Old dogs, new tricks? A Norwegian study on whether previous collaboration exercise experience impacted participant’s perceived exercise effect

IF 1.4 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
J. Sørensen, E. Carlström, L. Magnussen, Tae-eun Kim, Atle M. Christiansen, Glenn-Egil Torgersen
{"title":"Old dogs, new tricks? A Norwegian study on whether previous collaboration exercise experience impacted participant’s perceived exercise effect","authors":"J. Sørensen, E. Carlström, L. Magnussen, Tae-eun Kim, Atle M. Christiansen, Glenn-Egil Torgersen","doi":"10.1108/IJES-04-2018-0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the perceived effects of a maritime cross-sector collaboration exercise. More specifically, this study aims to examine whether past exercise experience had an impact on the operative exercise participant’s perceived levels of collaboration, learning and usefulness.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis was a non-experimental quantitative survey-based study. A quantitative methodology was chosen over qualitative or mixed-methods methodologies as it was considered more suitable for data extraction from larger population groups, and allowed for the measurement and testing of variables using statistical methods and procedures (McCusker and Gunaydin, 2015). Data were collected from a two-day 2017 Norwegian full-scale maritime chemical oil-spill pollution exercise with partners from Norway, Germany, Iceland, Denmark and Sweden. The exercise included international public emergency response organizations and Norwegian non-governmental organizations. The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (ref. 44815) and the exercise planning organization. Data were collected using the collaboration, learning and utility (CLU) scale, which is a validated instrument designed to measure exercise participant’s perceived levels of collaboration, learning and usefulness (Berlin and Carlström, 2015).\n\n\nFindings\nThe perceived focus on collaboration, learning and usefulness changed with the number of previous exercises attended. All CLU dimensions experienced decreases and increases, but while perceived levels of collaboration and utility reached their somewhat modest peaks among those with the most exercise experience, perceived learning was at its highest among those with none or little exercise experience, and at its lowest among those with most. These findings indicated that collaboration exercises in their current form have too little focus on collaborative learning.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nSeveral limitations of the current study deserve to be mentioned. First, this study was limited in scope as data were collected from a limited number of participants belonging to only one organization and during one exercise. Second, demographical variables such as age and gender were not taken into consideration. Third, limitation in performing a face-to-face data collection may have resulted in missing capturing of cues, verbal and non-verbal signs, which could have resulted in a more accurate screening. Moreover, the measurements were based on the predefined CLU-items, which left room for individual interpretation and, in turn, may cause somewhat lower term validity. As the number of international and national studies on exercise effects is scarce, it is important to increase further knowledge and to learn more about the causes as to why the perceived effects of collaboration exercises are considered somewhat limited.\n\n\nPractical implications\nExercise designers may be stimulated to have a stronger emphasis on collaborative learning during exercise planning, hence continuously work to develop scripts and scenarios in a way that leads to continuous participant perceived learning and utility.\n\n\nSocial implications\nCollaboration is established as a Norwegian national emergency preparedness principle. These findings may stimulate politicians and top crisis managers to develop national collaboration exercise script guidelines that emphasize collaborative learning and development.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study shows how exercise experience impacted participant’s perceived levels of collaboration, learning and usefulness. Findings indicated that collaboration exercises in their current form have too little focus on collaborative learning.\n","PeriodicalId":44087,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Emergency Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/IJES-04-2018-0025","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Emergency Services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJES-04-2018-0025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the perceived effects of a maritime cross-sector collaboration exercise. More specifically, this study aims to examine whether past exercise experience had an impact on the operative exercise participant’s perceived levels of collaboration, learning and usefulness. Design/methodology/approach This was a non-experimental quantitative survey-based study. A quantitative methodology was chosen over qualitative or mixed-methods methodologies as it was considered more suitable for data extraction from larger population groups, and allowed for the measurement and testing of variables using statistical methods and procedures (McCusker and Gunaydin, 2015). Data were collected from a two-day 2017 Norwegian full-scale maritime chemical oil-spill pollution exercise with partners from Norway, Germany, Iceland, Denmark and Sweden. The exercise included international public emergency response organizations and Norwegian non-governmental organizations. The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (ref. 44815) and the exercise planning organization. Data were collected using the collaboration, learning and utility (CLU) scale, which is a validated instrument designed to measure exercise participant’s perceived levels of collaboration, learning and usefulness (Berlin and Carlström, 2015). Findings The perceived focus on collaboration, learning and usefulness changed with the number of previous exercises attended. All CLU dimensions experienced decreases and increases, but while perceived levels of collaboration and utility reached their somewhat modest peaks among those with the most exercise experience, perceived learning was at its highest among those with none or little exercise experience, and at its lowest among those with most. These findings indicated that collaboration exercises in their current form have too little focus on collaborative learning. Research limitations/implications Several limitations of the current study deserve to be mentioned. First, this study was limited in scope as data were collected from a limited number of participants belonging to only one organization and during one exercise. Second, demographical variables such as age and gender were not taken into consideration. Third, limitation in performing a face-to-face data collection may have resulted in missing capturing of cues, verbal and non-verbal signs, which could have resulted in a more accurate screening. Moreover, the measurements were based on the predefined CLU-items, which left room for individual interpretation and, in turn, may cause somewhat lower term validity. As the number of international and national studies on exercise effects is scarce, it is important to increase further knowledge and to learn more about the causes as to why the perceived effects of collaboration exercises are considered somewhat limited. Practical implications Exercise designers may be stimulated to have a stronger emphasis on collaborative learning during exercise planning, hence continuously work to develop scripts and scenarios in a way that leads to continuous participant perceived learning and utility. Social implications Collaboration is established as a Norwegian national emergency preparedness principle. These findings may stimulate politicians and top crisis managers to develop national collaboration exercise script guidelines that emphasize collaborative learning and development. Originality/value This study shows how exercise experience impacted participant’s perceived levels of collaboration, learning and usefulness. Findings indicated that collaboration exercises in their current form have too little focus on collaborative learning.
老狗,新花样?挪威一项关于先前的协作运动经历是否影响参与者感知运动效果的研究
目的本文的目的是调查海上跨部门合作演习的感知效果。更具体地说,这项研究旨在检验过去的锻炼经历是否对手术锻炼参与者的协作、学习和有用程度有影响。设计/方法论/方法这是一项基于非实验性定量调查的研究。选择定量方法而不是定性或混合方法,因为它被认为更适合从较大的人群中提取数据,并允许使用统计方法和程序测量和测试变量(McCusker和Gunaydin,2015)。数据是从2017年挪威与挪威、德国、冰岛、丹麦和瑞典的合作伙伴进行的为期两天的全面海上化学品漏油污染演习中收集的。演习包括国际公共应急组织和挪威非政府组织。该研究得到了挪威研究数据中心(参考44815)和运动计划组织的批准。数据是使用协作、学习和效用(CLU)量表收集的,CLU是一种经过验证的工具,旨在衡量锻炼参与者对协作、学习与效用的感知水平(Berlin和Carlström,2015)。所有CLU维度都经历了下降和上升,但尽管在那些运动经验最多的人中,协作和效用的感知水平达到了适度的峰值,但在那些没有或很少运动经验的人中感知学习最高,而在那些运动经历最多的人里感知学习最低。这些发现表明,目前形式的协作练习对协作学习的关注太少。研究局限性/含义当前研究的几个局限性值得一提。首先,这项研究的范围有限,因为数据是在一次活动中从属于一个组织的有限数量的参与者那里收集的。其次,没有考虑年龄和性别等人口统计变量。第三,面对面数据收集的局限性可能导致线索、言语和非言语信号的捕捉缺失,这可能会导致更准确的筛查。此外,测量是基于预定义的CLU项目,这为个人解释留下了空间,反过来,可能会导致较低的期限有效性。由于关于运动效果的国际和国家研究数量很少,重要的是要增加更多的知识,更多地了解为什么合作运动的感知效果被认为有些有限的原因。实践含义在锻炼计划中,锻炼设计者可能会受到激励,更加重视协作学习,因此不断开发脚本和场景,以实现参与者持续感知的学习和效用。社会影响协作是挪威国家应急准备原则。这些发现可能会激励政治家和高级危机管理人员制定国家合作演习脚本指南,强调合作学习和发展。独创性/价值这项研究展示了锻炼体验如何影响参与者感知的协作、学习和有用性水平。研究结果表明,目前形式的协作练习很少关注协作学习。
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
International Journal of Emergency Services
International Journal of Emergency Services SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
29
×
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