Conversations from the Coalface: Positive Asymmetry and the Culture of Silence that Surrounds the Pike River Mine Tragedy

<p>Charles Perrow (1999) once famously noted ‘Where body counting replaces social and cultural values and excludes us from participating in decisions about the risks that a few have decided the many cannot do without, the issue is not risk, but power.’ This dissertation explores positive asymmetry (Cerulo 2006) and the culture of silence that surrounds Pike River Mine disaster that killed 29 men on the West Coast of Aotearoa/New Zealand on 19 November 2010. This asymmetry involves habitual ways of thinking and behaving which increase the propensity to ignore an approaching worst case scenario in order to meet intended outcomes. Increasingly lauded in ‘get rich quick’ cultures, positive asymmetry can be lethal in mining and other hazardous workplaces where there is pressure to meet demands of the market that override pre-existing flaws in systems and culture, and it is often accompanied by practices of eclipsing (acts of banishing, physical seclusion, shunning) clouding (impressionism, shadowing) and recasting (rhetorical, prescriptive behaviours). There is a culture of silence that accompanies this cognitive symmetry in relation to the case of Pike River Mine which existed from its early development and continues years after the fatalities in a culture of socially organised denial; which is one in which there is a collective distancing among individuals due to norms of emotion, conversation and attention (Norgaard 2011). What happened at Pike River Mine was not the result of an attention deficit model. There was plenty of information. The mine had some good safety systems. They were not utilised. So what was going on? In this thesis, I look to the James Reason Model of Accident Causation used before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the disaster and argue that although this does well to describe risk and to illustrate accident causation as a failure of organizational systems, it cannot as a structural model possibly describe the cultural logic and power dynamics which lay beneath the competition driving decision-makers within these systems. Pike River Mine was a case of deliberate risk and hibernating beneath that risk was (and still can be) a base of unchecked power. It follows that any ‘errortolerant’ systems we design for safer workplaces will only work insofar as there is an ‘error-intolerant culture’ inside the industry. Pike River Mine was not an isolated incident and if we fail to look to the power that lay behind that deliberate risk taking, there will be more ‘Pikes’ to come. There exists a triple helix to this tragedy consisting of power, risk and asymmetry. In practising vigilance, we need to look to the junction of these three, for therein lies the perfect storm of conditions for future human tragedy and financial disaster in whichever industry chooses to practice it.</p>

Conversations from the Coalface: Positive Asymmetry and the Culture of Silence that Surrounds the Pike River Mine Tragedy

<p>Charles Perrow (1999) once famously noted ‘Where body counting replaces social and cultural values and excludes us from participating in decisions about the risks that a few have decided the many cannot do without, the issue is not risk, but power.’ This dissertation explores positive asymmetry (Cerulo 2006) and the culture of silence that surrounds Pike River Mine disaster that killed 29 men on the West Coast of Aotearoa/New Zealand on 19 November 2010. This asymmetry involves habitual ways of thinking and behaving which increase the propensity to ignore an approaching worst case scenario in order to meet intended outcomes. Increasingly lauded in ‘get rich quick’ cultures, positive asymmetry can be lethal in mining and other hazardous workplaces where there is pressure to meet demands of the market that override pre-existing flaws in systems and culture, and it is often accompanied by practices of eclipsing (acts of banishing, physical seclusion, shunning) clouding (impressionism, shadowing) and recasting (rhetorical, prescriptive behaviours). There is a culture of silence that accompanies this cognitive symmetry in relation to the case of Pike River Mine which existed from its early development and continues years after the fatalities in a culture of socially organised denial; which is one in which there is a collective distancing among individuals due to norms of emotion, conversation and attention (Norgaard 2011). What happened at Pike River Mine was not the result of an attention deficit model. There was plenty of information. The mine had some good safety systems. They were not utilised. So what was going on? In this thesis, I look to the James Reason Model of Accident Causation used before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the disaster and argue that although this does well to describe risk and to illustrate accident causation as a failure of organizational systems, it cannot as a structural model possibly describe the cultural logic and power dynamics which lay beneath the competition driving decision-makers within these systems. Pike River Mine was a case of deliberate risk and hibernating beneath that risk was (and still can be) a base of unchecked power. It follows that any ‘errortolerant’ systems we design for safer workplaces will only work insofar as there is an ‘error-intolerant culture’ inside the industry. Pike River Mine was not an isolated incident and if we fail to look to the power that lay behind that deliberate risk taking, there will be more ‘Pikes’ to come. There exists a triple helix to this tragedy consisting of power, risk and asymmetry. In practising vigilance, we need to look to the junction of these three, for therein lies the perfect storm of conditions for future human tragedy and financial disaster in whichever industry chooses to practice it.</p>

Belief and skepticism. Religious justifications for vaccine reluctance and climate skepticism

This theoretical article approaches Christian religious denominations within which skeptical arguments with regard to vaccination and climate change are developed. These two types of skeptical positioning towards science are rooted in postmodernity, and manifest themselves as similar phenomena. Religion, as a social institution, fulfills the need for meaning, community, and responds to uncertainties generated by science developments. By conducting a thematic synthesis of previous literature, I identify analytical themes that capture the theoretical approaches on religiosity as a justification resource for vaccine hesitancy and climate change denial. These two types of science skepticism are supported and encouraged by some religious actors, who provide discursive resources anchored in interpretations of religious dogma. The knowledge deficit model, which is largely used for information campaigns on vaccination and climate change, impedes the understanding of the role of socio-cultural resources, such as religiosity, in popularizing science skepticism, and distorts knowledge of this social phenomenon. Understanding the social construction of skeptical positions towards science, as well as the institutional role of religion, contributes to better public communication on scientific topics. Despite religious arguments for vaccine refusal and exploitation of the natural environment, religiosity can also sustain pro-scientific views. Crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate crisis have the potential to provide avenues for transcending the religion vs. science antagonism, by involving religious leaders in promoting scientific information and scientific products, such as vaccination.

Changing Climate and Changing Behaviour: Perceptions of Powerlessness and the Commons Dilemma

<p>Mitigating climate change is recognized as an increasingly urgent task that requires several different methods to achieve. Among these is the need to encourage voluntary behaviour change. Doing so necessitates an understanding of the barriers that prevent behaviour change, including those which are psychological. Among the psychological barriers to change are perceptions of powerlessness and the commons dilemma. This thesis takes a mixed method approach to understand importance of these in relation to both each other and other barriers when taking action to mitigate climate change. Results indicate that individuals do not clearly distinguish climate change from general environmental problems and have a tendency to simplify the issues to that considered to be the singularly most important. Powerlessness and the commons dilemma had been evaluated but not extensively or as specifically applicable to climate change. Powerlessness and the commons dilemma were both found to relate to lower amounts of action on climate change and less importance placed upon climate change in actions. Perceived risk and human influence on climate change were the strongest predictors of action. Results generally support the knowledge-deficit model of behaviour change as being applicable to climate change.</p>

Changing Climate and Changing Behaviour: Perceptions of Powerlessness and the Commons Dilemma

<p>Mitigating climate change is recognized as an increasingly urgent task that requires several different methods to achieve. Among these is the need to encourage voluntary behaviour change. Doing so necessitates an understanding of the barriers that prevent behaviour change, including those which are psychological. Among the psychological barriers to change are perceptions of powerlessness and the commons dilemma. This thesis takes a mixed method approach to understand importance of these in relation to both each other and other barriers when taking action to mitigate climate change. Results indicate that individuals do not clearly distinguish climate change from general environmental problems and have a tendency to simplify the issues to that considered to be the singularly most important. Powerlessness and the commons dilemma had been evaluated but not extensively or as specifically applicable to climate change. Powerlessness and the commons dilemma were both found to relate to lower amounts of action on climate change and less importance placed upon climate change in actions. Perceived risk and human influence on climate change were the strongest predictors of action. Results generally support the knowledge-deficit model of behaviour change as being applicable to climate change.</p>

Beyond the “information deficit model” - understanding vaccine-hesitant attitudes of midwives in Austria: a qualitative study

Background Healthcare workers are considered key stakeholders in efforts to address vaccine hesitancy. Midwives’ influence in advising expectant parents on early-childhood vaccinations is unquestioned, yet they remain an understudied group. The literature on midwives’ attitudes towards vaccinations is also inconclusive. We therefore conducted an explorative qualitative study on midwives’ vaccine-hesitant attitudes towards MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccinations in Austria. Methods We conducted 12 in-depth interviews on their knowledge, concerns, and beliefs with midwives who self-identified as hesitant or resistant towards early-childhood MMR vaccinations. We analyzed the data using a grounded theory approach to distill common themes and meanings. Results Healthcare workers’ stewardship to address vaccine hesitancy is commonly framed in terms of the “information deficit model”: disseminate the right information and remedy publics’ information deficits. Our findings suggest that this approach is too simplistic: Midwives’ professional self-understanding, their notions of “good care” and “good parenthood” inflect how they engage with vaccine information and how they address it to their clients. Midwives’ model of care prioritized good counseling rather than sharing scientific information in a “right the wrong”-manner. They saw themselves as critical consumers of that information and as promoting “empowered patients” who were free, and affluent enough, to make their own choices about vaccinations. In so doing, they also often promoted traditional notions of motherhood. Conclusions Research shows that, for parents, vaccine decision-making builds on trust and dialogue with healthcare professionals and is more than a technical issue. In order to foster these interactions, understanding healthcare professionals’ means of engaging with information is key to understanding how they engage with their constituents. Healthcare workers are more than neutral resources; their daily praxis influenced by their professional standing in the healthcare system. Similarly, healthcare professionals’ views on vaccinations cannot be remedied with more information either. Building better and more diverse curricula for different groups of healthcare workers must attend to their respective roles, ethics of care, and professional beliefs. Taken together, better models for addressing vaccine hesitancy can only be developed by espousing a multi-faceted view of decision-making processes and interactions of healthcare workers with constituents.

Mother Nature’s Fury Antagonist Metaphors for Natural Disasters Increase Forecasts of Their Severity and Encourage Evacuation

Natural disasters are often described as having antagonistic qualities (e.g., wildfires ravage). The information deficit model presumes that when people assess the risk of weather hazards, they ignore irrelevant metaphoric descriptors. However, metaphoric frames affect reasoning. The current research assessed whether antagonist metaphors for natural disasters affect perceptions of the risk they pose. Three studies ( N = 1,936) demonstrated that participants forecasted an antagonist-framed natural hazard as being more severe, and intended to evacuate more often, than a literal-framed natural hazard. Thus, the metaphorical language used to discuss natural disasters deserves consideration in the development of effective risk communication.

Down Syndrome as Pure Simulacrum

The article questions both the dominant metanarrative around Down syndrome and its numerous tropes, but also the dominant counter-narrative for effectively re-enforcing this. In order to expose the dominance of the image over the reality of Down syndrome, the article utilizes Baudrillard’s concept of the simulacra. It demonstrates how attempts to challenge the deficit model relating to Down syndrome continue to incorporate both the specific language and underlying metaphors of Down syndrome as other. Despite greater positive visibility in advertisements, television, and the press, there continues to be an increase in terminations and no progress on inclusion in education or the workplace. The article opposes both received narratives and metaphors around Down syndrome and poses a new challenge to the disparate, but ultimately impotent dominant counter-arguments and argues for a renewed focus on the real, the material experiences of people with Down syndrome. This is the only way that the dominant prevalent image of Down syndrome can be overcome.