Cultivating a reluctance to simplify: exploring the radio communication context in wildland firefighting

Abstract

Although communication is often cited as a contributor to organisational accidents, complexities of the communication context are still understudied. In training materials and some investigative reports, communication is often presented as an equipment issue or as a simple skill that can be picked up on the job. However, interviews with operational and managerial professionals in wildland firefighting reveal 10 simplifications in guidance about radio communication that do not match the complexities experienced by firefighters in the fire environment. Borrowing language from high-reliability organising theory, this study encourages the fire community to cultivate a ‘reluctance to simplify’ how communication is understood and taught, starting with introductory training. The study recommends a move away from the old information transfer model for communication and towards an ecology of meanings model for communication.

Full text

Cultivating a reluctance to simplify: exploring the radio
communication context in wildland firefighting
R. Fox
A
,
F
,E. Gabor
B
,D. Thomas
C
,J. Ziegler
D
and A. Black
E
A
Department of Communication Studies, Texas State University, 601 University Drive,
Centennial Hall, Room 316, San Marcos, TX 78666-4684, USA.
B
Department of Communication, Bradley University, 1501 W. Bradley Avenue, Peoria,
IL 61625, USA.
C
Renoveling, 2334 N 500 Street W, Ogden, UT 84414, USA.
D
Department of Communication, Valparaiso University, Kretzmann Hall, 1700 Chapel Drive,
Valparaiso, IN 46383, USA.
E
Rocky Mountain Research Station, 800 E. Beckwith Avenue, Missoula, MT 59801, USA.
F
Corresponding author. Email: rf24@txstate.edu
Abstract. Although communication is often cited as a contributor to organisational accidents, complexities of the
communication context are still understudied. In training materials and some investigative reports, communication is often
presented as an equipment issue or as a simple skill that can be picked up on the job. However, interviews with operational
and managerial professionals in wildland firefighting reveal 10 simplifications in guidance about radio communication
that do not match the complexities experienced by firefighters in the fire environment. Borrowing language from high-
reliability organising theory, this study encourages the fire community to cultivate a ‘reluctance to simplify’ how
communication is understood and taught, starting with introductory training. The study recommends a move away from
the old information transfer model for communication and towards an ecology of meanings model for communication.
Additional keywords: training, high-reliability organising.
Received 1 September 2016, accepted 26 May 2017, published online 8 August 2017
Introduction
Communication is foundational to wildland firefighting, as
evident in coverage in the National Wildfire Coordinating
Group (NWCG) S130 (Firefighting Training) and S190 (Intro-
duction to Wildland Fire Behaviour) courses and a dedicated
section in the Incident Response Pocket Guide (IRPG). Fire-
fighters are advised to send complete messages, to provide clear
instructions and to close the feedback loop by incorporating
checkbacks. Such communication advice is echoed in lessons
learned analyses, such as in ‘Is your communication adequate?’
produced by the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest
Region (2014), where one finding reads ‘Critical information,
thought to have been relayed, was not being received by the
dispatchers’ (USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region
2014, p. 1). Lessons learned include:
– Assure pertinent incident information is both asked for and
communicated up.
– Good two-way communication allows for proper planning,
resource assignments and upward reporting.
– Command structure of incidents should be communicated to
on-scene and incoming resources, by Dispatch and IC [Inci-
dent Command].
– When updates and resource ordering are communicated in a
clear manner, it instils confidence in those responding to and
monitoring the incident.
– Resource ordering should be done by ICS [Incident Command
System] type, kind and number needed. (Anon. 2014,p.1)
These characterisations of communication, particularly for
radio, adhere to a classic ‘information transfer’ model for
communication (Shannon and Weaver 1948). Likely suitable
for experienced firefighters, it may be difficult for beginning
firefighters to know what it looks like in practice to be ‘clear’
and to ‘ensure information is ‘‘communicated up’’.’ In fact,
without such additional context, and because communication is
already a cultural commonplace (Craig 1999), these prescrip-
tions may sound obvious, and may oversimplify (at least for
beginners) the actual complexities of communication in the fire
environment.
Similarly, for years, serious accident investigations attributed
communication problems to problems with equipment and with
individual messages sent and received. The South Canyon
Accident Investigation Report (Wildland Fire Lessons Learned
Center 1994), for example, lists ‘Dispatching procedures and
communications with the Incident Commander did not give a
CSIRO PUBLISHING
International Journal of Wildland Fire 2017,26, 719–731
https://doi.org/10.1071/WF16166
Journal compilation ÓIAWF 2017 www.publish.csiro.au/journals/ijwf

clear understanding of what resources (crews and air support)
would be provided to the fire in response to requests and orders’
(Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center 1994, p. 4), and ‘radio
communication was inadequate for the fire load and was recog-
nised as a potential problem y’(Wildland Fire Lessons Learned
Center 1994, p. 7). (See also Wildland Fire Lessons Learned
Center 2003;Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center 2006;
Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center 2014.)
In recent years, accident investigations have begun to grapple
with more complex communication issues. For example, in June
2013, 19 firefighters died on the Yarnell Hill Fire in central
Arizona. The Yarnell Hill Fire Serious Accident Investigation
Report (YHFI Report 2013) specifically addressed communic-
ation, twice. As with past reviews, the report first focused on
difficulties with equipment:
Radio communications were challenging throughout the
incident. Some radios were not programmed with appropri-
ate tone guards. Crews identified the problem, engaged in
troubleshooting, and developed workarounds so they could
communicate using their radios. Radio traffic was heavy
during critical times on the fire. (YHFI Report 2013,p.2)
However, the second mention captures a more complex
understanding of communication:
Although much communication occurred among crews
throughout the day, few people understood Granite Moun-
tain’s intentions, movements, and location, once they left the
black. The Team believes this is due to brief, informal, and
vague radio transmissions and talkarounds that can occur
during wildland fire communications.
This second instance goes beyond problems with equipment
and with messages sent and received. It defines communication
in terms of problems of coordination between and among
individual groups, including over the radio. It also acknowl-
edges radio communication practices that may be well known
but not necessarily functional.
Of late, the fire community is acknowledging communica-
tion problems that are more complex than can be accounted by
the dated information transfer model. Additionally, newer
organisational learning tools are emerging that can address
problems of communication and coordination, such as Facilitated
Learning Analyses (FLAs – an often in-depth process used to
capture lessons learned after unintended outcomes including
interviews, facilitated dialogue and site visits), Rapid Lessons
Shared (RLS – brief reports written quickly after incidents to
capture and circulate lessons), and After Action Reviews (AARs
– a process used by a team to enable sense-making and capture
lessons learned). Ultimately, what is needed is a model for
communication that can account for the complexity of commu-
nication in interagency coordination and in scalable Incident
Command on complex incidents on the one hand, and one that
members of the fire community can adapt as they become more
experienced and face more complexity in their roles on the other.
Cultivating a reluctance to simplify communication
Embracing an appropriate communication model is not just a
theoretical concern. It is a practical one. The effective man-
agement of risk is a primary concern in wildland firefighting and
relies on effective communication. Although scholarship and
practice in risk management continue to search for the essence
of what helps an organisation to manage risk, the work of Weick
and Sutcliffe (2001,2007) on high-reliability organising (HRO)
provides a language for the complexity that is being managed
and discursive tools for organisational members to reflect on
their own risks.
Indeed, HRO has been used to explore risk management in
fire operations with the goal of understanding mindfulness and
sense-making (Weick 1993;Putnam 1995), for example. Illus-
trating the connection between language use and mindfulness,
Thomas et al. (2015) argue, ‘We are better thinkers and more
informed managers when we remember that language is powerful
and structures our thinking in particular ways’ (Thomas et al.
2015, p. 11). Their work falls into a growing body of research
aimed at operationalising the principles of HRO mindfulness and
bridging theory and practice (e.g. Weick and Sutcliffe 2001,
2007;Bearman et al.2010;Black and Baldauf McBride 2013;
Vidal and Roberts 2014).
We know from existing research that highly reliable organi-
sations in other industries, such as aircraft carrier operations
(Rochlin et al. 1987) and hospital administration (Berwick
2007), exhibit certain hallmarks that represent habits and
practices cultivated by professionals in everyday operations.
One such hallmark is a ‘reluctance to simplify interpretations’,
or resisting oversimplification and assumptions.
a
Because com-
munication is cited repeatedly as a factor in unintended con-
sequences, then it is important to explore where the fire
community may be oversimplifying and find ways to complicate
old ways of thinking. Therefore, in the present paper, we extend
the notion to ‘reluctance to simplify communication’.
The present paper is part of a larger project by a team of
researchers and practitioners to develop a set of tools that can
help members of the fire community understand and manage the
complexity of communication in an increasingly complex fire
and operating environment. In this particular paper, we focus on
radio communication because radio is a major communication
modality and because members of the fire community already
associate the radio with communication in reflective practice.
The paper proceeds as follows.
First, the literature review shows how existing communica-
tion research covered in the International Journal of Wildland
Fire (IJWF) tends to focus on community and public relations
(e.g. Shindler et al. 2009). In other outlets, advances in human
factors, risk management, leadership and HRO represent
attempts to grapple with increased complexity in the fire
environment, but only indirectly focus on communication, with
a few notable exceptions (e.g. Ziegler and DeGrosky 2008;
Lewis et al. 2011;Gabor 2015). The literature review concludes
a
Additional hallmarks include preoccupation with failure (a perpetual suspicion that something has been overlooked), sensitivity to operations (paying close
attention to how all aspects of the organisation are functioning together), deference to expertise (a willingness to allow those with the skill, experience and
knowledge to make decisions regardless of rank or title), and a commitment to resilience (learning from unintendedoutcomes and developing plans to manage
unexpected events).
720 Int. J. Wildland Fire R. Fox et al.

with the observation that, to date, the fire community lacks a
systematic, comprehensive, communication model (and related
vocabulary) for understanding, diagnosing and solving complex
communication problems in fire operations, and for conveying
lessons learned that can be incorporated into training and
development going forward. We briefly introduce communic-
ation as the ecology of meanings (Campos 2007) as an alterna-
tive model.
Second, we review official guidance about radio commun-
ication, and note how materials produced tend to be ad hoc and
not centrally located, and present radio communication as easy
to learn and largely a matter of equipment handling. In search of
an appropriate method, we take a cue from ‘deep smarts’
research on HRO, e.g. Thomas et al. 2015, who claim that these
habits and practices are evident in the expanded vocabulary of
professionals when they talk about complexities of the environ-
ment and their adapted skill sets. In other words, expert prac-
titioners cultivate a ‘reluctance to simplify’, and it is possible to
hear this in their talk about actual practice.
Third, as part of our methods, we asked mid-level operational
and managerial fire practitioners to talk about their experiences
with radio communication and to reflect on factors that contrib-
ute to communication effectiveness in operations. Our goal was
to mine the articulated experiences of expert communicators to
map the complex communication landscape as they perceive it
and to begin to capture their advice about best practices.
In the results, we distil 10 simplifications (e.g. ‘communica-
tion is easy’ and ‘you’ll pick it up’) and we juxtapose these with
interviews that reveal the more complex lived experiences and
practices of operational firefighters. Finally, in the discussion,
we posit that to improve system reliability, a similar reluctance
to simplify communication should be cultivated within the
broader fire community, starting with initial training. To this
end, we offer recommendations for how to teach communication
to beginning firefighters. Finally, we call for further exploration
of the ecology of communication in future research.
Literature review
As the flagship journal for the wildland fire community, the
IJWF has traditionally focused on technical topics like fire
behaviour and fuels management research. As attention to
human factors has grown, IJWF has included studies about
communication. To date, communication has been discussed
primarily from a public relations or community relations per-
spective (e.g. Shindler et al. 2009;Olsen and Sharp 2013),
public participation in fuel loading assessment (Ferster and
Coops 2014) and training for land-management practitioners
(Mickler et al. 2013). As one recent exception, Gabor (2015)
reviewed the cultural and technical barriers to effective com-
munication by radio in wildland firefighting, drawing attention
to incidents where ambiguous, assumptive or incomplete
wording was a contributing factor to accidents and fatalities. The
study drew attention to the role of vocal tonality in radio com-
munication, as well as the need for more training on the crafting
of radio messages.
Elsewhere, advances in research and practice in human
factors, risk management, leadership and HRO attempt to
grapple with the human complexities of the fire environment.
Studies of mindfulness and self-compassion, and insights about
high-reliability practices can be found in the work of Black et al.
(2013),Lewis et al. (2011),Waldron and Ebbeck (2015) and
Waldron et al. (2015). These studies address communication,
but only indirectly. Communication has been studied directly in
models for practical leadership development. For example, in
tracing how ‘leader’s intent’ was imported from the military,
Ziegler and DeGrosky (2008) tracked how leadership as a
cultural process of cultivating shared mind was flattened into
a model of leadership that was about transmitting forceful
messages. To date, few studies have focused on communication
in fire operations and its potential interplay with training. One
specific study to focus on communication in operations was
offered by Lewis et al. (2011), who examined self-silencing in
upward voice among novice firefighters. They found that fire-
fighters early in their careers are more likely to silence them-
selves when they perceive risk and rely on experienced
colleagues to maintain safety. Although the authors discussed
self-censorship in relation to career stage and experience level,
there was no specific focus on a communication medium (e.g.
radio, cell phone or face to face).
Practical literature
In the practical literature, radio communication has been dis-
cussed by several communication coordinators, experienced
trainers and firefighters in newsletters and professional maga-
zines such as Fire Management Today (e.g. Varone 2003;
Whitinger 2006;Ferranti 2008;Frederick and Tuominen 2009;
Shouldis 2013) and Two More Chains (e.g. Rosenthal 2014). For
example, Frederick and Tuominen (2009) highlighted the
importance of radio etiquette, including the need to censor
negative emotions such as anger or panic on the radio and
avoiding pointless radio traffic. From a training perspective,
Whitinger (2006) wrote about the importance of radio drills and
of developing a strong familiarity with the radio.
Additional training documents and articles were published
online by particular forest organisations (Nelson 2012), the
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (2012, http://www.
nwcg.gov, accessed 4 July 2017) or Wildfire Magazine (e.g.
Peltz-Lewis and Godson 2013, http://wildfiremagazine.org/arti-
cle/it-part-1-tablets-smart-phones-and-%E2%80%A8common-
operating-picture-intelligence/, accessed 4 July 2017). Because
these resources are dispersed and challenging to locate when
trying to research radio communication practices in wildland
firefighting, we assume they are similarly challenging for those
attempting to learn and practise.
In the next section, we explain the information transfer model
and contrast it with the ecology of meanings model.
Information transfer model
The dominant communication model used and taught in fire-
fighting is the oldest in the communication field: the sender–
receiver communication model by Shannon and Weaver (1948),
also known as the information transfer model. This model regards
communication as occurring between a speaker and a receiver
who are transmitting messages to one another by a particular
medium (e.g. telephone, radio, face to face). Because the sender–
receiver model is transactional rather than interactional, it focuses
Reluctance to simplify Int. J. Wildland Fire 721

our attention on the sender’s role while the receiver is simply a
person waiting to become a sender. This model invites us to
equate communication with transmission and assumes that the
meaning of the message resides primarily with the sender.
This model may help to understand the mechanics of comm-
unication but it does not recognise, for example, the complexity
of communication environments where multiple speakers with
potentially different goals interact with various degrees of power
and authority. When applied to firefighting, the transmission
model may help explain the surface transaction of messages that
happens in themoment over the radio, but does not accountfor the
formative, cultural influence that past interactions (both on- and
off-duty) may have had on a firefighter’s emotions, attitude and
expectations regarding future interactions. Arguing generally,
communication theorist Robert Craig (1999) described the trans-
mission model as ‘philosophically flawed, fraught with paradox,
and ideologically backward’ (Craig 1999, p. 7) and argued for its
replacement with a model that conceptualises communication as
a ‘constitutive process that produces and reproduces shared
meaning’ (Craig 1999,p.7).
Ecology of meanings model
A more helpful perspective on communication is a constitutive
one that recognises how communication creates our social
reality. One such model is the ecology of meanings model
(Campos 2007), which takes a critical constructivist approach.
In this model, communication is both interactive and historic,
‘dialectically dependent on the historical evolution of social
constraints derived from the concrete economic conditions of
life and from the way public and private administration molds
the insertion of individuals in society’ (Campos 2007, p. 395).
Campos suggests that communicators have both an inner
response (e.g. emotions) and outer response (e.g. will to act) to
an interaction, as they form configurations of meanings (con-
structed and co-constructed images of the world). These con-
figurations of meanings may or may not be assimilated or
accommodated, but humans have the ability to process numer-
ous such configurations and language possibilities, which
allows the creation of knowledge in dyads, small groups or
larger communities, organisations and societies. This dynamic
interplay is what forms a social environment (Campos 2007).
Given the complex realities of firefighting, where individuals
negotiate physical, social, cultural and political constraints, this
approach to communication may have more explanatory power.
Campos’ model has been used to analyse communication in
networked communities and organisations (Yang and Taylor
2015), and to understand how different attitudes develop across
cultures (Grabovschi and Campos 2014).
When applied to firefighting, Campos’ model can help
understand how communication interactions prior to organisa-
tional entry, while on and off duty, and one’s physical and
psychological experiences combine to create configurations of
meaning that communicators negotiate moment by moment and
that powerfully shape work processes. For example, one experi-
enced firefighter observed that organisational members enter the
organisation with different conflict management styles that
affect their radio interactions and relationships. Additionally,
Campos’s model invites us to consider physical stressors,
current sociopolitical organisational events and emotional reac-
tions as integral parts of any situation. For example, in a size-up,
the initial attack crew communicates their understanding
regarding fire activity. That report is influenced by the experi-
ence, emotions, past interactions and linguistic ability of the
people giving the size-up messages as well as the physical
environment (e.g. weather, fire behaviour) and technical con-
siderations (e.g. repeaters, radios). Further, meaning is negoti-
ated and co-constructed with other individuals and crews as they
engage in interaction (e.g. air, ground, IC).
Methods
Data collection
Our team used three different methods of data collection:
analysis of organisational texts; participant observation in
classroom (June 2015), simulation (February 2015) and an
active incident (August 2015); and qualitative interviews. Our
team chose these particular methods because they produce data
that provide deep understanding of meanings that individuals
associate with certain organisational practices. These methods
(analysis of texts, field observations and interviews) are typi-
cally employed for the study of organisational cultures in order
to capture not only the visible norms and rituals of organisation
but also the taken-for-granted assumptions that accompany
them (Driskill and Brenton 2011;Keyton 2011;Alvesson 2012).
To enhance the validity of study results, our team engaged in
both researcher triangulation (five researchers were involved in
data collection and analysis) and methods triangulation. Trian-
gulation involves the use of different methods and sources to
check the integrity of or extend inferences drawn from the data
(Denzin 1997;Ritchie and Lewis 2003).
In 2014, each research professor obtained approval from the
Institutional Review Board at their respective university in order
to ensure that our research protocol sufficiently protected the
confidentiality of our participants. We developed and used a
sampling procedure to maximise demographic, experiential and
functional variety, such as air, ground and dispatch commun-
icators, and we recruited novice, mid-career and highly exper-
ienced firefighters. We sought such participants through
opportunistic sampling (see Appendix 1, Table A1).
Textual analysis
Selecting what texts to analyse is as important as understanding
how to read them. We chose to focus our textual analysis on
three documents to which every firefighter is exposed: the
IRPG, which is read and carried by most firefighters in the field,
as well as the training manuals for the introductory firefighter
training courses (S-130, S-190 and L-180), all taken by fire-
fighters during their initial certification. We paid attention to
instances where communication was mentioned, including
recommendations for ‘effective’ communication, such as ‘It’s
press and speak, not press and think’. We examined these for
underlying assumptions grounding those recommendations.
Classroom and field data collection
The first two authors completed S-130/S-190 and L-180
training courses, including passing the arduous physical fitness
test to obtain red cards. Attending the S-130/S-190 and L-180
722 Int. J. Wildland Fire R. Fox et al.

course allowed us to observe how radio use is taught to beginner
(Type 2) firefighters, as well as how topics such as weather, fire
behaviour and safety rules are conveyed. The other three
researchers had completed S-130/S-190 and L-180 training in
years past and contributed their recollections to the dataset.
Interviews
Our research team conducted in-depth interviews with 27 fire-
fighters of varying levels of experience (novice, mid-career,
highly experienced), operational realm (air, ground, dispatch)
and operational role (dispatchers, Assistant Forest Management
Officers, Zone Forest Management Officers, fixed-wing pilots,
trainers, radio operators, communications specialists, engine
crew members, dozer operators) (Appendix 1, Table A1).
Interviews ranged between 30 and 120 min, with an average
length of just over 1 h. Interviews were transcribed and verified
against the audio recording, resulting in over 900 pages of
written transcripts.
The interview protocol included questions about individual
and team practices, such as, ‘What are the most important
practices you personally try to follow when it comes to talking
on the radio during an incident?’ and ‘What are the most
common misconstructions or misinterpretations that happen
over the radio?’ (See Appendix 1, interview protocol.) Ques-
tions also addressed the training participants received in radio
communication and prompted participants to recall and articu-
late critical incidents when radio communication was particu-
larly important.
Thematic analysis and critical discourse analysis were used
to identify and assess communication. We employed an iterative
analysis process (as described by Tracy 2013, for example)
grounded in the anthropological practice of comparing emergent
(emic) readings of the data and a deductive (etic) use of existing
models and theories. In the present study, the three communica-
tion researchers brought their expertise and pedagogical insights
to the process. Three researchers examined the transcript data
and individually assigned codes that captured their essence.
These were synthesised in a second, collective cycle to produce
a sound analytic frame for future analysis. In the remainder of
this paper, we present our key findings organised around these
analytic frames.
Results
We found that on the one hand, training texts and materials
encoded the information transfer model, whereas on the other
hand, in interviews, mid-level operational and managerial fire
practitioners articulated experience with a more complex com-
munication environment. To them, communication is not only
more complex than presented in training and other materials
(and certainly about more than operating equipment), but they
were also able to articulate how they cope with complexities in
practice. Below, we contrast 10 oversimplifications with the
lived complexities as articulated by our interviewees, within
categories of Communication training,The nature of commu-
nication and Communication technologies.
Communication training
Simplification #1: Communication is easy and you’ll pick
it up
Nowadays, firefighters carry radios and start using them
much earlier in their careers than in the past, but classroom
training has not kept pace with this organisational reality. The
S-130/S-190 is an important course for every newcomer because
it precedes earning a red card, lays the foundation for additional
field training, and indirectly socialises newcomers to the orga-
nisational culture.
Current training in radio communication is guided by the
perception that communication is easy and all one needs is a basic
working knowledge of language to be a good communicator.
Although specific training in radio communication may vary
according to how S-130 is delivered, in general these modules are
short (e.g. covered in 30–60 min) and focus on the mechanics of
radio operation. The complexity surrounding radio communica-
tion is simplified by its presentation in training that is short,
lecture-based and technologically focused, with little to no
practical exercises. When the initial presentation of communica-
tion is so attenuated, it likely will not cover the complexities of
lived communication contexts.
The classroom lectures in S-130 and L-180 that we observed
mostly consisted of technical principles of communication and
key technological terminology. In terms of human interactions,
the lesson briefly covered the mechanics of how to transmit and
receive a message, followed by a few troubleshooting princi-
ples and advice from personal experience. When asked about
ways to communicate risk, instructors indicated that ‘May-
day!’ or ‘It’s getting hot here’ were common ways to report
risk, but strategies to do so effectively or the complexity of
communicating risk were not discussed in much detail. At the
end of the lesson, students were left with the impression that
radio communication would be simple, and mostly depended
on their ability to use the equipment properly. Assessment of
what students learned relied on short-term memorisation using
a multiple-choice test.
Simplification #2: Learning about communication means
you’ll be ready to communicate
When asked to recall their classroom training in radio
communication, interviewees reported the following issues:
– Not enough experiential learning in the classroom
– Lack of practice opportunities outside of a fire or crisis
– Not enough recognition by fire management and trainers
about the anxiety beginner firefighters and other firefighters
feel when communicating on the radio.
b
In contrast with the limited attention paid to communication in
the training of beginner firefighters, the experienced firefighters
we interviewed reported that they paid considerable attention to
their communication practices. To them, communication is not
easy; you cannot just pick it up. It requires practice. They relayed
that they practised speaking on the radio on their own and
understood that radio communication is a perishable skill. In
b
One interviewee suggested that the classroom training for communication was adequate for adult learners who are meant to continue learning on the job.By
qualifying his statement, he also drew attention to the notion that the current training, by itself, is not enough.
Reluctance to simplify Int. J. Wildland Fire 723

the words of one interviewee: ‘It’s not something you can doonce
in your career and call it good’. Interviewees gave concrete
examples of how they developed skills to become good commu-
nicators, techniques that Leonard et al. (2014) and others might
label ‘deep smarts’ (see e.g. Leonard and Swap 2005;Thomas
et al. 2015;Leonard et al. 2014).
Sometimes communication practices are integrated into
basic and refresher firefighter trainings, but they are not consis-
tently taught across the regions. During the annual refresher, one
air attack boss asked attendees to imagine how they would
communicate if one of their airplane engines were on fire. He
recalled instructing,
‘Think about what you would say to dispatch. Think about
what you would say to the copter and what you would say to
the pilot.’ Walk[ed] them through the process. Okay, cool.
Two volunteers. They raise their hand and I say, ‘Say it out
loud.’ And it was amazing. Two really experienced air
attacks sounded completely, completely flustered trying to
get the words out.
The same participant emphasised the value of practicing
communication over the radio even if only mentally, like a
musician reading the score and imagining playing it without the
instrument.
If you mentally rehearse these things and actually speak the
words aloud repeatedly, when you get into that high-stress,
high-tempo environment where your life may be in jeopardy
or someone else’s life may be in jeopardy, the last thing you
would want to do is to fail them because of your inability to
communicate.
In another interview, an air attack boss pointed out that
communication skills are perishable and need to be maintained.
He shared that his solutions included watching others, recording
himself, playing out multiple scenarios while biking to work:
I used to record all of my dispatch assignments. I would make
a note on my board of times. I would just look at the recorder
or look at my watch and write the time down if there was
something I wanted to revisit or I thought I could do better.
I’d go to my hotel at night and I would play back. I fight a lot
of fire in my head.
We found little evidence in our research to suggest that
current training is capturing the complexity that marks the
communication environment; however, firefighters report crea-
tive ways they polish their communication skills. The experi-
enced firefighters seem to depart from the information transfer
model relayed in initial training and seem to embrace the
complexities that contribute to their own and others’ configura-
tions of meaning.
The nature of communication
Simplification #3: There is a standard way to
communicate in all roles
Interviewees also raised concerns that challenged simpli-
fications related to the nature of communication. One such
simplification was to assume that there was one best way
to communicate in all situations. However, they noted
significant variations in what good communication sounds
like depending on one’s role in the ICS. An incident com-
mander, dispatcher, or division supervisor each might need
a different communication skill-set. People report that they
are often unaware of the communication constraints of
other positions – such as dozer operators not always being
able to attend to radio traffic or air attack having to multitask to
avoid air collisions – because they do not know the roles
various ICS positions play to carry out their responsibilities, or
how to work within the constraints inherent to each ICS
position.
Radio dispatchers, firefighters on the line, air attack bosses
and incident commanders all function in different physical,
psychological and relational environments that require different
communication skills. A dispatcher told us:
I wish more ground operations folks would come into
dispatch to see what we do. They’d understand what we are
up against and why we say what we say.
Simplification #4: Messages are easily packaged
There is widespread perception – supported by training and
culture – that the characteristics of a ‘good’ message include
being brief, direct and declarative. Unfortunately, these char-
acteristics also result in conversations that focus on transmitting
‘conclusions’. When coupled with a preference for brevity, this
stymies the very types of conversations that enable collective
sense-making, according to HRO; i.e. open, tentative and
inquiring (see also Vidal and Roberts 2014). Declarative state-
ments are often difficult to challenge, particularly without
raising defensiveness. Such an atmosphere also tends to lead
to misinterpretations of inquiry, acknowledgement of partial
knowledge and sharing of tentative interpretations as evidence
of lack of confidence or competence. It is not that such
conversations do not exist in wildland fire; it is more that these
are not apparent or encouraged over the radio. The conundrum
for the wildland fire community, thus, is when, where and how
do dispersed groups of firefighters successfully conduct neces-
sary sense-making?
Simplification #5: Good communication is emotion-free
Another tension related to the nature of communication
stemmed from the idea that ‘good’ radio communication is
free of emotions. This view fails to acknowledge that signifi-
cant non-verbal information is transmitted by emotional com-
munication. Experienced radio users, particularly when they
know each other, glean important information from tone of
voice and emotional cues. One participant told us that he can
‘see facial expressions’ over the radio. In some cases, the
inability to communicate an appropriate sense of urgency can
lead to a lack of understanding the magnitude of a particular
threat. Ironically, our interviews reflect that firefighters are
trained to speak without emotion so as not to stir up emotions
among those listening, but when they listen, they listen for
emotion. One AFMO told us: ‘We rely upon tone and inflec-
tion to give us ‘‘the rest of the story’’ when there is an
emergency.’
724 Int. J. Wildland Fire R. Fox et al.

Simplification #6: Audience-centred messages are
intuitively framed
Interviewees reported the complexity associated with listening
to messages or framing them so that they can be easily understood.
Speakers often overlook the strategies for organising and deliver-
ing effective messages. A primary step in planning an ‘audience-
centred’ or ‘listener-centred’ message is recognising the listener’s
communication context. What are the demands of that situation?
Related to this type of adaptation is the need to prepare the listener
to receive certain types of information, especially complex infor-
mation including long lists and emotionally difficult content.
Even if content was communicated clearly, firefighters
recognised that relational work is also being carried out on the
radio, yet training does not address this type of complexity.
Talk-interactions, seen within an ‘ecology of meanings’ frame-
work mentioned earlier (Campos 2007), are always about more
than just the topic being discussed. There is the topic of
discussion and the language being used (e.g. my particular
method of talking) but also identity issues (Who am I in the
interaction?) and relational goals (What do we represent to each
other in this interaction?).
Simplification #7: Words are transparent to all and carry
the same meaning
Ironically, in an effort to eliminate perceived complexity,
10-codes or numerical codes that represent commonly used
radio verbal phrases, were discontinued as a way of standar-
dising communication on the radio. However, this may have led
to a false sense that language could easily be standardised. We
may expect the use of jargon to present problems, but common
words with multiple meanings may also lead to miscommun-
ication. We heard of several instances in which specific words
are used to mean different things in different agencies:
A prime example, you’re getting flooded with radio traffic,
and then somebody says, ‘Hey, I need you to deploy your
truck along this road’, instead of saying, ‘I need you to go
stage along this road.’ Just that one word ‘deploy’, that’s one
of those keywords that fire managers pick up on, and all you
hear, with all this traffic, then all of a sudden you just hear the
word ‘deploy’, the first thing that jumps in your mind is,
‘Somebody’s deploying their fire shelter.’
There are also several differences based on the geographical
and regional differences. A firefighter from Hawaii told us about
expressions they use locally that are unknown to firefighters
from the mainland:
We were talking to the helicopter pilot and we were using
terminology, we were using ‘mauka’ and ‘makai’ and so
you’d be calling in the helicopter and you’d say something
like, ‘I’m mauka of you, keep coming’, or ‘We’re just makai
of the pool’ or whatever [y]. ‘Mauka’ means uphill, ‘makai’
means downhill, literally towards the ocean. [y] if you grew
up here, you know what it is, but when their guys come in, it’s
a new word and you hear it twice and you still can’t say it
because it’s just new.
To mitigate such linguistic differences, the Hawaiian crews
agreed to eliminate regionalisms and speak ‘mainland English’
for the duration of the collaborative exercises. One other Forest
Service Agency in the Mid-West created a list of local terms that
would be important to know by an incoming fire organisation.
Communication technologies
Simplification #8: Radios are reliable and work when
needed
One assumption we observed related to communication
technologies was that radio communicators often assume that
all radio equipment and all the supporting electronics needed to
make a forest-wide radio system functional are reliable and will
work when needed. However, radio coverage over any existing
geography will never be complete. There will always be ‘holes’
in the radio or cell phone coverage, often induced by mountain-
ous terrain, where communicators cannot send or receive
messages. The repeaters infrastructure is not up to date every-
where in the country.
A Communications Coordinator gave the repeaters infra-
structure an average grade of B–:
That can range anywhere from about an A in some areas to
probably a C, maybe even a C minus in some areas. From my
point of view, we don’t spend as near as much money as we
should on the C portion of LCES [Lookouts, Communica-
tion, Escape routes, Safety zones].
Simplification #9: Programming a radio is easy
In addition to location and functionality being assumed, a
second assumption is that the proper use of channels, frequen-
cies, and repeaters is understood and experienced similarly by
all involved. However, programming a radio or changing a
channel and frequency can be both physically difficult and
anxiety-producing, especially for new firefighters. Gloves can
get in the way. An insufficient knowledge of ‘which channel
does what’ can lead to confusion. Each time a channel is
changed, the audience changes in size and type, and with that,
the stakes of the interaction change too. The appropriate use of
different radio channels (e.g. command, crew, dispatch, air-to-
ground) for the different functions of fire management are not
clearly discussed in the basic training courses. We were told
stories of firefighters who do not realise they are on the wrong
channel, until they are told of their interference by others.
Interviewees also reported that firefighters use different stan-
dards to judge what constitutes ‘emergency’ radio traffic.
Although it is unlikely that any a priori standard can be
established, a discussion of how prioritisation occurs would be
useful. One bulldozer operator recalled a ‘bad situation’ when in
the midst of a fire ‘blowing up’ another crew, which was
working with local evacuations and thought they were operating
on a local tac (tactical) channel, got on the command repeater to
coordinate ‘moving their llamas from the corrals’.
Simplification #10: Frequencies are readily available and
those with radios will be able to use them
Another complexity is that radio frequencies and channels
are finite and just because one has a radio in his or her hand does
not mean there will be an open channel to use. An FMO recalled
a specific situation during which time competition for radio
Reluctance to simplify Int. J. Wildland Fire 725

channels added to the difficulty associated with managing
multiple fires. He said:
Division Alpha happened to get on the radio first, ‘We got
spot fires. I need additional resources; I need aircraft.’ And
then Division Bravo is waiting for him to quit, get done, and
all of a sudden Division Charlie’s quicker on the button than
Bravo is, and he’s doing the same thing. So, yeah, there’s
some competition for, you know, I hate to say there’s just not
enough frequencies out there.
Making student firefighters aware of these complexities
would improve their learning and readiness level.
In the next section, we use these findings to provide practical
recommendations for the firefighting community.
Discussion
Our study revealed a mismatch between guidance and actual
practice when it comes to radio communication. Based on our
analysis of communication-focused training materials, obser-
vation of a course that all firefighters take and interview data, it
is clear that wildland firefighters are working in an extremely
complex communication environment, not reflected in initial
training.
Our study presents opportunities to reflect on the connection
between the cognitive aspects of HRO mindfulness and its
linguistic manifestations. Our interviewees demonstrated a reluc-
tance to simplify their listening and speaking practices as they
operate in a complex world to which they are constantly attending
and adapting in a mindful way. Thomas et al. (2015) sought to
understand how cultivating HRO mindfulness is intertwined with
our ability to articulate mindfulness. They conclude their article
by claiming, ‘How we talk to each other about risky situations, as
we are trying to make sense of them, is a vital skill, and a better
understanding of the language of HRO mindfulness is crucial in
developing this skill’ (Thomaset al.2015, p. 11). As these authors
have argued, the cognitive processes involved in HRO mindful-
ness are reflected in the language choices of highly skilled
individuals, and conversely these language choices shape cogni-
tive processes. The interview data collected as a part of the current
project support these claims.
We recognise that there is no way to prepare a student for all
of the complexities associated with firefighting communication,
but our interviewees have provided examples and strategies
from their own experiences that can be shared and used in the
classroom. In other words, the fire community has an opportu-
nity to increase the effectiveness of its communication training
using the creative ways experienced firefighters are already
managing the communication environment. These ‘deep
smarts’ ideas can be shared and integrated into supplemental
materials for the classroom consistently and at a larger organisa-
tional scale, not just locally or where it happens to occur.
From an instructional design perspective, we found a mis-
alignment between the pedagogical goals in S-130/S-190 and
L-180, the instructional techniques used in the classroom and the
knowledge needs of the firefighters in the field. Our analysis of
the primary texts used in the S-130/S-190 and L-180 shows that
communication is primarily framed as information transfer
(Shannon and Weaver 1948) instead of a process of meaning
co-creation, negotiation and sharing influenced by multiple
contextual factors. When problems with radio communication
are discussed in the course manual, the focus is almost exclu-
sively on equipment and channel use, although our interviewees
reported having problems with misunderstandings and miscom-
munication as a primary issue related to ‘trouble’ on the radio.
Common pitfalls in communicating size-ups, locations, direc-
tions, requests for resources, etc., were not addressed in the book
or in the lecture. Although initial training suggests that commu-
nication skills will be a part of advanced courses or refresher
courses in the student’s future, mechanisms for self-practice are
not provided.
To align the pedagogical goals of the classroom materials
and instructional techniques in the classroom to better meet the
needs of firefighters in the field, the organisation would need to
reassess the pedagogical objectives that need to be met in the
basic courses. The taxonomy of learning from Bloom et al.
(1956) is a good tool for this. For example, if the goal is to
develop listening and speaking skills, along with a deep under-
standing of radio communication challenges, students need to
develop ways to create and evaluate messages along with
opportunities to fail and get feedback in the classroom.
To improve system reliability, a reluctance to simplify
communication should be cultivated consistently within the
broader fire community, starting with initial training. To this
end, and informed by our findings and the work-arounds
suggested by experienced interviewees, we provide the follow-
ing practical recommendations: (i) include experiential learning
opportunities in the classroom dedicated to radio training;
(ii) assess students’ confidence in their radio skills at the
beginning and end of the course; (iii) provide an opportunity
for each student to practise with an actual radio in class; and
(iv) use existing radio dispatch recordings as a teaching tool. (For
specific pedagogical techniques, see Appendix 1,TableA2.)
Finally, although the present paper focuses mainly on identi-
fying and exploring simplifications about communication, we
do need to address the fact that the processes of communication
articulated by our interviewees is more complex than a simple
information transfer model is able to accommodate. Therefore,
grounded in a constitutive view of communication and informed
by Campos’ (2007) ecology of meanings model, we invite the
fire community to consider the value of the ecology of meanings
model and the abundant opportunities for future research that
emerge from it.
Conclusion
The present project sought to highlight the complexities sur-
rounding radio communication in wildland firefighting. It offers
a more holistic communication model that can be used in
training and practice. Through textual analysis, classroom
instruction and interviews, we identified multiple ways in which
our training and everyday conversations might actually be
conditioning us to think of communication as a simple activity,
when in fact it is a complex activity emerging to manage a
complex context. Because the context is complex, initial train-
ing, on-going refresher courses and our everyday practices need
to reflect this complexity. By focusing on the speaking, listening
and technical skills we identified in this paper, firefighters will
726 Int. J. Wildland Fire R. Fox et al.

have a better chance of being prepared for the complex com-
munication environment they will face.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
The project was funded by the Joint Fire Science Program and the USDA
Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station.
References
Alvesson M (2012) ‘Understanding Organizational Culture’, 2nd edn.
(Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA)
Anon. (2014) Lessons learned: is your communication adequate? Available
at http://www.wildfirelessons.net/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDo-
cumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=bfdffe6a-27e3-4309-9bd1-45d8f
9d81006&forceDialog=0 [Verified 4 July 2017]
Bearman C, Paletz SBF, Orasanu J, Thomas MJW (2010) The breakdown
of coordinated decision-making in distributed systems. The Journal of
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 52, 173–188. doi:10.1177/
0018720810372104
Berwick DM (2007) ‘Escape Fire: Designs for the Future of Health Care.’
(Jossey Bass, Wiley: San Francisco, CA, USA)
Black AE, Baldauf McBride B (2013) Safety climate in the US federal
wildland fire management community: influences of organisational,
environmental, group and individual characteristics. International Jour-
nal of Wildland Fire 22, 850–861. doi:10.1071/WF12154
Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR (1956)
Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational
goals. In ‘Handbook I: Cognitive Domain’. (David McKay Company:
New York, NY, USA)
Campos M (2007) Ecology of meanings: a critical constructivist communi-
cation model. Communication Theory 17, 386–410. doi:10.1111/J.1468-
2885.2007.00304.X
Craig RT (1999) Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory
9, 119–161. doi:10.1111/J.1468-2885.1999.TB00355.X
Denzin NK (1997) ‘Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practice for the
21st Century.’ (Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA)
Driskill GW, Brenton AL (2011) ‘Organizational Culture in Action: a
Cultural Analysis Workbook.’ (Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA)
Ferranti R (2008) Calling all rangers! A brief history of radio in the Forest
Service. Fire Management Today 68(1), 6–9.
Ferster CJ, Coops NC (2014) Assessing the quality of forest fuel loading data
collected using public participation methods and smartphones. Interna-
tional Journal of Wildland Fire 23, 585–590. doi:10.1071/WF13173
Frederick K, Tuominen M (2009) Failure to communicate: improving radio
communication on the fireline. Fire Management Today 10(3), 42–46.
Gabor E (2015) Words matter: radio misunderstandings in wildland fire-
fighting. International Journal of Wildland Fire 24, 580–588. doi:10.
1071/WF13120
Grabovschi C, Campos MN (2014) Social representations of healthy and
unhealthy food built by Romanian and Canadian children. British Food
Journal 116(12), 1931–1941. doi:10.1108/BFJ-04-2013-0087
Keyton J (2011) ‘Communication and Organizational Culture: a Key to
Understanding Work Experiences’, 2nd edn. (Sage: Thousand Oaks,
CA, USA)
Leonard D, Swap W (2005) ‘Deep Smarts: How to Cultivate and Transfer
Enduring Business Wisdom.’ (Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA,
USA)
Leonard D, Swap W, Barton G (2014) ‘Critical Knowledge Transfer: Tools
for Managing Your Company’s Deep Smarts.’ (Harvard Business Press:
Boston, MA, USA)
Lewis A, Hall TE, Black A (2011) Career stages in wildland firefighting:
implications for voice in risky situations. International Journal of
Wildland Fire 20, 115–124.
Mickler RA, Cissel JH, Laurence J (2013) Advances in understanding and
managing wildland fire: communicating wildland fire research to land-
management practitioners. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22,
i–iv. doi:10.1071/WFV22N1_FO
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (2012) Various publications. Avail-
able at https://www.nwcg.gov/publications [Verified 10 January 2015]
Nelson MS (2012) Radio users guide and system orientation – Arapaho–
Roosevelt National Forest and Pawnee National Grasslands. Available at
http://gacc.nifc.gov/rmcc/dispatch_centers/r2ftc/documents/RadioUser-
Guide2012.pdf [Verified 12 June 2017]
Olsen CS, Sharp E (2013) Building community–agency trust in fire-affected
communities in Australia and the United States. International Journal of
Wildland Fire 22, 822–831. doi:10.1071/WF12086
Peltz-Lewis L, Godson E (2013) Tablets, smart phones and common
operating picture intelligence. Available at http://wildfiremagazine.
org/article/it-part-1-tablets-smart-phones-and-%E2%80%A8common-
operating-picture-intelligence/ [Verified 4 July 2017]
Putnam T (1995) The collapse of decision making and organizational
structure on Storm King Mountain. Wildfire 4(2), 40–45.
Ritchie J, Lewis J (2003) ‘Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social
Science Students and Researchers.’ (Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA)
Rochlin GI, La Porte TR, Roberts CH (1987) The self-designing high-
reliability organization: aircraft carrier flight operations at sea. Naval
War College Review 40(4), 76–90.
Rosenthal M (2014) Do you use ‘hedge words’? It’s time to stop. Two More
Chains 4(1), 11–12. Available at http://www.wildfirelessons.net/High-
erLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=547
0d866-7bfb-48cd-919f-8cef6ca605ec&forceDialog=0 [Verified 12
June 2017]
Shannon CE, Weaver W (1948) A mathematical theory of communication.
Bell Systems Technical Journal 27, 379–423. doi:10.1002/J.1538-7305.
1948.TB01338.X
Shindler BA, Toman E, McCaffrey SM (2009) Public perspectives of fire,
fuels and the Forest Service in the Great Lakes Region: a survey of
citizen–agency communication and trust. International Journal of Wild-
land Fire 18, 157–164. doi:10.1071/WF07135
Shouldis W (2013) Radio communications discipline through CARDS. Fire
Management Today 166(3), 1–5.
Thomas D, Fox RL, Miller C (2015) Voices from the field: wildland
fire managers and high-reliability organizing mindfulness. Society &
Natural Resources 28(8), 825–838. doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.
1014590
Tracy SJ (2013) ‘Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence,
Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact.’ (Wiley-Blackwell: Hobo-
ken, NJ, USA)
USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region (2014) Lessons Learned: Is
your Communication Adequate? Available at http://www.wildfireles-
sons.net/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?Document
FileKey=bfdffe6a-27e3-4309-9bd1-45d8f9d81006. [Verified 4 July
2017]
Varone C (2003) Firefighter safety and radio communication. Fire Man-
agement Today 156(3), 1–30.
Vidal R, Roberts KH (2014) Observing elite firefighting teams: the triad
effect. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 22(1), 18–28.
doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12040
Waldron AL, Ebbeck V (2015) The relationship of mindfulness and self-
compassion to desired wildland fire leadership. International Journal of
Wildland Fire 24, 201–211.
Waldron AL, Schary DP, Cardinal BJ (2015) Measuring wildland fire
leadership: the crewmember perceived leadership scale. International
Journal of Wildland Fire 24, 1168–1175. doi:10.1071/WF15077
Reluctance to simplify Int. J. Wildland Fire 727

Weick KE (1993) The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the Mann
Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly 38, 628–652.
doi:10.2307/2393339
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (2001) ‘Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High
Performance in an Age of Complexity’, 1st edn. (Jossey-Bass: San
Francisco, CA, USA)
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (2007) ‘Managing the Unexpected: Resilient
Performance in an Age of Uncertainty’, 2nd edn. (Jossey-Bass: San
Francisco, CA, USA)
Whitinger J (2006) Training notebook: communications drill. Fire Man-
agement Today 159(1), 16–17.
Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center (1994) South Canyon Fire Investi
gation.Available at: http://www.wildfirelessons.net/HigherLogic/System/
DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=46f00ea5-9238-43e3-
a60c-4a2461a833cb&forceDialog=0 [Verified 12 June 2017]
Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center (2003) Cramer Fire Entrapment.
Available at: https://www.wildfirelessons.net/orphans/viewincident?
DocumentKey=becb12c6-c45f-46ff-8e5a-9be16da1db9e [Verified 12
June 2017]
Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center (2006) Little Venus Fire Entrapment.
Available at: http://www.wildfirelessons.net/orphans/viewincident?
DocumentKey=e7f0e80b-05fc-4f58-9e88-0f4960e9106c [Verified 12
June 2017]
Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center (2014) Lost Ridge Fire. Available at:
http://www.wildfirelessons.net/orphans/viewincident?DocumentKey=
f727a8b0-0f95-4a41-8695-79097b79b27d [Verified 12 June 2017]
Yang A, Taylor M (2015) Looking over, looking out, and moving forward:
positioning public relations in theorizing organizational network ecolo-
gies. Communication Theory 25(1), 91–115. doi:10.1111/COMT.12049
YHFI Report (2013) Yarnell Hill Fire: June 30, 2013. Serious Accident
Investigation Report. Available at http://www.wildfirelessons.net/High-
erLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=4c98
c51d-102c-4e04-86e0-b8370d2beb27&forceDialog=0 [Verified 12 June
2017]
Ziegler JA, DeGrosky MT (2008) Managing the meaning of leadership:
leadership as ‘communicating intent’ in wildland firefighting. Leader-
ship 4(3), 271–297. doi:10.1177/1742715008092362
www.publish.csiro.au/journals/ijwf
728 Int. J. Wildland Fire R. Fox et al.

Appendix 1
Interview protocol
Demographic questions
– Gender
– Forest or Park
– State
– How many fire seasons have you worked in wildland fire and
in what capacities?
– What is the highest qualification you hold for incident
management? Is this the position you most commonly fill
while on assignment? If not, what is the most common
assignment?
– With respect to the most recent fire you were on:
When was this?
What type of fire and what position did you hold?
Did you have a radio?
Individual practices and habits
– What are the most important practices you try to follow when
it comes to talking on the radio during an incident?
– What do you find are the most difficult things to convey over
the radio?
– What are the most common misconstructions or misinterpret-
ations that happened to you over the radio?
– Think of a memorable experience, a standout moment when
radio communication was important, maybe a near miss or
accident where communication was at issue. Without naming
anyone, specifically please briefly describe that experience.
How was the situation resolved (or not)?
– How do you convey emotion on the radio? Was there a
moment when you ‘went off the deep end’ on the radio?
What response did you get?
– What does it sound like when someone goes off the deep end
on the radio?
– When you are in a high-risk situation, how do you communi-
cate urgency without sounding like you’re going off the deep
end?
Evaluative statements about communication
– What does ‘competent’ language sound like?
– Or think of someone who you believe to be really good at
radio communication. Without identifying this person specif-
ically, how would you describe their communication?
– Conversely, when you think of a bad communicator, without
identifying this person specifically, what does his or her
communication sound like?
Team practices on an incident (or depending on the level,
IMT practices)
– What gets communicated over cell phones during fire events?
– How is conflict expressed over radio v. face to face meetings?
– How are risk perceptions communicated over radio (during an
initial size-up for instance)?
– What cues do you rely on to detect risk or potential errors
expressed over radio?
– Are misunderstandings corrected? How?
– How do the physical demands of the job reflect in radio
communication performance?
– How do crew leaders use tone of voice to construe what
another firefighter is thinking or feeling? An example?
– How does remote communication change as wildfire transi-
tions from a Type V to a Type II complexity?
Questions about training in radio communication
– Describe your training in radio communication – Was it
formal or informal? When did it take place? How long was
the training?
– What knowledge or skills were emphasised? Who taught
you? Did you shadow or apprentice?
– Have you ever participated in a simulation that included
practice with radio communication? If so, please describe
this experience.
– When you have a ‘newbie’ in your crew, what do you teach
him or her about radio communication? What advice would
you give him/her about communicating on the radio?
– Knowing what you know now, what do you wish you would
have learned about radio communication during your
training?
Questions about meanings for communication
– When we say we are interested in studying incident commu-
nication, what are all the things that come to mind that we
should be looking at?
– Have we missed anything or any issue that is important for us
to learn or know about with respect to risk perception, sense-
making and resilient performance that we haven’t covered?
Additional questions for dispatch
– What kind of records do you keep? For how long? In what
format? Do you ever go back and study past recordings?
– When things are going well in dispatch, what does communi-
cation sound like?
Reluctance to simplify Int. J. Wildland Fire 729

Table A1. Table of participants
Number Gender Position in organisation State
1 F Zone Forest Management Officer Idaho
2 M Fuels Forest Management Officer Idaho
3 M Forest Management Officer Idaho
4 F Helitack Arizona
5 M Task Force Leader Arizona
6 M Helicopter Crew Supervisor Arizona
7 M Forestry Technician Arizona
8 F Engine Crew Member Arizona
9 M Dispatcher Arizona
10 F Communication centre Radio Operator Arizona
11 M Forest Management Supervisor Hawaii
12 M Wildlife Manager Hawaii
13 F Dispatcher Idaho
14 M Branch Chief; incident communications
operations
Idaho
15 M Fixed-Wing Inspector Pilot Georgia
16 F Dispatcher Nevada
17 M Training and Standardisation Pilot Utah
18 M Zone Fire Management Officer Colorado
19 M Forest Management Officer Texas
20 F Dispatcher Texas
21 M Dozer Operator Texas
22 M Firefighter Type 2 Texas
23 M Forest Management Officer Texas
24 M Firefighter Type2 Texas
25 M Firefighter Type 2 Texas
26 M Helicopter Manager Texas
27 M Dozer Operator Texas
Table A2. Pedagogical techniques
Develop radio speaking skills Developing radio listening skills Developing radio technical skills
Use experiential activities, such as exercises that require
students to tune the radio to the specified channel, identify
themselves, provide a mock size-up (including ordering
resources), listen to and provide feedback, and sign-off
properly
Visit a dispatch office and listen to the
radio communication
Demonstrate technical features of the radios
with actual radios used by the fire
organisation
Practise communicating typical types of messages including
the taken-for-granted skills of ‘creating a picture’, giving
directions, reporting location or position, reporting weather
and providing space and time information
Invite representative from dispatch,
air attack, ground operations (dozer
operators, hotshots) to describe how
radio communication is influenced
by their work environment (or have
their testimonies recorded)
Learn how to troubleshoot technical
problems – batteries, cloning radios,
programming frequencies; learn about the
different frequencies – squirrel channels,
command channel, air-to-ground, etc.
Practise communicating with different people up and down
the chain of command and know what may be important to
them (the ‘how’ for a rookie; the ‘why’ for dispatch or
supervisor)
Keep a radio in the room to listen to
communication on an active fire.
During off-season use a dispatch
recording to familiarise students
with the sound of fire
Learn the location of repeaters on the map and
how reliable they are
Practise communicating under pressure (the presence of
noise, increasing fire complexity, managing uncertainty,
etc.) while maintaining a calm vocal tone
Learn to interpret the presence and
absence of emotion in radio trans-
missions through radio recordings
(Continued)
730 Int. J. Wildland Fire R. Fox et al.

Table A2. (Continued)
Develop radio speaking skills Developing radio listening skills Developing radio technical skills
Practise the mechanics of sending messages, maintaining a
distance from microphone, accommodating for noise in the
environment, getting used to dexterity issues associated
with using a radio while wearing gloves, counting to three
before keying the microphone, etc.
Learn regional language differences,
slangs and accents
Practise managing rate, pitch and volume by delivering
‘difficult’ messages and receiving feedback during training
exercises
Learn to write down messages while listening to radio
communication
Role-play a human repeater
Reflect on effective language use that takes into consider-
ation jargon, regional and cultural differences, and the dif-
ferences in taken-for-granted ‘common’ language
Practise previewing messages by saying things like ‘I will be
sending you this message in three parts’ and using transition
language like ‘I’m moving into the second part of this list’
provide the opportunity for the listener to keep up with the
message being sent
Reluctance to simplify Int. J. Wildland Fire 731