Disasters have adversely affected humans since the dawn of their existence. If one looks at the past as a model for what may be expected in the future, it can be found that severe events, which wreaked havoc on human communities and inflicted high levels of mortality, were surprisingly frequent and widespread. Considering the recent past, the number of disasters increased threefold within the 1980’s in comparison to the 1960’s, and the economic loss increased by a factor of almost nine. From the 1980's to the 1990's the number of affected people rose from 147 million to 211 million a year. Recognizing the rise in number and effects of disasters, this essay discusses the potential for active learning that disasters create and the reasons why those repeat.
This essay begins by defining the key terms 'disaster' and ‘active learning’. To identify pathologies that affect the ways organizations learn from disasters, factors that determine the potential for active learning are then defined and discussed. These factors are integral parts of Toft and Reynolds’s “Steps to active foresight model” (2005: 67), which illustrates how they are interlinked. Toft and Reynolds’s model is then used as a framework to study two separate nuclear power plant disasters. These high profile events, which negatively affected the nuclear industry, are examined to identify, whether the potential for active learning was realized after the first event, and if yes, why an event displaying similar features yet again occurred. The findings deriving from the case studies are then summarized and the essay question is answered and concluded with, why disasters repeat despite they create opportunities for active learning. Before any analysis or conclusions can be made and in order to establish a research framework, key terminology and concepts need to be examined, beginning with the key term 'disaster'.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
Objectives & Themes
This essay investigates why disasters persist and recur despite the opportunities they provide for active learning. By applying Toft and Reynolds’ "Steps to Active Foresight" model, the research identifies the organizational pathologies and factors that impede the transition from hindsight to active foresight, ultimately hindering effective organizational learning.
- Theoretical analysis of 'active learning' and 'isomorphic learning' in disaster contexts.
- Evaluation of organizational safety culture and its role in foresight development.
- Case study analysis of the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster.
- Case study analysis of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
- Identification of common failure factors, including 'organizational perception of chance' and 'safety by compulsion'.
Excerpt from the Book
The 'Steps to Active Foresight Model'
Because all disasters are unique and typically low frequency events it is unlikely that any organization would be able to predict events based on its own history. But, when viewed in the context of a whole industry, a number of similar features can be observed, recognition and analysis of which is termed as isomorphic learning (Borodzicz, 2005: 26). Relevant authors (Borodzicz, 2005: 46; Toft and Reynolds, 2005: 69; Waring and Glendon, 1998: 84) point out that organizations, using similar socio-technical systems, can benefit from hindsight that derives from isomorphic learning. However, analysis based solely on hindsight needs to be treated with caution, as disaster events rarely manifest themselves in the precise same way again (Reason, 1990: 174). Kletz's (2003) examinations of industrial accidents illustrate that there is no shortage of tragic events with similar features. The limitations of hindsight are also highlighted by Toft and Turner (2006: 191), who emphasize that learning from the past can only occur if similarities between the past and the present situation are recognized and connections are made with the foreseeable future.
Borodzicz (2005: 46) underlined that foresight, deriving from hindsight, can prevent disasters of similar nature from re-occurring and improve response to disasters. This learning is often prevented by the perceptions of organizations, which consider themselves more resilient than they are in reality (Scanlon, 2011: 16; Toft and Reynolds, 2005: 135). The development of foresight in the context of disasters is explained by Turner and Pidgeon (1997: xii), who define it as the recognition of preconditions during the incubation period. However, unless action is taken to mitigate disasters, the acquired foresight remains passive. Toft and Reynolds (2005: 69-89) differentiate between active foresight and passive foresight, highlighting that active foresight derives from the realization of the potential for active learning. Active foresight combines foresight of the possible causes of disaster with action to reduce risk of those taking effect (Toft and Reynolds, 2005: 65).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter defines the scope of the essay, introduces the core terminology including 'disaster' and 'active learning', and presents the analytical framework provided by Toft and Reynolds.
Keywords
Active learning, passive learning, isomorphic learning, disaster management, nuclear power, safety culture, active foresight, passive foresight, organizational perception, Three Mile Island, Fukushima Daiichi, safety by compulsion, risk mitigation, organizational learning, socio-technical systems.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research paper?
The paper examines the paradox of why disasters continue to recur despite the significant opportunities for learning that typically follow such events.
What are the central thematic areas of the essay?
The themes include the mechanisms of active versus passive learning, the role of safety culture, organizational responses to disaster, and the influence of cultural conventions on safety protocols.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine why organizations fail to translate the hindsight gained from disasters into active foresight, thereby preventing similar future failures.
Which methodology is utilized in the study?
The essay employs a qualitative analytical framework, specifically using Toft and Reynolds’ "Steps to Active Foresight" model to evaluate two nuclear industry case studies.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body defines theoretical concepts, introduces the foresight model, and applies it to the Three Mile Island and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disasters to identify common failure patterns.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include active learning, isomorphic learning, safety culture, organizational perception, and disaster management.
How does "isomorphic learning" contribute to disaster prevention?
Isomorphic learning allows organizations to recognize similar features across different events within an industry, enabling them to gain insights from others' past experiences rather than relying solely on their own history.
Why did the Fukushima disaster occur despite the lessons of Three Mile Island?
The research concludes that cultural conventions, such as a reluctance to question authority, combined with a prioritization of economic development over safety, prevented Japan from fully adopting international safety standards and learning from global precedents.
- Citar trabajo
- Anonym (Autor), 2012, Disasters create opportunities for active learning, why do they repeat?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/293255
