Reconstructing the Collective Experience of Risk

Ideally, we could train miners to be so alert to signs of hazard in the environment that they would perceive hazards immediately. In reality, however, hu- 

So on the ride out, uh, I asked him, 1 said, Jaz, What, didn t you, you know, what took you so long, didn t you, you know, see anything happening.. . . You know. . . and he said that he was so intent on doing the job that he was doing that he really wasn t paying attention to the post situation and the roof. 

He said, you know, the noise of the roof breaking up was really loud, and he never heard it, I mean, he said, he just all of a sudden he was in a dust filled situation and in the dark.  

In theory, both miners should tell the same narrative. Instead, Garry observes the falling roof because he first hears a noise and turns his attention to the situation. Jaz focuses on his job until he sees nothing but dust and dark. Neither miner s narrative provides a complete representation of the accident because these miners do not have access to conditions beyond human view within the roof strata. Garry focused on geographic conditions and thus lost his focus on production. Jaz focused on production and failed to notice the signs of a falling roof. 

When we compare viewpoints, however, we can begin to speculate about why miners were injured. Each individual s viewpoint is relative to a whole and perfect but inaccessible representation of a mine. As we attempt to reconcile these viewpoints at each location within the institutional and geographic architecture of a mine, we can begin to construct the collective experience of a disaster. 

---