Inoculating for Underground Coal Mine Emergencies

Training for Safety n Emergencies Inoculating fo.r Underground Coal Mine Emergencies By Catherine Y. Kingsley Westerman, Katherine A. Margolis and Kathleen M. Kowalski-Trakofler he potential for emergencies is ever- learn a rote procedure for donning SCSRs that is present in coal mining. This is illustrated reviewed each quarter (Vaught, Brnich, Wiehagen, Tby statistics which show that "employees in et al., 1993). Such preparation provides a basic sur- coal mining are more likely to be killed or to incur vival skill and gives miners a good rule of thumb a nonfatal injury or illness, and their injuries are for what to do in an emergency. more likely to be severe, than workers in private Unfortunately, it is impossible to prepare for industry as a whole" (Rice & Jonocha, 2008, p. 1). every'potential situation because emergencies are As a result of this unpredictable. When escaping miners encounter constant exposure a situation that requires them to make a difficult -Emergency training for underground coal miners to harm, coal min- decision, they may waste precious time consider- can be developed using inoculation theory. which ers must be highly ing or discussing what to do. In addition, they may has been used to explain how people may resist trained to qeal with not know how to take action when working with a unwanted persuasion attempts by preparing various emergency group of people who have various and potentially counterarguments in advance. scenarios. For ex- disturbing reactions to the emergency. One way to -This theory is relevant in an emergency training ample, all under- help miners react quickly and effectively in such sit- context when used to help people react quickly ground coal miners uations is to have them think through pOSSible situ- and effectively to emergencies by preparing their must learn how to ations and plan their likely responses in advance. · responses in advance. operate lifesaving This article describes using inoculation theory -The researchers used a NIOSH training module emergency equip- principles to prepare miners for emergencies. This as an example of how the theory may be applied in ment, how to navi- is a unique application in that, to the authors' a training context to prepare workers psychologi gate out of the mine knowledge, these principles have not previously cally for emergencies in underground coal mines. through smoke or been applied in emergency preparation training. but the concepts can be applied in other industries obstacles, and how Preparation based on inoculation theory prin- that require emergency safety training. to administer first ciples differs from more traditional training in that aid. This knowledge it involves teaching trainees to think for themselves can help save lives rather than simply teaching them how to perform a in the event of an emergency. task or use a safety device. The simplicity of inocula- Some existing underground coal mine train- tion theory lends itself to trainers with content-area ing focuses on rote performance of prescribed ac- expertise who may not have formal training in adult tions. For example, coal miners are taught when education. This is particularly important in the min- and how to put on self-contained self rescuers ing industry, which relies on the master/apprentice (SCSRs), which are respirators that provide 60 style of teaching (Camm & Cullen, 2002), with old- minutes of breathable air. More specifically, they er, experienced workers pulled from the mine to be- The prin ciples of inoculation theory can be used for emergency safety trai n ing for min ers as well as for work ers in other high-risk industries. come safety trainers. These workers' expertise is in AI will know what to do-they may avoid the idea mining, not teaching. Inoculation theory principles that it could happen and that AI might not be there. may be used by trainers to develop new materials or Thus, they may feel confident that an emergency to modify existing training materials. will not happen or, ifit does, that someone else will This article defines inoculation theory, briefly make sure they are okay. When an emergency does discusses its past use, and provides a brief example occur, these individuals could be highly vulnerable of how the theory can be applied when using a because of a lack of preparation. training module. In addition, it suggests how prac- Inoculation theory requires that two elements be titioners can apply the principles of this theory to present: threat and refutational preemption (Comp- their own emergency preparation training. ton & Pfau, 2005). Threat, defined as "a warning of possible future attacks on attitudes and the recogni- Inoculation Theory Explained tion of attitude vulnerability to change" (Szabo & . Inoculation theory was originally explicated by Pfau, 2002, p. 235), is necessary to motivate an indi- McGuire (1961), who uses a medical analogy to . vidual to prepare to defendhis/her belief. explain the use of persuasive messages to change For example, let's assume that Jack believes attitudes. The medical analogy is straightforward: it is important to follow the safety procedures at similar to inoculation for a disease, wherein a his manufacturing job exactly as written. A threat weakened version of the disease is injected to help could be generated through a warning that some the individual develop immunity to the disease, people think following safety procedures slows inoculation for persuasive messages involves ex- them down and that someone may try to convince posing people to a weakened form of counterargu- Jack that it is not necessary to follow all the proce- ment to their already held beliefs in order to enable dures as written. Refutational preemption, which them to resist counterarguments when their beliefs Szabo and Pfau define as "the process of replying are attacked. Inoculation theory has been applied . to counterargurnents before they occur" (p. 235), successfully in areas such as advertising (Bither, gives individuals the tools (i.e., refutations) to use Dolich & Nell, 1971; Compton & Pfau, 2004); against future attacks as well as giving them prac- public relations (Burgoon, Pfau & Birk, 1995); po- tice in how to generate their own tools. litical campaigns (An, 2003; An & Pfau, 2004); and Relative to the cited example, a refutational pre- adolescent health campaigns-particularly to help emption might occur when Jack is told a story about adolescents resist ·peer pressure to drink alcohol a person who was careless about safety procedures (Duryea, 1983; Godbold & Pfau, 2000) . and was injured as a result. Jack could then use McGuire (1961) suggests that people tend to this anecdote (i.e., refutation) when he encounters avoid information that disagrees with their beliefs. those who do not believe safety procedures must As a result, when their beliefs are attacked, they be followed exactly. In addition, hearing this story are particularly vulnerable because they are not ex- might spur Jack to think of additional reasons why pecting the attack and are unprepared for the argu- he wants to follow safety procedures as written. As ments against their beliefs. In the case of a mine a result of formulating his own reasons, he will be emergency, it may be that miners believe it will not armed both with the refutation given to him (the happen at their mine or, if it does, that their buddy anecdote) and his own personal refutations that he has now generated in advance of a they may handle them in advance will help them confrontation. in a real emergency. Vaught, Bmich, Mallett, et al. Application of these principles (2000), provide an example of a mine emergency in an emergency preparation set- simulation. They suggest that although vicarious tingis simple. Expose miners to the experience of a mine emergency is not enough idea that an emergency can hap- preparation for a real emergency, it is superior to · pen and what it will be like if it does having had neither preparation nor advance dis- (i.e., threat); then provide miners cussion of decisions and issues that will undoubt- with some ways of dealing with the edly arise in an emergency. emergency (i.e., conduct a refuta- Inoculation theory can provide a basis for de- tional preemption to provide tools) veloping a store of information and responses to and engage them in thinking about emergency situations. The mining industry in par- how they would respond in an ac- ticular has relied "heavily on the mentorlleamer tual emergency. This should help (master/apprentice) relationship to train new min- miners deal with emergencies more ers" (Camm & Cullen, 2002, p. 37). Because of the efficiently and potentially more ef- technical nature of mining, trainers are often pulled fectively than had they not thought from mining ranks and do not receive speCialized through the possibilities and poten- training in education. Rather, they are content ex- tial responses in advance. By expos~ perts. The principles of inoculation theory are suffi- ing individuals to this weakened ciently basic that they can easily be understood and "emergency reality," inoculation applied when developing new training or modify- training can increase their ability to ing existing training. survive emergencies in two ways: In the case of the 1) by providing them with tools to counteract the Sample Application: refuge chamber emergency situation; and 2) by prompting them to Refuge Chamber Expectations Training module used to test come up with their own plans for such a situation. The training used as an example was designed for this application of Although inoculation theory has not previously underground coal miners. Refuge Chamber Expec- the theory, the refu been used to prepare for emergencies, researchers tations Training (Margolis, Kowalski -Trakofler & tational preemption in emergency management research and training Kingsley Westerman, 2009) teaches miners about gives miners the have suggested that advance preparation for emer- the physical and psychological conditions they may knowledge that all gencies is warranted (Colligan & Cohen, 2004) .

Load more