Designing Communication for the Day-to-Day Safety Oversight of Nuclear Power Plants

Journal of Applied Communication Research

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 168-189

  Barbour, Joshua B ^a   Gill, Rebecca ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Communication as Design; Grounded Practical Theory; Nuclear Power Plants; Regulatory Communication; Safety and Reliability

Indexed keywords

EID: 84898001626     PISSN: 00909882     EISSN: 14795752     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00909882.2013.859291     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Aakhus, M. (2001). Technocratic and design stances toward communication expertise: How GDSS facilitators understand their work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 341-371. doi:10.1080/00909880128113
2. Aakhus, M. (2007). Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74, 112-117. doi:10.1080/03637750701196383
3. Aakhus, M., & Jackson, S. (2005). Technology, interaction, and design. In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 411-436). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Aakhus, M., & Rumsey, E. (2010). Crafting supportive communication online: A communication design analayis of conflict in an online support group. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 65-84. doi:10.1080/00909880903483581
5. Barbour, J. B., Jacocks, C. A., & Wesner, K. (2013). Message design logics of organizational change. Communication Monographs, 80, 354-378.
6. Barge, J. K., & Craig, R. T. (2009). Practical theory in applied communication scholarship. In L. R. Frey & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied communication research (pp. 55-78). New York, NY: Routledge.
7. Barge, J. K., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2008). Engaged scholarship and the creation of useful organizational knowledge. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 251-265. doi:10.1080/00909880802172277
8. Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (1995). Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5, 248-272. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00108.x
9. Czarniawska, B. (2007). Shadowing and other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societies. Liber, Sweden: Copenhagen Business School Press.
10. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
12. Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2000). The organizational learning of safety in communities of practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(1), 7-18. doi:10.1177/105649260091002
13. Gill, R. (2011). The shadow in organizational ethnography: Moving beyond shadowing to spect-acting. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 6, 115-133. doi:10.1108/17465641111159116
14. Gill, R., Barbour, J. B., & Dean, M. (in press). Organizational shadowing as socialization: Shadowing in/as work: Ten recommendations for shadowing fieldwork practice. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management.
15. Goodman, P. S., Ramanujam, R., Carroll, J. S., Edmondson, A. C., Hofmann, D. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2011). Organizational errors: Directions for future research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 151-176. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.003
16. Jackson, S. (2002). Designing argumentation protocols for the classroom. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 105-120). Amsterdam: SICSAT.
17. Leveson, N., Dulac, N., Marais, K., & Carroll, J. (2009). Moving beyond normal accidents and high reliability organizations: A systems approach to safety in complex systems. Organization Studies, 30, 227-249. doi:10.1177/0170840608101478
18. Mokros, H. B., & Aakhus, M. (2002). From information seeking behavior to meaning engagement practice: Implications for communication theory and research. Human Communication Research, 28, 298-312.
19. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2012, October 3). Fact sheet on oversight of nuclear power plants. Retrieved February 25, 2013, from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/oversight.html
20. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2013). Reactor oversight process (ROP). Retrieved June 1, 2013, from http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/
21. O'Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs, 55, 80-103. doi:10.1080/03637758809376159
22. Perin, C. (1995). Organizations as contexts: Implications for safety science and practice. Organization & Environment, 9, 152-174. doi:10.1177/108602669500900202
23. Perin, C. (2005). Shouldering risks: The culture of control in the nuclear power industry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24. Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25. Scott, C. W., & Trethewey, A. (2008). Organizational discourse and the appraisal of occupational hazards: Interpretive repertoires, heedful interrelating, and identity at work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 298-317. doi:10.1080/00909880802172137
26. Tompkins, P. K. (2005). Apollo, challenger, Columbia: The decline of the space program. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
27. Tracy, K. (1997). Colloquium: Dilemmas of academic discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
28. Tracy, S. J. (2003). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
29. Trethewey, A., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2004). Practicing disorganization: The development of applied perspectives on living with tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 81-88. doi:10.1080/0090988042000210007
30. Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357-381. doi:10.2307/2393372
31. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (1999). Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 81-123.