Full download test bank at ebook textbookfull.

com

Advances in Safety Management and

Human Performance Proceedings of
the AHFE 2020 Virtual Conferences
on Safety Management and Human
Factors and Human Error Reliability
CLICK LINK TO DOWLOAD
Resilience and Performance July 16
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-
safety-management-and-human-performance-
proceedings-of-the-ahfe-2020-virtual-
conferences-on-safety-management-and-human-
factors-and-human-error-reliability-
resilience-and-performance-july/

textbookfull
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Advances in Safety Management and Human Factors:

Proceedings of the AHFE 2019 International Conference
on Safety Management and Human Factors, July 24-28,
2019, Washington D.C., USA Pedro M. Arezes
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-safety-management-
and-human-factors-proceedings-of-the-ahfe-2019-international-
conference-on-safety-management-and-human-factors-
july-24-28-2019-washington-d-c-usa-pedro-m-arezes/

Advances in Human Factors in Cybersecurity AHFE 2020

Virtual Conference on Human Factors in Cybersecurity
July 16 20 2020 USA Isabella Corradini

https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-human-factors-in-
cybersecurity-ahfe-2020-virtual-conference-on-human-factors-in-
cybersecurity-july-16-20-2020-usa-isabella-corradini/

Advances in Human Factors in Robots, Drones and

Unmanned Systems: Proceedings of the AHFE 2020 Virtual
Conference on Human Factors in Robots, Drones and
Unmanned Systems, July 16-20, 2020, USA Matteo Zallio
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-human-factors-in-
robots-drones-and-unmanned-systems-proceedings-of-the-
ahfe-2020-virtual-conference-on-human-factors-in-robots-drones-
and-unmanned-systems-july-16-20-2020-usa-matteo/

Advances in Human Factors in Training Education and

Learning Sciences Proceedings of the AHFE 2020 Virtual
Conference on Human Factors in Training Education and
Learning Sciences July 16 20 2020 USA Salman Nazir
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-human-factors-in-
training-education-and-learning-sciences-proceedings-of-the-
ahfe-2020-virtual-conference-on-human-factors-in-training-
Advances in Human Factors in Architecture Sustainable
Urban Planning and Infrastructure Proceedings of the
AHFE 2020 Virtual Conference on Human Factors in
Architecture Sustainable Urban Planning and
Infrastructure 16 20 July 2020 USA Jerzy Charytonowicz
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-human-factors-in-
architecture-sustainable-urban-planning-and-infrastructure-
proceedings-of-the-ahfe-2020-virtual-conference-on-human-factors-
in-architecture-sustainable-urban-planning-and/

Advances in the Human Side of Service Engineering:

Proceedings of the AHFE 2020 Virtual Conference on The
Human Side of Service Engineering, July 16-20, 2020,
USA Jim Spohrer
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-the-human-side-of-
service-engineering-proceedings-of-the-ahfe-2020-virtual-
conference-on-the-human-side-of-service-engineering-
july-16-20-2020-usa-jim-spohrer/

Advances in Physical Social Occupational Ergonomics

Proceedings of the AHFE 2020 Virtual Conferences on
Physical Ergonomics and Human Factors Social
Occupational Ergonomics and Cross Cultural Decision
Making July 16 20 2020 USA 1st Edition Waldemar
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-physical-social-
occupational-ergonomics-proceedings-of-the-ahfe-2020-virtual-
Karwowski
conferences-on-physical-ergonomics-and-human-factors-social-
occupational-ergonomics-and-cross-cultural-decision/

Safety, Reliability, Human Factors, and Human Error in

Nuclear Power Plants 1st Edition B.S. Dhillon

https://textbookfull.com/product/safety-reliability-human-
factors-and-human-error-in-nuclear-power-plants-1st-edition-b-s-
dhillon/

Advances in Usability User Experience Wearable and

Assistive Technology Proceedings of the AHFE 2020
Virtual Conferences on Usability and User Experience
Human Factors and Assistive Technology Human Factors
and Wearable Technologies and Virtual Envi Tareq Ahram
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-usability-user-
experience-wearable-and-assistive-technology-proceedings-of-the-
ahfe-2020-virtual-conferences-on-usability-and-user-experience-
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 1204

Pedro M. Arezes
Ronald L. Boring Editors

Advances in Safety
Management
and Human
Performance
Proceedings of the AHFE 2020 Virtual
Conferences on Safety Management
and Human Factors, and Human
Error, Reliability, Resilience, and
Performance, July 16–20, 2020, USA
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing

Volume 1204

Series Editor
Janusz Kacprzyk, Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland

Advisory Editors
Nikhil R. Pal, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India
Rafael Bello Perez, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Computing,
Universidad Central de Las Villas, Santa Clara, Cuba
Emilio S. Corchado, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
Hani Hagras, School of Computer Science and Electronic Engineering,
University of Essex, Colchester, UK
László T. Kóczy, Department of Automation, Széchenyi István University,
Gyor, Hungary
Vladik Kreinovich, Department of Computer Science, University of Texas
at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA
Chin-Teng Lin, Department of Electrical Engineering, National Chiao
Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
Jie Lu, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology,
University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Patricia Melin, Graduate Program of Computer Science, Tijuana Institute
of Technology, Tijuana, Mexico
Nadia Nedjah, Department of Electronics Engineering, University of Rio de Janeiro,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Ngoc Thanh Nguyen , Faculty of Computer Science and Management,
Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland
Jun Wang, Department of Mechanical and Automation Engineering,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong
The series “Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing” contains publications
on theory, applications, and design methods of Intelligent Systems and Intelligent
Computing. Virtually all disciplines such as engineering, natural sciences, computer
and information science, ICT, economics, business, e-commerce, environment,
healthcare, life science are covered. The list of topics spans all the areas of modern
intelligent systems and computing such as: computational intelligence, soft comput-
ing including neural networks, fuzzy systems, evolutionary computing and the fusion
of these paradigms, social intelligence, ambient intelligence, computational neuro-
science, artificial life, virtual worlds and society, cognitive science and systems,
Perception and Vision, DNA and immune based systems, self-organizing and
adaptive systems, e-Learning and teaching, human-centered and human-centric
computing, recommender systems, intelligent control, robotics and mechatronics
including human-machine teaming, knowledge-based paradigms, learning para-
digms, machine ethics, intelligent data analysis, knowledge management, intelligent
agents, intelligent decision making and support, intelligent network security, trust
management, interactive entertainment, Web intelligence and multimedia.
The publications within “Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing” are
primarily proceedings of important conferences, symposia and congresses. They
cover significant recent developments in the field, both of a foundational and
applicable character. An important characteristic feature of the series is the short
publication time and world-wide distribution. This permits a rapid and broad
dissemination of research results.
** Indexing: The books of this series are submitted to ISI Proceedings,
EI-Compendex, DBLP, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and Springerlink **

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11156

Pedro M. Arezes Ronald L. Boring
•

Editors

Advances in Safety
Management and Human
Performance
Proceedings of the AHFE 2020 Virtual
Conferences on Safety Management
and Human Factors, and Human Error,
Reliability, Resilience, and Performance,
July 16–20, 2020, USA

123
Editors
Pedro M. Arezes Ronald L. Boring
DPS, School of Engineering Idaho National Laboratory
University of Minho Idaho Falls, ID, USA
Guimaraes, Portugal

ISSN 2194-5357 ISSN 2194-5365 (electronic)

Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing
ISBN 978-3-030-50945-3 ISBN 978-3-030-50946-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50946-0
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license
to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Advances in Human Factors
and Ergonomics 2020

AHFE 2020 Series Editors

Tareq Z. Ahram, Florida, USA
Waldemar Karwowski, Florida, USA

11th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics and the
Affiliated Conferences

Proceedings of the AHFE 2020 Virtual Conferences on Safety Management and

Human Error, Reliability, Resilience, and Performance, July 16–20, 2020, USA

Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Hasan Ayaz and Umer Asgher

Engineering
Advances in Industrial Design Giuseppe Di Bucchianico, Cliff Sungsoo
Shin, Scott Shim, Shuichi Fukuda,
Gianni Montagna and Cristina Carvalho
Advances in Ergonomics in Design Francisco Rebelo and Marcelo Soares
Advances in Safety Management and Human Pedro M. Arezes and Ronald L. Boring
Performance
Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics in Jay Kalra and Nancy J. Lightner
Healthcare and Medical Devices
Advances in Simulation and Digital Human Daniel N Cassenti, Sofia Scataglini,
Modeling Sudhakar L. Rajulu and Julia L. Wright
Advances in Human Factors and Systems Isabel L. Nunes
Interaction
Advances in the Human Side of Service Jim Spohrer and Christine Leitner
Engineering
Advances in Human Factors, Business Jussi Ilari Kantola, Salman Nazir and
Management and Leadership Vesa Salminen
Advances in Human Factors in Robots, Drones Matteo Zallio
and Unmanned Systems
Advances in Human Factors in Cybersecurity Isabella Corradini, Enrico Nardelli and
Tareq Ahram
(continued)

v
vi Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics 2020

(continued)
Advances in Human Factors in Training, Salman Nazir, Tareq Ahram and
Education, and Learning Sciences Waldemar Karwowski
Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation Neville Stanton
Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Software and Tareq Ahram
Systems Engineering
Advances in Human Factors in Architecture, Jerzy Charytonowicz
Sustainable Urban Planning and Infrastructure
Advances in Physical, Social & Occupational Waldemar Karwowski, Ravindra S.
Ergonomics Goonetilleke, Shuping Xiong,
Richard H.M. Goossens and Atsuo
Murata
Advances in Manufacturing, Production Beata Mrugalska, Stefan Trzcielinski,
Management and Process Control Waldemar Karwowski, Massimo Di
Nicolantonio and Emilio Rossi
Advances in Usability, User Experience, Wearable Tareq Ahram and Christianne Falcão
and Assistive Technology
Advances in Creativity, Innovation, Evangelos Markopoulos, Ravindra S.
Entrepreneurship and Communication of Design Goonetilleke, Amic G. Ho and Yan
Luximon
Preface

This volume combines the proceedings of two affiliated conferences of the 2020
Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics conference: the 7th International
Conference on Safety Management and Human Factors, chaired by Pedro Arezes of
University of Minho, Portugal, and the 4th International Conference on Human
Error, Reliability, Resilience, and Performance, chaired by Ron Boring of Idaho
National Laboratory, USA.
Safety Management and Risk Prevention is a common thread throughout every
workplace, yet keeping employee safety and health knowledge current is a con-
tinual challenge for all employers. The discipline of Safety Management and
Human Factors is a cross-disciplinary area concerned with protecting the safety,
health and welfare of people engaged in work or employment and in society at
large. The book offers a platform to showcase research and for the exchange of
information in safety management and human factors. Mastering Safety
Management and Human Factors concepts is fundamental to the creation of both
products and systems that people are able to use and for work systems design,
avoiding stresses and minimizing the risk for accidents.
This book focuses on the advances in the safety management and its relationship
with human factors, which are a critical aspect in the design of any human-centered
technological system. The ideas and practical solutions described in the book are
the outcome of dedicated research by academics and practitioners aiming to
advance theory and practice in this dynamic and all-encompassing discipline.
The International Conference on Human Error, Reliability, Resilience, and
Performance (HERRP) is unlike other risk conferences, which have tended to be
centered largely on probabilistic risk of hardware systems. HERRP has a decidedly
human factors’ angle. The research presented explores human error from a human
factors perspective, not solely a risk modeling perspective.
The purpose of the HERRP conference is to bring together researchers and
practitioners from different fields who broadly share the study of human error.
The HERRP conference is intended to serve as an umbrella for human error topics
by providing an annual forum for otherwise disjoint research efforts. As such, the
conference is intended to complement but not replace existing specialized forums

vii
viii Preface

on particular facets of human error. The HERRP conference is distinctly interdis-

ciplinary, encouraging the submission of papers in focused technical domains that
would benefit from interaction with a wide human factors’ audience. Additionally,
the HERRP conference aims to provide a yearly, high-quality, archival collection of
papers that may be readily accessed by the current and future research and
practitioner community.
Six sections are presented in this book:
Section 1 Safety Management
Section 2 Assessing Risks
Section 3 Emergent Issues in Safety Management
Section 4 Resilience and Recovery
Section 5 Cognitive Factors in Human Performance
Section 6 New Findings and Methods in Human Performance

Sections 1-3 cover topics related to safety management, while Sections 4-6 cover
topics related to human error, reliability, resilience and performance. Thematically,
the two conferences complement each other. The former focuses on prevention and
management of risk, while the latter discusses causes of human error.
To err is human, and human error is consistently implicated as a significant
factor in safety incidents and accidents. Yet, as pervasive and important as human
error is, the study of human error has been fragmented into many different fields. In
fact, in many of these fields, the term “human error” is considered negative, and
terms such as human variability and human failure are preferred. Across differences
in terminology and approach, the common link remains an interest in how, why and
when humans make incorrect decisions or commit incorrect actions. Human error
often has significant consequences, and a variety of approaches have emerged to
identify, prevent or mitigate it. These different approaches find a unified home in
this volume covering a wide spectrum of safety and risk topics.
Each section contains research papers that have been reviewed by members
of the International Editorial Board. Our sincere thanks and appreciation to the
board members as listed below:
We wish to thank the authors for their exceptional contributions and to Scientific
Advisory Board for encouraging strong submissions:

Safety Management and Human Factors

S. Albolino, Italy
B. Barkokebas Junior, Brazil
S. Bragança, UK
P. Carneiro, Portugal
P. Carvalho, Brazil
I. Castellucci, Chile
N. Costa, Portugal
Preface ix

S. Costa, Portugal
J. Domingues, Portugal
A. Drummond, Ireland
L. Franz, Brazil
F. Guldenmund, The Netherlands
C. Jacinto, Portugal
L. Kocůrková, Czech Republic
T. Larsson, Sweden
M. Martínez-Aires, Spain
R. Melo, Portugal
M. Menozzi, Switzerland
A. Miguel, Portugal
B. Mrugalska, Poland
D. Nathanael, Greece
S. Nazir, Norway/Italy
M. Neves, Portugal
I. Nunes, Portugal
M. Pillay, Australia
R. Pope, USA
M. Rodrigues, Portugal
J. Rubio-Romero, Spain
J. Santos Baptista, Portugal
T. Saurin, Brazil
M. Shahriari, Turkey
S. Silva, Portugal
M. Silva Borges, Brazil
P. Sivaprakash, India
P. Swuste, The Netherlands
G. Szabo, Hungary
W. Van Wassenhove, France

Human Error, Reliability, Resilience and Performance

H. Blackman, USA
Y. Chang, USA
S. Filho, Brazil
D. Gertman, USA
K. Groth, USA
X. He, Sweden
Y. Kim, Korea
B. Kirwan, France
K. Laumann, Norway
Z. Li, China
P. Liu, China
x Preface

R. McDonald, Norway
R. McLeod, UK
M. Merad, France
N. Meshkati, USA
A. Obenius-Mowitz, Sweden
J. Park, Korea
M. Pillay, Australia
A. Salway, Canada
C. Smidts, USA
O. Straeter, Germany
P. Trbovich, Canada
M. Weinger, USA
A. Whaley, USA
D. Yacht, USA
July 2020
Pedro Arezes
Ronald Laurids Boring
Contents

Safety Management
Utilization of Machine Learning in Analyzing
Post-incident State of Occupational Injuries
in Agro-Manufacturing Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Fatemeh Davoudi Kakhki, Steven A. Freeman, and Gretchen A. Mosher
Safety Decision-Making in Academia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Anastasia Kalugina and Thierry Meyer
The Role of Workers’ Representative and OHS Performance:
An Interpretative Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Paolo Trucco, Rossella Onofrio, and Raffaella Cagliano
Process Operator Students’ Outlook on Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Susanna Mattila, Sanna Nenonen, Noora Nenonen, and Sari Tappura
Safety Management in Accordance with Industry 4.0 Requirements:
Analysis and Evaluation of the Level of Digitalization
in the Slovak Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Hana Pacaiova, Renata Turisova, Anna Nagyova, and Milan Oravec
Links Between Knowledge Transmission Programs
and the Preservation of Occupational Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Cláudia Pereira, Marta Santos, and Catherine Delgoulet
The Characteristics of Industrial Safety Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . 47
Gyula Szabó
REPAIRER Reporting System User Analysis for SMS Compliance
in Aviation Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Mark Miller and Bettina Mrusek

xi
xii Contents

Occupational Exposure to Biological Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Joana Santos, Carla Ramos, Manuela Vaz-Velho,
and Marta Vasconcelos Pinto
Health Protection Criteria for Airborne Infrasound Exposure:
An International Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Fabio Lo Castro, Sergio Iarossi, Massimiliano De Luca,
Maria Patrizia Orlando, Claudia Giliberti, and Raffaele Mariconte
Psychosocial Risk and Turnover Intention: The Moderating Effect
of Psychological Wellbeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Michael Akomeah Ofori Ntow, David Kwaku Abraham,
Noble Osei Bonsu, Ophelia Delali Dogbe Zungbey, and Evans Sokro
Psychosocial Risk Assessment by Fine Kinney and ANFIS Method:
A Case Study in a Metal Processing Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Nalan Baç and Ismail Ekmekci
Ergonomic Risk and Safety Assessment of Typical
Household Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Xu Qian, Huimin Hu, and Nan Li
Human Failures on Production Line as a Source of Risk
of Non-conformity Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Anna Nagyova, Zuzana Kotianova, Juraj Glatz, and Juraj Sinay
The Relationship Between Company Survival, Site Risk
and Accidents in Construction Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
José M. Carretero-Gómez, Francisco J. Forteza,
and Bàrbara Estudillo Gil
Influence of Improper Workload on Safety Consciousness
and Safety Citizenship Behavior of Construction Workers . . . . . . . . . . 111
Xiangcheng Meng and Alan H. S. Chan
A Mediation Analysis on the Relationship between Safety Climate
and Work Abilities of Hong Kong Construction Workers . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Jacky Yu Ki Ng
Application of the PRECEDE-PROCEED Model to Design
a Program for Prevention of Low Back Pain in a Thai
Community Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Chuliporn Sopajareeya, Chompunut Sopajaree, and OiSaeng Hong
The Role of Human Factors and Ergonomics Professionals
on Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Eduardo Ferro dos Santos, Karine Borges de Oliveira,
Gustavo Aristides Santana Martinez, and Messias Borges Silva
Contents xiii

Human Factors Impact on Smart Cities Construction:

The Case of Lisbon City and Dwelling Suburbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Cristina Caramelo Gomes
Characterization of Occupational Health and Safety Management
in Companies of Bogotá – Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Luis Gabriel Gutiérrez Bernal and Wilder Alfonso Hernández Duarte
Distribution of Occupational Accidents in Coal Fired Thermal
Power Plant Using HFACS Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Akide Cerci Ogmen and Ismail Ekmekci
A Fuzzy Decision Making Method for Preventing the Loss
of Knowledge in Nuclear Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Jaqueline Vianna, Paulo V. R. Carvalho, Carlos A. N. Cosenza,
and Claudio H. S. Grecco

Assessing Risks
Approaches to Human Performance Modeling of Electric
Grids Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Ruixuan Li and Katya Le Blanc
Evidence of the Use of Fuzzy Techniques in Occupational Safety . . . . . 178
Celina P. Leão and Susana P. Costa
Safety Analysis of an Industrial System Using Markov Reliability
Diagram with Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Tony Venditti, Nguyen Duy Phuong Tran, and Anh Dung Ngo
Risk Level Assessment to Develop a Hand Disorder
in a Bag Sealing Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Luis Cuautle-Gutiérrez, Luis Alberto Uribe-Pacheco,
and Jesús Juárez-Peñuela
Investigations of Human Psychology and Behavior
in the Emergency of Subway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Ping Zhang, Lizhong Yang, Siuming Lo, Yuxing Gao, Fangshu Dong,
Fei Peng, Danyan Huang, Han Cheng, Maoyu Li, and Jiajia Jiang
Risk Assessment in Operations of Static Large Format Out
of Home (OOH) Billboards for Advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Oca Malagueno, Isachar Bernaldez, and Mariam Idica
Psychosocial Risk Factors at Work: The Legal Compliance
Model in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Rodolfo Martinez-Gutierrez and Concepción Cruz-Ibarra
xiv Contents

Emergent Issues in Safety Management

Safety Requirements for the Design of Collaborative Robotic
Workstations in Europe – A Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Carlos Faria, Ana Colim, João Cunha, João Oliveira, Nelson Costa,
Paula Carneiro, Sérgio Monteiro, Estela Bicho, Luís A. Rocha,
and Pedro Arezes
Reviewing Tools to Prevent Accidents by Investigation of Human
Factor Dynamic Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Salvador Ávila, Lucas Pereira, Rita Ávila, Camila Pena, Pedro Arezes,
and Elvis Renan Fagundes Lima
How Accurate Is It to Measure Noise with Smart
Mobile Devices? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Rui B. Melo, Filipa Carvalho, and Rafael Assunção
Safety in Drilling Offshore Operations:
A Narrative Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Carolina Maria do Carmo Alonso, Luciano do Valle Garotti,
Eliel Prueza de Oliveira, Janaína Silva Rodrigues da Costa,
William Silva Santana de Almeida,
and Francisco José de Castro Moura Duarte

Resilience and Recovery

Implications of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
on Organizational Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Ronald Laurids Boring
Forward and Backward Error Recovery Factors
in Digital Human-System Interface Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Torrey Mortenson and Ronald L. Boring
A Discussion of Quantitative Stress Analysis in Long-Term
Embarked Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Salvador Ávila and Ronald Boring
The Impact of Agile Project Management Model
on the Performance of Technology Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Akif Onur and Ismail Ekmekci

Cognitive Factors in Human Performance

Is There a Notable Comprehension Difference Between
Abbreviations and Spelled-Out Words? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Tina M. Miyake and Katya Le Blanc
Contents xv

Operator’s Human Error Features in Compensatory Tracking Task

Based on Cognitive Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
Jintao Wu, Yan Lv, Weicai Tang, Qianxiang Zhou, and Yi Xiao
Cognitive Performance After Repeated Exposure to Transcranial
Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) During Sleep Deprivation . . . . . . . . 302
Lindsey K. McIntire, R. Andy McKinley, Chuck Goodyear,
John P. McIntire, and Justin M. Nelson
A Fuzzy Logic Model for Quantifying the Likelihood
of Human Decision-Making in Nuclear
Emergency Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
Young A Suh and Jaewhan Kim
Human Response Characteristics According to the Location
of Visual Stimuli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
Yejin Lee, Kwangtae Jung, and Hyunchul Lee

New Findings and Methods in Human Performance

How Do Pilots and Controllers Manage Routine Contingencies During
RNAV Arrivals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Jon Holbrook, Lawrence J. Prinzel III, Michael J. Stewart,
and Daniel Kiggins
Validating a Human Performance Model Without
a Complete System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Richard Steinberg, Alice Diggs, and Jade Driggs
Dynamic Modeling of Field Operators in Human Reliability
Analysis: An EMRALD and GOMS-HRA Dynamic Model
of FLEX Operator Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
Thomas A. Ulrich, Torrey Mortenson, Ronald L. Boring,
and Steven Prescott
Credible Evidence Continues to Surface Regarding a Likely
“Friendly Fire” Incident Along the Sesame Street and Shrine
Corridor Area on June 30, 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Fred J. Schoeffler, Lance Honda, and Joy A. Collura
Identification of Collectible Items in the Rancor Microworld
Simulator Compared to Full-Scope Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
Jooyoung Park, Thomas A. Ulrich, Ronald L. Boring, Sungheon Lee,
and Jonghyun Kim
Research on Prevention and Control Countermeasures of Team
Situation Awareness Errors in Digital Nuclear Power Plants . . . . . . . . . 369
Pengcheng Li, Xiaofang Li, and Licao Dai
xvi Contents

A Study of Crew Error on the Interface Between Passive Side Stick

and Electronic Flight Control System in Cockpit of Civil Aircraft . . . . . 377
Zhang Yinbo, Zhu Yao, Zhou Yang, Lu Shasha, and Meng Hua

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

Safety Management
 Utilization of Machine Learning in Analyzing
Post-incident State of Occupational Injuries
in Agro-Manufacturing Industries

Fatemeh Davoudi Kakhki1(&), Steven A. Freeman2,

and Gretchen A. Mosher2
1
Department of Technology, San Jose State University,
San Jose, CA 95192, USA
[email protected]
2
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering,
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
{sfreeman,gamosher}@iastate.edu

Abstract. Due to the high frequency and costs of occupational incidents in

agro-manufacturing operations, as well as substantial impact of occupational
injuries on labor-market outcomes, predicting the post-incident state of an injury
and identifying its contributory factors is vital to protect workers, improve
workplace safety, and reduce overall costs of injuries. This study evaluates the
performance of machine learning algorithms in classifying post-incident out-
comes of occupational injuries in agro-manufacturing operations. Injury factors
extracted from 14,000 workers’ compensation claims recorded between 2008
and 2016 in the Midwest region of the United States were used to develop
machine learning models. The models predicted incident outcomes based on
injury details with an overall accuracy rate of 78%, and high accuracy rate for
medical post-incident state (97–98%). The results emphasize the significance of
quantitative analysis of empirical injury data in safety science, and contributes to
enhanced understanding of occupational incidents root causes using predictive
modeling along with safety experts’ perspective.

Keywords: Occupational safety
Occupational incident analysis
Machine

learning
Decision trees
Safety management

1 Introduction

Occupational incidents have direct impact on labor-market outcomes, including health

of the injured workers, income reduction, and job loss [1]. Moreover, workplace
incidents include medical and indemnity costs as well as indirect costs such as
equipment damage and repair, incident investigation time, a slowdown for production
schedules, lower worker motivation to return to work, training new personnel for
replacement of the injured ones, and an increase in insurance premiums for the year
following the incidents [2–4]. Occupational incidents are among the leading challenges
in most industries [5]. Despite ongoing improvement in technology, coordinated pre-
vention measures, higher education of the workforce, and improved training [6],

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license
to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
P. M. Arezes and R. L. Boring (Eds.): AHFE 2020, AISC 1204, pp. 3–9, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50946-0_1
4 F. Davoudi Kakhki et al.

agriculturally-related industries are routinely among the most hazardous work envi-
ronments [7]. Agro-manufacturing industries include operations involved in manu-
facturing and distribution of farm supplies, production operations on the farm, and the
storage, processing, and distribution of farm commodities [8].
The term “post-incident state” is used to describe the health status of an injured
person when a non-fatal occupational injury has occurred, in the post-incident period
when the worker returns to work, either immediately with zero days away from work
(medical state) or after a disability period (disability state) [5, 9]. On average, the
consequences and cost of disability state of an occupational incident is higher than the
medical outcome [10, 11], and in agribusiness occupational incidents, as well [6, 12,
13]. Due to the high frequency and inflated costs of occupational incidents in
agribusiness industrial operations [14], as well as substantial impact of occupational
injuries on labor-market outcomes, predicting the post-incident state of an injury and
identifying its contributory factors is vital to protect workers, improve workplace
safety, and reduce overall costs of injuries [4, 15–17].
The combination of factors such as location, individual, environmental, equipment,
and occupational activities are among responsible elements for the occurrence of
occupational incidents [18]. Considering the substantial human capital and financial
losses from occupational injuries, researchers have continually sought solutions to
improve the accuracy of predicting the likelihood of future incidents severity and
outcomes [4, 19]. Among various sources for injury data, workers’ compensation
claims provide useful details of occupational incidents such as injury type, cause, and
nature, injured body part(s), injury narratives, and demographics of the injured workers
[20]. Due to the significance of occupational injury management from engineering and
economic points of view in industry, occupational injury analysis is vital for identifying
prevalent injury patterns to design proper preventive measures that reduce the likeli-
hood of future incidents [7, 12, 21, 22].
The primary aim of ML modeling is to detect, interpret, and predict qualitative and
quantitative patterns in data, which leads to gaining applied insights and knowledge
[23]. Detailed classification and prediction of occupational injuries plays a significant
role in reducing and preventing incidents at workplace [24]. Among various ML
methods, decision trees (DT) have proven powerful tools for classification and pre-
diction tasks in injury analysis [4, 12, 25–27].
This study utilized two algorithms for developing decision tress: classification and
regression trees (CART), and chi-square automatic interaction detection (CHAID)
method. The usefulness of CART and CHAID models in analyzing occupational
incidents and predicting outcomes of injuries and workplace due to straightforward
visualization, meaningful rule generation, and high classification and prediction
accuracy rate [23, 28, 29]. Mistikoglu et al. [23] used CHAID with 66.8% accuracy in
constructions industry, and identified fall distance, cause of injury, safety training as the
most significant predictors of an occupational incident outcome. Shirali et al. [26] did
an analysis of the outcomes of occupational incidents in steel industry using CART
(81.78% accuracy) and CHAID (80.73% accuracy), and showed that workers’ age,
level of education, and place of incident were the most important predictors of an
incident classified as minor, severe, or fatal. Sarkar et al. [30] applied CART in
 Utilization of ML in Analyzing Post-incident State 5

predicting slip-trip-fall occupational incidents with an accuracy rate of 77.69% using

injury narrative data.
Despite the wide use of machine learning (ML) methods in classifying and pre-
dictive modeling of future events, their application in occupational incident analysis in
agro-manufacturing industries is relatively new. The objective of this paper is to dis-
cuss an application of selected ML methods in analyzing and predicting the post-
incident state of an occupational incident in agro-manufacturing operations, and use the
result to generate interpretable safety decision rules explaining the factors behind the
occurrence of such incidents.

2 Materials and Methods

We used 13,867 workers’ compensation claims that were filed between 2008 and 2016
in the Midwest region of the United Stated. All of the occupational incidents used in
this study occurred in agro-manufacturing industries. The ML modeling was completed
using SPSS IBM 26. The descriptive analysis of 13,867 incident records showed that
grain elevator operations had the highest frequency of occupational incidents (50%),
followed by refined fuel, feed mills for livestock operation, food distributors, fertilizer
blending/distribution, poultry hatchery/grower/processor, and grain milling operations
(18%, 11%, 8%, 8%, 3%, and 2%, respectively).
The other variables in the study were injured body group, type of incident (main
cause of incident), nature of injury, and the injured occupations. The injured body part
group refers to the main classification of an injury afflicting a specific part of the body
such as the upper extremities body group which includes elbow(s), lower arm, finger
(s), shoulder(s), etc. Cause of injury group has ten categories, each including some
specific cause. For example, the struck or injured by group includes specific causes of
hand tool or machine in use, falling or flying objects, object being lifted or handled, etc.
The nature of injury group has three levels such as the specific injuries category that
includes a detailed nature of the injury, such as laceration, fracture, amputation, con-
cussion, etc. The numerical variables in the data were age (average = 43 years old) and
experience of the injured workers (average = 6 years). The 13,867 claims include a
column titles as “type of injury” which includes the labels of medical only, temporary
total or temporary partial disability, and minor permanent partial or total disability. To
perform the binary classification analysis, all those injury types that included any
disability form were renames as “disability”, and those medical only claims kept the
same label. The new dichotomous variable was inserted in a new column with the title
of “post-incident state”. After such classification, 77% of the data were labelled as
medical, while 23% were labelled as disability.
Two classifiers (1) CHAID, and (2) CART were applied for classifying and pre-
dicting the post-incident state of an occupational incident in agro-manufacturing
operations. The response variable is binary, having two levels of medical and disability
as injury outcome. The main predictors (independent variables) of post-incident state
included injury cause group, injury nature, injured body part group, and workers’ age,
experience and occupation. The data was divided into training set (70%), and test set
(30%), using stratified resampling. Regarding ML model performance, the overall
6 F. Davoudi Kakhki et al.

model accuracy is gained through dividing the total number of cases predicted correctly
as a labeled class over the total number of data points in the study.

3 Results

The models built using the train data were applied on the test data to evaluate their
performance. Table 1 shows the model performance on the test data. Both classifiers
showed high overall prediction performance, over 78%. All ML models could predict a
medical post-incident state with accuracy over 97%. However, the prediction accuracy
rate for disability post-incident state is low in all ML models (11.6–16.8%). This was
expected due to the considerably lower frequency of disability cases in both train and
test data.

Table 1. ML model performance on test data (%).

ML methods Medical accuracy Disability accuracy Overall accuracy
CHAID 97.1 16.8 78.6
CART 98.3 11.6 78.2

Analyzing the DTs graphs provided useful information about the most significant
predictors of post-incident states. Injury nature and cause were the most statistically
significant determinants of injury severity outcomes. Considering the incidents out-
come, injuries in lower extremities with nature of fracture caused by fall, slip, trip,
lifting or handling has the highest chance of leading into disability status (77.7%),
while the same injuries with nature of laceration and puncture caused by fall, slip, or
trip were mostly medical (88.7%).
Furthermore, looking at the effect of age in determining the injury severity out-
comes, higher ages have an increased chance of an injury turning into disability. For
injuries with nature of contusion, strain, concussion, carpal tunnel syndrome, dislo-
cation, and sprain, as age group changes from 28 years old or younger, to ages between
28 and 43, to higher than 43 years old, the chances of disability post-incident vs
medical increases from 16% to 33.7%.
Considering the injured body parts, injuries in neck, and lower extremities have a
high chance of disability outcome (70.8%) compared to injuries in trunk, head, and
upper extremities (48.8%). However, these probabilities significantly decrease for
injuries caused by cut, puncture, striking against or stepping on that had a nature of
laceration, inflammation, or puncture.
 Utilization of ML in Analyzing Post-incident State 7

4 Conclusion

This study identified injured body parts, nature of the injury, the age, years of expe-
rience, and occupations of the injured worker as statistically significant predictors of
post-incident states of an occupational injury in agribusiness operations, based on
workers’ compensation data recorded during this period. The results emphasize the
significance of quantitative analysis of empirical injury data in safety science, and
contributes to enhanced understanding of occupational incidents root causes using
predictive modeling along with safety experts’ perspective. The analytical approach
and results of this study provide insightful understanding of factors influencing medical
and disability injuries and has applications in augmenting the experience of safety
professionals in agro-manufacturing operations to develop effective countermeasures
for prevention of occupational incidents and improve safety intervention efforts.

References
1. Boden, L.I., O’Leary, P.K., Applebaum, K.M., Tripodis, Y.: The impact of non-fatal
workplace injuries and illnesses on mortality. Am. J. Ind. Med. (2016). https://doi.org/10.
1002/ajim.22632
2. Tsoukalas, V.D., Fragiadakis, N.G.: Prediction of occupational risk in the shipbuilding
industry using multivariable linear regression and genetic algorithm analysis. Saf. Sci. 83,
12–22 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.11.010
3. Gavious, A., Mizrahi, S., Shani, Y., Minchuk, Y.: The costs of industrial accidents for the
organization: developing methods and tools for evaluation and cost-benefit analysis of
investment in safety. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2009.02.
008
4. Kakhki, F.D., Freeman, S.A., Mosher, G.A.: Evaluating machine learning performance in
predicting injury severity in agribusiness industries. Saf. Sci. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssci.2019.04.026
5. Altunkaynak, B.: A statistical study of occupational accidents in the manufacturing industry
in Turkey. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 66, 101–109 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.02.
012
6. Robert, K., Elisabeth, Q., Josef, B.: Analysis of occupational accidents with agricultural
machinery in the period 2008–2010 in Austria. Saf. Sci. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssci.2014.10.004
7. Field, W.E., Heber, D.J., Riedel, S.M., Wettschurack, S.W., Roberts, M.J., Grafft, L.M.J.:
Worker hazards associated with the use of grain vacuum systems. J. Agric. Saf. Health
(2014). https://doi.org/10.13031/jash.20.9989
8. Zylbersztajn, D.: Agribusiness systems analysis: origin, evolution and research perspectives.
Rev. Adm. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.10.004
9. Kakhki, F.D., Freeman, S.A., Mosher, G.A.: Use of logistic regression to identify factors
influencing the post-incident state of occupational injuries in agribusiness operations. Appl.
Sci. (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/app9173449
10. Sears, J.M., Blanar, L., Bowman, S.M.: Predicting work-related disability and medical cost
outcomes: a comparison of injury severity scoring methods. Injury (2014). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.injury.2012.12.024
8 F. Davoudi Kakhki et al.

11. Zakiei, A., Kiani, N., Morovati, F., Komasi, S.: Classification of various types of disability
and determining their predictive causes in western Iran. Clin. Epidemiol. Glob. Health
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2018.11.003
12. Davoudi Kakhki, F., Freeman, S.A., Mosher, G.A.: Use of neural networks to identify safety
prevention priorities in agro-manufacturing operations within commercial grain elevators.
Appl. Sci. 9(21), 4690 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/app9214690
13. Ramaswamy, S.K., Mosher, G.A.: Using workers’ compensation claims data to characterize
occupational injuries in the biofuels industry. Saf. Sci. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.
2017.12.014
14. Kakhki, F.D., Freeman, S.A., Mosher, G.A.: Segmentation of severe occupational incidents
in agribusiness industries using latent class clustering. Appl. Sci. (2019). https://doi.org/10.
3390/app9183641
15. Meyers, A.R., Al-Tarawneh, I.S., Wurzelbacher, S.J., Bushnell, P.T., Lampl, M.P., Bell, J.
L., Bertke, S.J., Robins, D.C., Tseng, C.Y., Wei, C., Raudabaugh, J.A., Schnorr, T.M.:
Applying machine learning to workers’ compensation data to identify industry-specific
ergonomic and safety prevention priorities: Ohio, 2001 to 2011. J. Occup. Environ. Med.
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001162
16. Tremblay, A., Badri, A.: A novel tool for evaluating occupational health and safety
performance in small and medium-sized enterprises: the case of the Quebec forestry/pulp and
paper industry. Saf. Sci. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.017
17. Leigh, J.P.: Economic burden of occupational injury and illness in the United States.
Milbank Q. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00648.x
18. Khanzode, V.V., Maiti, J., Ray, P.K.: Occupational injury and accident research: a
comprehensive review (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.12.015
19. Lord, D., Mannering, F.: The statistical analysis of crash-frequency data: a review and
assessment of methodological alternatives. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. (2010). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2010.02.001
20. Wurzelbacher, S.J., Al-Tarawneh, I.S., Meyers, A.R., Bushnell, P.T., Lampl, M.P., Robins,
D.C., Tseng, C.Y., Wei, C., Bertke, S.J., Raudabaugh, J.A., Haviland, T.M., Schnorr, T.M.:
Development of methods for using workers’ compensation data for surveillance and
prevention of occupational injuries among state-insured private employers in Ohio. Am.
J. Ind. Med. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22653
21. Jacinto, C., Canoa, M., Soares, C.G.: Workplace and organisational factors in accident
analysis within the Food Industry. Saf. Sci. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.08.
002
22. Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F.E., Giacchetta, G.: Industrial and occupational ergonomics in
the petrochemical process industry: a regression trees approach. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2008).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2008.03.012
23. Mistikoglu, G., Gerek, I.H., Erdis, E., Usmen, P.E.M., Cakan, H., Kazan, E.E.: Decision tree
analysis of construction fall accidents involving roofers. Expert Syst. Appl. (2015). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.10.009
24. Kang, K., Ryu, H.: Predicting types of occupational accidents at construction sites in Korea
using random forest model. Saf. Sci. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.06.034
25. Koyuncugil, A.S., Ozgulbas, N.: Financial early warning system model and data mining
application for risk detection. Expert Syst. Appl. (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.
2011.12.021
26. Shirali, G.A., Noroozi, M.V., Malehi, A.S.: Predicting the outcome of occupational
accidents by CART and CHAID methods at a steel factory in Iran. J. Public health Res.
(2018). https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2018.1361
 Utilization of ML in Analyzing Post-incident State 9

27. Zheng, Z., Lu, P., Lantz, B.: Commercial truck crash injury severity analysis using gradient
boosting data mining model. J. Saf. Res. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2018.03.002
28. De Oña, J., López, G., Abellán, J.: Extracting decision rules from police accident reports
through decision trees. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.09.006
29. Kashani, A.T., Shariat Mohaymany, A., Ranjbari, A.: Analysis of factors associated with
traffic injury severity on rural roads in Iran. J. Inj. Violence Res. (2012). https://doi.org/10.
5249/jivr.v4i1.67
30. Sarkar, S., Raj, R., Vinay, S., Maiti, J., Pratihar, D.K.: An optimization-based decision tree
approach for predicting slip-trip-fall accidents at work. Saf. Sci. (2019). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ssci.2019.05.009
 Safety Decision-Making in Academia

Anastasia Kalugina1 and Thierry Meyer1,2(&)

1
Group of Physical and Chemical Safety, Institute of Chemical Sciences
and Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Station 6,
1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
{anastasia.kalugina,thierry.meyer}@epfl.ch
2
Safety Competence Center, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
Station 6, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

Abstract. This paper illustrates the challenges of safety management in Aca-

demia, which are difficult to overcome using conventional methods of risk
management. The positive aspects and disadvantages of the risk management
tools specifically designed for the laboratory collection are addressed. We
propose a different approach to hazard detection that can ease the burden for
Academia safety experts of tedious time-consuming risk assessment. Based on
the observations of Academia’s safety management, we are attempting to build a
semi-quantitative risk analysis model that will conform to the concept of safety-
II. This paper suggests an approach that allows to integrate this model into
human oriented performance driven decision making.

Keywords: Safety-II
Risk management
Safety climate
Academia

1 Introduction

Modern society emphasizes safety requirements and reduces the rate of inappropriate
performance. The growing need to feel safe or at least be able to predict when and
where a situation becomes dangerous has led to the development of numerous risk
assessment techniques [1]. The first generation of safety management systems were
developed on the poor reliability of the machines. The main objective was to detect
software malfunctions and engineering errors. Despite the development of engineering
level and machine reliability, accidents proved that risk analysis methods such as
Hazard Operability study (HAZOP), Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Fault
and Event trees are no longer sufficient to provide a desired level of safety. Various
industrial accidents of the 1970s and 1980s [2, 3] focused on possible human errors and
their reduction or complete elimination in the development of human performance
assessment. It soon proved insufficient to consider pure human factors without an
organizational context [4]. Nowadays there are several attempts to implement new
approaches, which will work with intractable systems [5]. It does not mean old
approaches are no longer useful, but any situation with a strong socio-technical pres-
ence requires a new approach to safety management.
Safety in Academia has never been a topic of discussion until early 90’s. In view of
the last incidents that occurred in research laboratories, society realized that education

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license
to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
P. M. Arezes and R. L. Boring (Eds.): AHFE 2020, AISC 1204, pp. 10–17, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50946-0_2
 Safety Decision-Making in Academia 11

is definitely not as safe as they would like to think [6]. Academic and experimental
laboratories are a typical example of intractable systems that work despite being
extremely decentralized compared to the industry. For Academia to succeed in its
primary goal of scientific discovery and research, the performance variability of the
system’s participants is an important prerequisite. According to the Cambridge dic-
tionary, safe means not to be not in danger or unlikely to be harmed. The majority of
industrial accidents are considered highly unlikely [7] which shall mean that all cur-
rently functioning systems are safe. However, companies continue to invest in safety in
order to achieve the goal of zero accidents [8]. Statistical information on incidents and
near misses is hardly available in Academia, moreover quantification of the accident
rate cannot serve as a measure of change in safety.
Conventional strategies based on hazard detection and risk assessment must be
coupled with the inclusion of various factors defining the working and social envi-
ronment to ensure optimal protection in Academia. It means not only compliance with
and imposition of safety measures, but also a last-minute adaptation or gradual
improvement of existing working conditions. Work-as-imagine model shall be replaced
by work-as-done concept. It includes in field assessments and other analytical research
that can shed light on security gaps.

2 Conventional Safety Management Systems

According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Safety

Management System (SMS) is “a proactive, collaborative process for finding and fixing
workplace hazards before employees become injured or ill” [9]. Any SMS includes at
least two main components: Safety Risk Management (SRM, including hazards
identification, risk assessment, selection and implementation of mitigation measures)
[10] and Safety Assurance (SA) [11] which are supported by Safety Policy (SP) and
Constant Safety Promotion (CSP) [12]. Since any SMS is very complex and requires a
detailed description of all its components, we concentrate in this paper on its key
components. While the last two components (SP and CSP) can rely on the common
strategies for both tractable and intractable systems, the system’s organizational fea-
tures are highly dependent on the first two components.

2.1 Hazard Identification

The hazard identification process vastly depends on the objectives of the risk assess-
ment. The first goal can be to describe the situation in the laboratory as a whole and
recognize all potential hazards without any relation to the processes. Another objective
is the assessment within the processes. The first case takes place when there is no
preliminary information on the laboratory. Usually, however, information is already
available on hazardous materials used and stored in laboratories. In fact, it is almost
impossible to make a risk analysis of all hazards related to all processes due to the wide
variety of different activities in research laboratories.
In the second case, the purpose of hazard identification is to collect all pertaining
information on the risk assessment of the hazardous processes carried out in laboratory
12 A. Kalugina and T. Meyer

[13]. There are various methods of hazard classification, allowing systematic and eased
identification. According to OSHA, chemicals can be classified based on their health
and physical hazards [14]. This standard focuses solely on chemicals, although in a
research laboratory it cannot be applied alone. Canadian center for occupational health
and safety distinguishes 7 categories of hazards: chemicals, ergonomic, health, phys-
ical, psychosocial, safety, and workplace. All these categories have their own sub-
categories [15]. Another approach for classification is “energy-based” [16] which is
useful for understanding causation but has huge applicational limitation in multi haz-
ardous environment [17]. According to Macdonald [18] hazards can be classified based
on the context and conditions. This method is very versatile and, however, for the
research laboratories it is too cumbersome. The ACHiL methodology [19] for hazard
identification is partly based on the GHS categories and specifically designed for
laboratory, which can be applied in an academic setting during the risk assessment.

2.2 Risk Analysis and Treatment

Three types of risk analysis are available: qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative
[20]. Qualitative approaches that are commonly used in various industries such as
HAZOP [21] or Job Safety Analysis (JSA) [22] do not allow different risks to be
compared, focus solely on deviations or require the development of a full job portfolio.
Failure Mode, Effects & Criticality Analysis (FMECA) [23] is one of the most popular
quantitative methods used in the industry. It is very detailed and can be used with
automated and fixed processes, such as nuclear engineering [24] and pharmaceutical
industry [25]. However, it is time and resource-consuming and can hardly be applied
on a daily basis in research laboratories where processes are constantly changing [26].
Another family of quantitative methods such as Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) [27] or
Event Tree Analysis (ETA) [23] can be used even if there is a lack of statistical data,
using Fuzzy logic [28] or Bayesian networks [29]. These methods, however, are still
too resources-consuming to be used daily in research laboratories.
Recently, two approaches have been developed specifically for laboratory risk
assessment. Lab-HIRA is a tool explicitly designed to address chemical hazards,
present during chemical synthesis [30]. It calculates an Overall Hazards Index
(OH) using the following formula:
X X X X
OH ¼ IVDis: Prop: þ IVDis: Reac: Cond: þ IVIndex Value Spec: Chem:l Hazard

þ IðVÞName reaction þ IðVÞType reaction
ð1Þ

The method is useful for initial risk assessment by laboratory staff, but not for risk
management, and it does not consider the presence of another type of hazard. LARA
methodology [31] calculates a Lab Criticality Index for each particular hazard within
the process, using several variables such as: severity, probability, detectability and
various worsening factors, such as ergonomics or existence of other hazards. This tool
proposes safety measures for risk reduction and also considers the feasibility of such
 Safety Decision-Making in Academia 13

measures. Nonetheless, due to a high number of similar hazards, even this tool, which
was specifically designed for an Academic environment, has its drawbacks, such as the
cumbersomeness of the risk analysis process. Moreover, it still maintains the same
view of the Human Factors as a potential worsening factor.
As a rule, each environment management establishes the level of unacceptable risk. It
can be done using either the “as low as reasonably practicable” (ALARP) [32],
“Globalement Au Moins Aussi Bon” (GAMAB) [33] or “Minimum Endogenous
Mortality” (MEM principles) [34] all of which are based on the idea of financial rea-
sonability of risk reduction. The effect of the measures on the hazard and their potential
for risk reduction are compared with the primary risk assessment after evaluation of the
risk and its position in the acceptability zone. When speaking about risks with low
probability, however, any risk assessment would fail into the “regulator paradox” and the
majority of expensive measures would be considered not rational [35].

3 Risk Assessment for Resilient Safety

Traditional methods of risk analysis focus on functionalities of system elements,

possible deviations from expected results/outcomes [36]. Focusing on functions is
hardly possible in academia, and even less predicting deviations accurately.

3.1 Hazard Identification

Any risk management’s purpose is to prevent any possible undesirable outcomes,
and/or reduce their probability or severity [37]. Different internal characteristics of
hazards can sometimes have the same target and the same exposure route (e.g. skin
toxicity and skin corrosion). During the analysis of the work of safety experts, it was
observed that risk assessment of a process involving chemicals includes repetitive
assessments while working with GHS hazard categories. Meanwhile, experts tend to
use the same type of protective measures to protect from hazards. On the basis of these
observations, another approach for hazard identification is proposed. In order to
improve the time-efficiency of a risk assessment, the experts will first determine what is
the main target of a hazard which could be health, environment or materials. In par-
ticular for the health target, expert shall determine possible ways of exposure. After-
wards, based on the results of a preliminary evaluation on the extent of possible harm,
paths of exposure shall be protected (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Matching between GHS hazard classification and subject-based classification.

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
separate the two. Dialectic is a method of investigation whose object
is the establishment of truth about doubtful propositions. Aristotle in
the Topics gives a concise statement of its nature. “A dialectical
problem is a subject of inquiry that contributes either to choice or
avoidance, or to truth and knowledge, and that either by itself, or as
a help to the solution of some other such problem. It must, moreover,
be something on which either people hold no opinion either way, or
the masses hold a contrary opinion to the philosophers, or the
philosophers to the masses, or each of them among themselves.”[10]
Plato is not perfectly clear about the distinction between positive and
dialectical terms. In one passage[11] he contrasts the “positive” terms
“iron” and “silver” with the “dialectical” terms “justice” and
“goodness”; yet in other passages his “dialectical” terms seem to
include categorizations of the external world. Thus Socrates
indicates that distinguishing the horse from the ass is a dialectical
operation;[12] and he tells us later that a good dialectician is able to
divide things by classes “where the natural joints are” and will avoid
breaking any part “after the manner of a bad carver.”[13] Such,
perhaps, is Aristotle’s dialectic which contributes to truth and
knowledge.
But there is a branch of dialectic which contributes to “choice or
avoidance,” and it is with this that rhetoric is regularly found joined.
Generally speaking, this is a rhetoric involving questions of policy,
and the dialectic which precedes it will determine not the application
of positive terms but that of terms which are subject to the
contingency of evaluation. Here dialectical inquiry will concern itself
not with what is “iron” but with what is “good.” It seeks to establish
what belongs in the category of the “just” rather than what belongs in
the genus Canis. As a general rule, simple object words such as
“iron” and “house” have no connotations of policy, although it is
frequently possible to give them these through speech situations in
which there is added to their referential function a kind of impulse.
We should have to interpret in this way “Fire!” or “Gold!” because
these terms acquire something through intonation and relationship
which places them in the class of evaluative expressions.
 Any piece of persuasion, therefore, will contain as its first process
a dialectic establishing terms which have to do with policy. Now a
term of policy is essentially a term of motion, and here begins the
congruence of rhetoric with the soul which underlies the speculation
of the Phaedrus. In his myth of the charioteer, Socrates declares that
every soul is immortal because “that which is ever moving is
immortal.” Motion, it would appear from this definition, is part of the
soul’s essence. And just because the soul is ever tending, positive or
indifferent terms cannot partake of this congruence. But terms of
tendency—goodness, justice, divinity, and the like—are terms of
motion and therefore may be said to comport with the soul’s
essence. The soul’s perception of goodness, justice, and divinity will
depend upon its proper tendency, while at the same time contacts
with these in discourse confirm and direct that tendency. The
education of the soul is not a process of bringing it into
correspondence with a physical structure like the external world, but
rather a process of rightly affecting its motion. By this conception, a
soul which is rightly affected calls that good which is good; but a soul
which is wrongly turned calls that good which is evil. What Plato has
prepared us to see is that the virtuous rhetorician, who is a lover of
truth, has a soul of such movement that its dialectical perceptions
are consonant with those of a divine mind. Or, in the language of
more technical philosophy, this soul is aware of axiological systems
which have ontic status. The good soul, consequently, will not urge a
perversion of justice as justice in order to impose upon the
commonwealth. Insofar as the soul has its impulse in the right
direction, its definitions will agree with the true nature of intelligible
things.
There is, then, no true rhetoric without dialectic, for the dialectic
provides that basis of “high speculation about nature” without which
rhetoric in the narrower sense has nothing to work upon. Yet, when
the disputed terms have been established, we are at the limit of
dialectic. How does the noble rhetorician proceed from this point on?
That the clearest demonstration in terms of logical inclusion and
exclusion often fails to win assent we hardly need state; therefore, to
what does the rhetorician resort at this critical passage? It is the
stage at which he passes from the logical to the analogical, or it is
where figuration comes into rhetoric.
To look at this for a moment through a practical illustration, let us
suppose that a speaker has convinced his listeners that his position
is “true” as far as dialectical inquiry may be pushed. Now he sets
about moving the listeners toward that position, but there is no way
to move them except through the operation of analogy. The analogy
proceeds by showing that the position being urged resembles or
partakes of something greater and finer. It will be represented, in
sum, as one of the steps leading toward ultimate good. Let us further
suppose our speaker to be arguing for the payment of a just debt.
The payment of the just debt is not itself justice, but the payment of
this particular debt is one of the many things which would have to be
done before this could be a completely just world. It is just, then,
because it partakes of the ideal justice, or it is a small analogue of all
justice (in practice it will be found that the rhetorician makes
extensive use of synecdoche, whereby the small part is used as a
vivid suggestion of the grandeur of the whole). It is by bringing out
these resemblances that the good rhetorician leads those who listen
in the direction of what is good. In effect, he performs a cure of souls
by giving impulse, chiefly through figuration, toward an ideal good.
We now see the true rhetorician as a noble lover of the good, who
works through dialectic and through poetic or analogical association.
However he is compelled to modulate by the peculiar features of an
occasion, this is his method.
It may not be superfluous to draw attention to the fact that what we
have here outlined is the method of the Phaedrus itself. The dialectic
appears in the dispute about love. The current thesis that love is
praiseworthy is countered by the antithesis that love is blameworthy.
This position is fully developed in the speech of Lysias and in the first
speech of Socrates. But this position is countered by a new thesis
that after all love is praiseworthy because it is a divine thing. Of
course, this is love on a higher level, or love re-defined. This is the
regular process of transcendence which we have noted before. Now,
having rescued love from the imputation of evil by excluding certain
things from its definition, what does Socrates do? Quite in
accordance with our analysis, he turns rhetorician. He tries to make
this love as attractive as possible by bringing in the splendid figure of
the charioteer.[14] In the narrower conception of this art, the allegory
is the rhetoric, for it excites and fills us with desire for this kind of
love, depicted with many terms having tendency toward the good.
But in the broader conception the art must include also the dialectic,
which succeeded in placing love in the category of divine things
before filling our imaginations with attributes of divinity.[15] It is so
regularly the method of Plato to follow a subtle analysis with a
striking myth that it is not unreasonable to call him the master
rhetorician. This goes far to explain why those who reject his
philosophy sometimes remark his literary art with mingled admiration
and annoyance.
The objection sometimes made that rhetoric cannot be used by a
lover of truth because it indulges in “exaggerations” can be
answered as follows. There is an exaggeration which is mere
wantonness, and with this the true rhetorician has nothing to do.
Such exaggeration is purely impressionistic in aim. Like caricature,
whose only object is to amuse, it seizes upon any trait or aspect
which could produce titillation and exploits this without conscience. If
all rhetoric were like this, we should have to grant that rhetoricians
are persons of very low responsibility and their art a disreputable
one. But the rhetorician we have now defined is not interested in
sensationalism.
The exaggeration which this rhetorician employs is not caricature
but prophecy; and it would be a fair formulation to say that true
rhetoric is concerned with the potency of things. The literalist, like the
anti-poet described earlier, is troubled by its failure to conform to a
present reality. What he fails to appreciate is that potentiality is a
mode of existence, and that all prophecy is about the tendency of
things. The discourse of the noble rhetorician, accordingly, will be
about real potentiality or possible actuality, whereas that of the mere
exaggerator is about unreal potentiality. Naturally this distinction
rests upon a supposal that the rhetorician has insight, and we could
not defend him in the absence of that condition. But given insight, he
has the duty to represent to us the as yet unactualized future. It
would be, for example, a misrepresentation of current facts but not of
potential ones to talk about the joys of peace in a time of war. During
the Second World War, at the depth of Britain’s political and military
disaster, Winston Churchill likened the future of Europe to “broad
sunlit uplands.” Now if one had regard only for the hour, this was a
piece of mendacity such as the worst charlatans are found
committing; but if one took Churchill’s premises and then considered
the potentiality, the picture was within bounds of actualization. His
“exaggeration” was that the defeat of the enemy would place Europe
in a position for long and peaceful progress. At the time the surface
trends ran the other way; the actuality was a valley of humiliation. Yet
the hope which transfigured this to “broad sunlit uplands” was not
irresponsible, and we conclude by saying that the rhetorician talks
about both what exists simply and what exists by favor of human
imagination and effort.[16]
This interest in actualization is a further distinction between pure
dialectic and rhetoric. With its forecast of the actual possibility,
rhetoric passes from mere scientific demonstration of an idea to its
relation to prudential conduct. A dialectic must take place in vacuo,
and the fact alone that it contains contraries leaves it an intellectual
thing. Rhetoric, on the other hand, always espouses one of the
contraries. This espousal is followed by some attempt at
impingement upon actuality. That is why rhetoric, with its passion for
the actual, is more complete than mere dialectic with its dry
understanding. It is more complete on the premise that man is a
creature of passion who must live out that passion in the world. Pure
contemplation does not suffice for this end. As Jacques Maritain has
expressed it: “love ... is not directed at possibilities or pure essences;
it is directed at what exists; one does not love possibilities, one loves
that which exists or is destined to exist.”[17] The complete man, then,
is the “lover” added to the scientist; the rhetorician to the dialectician.
Understanding followed by actualization seems to be the order of
creation, and there is no need for the role of rhetoric to be
misconceived.
The pure dialectician is left in the theoretical position of the non-
lover, who can attain understanding but who cannot add impulse to
truth. We are compelled to say “theoretical position” because it is by
no means certain that in the world of actual speech the non-lover
has more than a putative existence. We have seen previously that
his speech would consist of strictly referential words which would
serve only as designata. Now the question arises: at what point is
motive to come into such language? Kenneth Burke in A Grammar of
Motives has pointed to “the pattern of embarrassment behind the
contemporary ideal of a language that will best promote good action
by entirely eliminating the element of exhortation or command.
Insofar as such a project succeeded, its terms would involve a
narrowing of circumference to a point where the principle of personal
action is eliminated from language, so that an act would follow from it
only as a non-sequitur, a kind of humanitarian after-thought.”[18]
The fault of this conception of language is that scientific intention
turns out to be enclosed in artistic intention and not vice versa. Let
us test this by taking as an example one of those “fact-finding
committees” so favored by modern representative governments. A
language in which all else is suppressed in favor of nuclear
meanings would be an ideal instrumentality for the report of such a
committee. But this committee, if it lived up to the ideal of its
conception, would have to be followed by an “attitude-finding
committee” to tell us what its explorations really mean. In real
practice the fact-finding committee understands well enough that it is
also an attitude-finding committee, and where it cannot show
inclination through language of tendency, it usually manages to do
so through selection and arrangement of the otherwise inarticulate
facts. To recur here to the original situation in the dialogue, we recall
that the eloquent Lysias, posing as a non-lover, had concealed
designs upon Phaedrus, so that his fine speech was really a sheep’s
clothing. Socrates discerned in him a “peculiar craftiness.” One must
suspect the same today of many who ask us to place our faith in the
neutrality of their discourse. We cannot deny that there are degrees
of objectivity in the reference of speech. But this is not the same as
an assurance that a vocabulary of reduced meanings will solve the
problems of mankind. Many of those problems will have to be
handled, as Socrates well knew, by the student of souls, who must
primarily make use of the language of tendency. The soul is impulse,
not simply cognition; and finally one’s interest in rhetoric depends on
how much poignancy one senses in existence.[19]
Rhetoric moves the soul with a movement which cannot finally be
justified logically. It can only be valued analogically with reference to
some supreme image. Therefore when the rhetorician encounters
some soul “sinking beneath the double load of forgetfulness and
vice” he seeks to re-animate it by holding up to its sight the order of
presumptive goods. This order is necessarily a hierarchy leading up
to the ultimate good. All of the terms in a rhetorical vocabulary are
like links in a chain stretching up to some master link which transmits
its influence down through the linkages. It is impossible to talk about
rhetoric as effective expression without having as a term giving
intelligibility to the whole discourse, the Good. Of course, inferior
concepts of the Good may be and often are placed in this ultimate
position; and there is nothing to keep a base lover from inverting the
proper order and saying, “Evil, be thou my good.” Yet the fact
remains that in any piece of rhetorical discourse, one rhetorical term
overcomes another rhetorical term only by being nearer to the term
which stands ultimate. There is some ground for calling a rhetorical
education necessarily an aristocratic education in that the rhetorician
has to deal with an aristocracy of notions, to say nothing of
supplementing his logical and pathetic proofs with an ethical proof.
All things considered, rhetoric, noble or base, is a great power in
the world; and we note accordingly that at the center of the public life
of every people there is a fierce struggle over who shall control the
means of rhetorical propagation. Today we set up “offices of
information,” which like the sly lover in the dialogue, pose as non-
lovers while pushing their suits. But there is no reason to despair
over the fact that men will never give up seeking to influence one
another. We would not desire it to be otherwise; neuter discourse is
a false idol, to worship which is to commit the very offense for which
Socrates made expiation in his second speech.
Since we want not emancipation from impulse but clarification of
impulse, the duty of rhetoric is to bring together action and
understanding into a whole that is greater than scientific perception.
[20] The realization that just as no action is really indifferent, so no
utterance is without its responsibility introduces, it is true, a certain
strenuousity into life, produced by a consciousness that “nothing is
lost.” Yet this is preferable to that desolation which proceeds from an
infinite dispersion or feeling of unaccountability. Even so, the choice
between them is hardly ours to make; we did not create the order of
things, but being accountable for our impulses, we wish these to be
just.
Thus when we finally divest rhetoric of all the notions of artifice
which have grown up around it, we are left with something very
much like Spinoza’s “intellectual love of God.” This is its essence and
the fons et origo of its power. It is “intellectual” because, as we have
previously seen, there is no honest rhetoric without a preceding
dialectic. The kind of rhetoric which is justly condemned is utterance
in support of a position before that position has been adjudicated
with reference to the whole universe of discourse[21]—and of such
the world always produces more than enough. It is “love” because it
is something in addition to bare theoretical truth. That element in
addition is a desire to bring truth into a kind of existence, or to give it
an actuality to which theory is indifferent. Now what is to be said
about our last expression, “of God”? Echoes of theological warfare
will cause many to desire a substitute for this, and we should not
object. As long as we have in ultimate place the highest good man
can intuit, the relationship is made perfect. We shall be content with
“intellectual love of the Good.” It is still the intellectual love of good
which causes the noble lover to desire not to devour his beloved but
to shape him according to the gods as far as mortal power allows.
So rhetoric at its truest seeks to perfect men by showing them better
versions of themselves, links in that chain extending up toward the
ideal, which only the intellect can apprehend and only the soul have
affection for. This is the justified affection of which no one can be
ashamed, and he who feels no influence of it is truly outside the
communion of minds. Rhetoric appears, finally, as a means by which
the impulse of the soul to be ever moving is redeemed.
It may be granted that in this essay we have gone some distance
from the banks of the Ilissus. What began as a simple account of
passion becomes by transcendence an allegory of all speech. No
one would think of suggesting that Plato had in mind every
application which has here been made, but that need not arise as an
issue. The structure of the dialogue, the way in which the judgments
about speech concentre, and especially the close association of the
true, the beautiful, and the good, constitute a unity of implication.
The central idea is that all speech, which is the means the gods have
given man to express his soul, is a form of eros, in the proper
interpretation of the word. With that truth the rhetorician will always
be brought face to face as soon as he ventures beyond the
consideration of mere artifice and device.
 Chapter II
DIALECTIC AND RHETORIC AT
DAYTON, TENNESSEE
We have maintained that dialectic and rhetoric are distinguishable
stages of argumentation, although often they are not distinguished
by the professional mind, to say nothing of the popular mind.
Dialectic is that stage which defines the subject satisfactorily with
regard to the logos, or the set of propositions making up some
coherent universe of discourse; and we can therefore say that a
dialectical position is established when its relation to an opposite has
been made clear and it is thus rationally rather than empirically
sustained. Despite the inconclusiveness of Plato on this subject, we
shall say that facts are never dialectically determined—although they
may be elaborated in a dialectical system—and that the urgency of
facts is never a dialectical concern. For similar reasons Professor
Adler, in his searching study of dialectic, maintains the position that
“Facts, that is non-discursive elements, are never determinative of
dialectic in a logical or intellectual sense....”[22]
What a successful dialectic secures for any position therefore, as
we noted in the opening chapter, is not actuality but possibility; and
what rhetoric thereafter accomplishes is to take any dialectically
secured position (since positive positions, like the “position” that
water freezes at 32°F., are not matters for rhetorical appeal) and
show its relationship to the world of prudential conduct. This is
tantamount to saying that what the specifically rhetorical plea asks of
us is belief, which is a preliminary to action.
It may be helpful to state this relationship through an example less
complex than that of the Platonic dialogue. The speaker who in a
dialectical contest has taken the position that “magnanimity is a
virtue” has by his process of opposition and exclusion won our
intellectual assent, inasmuch as we see the abstract possibility of
this position in the world of discourse. He has not, however,
produced in us a resolve to practice magnanimity. To accomplish this
he must pass from the realm of possibility to that of actuality; it is not
the logical invincibility of “magnanimity” enclosed in the class “virtue”
which wins our assent; rather it is the contemplation of magnanimity
sub specie actuality. Accordingly when we say that rhetoric instills
belief and action, we are saying that it intersects possibility with the
plane of actuality and hence of the imperative.[23]
A failure to appreciate this distinction is responsible for many lame
performances in our public controversies. The effects are, in outline,
that the dialectician cannot understand why his demonstration does
not win converts; and the rhetorician cannot understand why his
appeal is rejected as specious. The answer, as we have begun to
indicate, is that the dialectic has not made reference to reality, which
men confronted with problems of conduct require; and the rhetorician
has not searched the grounds of the position on which he has
perhaps spent much eloquence. True, the dialectician and the
rhetorician are often one man, and the two processes may not lie
apart in his work; but no student of the art of argumentation can
doubt that some extraordinary confusions would be prevented by a
knowledge of the theory of this distinction. Beyond this,
representative government would receive a tonic effect from any
improvement of the ability of an electorate to distinguish logical
positions from the detail of rhetorical amplification. The British,
through their custom of putting questions to public speakers and to
officers of government in Parliament, probably come nearest to
getting some dialectical clarification from their public figures. In the
United States, where there is no such custom, it is up to each
disputant to force the other to reveal his grounds; and this, in the
ardor of shoring up his own position rhetorically, he often fails to do
with any thoroughness. It should therefore be profitable to try the
kind of analysis we have explained upon some celebrated public
controversy, with the object of showing how such grasp of rhetorical
theory could have made the issues clearer.
 For this purpose, it would be hard to think of a better example than
the Scopes “evolution” trial of a generation ago. There is no denying
that this trial had many aspects of the farcical, and it might seem at
first glance not serious enough to warrant this type of examination.
Yet at the time it was considered serious enough to draw the most
celebrated trial lawyers of the country, as well as some of the most
eminent scientists; moreover, after one has cut through the
sensationalism with which journalism and a few of the principals
clothed the encounter, one finds a unique alignment of dialectical
and rhetorical positions.
The background of the trial can be narrated briefly. On March 21,
1925, the state of Tennessee passed a law forbidding the teaching of
the theory of evolution in publicly supported schools. The language
of the law was as follows:

Section 1. Be it enacted by the general assembly of the

state of Tennessee, that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in
any of the universities, normals and all other public schools of
the state, which are supported in whole or in part by the public
school funds of the state, to teach any theory that denies the
story of the Divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and
to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order
of animals.

That same spring John T. Scopes, a young instructor in biology in

the high school at Dayton, made an agreement with some local
citizens to teach such a theory and to cause himself to be indicted
therefor with the object of testing the validity of the law. The
indictment was duly returned, and the two sides prepared for the
contest. The issue excited the nation as a whole; and the trial drew
as opposing counsel Clarence Darrow, the celebrated Chicago
lawyer, and William Jennings Bryan, the former political leader and
evangelical lecturer.
The remarkable aspect of this trial was that almost from the first
the defense, pleading the cause of science, was forced into the role
of rhetorician; whereas the prosecution, pleading the cause of the
state, clung stubbornly to a dialectical position. This development
occurred because the argument of the defense, once the legal
technicalities were got over, was that evolution is “true.” The
argument of the prosecution was that its teaching was unlawful.
These two arguments depend upon rhetoric and dialectic
respectively. Because of this circumstance, the famous trial turned
into an argument about the orders of knowledge, although this fact
was never clearly expressed, if it was ever discerned, by either side,
and that is the main subject of our analysis. But before going into the
matter of the trial, a slight prologue may be in order.
It is only the first step beyond philosophic naïvete to realize that
there are different orders of knowledge, or that not all knowledge is
of the same kind of thing. Adler, whose analysis I am satisfied to
accept to some extent, distinguishes the orders as follows. First
there is the order of facts about existing physical entities. These
constitute the simple data of science. Next come the statements
which are statements about these facts; these are the propositions
or theories of science. Next there come the statements about these
statements: “The propositions which these last statements express
form a partial universe of discourse which is the body of
philosophical opinion.”[24]
To illustrate in sequence: the anatomical measurements of
Pithecanthropus erectus would be knowledge of the first order. A
theory based on these measurements which placed him in a certain
group of related organisms would be knowledge of the second order.
A statement about the value or the implications of the theory of this
placement would be knowledge of the third order; it would be the
judgment of a scientific theory from a dialectical position.
It is at once apparent that the Tennessee “anti-evolution” law was
a statement of the third class. That is to say, it was neither a
collection of scientific facts, nor a statement about those facts (i.e., a
theory or a generalization); it was a statement about a statement (the
scientists’ statement) purporting to be based on those facts. It was,
to use Adler’s phrase, a philosophical opinion, though expressed in
the language of law. Now since the body of philosophical opinion is
on a level which surmounts the partial universe of science, how is it
possible for the latter ever to refute the former? In short, is there any
number of facts, together with generalizations based on facts, which
would be sufficient to overcome a dialectical position?
Throughout the trial the defense tended to take the view that
science could carry the day just by being scientific. But in doing this,
one assumes that there are no points outside the empirical realm
from which one can form judgments about science. Science, by this
conception, must contain not only its facts, but also the means of its
own evaluation, so that the statements about the statements of
science are science too.
The published record of the trial runs to approximately three
hundred pages, and it would obviously be difficult to present a digest
of all that was said. But through a carefully selected series of
excerpts, it may be possible to show how blows were traded back
and forth from the two positions. The following passages, though not
continuous, afford the clearest picture of the dialectical-rhetorical
conflict which underlay the entire trial.
The Court (in charging the grand jury)
You will bear in mind that in this investigation you are not
interested to inquire into the policy of this legislation.[25]
The Defense
Mr. Darrow: I don’t suppose
the court has considered the
question of competency of
evidence. My associates and
myself have fairly definite ideas
as to it, but I don’t know how
the counsel on the other side
feel about it. I think that
scientists are competent
evidence—or competent
witnesses here, to explain what
evolution is, and that they are
competent on both sides.
 The Prosecution
Attorney-General Stewart: If
the Court please, in this case,
as Mr. Darrow stated, the
defense is going to insist on
introducing scientists and Bible
students to give their ideas on
certain views of this law, and
that, I am frank to state, will be
resisted by the state as
vigorously as we know how to
resist it. We have had a
conference or two about the
matter, and we think that it isn’t
competent evidence; that is, it
is not competent to bring into
this case scientists who testify
as to what the theory of
evolution is or interpret the
Bible or anything of that sort.
The Defense
Mr. Neal: The defendant
moves the court to quash the
indictment in this case for the
following reasons: In that it
violates Sec. 12, Art. XI, of the
Constitution of Tennessee: “It
shall be the duty of the general
assembly in all future periods of
the government to cherish
literature and science....” I want
to say that our main contention
after all, may it please your
honor, is that this is not a
proper thing for any legislature,
the legislature of Tennessee or
 the legislature of the United
States, to attempt to make and
assign a rule in regard to. In
this law there is an attempt to
pronounce a judgment and a
conclusion in the realm of
science and in the realm of
religion.
The Prosecution
Mr. McKenzie: Under the law
you cannot teach in the
common schools the Bible.
Why should it be improper to
provide that you cannot teach
this other theory?
The Defense
Mr. Darrow: Can a legislative
body say, “You cannot read a
book or take a lesson or make
a talk on science until you first
find out whether you are saying
against Genesis”? It can unless
that constitutional provision
protects me. It can. Can it say
to the astronomer, you cannot
turn your telescope upon the
infinite planets and suns and
stars that fill space, lest you find
that the earth is not the center
of the universe and that there is
not any firmament between us
and the heaven? Can it? It
could—except for the work of
Thomas Jefferson, which has
been woven into every state
constitution in the Union, and
has stayed there like a flaming
sword to protect the rights of
man against ignorance and
bigotry, and when it is permitted
to overwhelm them then we are
taken in a sea of blood and ruin
that all the miseries and
tortures and carrion of the
middle ages would be as
nothing.... If today you can take
a thing like evolution and make
it a crime to teach it in the
public schools, tomorrow you
can make it a crime to teach it
in the private schools, and the
next year you can make it a
crime to teach it to the hustings
or in the church. At the next
session you may ban books
and the newspapers.
Mr. Dudley Field Malone: So
that there shall be no
misunderstanding and that no
one shall be able to misinterpret
or misrepresent our position we
wish to state at the beginning of
the case that the defense
believes that there is a direct
conflict between the theory of
evolution and the theories of
creation as set forth in the Book
of Genesis.
Neither do we believe that
the stories of creation as set
forth in the Bible are
 reconcilable or scientifically
correct.
Mr. Arthur Garfield Hays: Our
whole case depends upon
proving that evolution is a
reasonable scientific theory.
The Prosecution
Mr. William Jennings Bryan,
Jr. (in support of a motion to
exclude expert testimony): It is,
I think, apparent to all that we
have now reached the heart of
this case, upon your honor’s
ruling, as to whether this expert
testimony will be admitted
largely determines the question
of whether this trial from now on
will be an orderly effort to try the
case upon the issues, raised by
the indictment and by the plea
or whether it will degenerate
into a joint debate upon the
merits or demerits of someone’s
views upon evolution.... To
permit an expert to testify upon
this issue would be to substitute
trial by experts for trial by jury....
The Defense
Mr. Hays: Are we entitled to
show what evolution is? We are
entitled to show that, if for no
other reason than to determine
whether the title is germane to
the act.
 The Prosecution
Mr. William Jennings Bryan:
An expert cannot be permitted
to come in here and try to
defeat the enforcement of a law
by testifying that it isn’t a bad
law and it isn’t—I mean a bad
doctrine—no matter how these
people phrase the doctrine—no
matter how they eulogize it.
This is not the place to prove
that the law ought never to
have been passed. The place
to prove that, or teach that, was
to the state legislature.... The
people of this state passed this
law, the people of the state
knew what they were doing
when they passed the law, and
they knew the dangers of the
doctrine—that they did not want
it taught to their children, and
my friends, it isn’t—your honor,
it isn’t proper to bring experts in
here and try to defeat the
purpose of the people of this
state by trying to show that this
thing they denounce and outlaw
is a beautiful thing that
everybody ought to believe in....
It is this doctrine that gives us
Nietzsche, the only great author
who tried to carry this to its
logical conclusion, and we have
the testimony of my
distinguished friend from
Chicago in his speech in the
Loeb and Leopold case that
50,000 volumes have been
written about Nietzsche, and he
is the greatest philosopher in
the last hundred years, and
have him pleading that because
Leopold read Nietzsche and
adopted Nietzsche’s philosophy
of the super-man, that he is not
responsible for the taking of
human life. We have the
doctrine—I should not
characterize it as I should like
to characterize it—the doctrine
that the universities that had it
taught, and the professors who
taught it, are much more
responsible for the crime that
Leopold committed than
Leopold himself. That is the
doctrine, my friends, that they
have tried to bring into
existence, they commence in
the high schools with their
foundation of evolutionary
theory, and we have the word of
the distinguished lawyer that
this is more read than any other
in a hundred years, and the
statement of that distinguished
man that the teachings of
Nietzsche made Leopold a
murderer.... (Mr. Bryan reading
from a book by Darrow) “I will
guarantee that you can go to
the University of Chicago today
—into its big library and find