19
contained in a single accident investigation report. In the first two phases of the study, one thousand
firefighters from the various agencies across the country were invited to identify problems related to
safety and to propose solutions to those problems. In the “problem identification phase,” the study
questioned the sheer number of safety rules that firefighters had to follow in the field:
It is difficult for humans to remember a long list of different considerations, and that gets
even worse during emergencies. There are too many lookout situations and warning
situations and orders to keep track of. (Tri-Data, 1996, p. 164)
However, in the solutions phase, the researchers missed an important opportunity to
question the logic of rule following per se. In the “solutions” phase, firefighters ranked the
following statement as the number one solution likely to have an impact on safety: “to develop a
safety culture that thinks rather than just obeys rules” (Tri-Data, 1997, p. 18). This exact phrasing
on the survey instrument most likely came from the firefighters themselves during the focus group
portion of the study. If the phrase “rather than just obeys” framing is what resonated with
firefighters about this solution, this could be read as an indication of their resistance to the root
military metaphor for safety. The statement is phrased as a mutually exclusive choice: we want less
of an emphasis on rule following and more of an emphasis on learning how to make informed
choices in the moment.
But in the goal setting phase of the study, these two concepts, “obey” vs. “think,” were not
treated as mutually exclusive solutions. Rather, this solution, which was preferred by the majority of
firefighters, was actually split into three different, additive goals. Goal #82 became to “develop a
safety culture that encourages people to think,” but it no longer mentioned “rather than obey…” The
Watch Out Situations themselves were incorporated into firefighting training goal #39, which
suggested that they be incorporated into simulations. As far as the Fire Orders were concerned, the
report noted some controversy over whether the Fire Orders were “risk assessment tools” or hard
and fast rules where “departures from these safe practices are viewed as violations of rules not
intended to be broken”(Tri-Data, 1998). While it looked like the study might recommend a further
discussion of the exact purpose of the Fire Orders, ultimately the issue was dismissed with the
phrase, “there is general agreement that fire orders are and should be a basic tenet of the culture.” In
Convention