When Simplified Communication Doesn’t Match Lived Complexity: Best Practices and Creative “Work-Arounds”

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to present findings from our Joint Fire Science grant funded project on radio communication. Our project sought to understand barriers and facilitators related to effective radio communication and how communication contributes to, or distracts from high reliability organizing mindfulness. In this paper we present findings from semi-structured interviews, textual analysis, and field observations concerning communication policies, practices, and training. We present data that reflect simplifications as they relate to communication training, the nature of communication, message framing, and communication technology. For example, current radio training in the S130/190 courses spends little time, if any, teaching firefighters how to prepare and organize messages that consider the constraints on the listener. Or, related to communication technology, there is conflict between how forest service policy discourages cell-phone use and the lived experience of those on the line who rely on it. Both of these examples represent an opportunity to rescue the complexity associated with communication instead of relying on simplifications. Our interviewees reported a perceived a lack of experiential learning in the classroom, a lack of practice opportunities while on the job but not on the fire or during a crisis, and a lack of recognition by fire overhead and trainers about communication anxiety related to using the radio. While these three themes were common among interviewees, some interviewees also provided creative work-arounds they have used to meet the demands of the complexity in the communication environment, such as both private and public practice techniques. We conclude by sharing a selection of these creative solutions.

Full text

Norton Point Fire,
Shoshone NF, WY;
2011.
Firefighters radio
in a burn operation
in Div Z with
Wyoming High
Desert Helitack.
Photo: Kari Greer.
Courtesy of
Wildfire Magazine,
Mar-Apr 2015
Cultivating a reluctance to simplify:
Exploring the HRO communication context in Wildland
firefighting

“Risk perception,
sensemaking and resilient
performance:
The sounds of wildland
firefighting in action”
(JFSP Project Number 14-2-01-11)
Brief Project
Background
Large Fire Conference
NCA

Methods
•Qualitative Interviews (29, Diverse Roles, ~1
hour each, ~900 pages of transcripts)
•Participant/Observation of classroom training (S-
130/190, L-180, two researchers are now red
carded)
•S520 Type 1 Crew Simulation (NAFRI)
•Textual Analysis (IRPG, Training Materials,
thematic, critical discourse, grounded theory)
•Field Observation of Incident Communication
(~24 hours monitoring all radio communication)

•“We are better thinkers and more informed
managers when we remember that language is
powerful and structures our thinking in particular
ways” (Thomas, Fox, and Miller, 2015, p. 11).
•*https://www.usfa.fema.gov/current_events/
•Edward Metz, Program Manager, Prevention and
Information Branch, National Fire Programs, U.S. Fire
Administration/FEMA/DHS

•The language of HRO mindfulness (text) is
shaped by the demands of the environment
(context) and if we are to understand these
language choices, we need to understand the
contextual demands.

Sending Mixed Messages
•The presentation of communication in training materials
and classroom training as mainly a technical issue
related to equipment, or something that does not
require much effort to learn does NOT reflect the
complexity of the communication environment.
•Yet, Accident Investigation Reports, Facilitated Learning
Analyses, Rapid Lessons Shared, After Action Reviews
all reflect a the need to recognize complexity.

Cultivating a reluctance to simplify
•Goal: to understand better the risks
associated with radio communication using
the HRO framework.
•Goal: to identify oversimplifications in regard
to communication training in general and
radio communication training in particular in
wildland firefighting and provide
recommendations for practice.

Communication focused research
•Primary focus on communication as a public relations or technology
issue (ex. Olsen & Sharp, 2013; Shindler, Toman & McAffrey, 2009)
•Public participation in fuel data loading (Ferster & Coops, 2014)
•Training land management practitioners (Mickler, Cissel, & Laurence,
2013)
•Relational/Cultural Process (Black, Baldauf McBride, 2013, Lewis, Hall,
& Black, 2011, Waldron & Ebbeck, 2015, and Waldron, Schary, &
Cardinal,2015)

Radio Communication
•Radio Communication, Language Choices, Tone (Gabor, 2015)
•Training, radio etiquette, censoring “negative” emotions,
importance of practice/drills (Ferranti, 2008; Frederick & Tuominen,
2009; Shouldis, 2013; Varone, 2003; Whitinger, 2006, Rosenthal,
2014, Nelson, 2012, nwcg.org, Peltz-Lewis & Godson, 2013)
•Communication Human Factors and Technology (Taylor and
Alexander, 2005).

Simplifications and Complexities
•The language seems to have a natural valence,
however . . .
•“(over) simplifications and (lived) complexities”
•Findings Categories:
–Communication Training
–The Nature of Communication
–Communication Technologies.

I. Communication Training (1/3)
•Simplification:
–Radio communication training can be taught adequately in formal training
that is short (less than 60 minutes), lecture-based, and technologically
focused, with little to no practical exercises.
•Complexity:
–Not enough experiential learning in the classroom
–Lack of practice opportunities while on the job but not during a fire or
crisis
– Not enough recognition by fire overhead and trainers about the anxiety
rookies and other firefighters feel when communicating on the radio.

Communication Training (2/3)
•Simplification: Once you become a good
communicator, you will remain a good
communicator.
•Complexity: Ongoing communication
training, integrating novel variables is
important to maintaining competence.

Communication Training (3/3)
•Simplification:
–“Sender to Receiver” transmission models of
communication illustrate the communication
process
•Complexity:
–These models do not capture interaction, noise,
the constructive function of language, perception,
etc.

II. The Nature of Communication (1/2)
•Simplification
–We naturally adapt to the needs of the listener
•Complexity
–People often don’t know the communication constraints of
other ICS positions
–Little, if any training focuses on how to frame or organize a
message and prepare the listener for that message
–Little, if any training focuses on how to ensure understanding

The Nature of Communication (2/2)
•Simplification:
•Good communication is brief, direct, declarative, free from
emotion,* and clearly received if you do not use 10-code
•Complexity:
–These characteristics result in conversations that focus on
transmitting ‘conclusions’ (hard to challenge)
–Sensemaking is hidden (pros and cons)

III. Communication Technologies (1/2)
•Simplification
–Radio equipment will work or is in place
–Proper use of channels and frequencies is
commonly understood
•Complexity
–“Holes” in coverage or equipment is not in place
or too old (LCEs)
–Channel and frequency confusion is widespread

Communication Technologies (2/2)
•Simplification
–The radio is the standard and best method for
communicating
•Complexity
– Some decisions require “more”
communication than is tolerated on the radio
–Cell phones provide more modes of
communication (maps, pictures, etc.)

Discussion
•Need for experiential learning in basic training courses
(provides practice and emphasizes importance of
communication from the beginning)
–Use radios and dispatch recordings
–Teach students the proper use of cell phones*
•Need for assessment (beyond multiple choice) to determine
if training has made a difference
•Need for “train the trainer” opportunities
–“Bear with me, I’m not a teacher.”
–“I’m sorry this will be death by powerpoint.”

Cultivating a reluctance to simplify:
Exploring the HRO communication
context in Wildland firefighting
Dave Thomas
Renoveling, Ogden,
UT
renoveling@msn.com
Elena Gabor, PhD
Department of Communication
Bradley University, Peoria, IL
egabor@fsmail.bradley.edu
Anne E. Black, PhD
Human Performance RD&A, USFS,
RMRS
Missoula, MT
aeblack@fs.fed.us
Jennifer A. Ziegler, PhD
Department of Communication
Valparaiso University, Valparaiso,
IN
jennifer.ziegler@valpo.edu
Rebekah L. Fox, PhD
Department of Communication
Studies
Texas State University, San Marcos,
TX
rf24@txstate.edu
A Joint Fire Science
Program Sponsored Project