (military) cases of this relatively new technology, focusing specifi cally on issues of safety. Quite often, safety of technology is considered the result of a rational process -one of a series of rational, often calculative, linear steps. The paper's results suggest that establishing safety in military UASs is very much a social process. Approaching (military) UAS safety from this perspective could perhaps be complementary to more analytical and rational perspectives on safety of this type of technology. Further research is therefore suggested on the implications that social processes can have for safety in UASs. So far, it seems, such a position on safety in technology has been little explored in both the STS and safety literature explicitly.

show abstract

“…As described by Turner & Tennant (2009), constructions of risk and safety in the military environment are influenced by the need for trade-offs between implementing safety and accepting exposure to certain risks. Thus at the individual level, it would seem relevant to examine not only safety attitudes but also attitudes toward risks and risk taking.…”

Section: Risk and Safety Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk and Safety Attitudes Among Conscripts During Compulsory Military Training

Börjesson

Österberg

Enander

2011

Military Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose was to examine relationships between individual characteristics, leadership, group cohesion, and risk and safety attitudes among Swedish conscripts (N = 389). The longitudinal questionnaire study revealed positive associations between safety-specific leadership and safety attitudes, while safety skepticism and leadership promoting risk taking were associated with stronger attitudes of necessary risk taking. Attitudes of unnecessary risk taking, on the other hand, were negatively related to safety-specific leadership and group cohesion, but positively associated with safety fatalism and leadership promoting risk taking. Decreases in safety attitudes were found between basic and unit training. The results highlight the importance of a balanced leadership.During recent years a number of questions have been raised regarding the safety culture in different sections of the Swedish Armed Forces. Weaknesses have been pointed out in connection with specific investigations of military accidents (Swedish Accident Investigation Board, 2008), as well as in the more general professional (Swedish Officers Union, 2008) and public debate. Inappropriate attitudes toward safety and unsatisfactory leadership have been suggested as critical factors weakening the upholding of safety standards. There is, however, little relevant empirical evidence regarding attitudes related to safety, how such attitudes might be influenced by factors such as leadership, or the possible behavioral consequences.Correspondence should be addressed to M. Börjesson,

show abstract

“As far as is Reasonably Practicable”: Socially Constructing Risk, Safety, and Accidents in Military Operations

Abstract: accidents, discourse, military, risk management, safety, social constructionism,

Cited by 36 publications

References 20 publications

Pit sense: Appropriation of practice-based knowledge in a UK coalmine

Pit sense: Appropriation of practice-based knowledge in a UK coalmine

Social construction of safety in uas technology in concrete settings: some military cases studied

Risk and Safety Attitudes Among Conscripts During Compulsory Military Training

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About