The big lie: discursive risk analysis and wildland firefighter safety in the Western United States

Trevor Durbin, Casper G Bendixsen, Amber A Neely, Sarah Strauss
{"title":"The big lie: discursive risk analysis and wildland firefighter safety in the Western United States","authors":"Trevor Durbin, Casper G Bendixsen, Amber A Neely, Sarah Strauss","doi":"10.1088/2752-5309/ad00d5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract While increased length and intensity of wildfire seasons have led to more concern about wildland firefighter safety, we believe ethnography has been underutilized within wildfire health and safety. In response, we begin building a shared idiom for ethnographic engagement with wildland firefighter safety and similar occupational domains. We draw on ethnographic approaches to late industrialism to develop a method called Discursive Risk Analysis (DRA) as an initial stage in a broader collaborative and generative research practice. By collaborative, we mean cooperation among stakeholder, disciplinary, professional, and other groups. We use DRA to analyze ethnographic data and documentary sources relevant to discussions of “the Big Lie” among firefighters and agency leadership. The Big Lie is a term that both firefighters and agency leaders used to suggest that wildland firefighters are being harmed by agency discourse that says firefighters will be kept safe despite the unavoidable danger of the job. It is important to the Big Lie discussion that this harm is conceptualized by firefighters as discursively driven, necessitating a method attentive to discourse. Discursive Risk Analysis of the Big Lie discussion suggests two discursive gaps that may result in two discursive risks. The first gap, found in agency discourse, is that “everyone knows the job is dangerous” but “zero fatalities is a reasonable goal.” This gap is associated with a discursive risk, a possible decrease in trust among wildland firefighters in agency leadership. The second gap, observed in firefighter discourse, is that “the job is dangerous” but “no one will get hurt today.” This gap is associated with another discursive risk, the possibility of decreased situational awareness. Finally, we clarify each of these gaps and risks through two anthropological concepts (the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the public secret) that can bring new perspectives to discussions about institutional cultures of health and safety.","PeriodicalId":72938,"journal":{"name":"Environmental research, health : ERH","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental research, health : ERH","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5309/ad00d5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract While increased length and intensity of wildfire seasons have led to more concern about wildland firefighter safety, we believe ethnography has been underutilized within wildfire health and safety. In response, we begin building a shared idiom for ethnographic engagement with wildland firefighter safety and similar occupational domains. We draw on ethnographic approaches to late industrialism to develop a method called Discursive Risk Analysis (DRA) as an initial stage in a broader collaborative and generative research practice. By collaborative, we mean cooperation among stakeholder, disciplinary, professional, and other groups. We use DRA to analyze ethnographic data and documentary sources relevant to discussions of “the Big Lie” among firefighters and agency leadership. The Big Lie is a term that both firefighters and agency leaders used to suggest that wildland firefighters are being harmed by agency discourse that says firefighters will be kept safe despite the unavoidable danger of the job. It is important to the Big Lie discussion that this harm is conceptualized by firefighters as discursively driven, necessitating a method attentive to discourse. Discursive Risk Analysis of the Big Lie discussion suggests two discursive gaps that may result in two discursive risks. The first gap, found in agency discourse, is that “everyone knows the job is dangerous” but “zero fatalities is a reasonable goal.” This gap is associated with a discursive risk, a possible decrease in trust among wildland firefighters in agency leadership. The second gap, observed in firefighter discourse, is that “the job is dangerous” but “no one will get hurt today.” This gap is associated with another discursive risk, the possibility of decreased situational awareness. Finally, we clarify each of these gaps and risks through two anthropological concepts (the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the public secret) that can bring new perspectives to discussions about institutional cultures of health and safety.
大谎言:美国西部话语风险分析与野地消防员安全
虽然野火季节的长度和强度的增加引起了人们对野火消防员安全的更多关注,但我们认为民族志在野火健康和安全方面的利用不足。作为回应,我们开始建立一个共享的习语,用于与野外消防员安全和类似职业领域的民族志接触。我们利用民族志方法来研究晚期工业主义,开发了一种称为话语风险分析(DRA)的方法,作为更广泛的协作和生成研究实践的初始阶段。通过协作,我们指的是利益相关者、学科、专业和其他团体之间的合作。我们使用DRA来分析与消防员和机构领导层之间“大谎言”讨论相关的人种学数据和文献来源。“弥天大谎”是消防队员和消防机构领导人都使用的一个术语,用来暗示,尽管消防人员的工作存在不可避免的危险,但他们仍将保持安全,这一说法损害了野外消防员的利益。重要的是,这种伤害被消防员概念化为话语驱动,需要一种关注话语的方法。对大谎言讨论的话语风险分析表明,两个话语缺口可能导致两种话语风险。第一个差距是,在机构的话语中发现,“每个人都知道这份工作很危险”,但“零死亡是一个合理的目标”。这一差距与话语风险有关,可能会导致野火消防员对机构领导层的信任下降。在消防员话语中观察到的第二个差距是,“这份工作很危险”,但“今天没有人会受伤”。这种差距与另一种话语风险有关,即情境意识下降的可能性。最后,我们通过两个人类学概念(Sapir-Whorf假说和公共秘密)澄清了这些差距和风险,这可以为讨论健康和安全的制度文化带来新的视角。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信