How Constructionist Perspectives on Learning Can Improve Learning and Prevent Accidents in High-Risk Industries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

 

The abstract describes the content of the paper reasonably well, but could benefit from some improvements, including:

1)        Avoid using the future tense (for instance this paper will focus on…);

2)        Briefly describe the methods (as opposed to “the data material”); and

3)        Present findings in the past tense.

 

 

Introduction

 

Generally well written, however readability could be enhanced throughout. Some suggestions for improvement include:

4)        A thorough edit to improve English expression;

5)        More application of the tenets of the cognitive-constructionist approach to the practical problem of training in management systems; and

6)        Somehow dealing with the difference between training in the use of the management system, and the actual focus in high risk industries on training the knowledge and skills of the job, that is described in the management system.  

 

Methods

 

The methods section is clear and concise. Some potential improvements:

7)        Some more formal language throughout – the reflective informal language around the final sample size (lines 255 – 258) could be improved;

8)        Was any consideration given to the use of multiple coders to improve reliability?; and

9)        Thea paragraph commencing line 266 appears to be more “results” than “methods” - consider moving this part.

 

 

Results

 

10)  Some clearer introduction to the specific “management system” could be provided at the beginning of the results section. From reading this section it now appears that the “management system” involves a series of cognitive aids / checklists to guide work task completion. This was not clear early in the paper. 

11)  Line 433 – this quote is not attributed, and makes little sense just by itself.

12)  Line 435 – 436 seems to include repetition.

 

Discussion

 

A nice discussion, and good reference to previous research.

 

13)  A limitations section could be included.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the paper is well written. Another edit and proof read by a native English speaker may assist in some expression.

Author Response

I appreciate the positive response from the reviewers, and I appreciate (and agree with) the constructive and specific comments. Specific answers to the comments follow. Thank you for helping me to improve the paper.

**

Abstract

 

The abstract describes the content of the paper reasonably well, but could benefit from some improvements, including:

1)        Avoid using the future tense (for instance this paper will focus on…);

Reply: This has been changed.

2)        Briefly describe the methods (as opposed to “the data material”); and

Reply: This has been changed.

3)        Present findings in the past tense.

Reply: This has been changed

 

Introduction

 

Generally well written, however readability could be enhanced throughout. Some suggestions for improvement include:

4)        A thorough edit to improve English expression;

Reply: A language edit has been conducted.

5)        More application of the tenets of the cognitive-constructionist approach to the practical problem of training in management systems; and

Reply: I have worked through the manuscript and tried to clarify this.

6)        Somehow dealing with the difference between training in the use of the management system, and the actual focus in high risk industries on training the knowledge and skills of the job, that is described in the management system.  

Reply: A clarification has been added in chapter 1.4.

 

Methods

 

The methods section is clear and concise. Some potential improvements:

7)        Some more formal language throughout – the reflective informal language around the final sample size (lines 255 – 258) could be improved;

Reply: This has been changed.

8)        Was any consideration given to the use of multiple coders to improve reliability?;

Reply: Multiple coders were not used, as this was part of my PhD-project, and fundings did not allow multiple coders, but the coding after step 2 and 4 was discussed with colleagues working with similar topics related to safety in the gas and petroleum sector.

9)        Thea paragraph commencing line 266 appears to be more “results” than “methods” - consider moving this part.

Reply: This is meant to give an example on how the informant’s statements were interpreted in the coding process. I have rephrased it a bit, so it will hopefully be clearer to the reader.

 

 

Results

 

10)  Some clearer introduction to the specific “management system” could be provided at the beginning of the results section. From reading this section it now appears that the “management system” involves a series of cognitive aids / checklists to guide work task completion. This was not clear early in the paper. 

Reply: An explanation for how the management system is constructed has been added in the first paragraph of the results chapter.

11)  Line 433 – this quote is not attributed, and makes little sense just by itself.

Reply: This is not a quote, but a sub-headline. It looks confusing because pf the page set-up. I will arrange so it becomes clearer what it is.

12)  Line 435 – 436 seems to include repetition.

Reply: Indeed, it does. I have removed the repeated words.

 

Discussion

 

A nice discussion, and good reference to previous research.

 

13)  A limitations section could be included.

Reply: This has been added as an limitations section:

Though the data material is rich, it is also context bound to gas and petroleum production on the Norwegian shelf.  Both companies in this study are Norwegian, and all the informants are Norwegian. It addressed social and cultural traits, and these can be very different in other countries, and in companies with employees from many countries. There is no guarantee that the findings are relevant for other contexts, but hopefully, the data description is rich enough to evaluate their usefulness for training programs in similar contexts.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very nice paper and topic! One suggestion would be in the introduction of the paper be more concise about what your objectives are. The fourth paragraph ending sentence reads: "The author of this paper conducted 27 interviews with workers in two different companies operating 45 in the oil and gas-producing industry." I think you should add some text stating why you did this: what were your goals in conducting this research? Also state the organization of your manuscript so that the reader knows how best to approach reading it. 

Good luck and thank you!

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

I appreciate the positive response from the reviewers, and I appreciate (and agree with) the constructive and specific comments. Specific answers to the comments follow. Thank you for helping me to improve the paper.

**

Very nice paper and topic! One suggestion would be in the introduction of the paper be more concise about what your objectives are. The fourth paragraph ending sentence reads: "The author of this paper conducted 27 interviews with workers in two different companies operating 45 in the oil and gas-producing industry." I think you should add some text stating why you did this: what were your goals in conducting this research? Also state the organization of your manuscript so that the reader knows how best to approach reading it. 

Reply: This has been added at the end of the introduction.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Using constructionist perspectives on knowledge to improve staff training in high-risk industries”

 

 

This paper is a well-executed presentation of a survey of 27 workers and managers in the Norwegian oil and gas sector. The survey focused on the training that employees received, with special attention to the learning methods employed.

 

The introduction to the paper is thorough and detailed, perhaps slightly too much so. I would prefer that the author present the main findings of the paper earlier, rather than devoting approximately 200 lines out of 500 to a review of the literature. Additionally, it would be helpful to have a clearer explanation of what is meant by the terms cognitive-constructionist and social contructivism.

 

My last piece of minor feedback is that it would be helpful to identify the position of the employees who are quoted in the piece. I understand there are confidentiality issues, but it would be helpful to distinguish between onshore executives or offshore workers.

 

This survey should be of interest to anyone interested in the fields of safety training in the oil and gas sector, and those who study cognitive-constructionism and social contructivism.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

I appreciate the positive response from the reviewers, and I appreciate (and agree with) the constructive and specific comments. Specific answers to the comments follow. Thank you for helping me to improve the paper.

**

The introduction to the paper is thorough and detailed, perhaps slightly too much so. I would prefer that the author present the main findings of the paper earlier, rather than devoting approximately 200 lines out of 500 to a review of the literature. Additionally, it would be helpful to have a clearer explanation of what is meant by the terms cognitive-constructionist and social contructivism.

Reply: I understand this notion, however, I feel that a thorough literature review is necessary for the discussion. A (hopefully) clearer explanation of the terms cognitive-constructionist and social contructivism have been added.

 

My last piece of minor feedback is that it would be helpful to identify the position of the employees who are quoted in the piece. I understand there are confidentiality issues, but it would be helpful to distinguish between onshore executives or offshore workers.

Reply: I have marked every quote with information on the position of the person quoted.