I have been approached a number of times recently to explain what my research is about and what I am trying to achieve. I am more of a kinaesthetic learner but sometimes I find it easier to draw a picture to explain something.
The first objective is pretty much complete and a video showing this is here. It still needs some work but it is certainly getting there. I very much doubt I am going to create any new categories or examples defining them given what I have found so far.
The next objective is close to completion. I have identified who the SMEs are and have 85% of the vignettes created against which the model will be validated. These vignettes are based on real world incidents with as much detail as I can put in there but also keeping them to a manageable level. The SMEs will examine the vignettes and determine if all of the categories at the individual layer have been captured, should be removed, or new ones added.
The third objective is to take that model and conduct a survey, using a tool like SurveyMonkey, to determine which of the categories are most prevalent within a 1000 participant sample population who have had diving incidents. Previous research has shown that there is some clarity required in determining what an incident is, so I will be providing some based on existing literature and feedback from diving incident epidemiologists and OC/CCR instructors. I aim to split the sample population 80:20 OC:CCR and within OC and CCR there will a number of levels of divers and instructors. This will then show why the majority of incidents are occurring at the individual layers. In addition, because I will be collecting some broad demographic information, it will be possible to identify if these issues are coherent or different within these groups or across the whole sample. Care will be needed to ensure that sample sizes are kept to a credible level.
As there is a distinct lack of data concerning the role of Human Factors categories at the supervisory and organisational layers, I have had to approach this matter differently and will be using consensus techniques (either Delphi or Q-Method, yet to decide) to determine the top 20% of the most influential categories. The sample population used to provide the consensus will come from a broad number of agencies, skill sets and experience to ensure that all matters are considered.
Finally, once the top 20% of influential categories has been determined, a distribution survey will take place asking participants to give examples of failures at this level, especially violations. This will be done completely anonymously as there is scope for incrimination if instructors or supervisors have broken HSE or agency guidelines.
Given all of the above, I hope to be able to show why incidents occur at the individual layer thereby identifying what individuals can do to improve matters, and by determining the top 20% of influential factors at the supervisory and organisational layers, it will show what needs to be done by training agencies and training/supervisory staff to make sure they are delivering training which meets the needs of the diver, whatever their level of diving.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or leave a comment.