Breaking the Safety Barrier

John Francis Culvenor

Breaking the Safety Barrier

Engineering New Paradigms
in Safety Design

John Francis Culvenor

BEng(Hons) GradDipErg

Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements

of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

VIOSH-Australia
School of Engineering
University of Ballarat
PO Box 663, University Drive, Mount Helen
Ballarat, Victoria 3353, Australia
December 1997

Abstract
Occupational health and safety legislation in Australia and internationally is based on the
safe place concept and the hierarchy of control. A safe place is best achieved at the
design stage and consequently the education of engineers in safety has been a priority.
There have been notable efforts at the integration of safety with engineering studies, and
this should be an ongoing objective, however extensive integration is likely to be difficult at
least in the short term.

The challenge was to develop a supplemental, innovative way to improve the ability of
engineers to develop safe place solutions. The hypothesis was that training in creative
thinking would achieve this aim. The hierarchy of control methodology shares a strong
relationship with creative thinking. Safe place thinking challenges assumptions in the same
way that creative thinking seeks to escape dominant paradigms. For this reason creative
thinking seems a natural aid to the safe place approach.

This study tested the effect on safety design of a creative thinking program; de Bonos six
thinking hats method. Given a recognition that groups other than engineers impact on
workplace design, a range of subjects were included; engineering students, technology
students, industry safety advisers, and government safety advisers.

In response to safety case studies, subjects were required to generate solutions and to
prioritize potential solutions. Subjects worked on a range of problems, some individually
and some in teams of three. Results show that training in creative thinking improved the
generation of solutions to safety problems. As the number of solutions increased, the
average quality of ideas was maintained, therefore the increased number of solutions was
accompanied by a similar increase in good quality safe place solutions. The results also
showed in some instances the training improved the prioritization of solutions according to
the safe place methodology. The effects were of a similar magnitude for individuals and
teams.

Creative thinking training was shown to be a useful way to enhance the generation of safe
place solutions to safety problems. Given that creative thinking skills can theoretically be
applied to any area of problem solving, the enhancement of these skills are likely to yield
wider benefits.

Furthermore the enhancement of creative thinking accords well with the

current industrial mandates for improved innovation.

Acknowledgments
I am grateful for the support of Dennis Else and the University of Ballarat, especially the
VIOSH-Australia team and Jack Harvey; the National Occupational Health and Safety
Commission; Kathy Myers and Advanced Practical Thinking Training; the volunteer
subjects; and importantly my family, especially my parents, Albert and Patricia, and my
wife Grace. And thanks to our inspirational daughter, Olivia Patricia, born 1 May 1997.

Declaration
This thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies,
appendices and footnotes. Except where explicit reference is made in the text of the thesis,
this thesis contains no material published elsewhere1 or extracted in whole or in part from a
thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma. No other
persons work has been relied upon or used without due acknowledgment in the main text
and bibliography of the thesis.

John Culvenor

Professor Dennis Else (Supervisor)

1 In the course of undertaking this work I have given a number of conference presentations and have a
number of articles in the publication process. These are listed in the bibliography.

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 17
1.1 THE PROBLEM ...........................................................................................................................................17
1.2 THE PROBLEM SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................23
1.3 A IM..............................................................................................................................................................23
1.4 HYPOTHESIS...............................................................................................................................................23
1.5 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................................23
2. ACCIDENT PREVENTION ..................................................................................................................... 27
2.1 THE SAFE PERSON A PPROACH ...............................................................................................................29
2.1.1 Unsafe Acts and Unsafe Conditions: Unjustifiable Categories.................................................29
2.1.2 Safe Behaviour Promotions: The Myth of the Careless Worker................................................36
2.1.3 Accident-Proneness: A Case of Mistaken Identity.....................................................................42
2.1.4 Beginning from Inherent Hopelessness ........................................................................................45
2.1.5 Misguiding Preventative Action ....................................................................................................47
2.1.6 Summary: Problems with the Safe Person Approach...................................................................52
2.2 THE SAFE PLACE A PPROACH .................................................................................................................52
2.2.1 Control at Source...............................................................................................................................53
2.2.2 Defining the Hazard Source: Energy Barrier Models ...................................................................60
2.2.3 Ergonomics and the Study of Work...............................................................................................65
2.2.4 Safe Place: Consolidated Concepts ................................................................................................71
2.3 A CCIDENT PREVENTION SUMMARY .....................................................................................................78
3. CREATIVE THINKING............................................................................................................................ 83
3.1 CREATIVE M OMENTS...............................................................................................................................83
3.2 CREATIVE PEOPLE....................................................................................................................................85
3.3 PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS ..................................................................................................................86
3.4 THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES.................................................................................................88
3.5 THINKING INSIDE THE BOUNDARIES: UNCREATIVE M IND ...............................................................92

3.6 UNCREATIVE CULTURE ...........................................................................................................................96

3.7 INTELLIGENCE .........................................................................................................................................100
3.8 A CTIVE DIVERGENT THINKING (ADT)...............................................................................................109
3.8.1 Chance ..............................................................................................................................................109
3.8.2 Analogy............................................................................................................................................110
3.8.3 Forcing Relationships: Morphology............................................................................................112
3.8.4 Brainstorming...................................................................................................................................114
3.8.5 Lateral Thinking...............................................................................................................................119
3.8.6 Six Thinking Hats ............................................................................................................................121
3.8.7 Illustration of the Process of Active Divergent Thinking.........................................................123
3.9 RESEARCH STUDIES IN CREATIVE THINKING/BRAINSTORMING....................................................126
3.9.1 The Effect of Brainstorming...........................................................................................................126
3.9.2 Performance of Nominal Groups versus Interacting Groups....................................................129
3.9.3 Satisfaction and Perception of Success in Interacting Groups................................................131
3.9.4 The Reasons for Failure of Interacting Groups ..........................................................................131
3.9.5 Studies of the CoRT Program........................................................................................................133
3.9.6 Summary Research Studies in Creative Thinking/Brainstorming ............................................135
3.10 A SSESSMENT OF CREATIVE THINKING..............................................................................................135
3.11 CREATIVE THINKING: SUMMARY ......................................................................................................137
4. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................141
4.1 HYPOTHESIS REASONING AND HYPOTHESIS......................................................................................141
4.2 DEVELOPMENT OF TESTING TOOLS....................................................................................................142
4.2.1 Generation of Solutions (Number)................................................................................................144
4.2.2 Generation of Solutions (Quality: Proportion Safe Place).........................................................144
4.2.3 Prioritization of Solutions (Correlation of Ranking with Standard Ranking)..........................145
4.2.4 Summary of Variables .....................................................................................................................145
4.3 TRAINING INTERVENTIONS...................................................................................................................146
4.3.1 Creative Thinking Training............................................................................................................146
4.3.2 Hazard Management Training.......................................................................................................148

10

4.4 SUBJECTS FOR THE RESEARCH .............................................................................................................148

4.4.1 Engineering Students .....................................................................................................................149
4.4.2 Technology Students .....................................................................................................................149
4.4.3 Industry Safety Advisers...............................................................................................................149
4.4.4 Government Safety Advisers ........................................................................................................150
4.5 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ........................................................................................................................150
4.6 STATISTICAL A NALYSIS........................................................................................................................151
4.6.1 Independent Samples and Related Samples................................................................................151
4.6.2 Generating Alternative Solutions .................................................................................................151
4.6.3 Generating Effective Solutions......................................................................................................152
4.6.4 Prioritizing Effective Solutions......................................................................................................152
4.6.5 Directional Tests .............................................................................................................................153
4.6.6 Summary of the Statistical Tests Employed................................................................................153
4.6.7 Tests of Normality...........................................................................................................................154
4.7 M ETHODOLOGY SUMMARY..................................................................................................................155
5. RESULTS..................................................................................................................................................163
5.1 GENERATING A LTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS (NUMBER OF A LTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS) ..............164
5.1.1 Engineering Students Generating Alternative Solutions..........................................................164
5.1.2 Technology Students Generating Alternative Solutions Individually ...................................165
5.1.3 Technology Students Generating Alternative Solutions in Teams .........................................166
5.1.4 Industry Advisers Generating Alternative Solutions................................................................167
5.1.5 Government Advisers Generating Alternative Solutions .........................................................168
5.1.6 Generating Alternative Solutions (Number of Alternative Solutions): Summary..................169
5.2 GENERATING EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS (PROPORTION OF SAFE PLACE SOLUTIONS) ..................171
5.2.1 Engineering Students Generating Effective Solutions ..............................................................171
5.2.2 Technology Students Generating Effective Solutions Individually........................................172
5.2.3 Technology Students Generating Effective Solutions in Teams .............................................173
5.2.4 Industry Advisers Generating Effective Solutions....................................................................174
5.2.5 Government Advisers Generating Effective Solutions..............................................................175

11

5.2.6 Generating Effective Solutions (Proportion (%) of Safe-Place Solutions): Summary ..........176
5.2.7 Generating Effective Solutions (Number of Safe-Place Solutions): Summary .......................178
5.3 PRIORITIZING EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS (CORRELATION WITH OPTIMUM RANK).......................179
5.3.1 Engineering Students Prioritizing Effective Solutions...............................................................179
5.3.2 Technology Students Prioritizing Effective Solutions Individually ........................................180
5.3.3 Technology Students Prioritizing Effective Solutions in Teams .............................................181
5.3.4 Industry Advisers Prioritizing Effective Solutions ....................................................................182
5.3.5 Government Advisers Prioritizing Effective Solutions Individually........................................183
5.3.6 Government Advisers Prioritizing Effective Solutions in Teams .............................................184
5.3.7 Prioritizing Effective Solutions (Correlation with Optimum Rank): Summary.........................186
5.4 NOVICE /EXPERT EFFECTS.....................................................................................................................188
5.4.1 Novice/Expert Effects: Generating Alternative Solutions.........................................................188
5.4.2 Novice/Expert Effects: Generating Effective Solutions .............................................................189
5.4.3 Novice/Expert Effects: Prioritizing Effective Solutions..............................................................190
5.4.4 Novice/Expert Effects: Summary ...................................................................................................191
5.5 RESULTS SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................192
6. DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................................................195
6.1 GENERATING SOLUTIONS TO SAFETY PROBLEMS ...........................................................................195
6.1.1 Creative Thinking Training and the Generation of Solutions...................................................195
6.1.2 Mechanisms that Facilitated the Generation of Solutions........................................................196
6.1.3 Group versus Individual Effects ...................................................................................................200
6.1.4 The Effectiveness of the Solutions ..............................................................................................201
6.1.5 Transfer of Creative Thinking Skills .............................................................................................202
6.1.6 Creative Thinking Training as a Priming Exercise....................................................................203
6.1.7 Generalising the Effects to other Creative Thinking Techniques ............................................204
6.1.8 Novices and Experts Generating Solutions.................................................................................205
6.1.9 The Relative Success of Novices .................................................................................................207
6.1.10 Summary of the Issue of Generating Solutions ........................................................................211

12

6.2 PRIORITIZING EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS TO SAFETY PROBLEMS......................................................212

6.2.1 The Effect of Creative Thinking Training on the Prioritization of Solutions: Why Effective
only for the Engineers?...........................................................................................................................212
6.2.2 Novices and Experts Prioritizing Solutions .................................................................................214
6.2.3 Summary of the Issue of Prioritization of Solutions...................................................................215
6.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TRAINING A SSESSMENT : M EASURING PARADIGMS...............................216
6.4 M ESSAGES FOR RISK CONTROL IN THE W ORKPLACE ......................................................................217
6.5 DISCUSSION SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................218
7. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................223
7.1 GENERATION OF A LTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS....................................................................................224
7.2 GENERATION OF EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS...........................................................................................225
7.3 PRIORITIZATION OF SOLUTIONS .........................................................................................................226
7.4 COMBINING CREATIVE THINKING WITH HAZARD M ANAGEMENT TRAINING............................226
7.5 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................227
8. FURTHER RESEARCH..........................................................................................................................231
8.1 ENGINEERING AND CREATIVE THINKING...........................................................................................231
8.2 CREATIVE THINKING A PPLICATION...................................................................................................231
8.3 SAFETY PARADIGMS VERSUS A CTUAL SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................231
8.4 THE POOR CREATIVITY OF EXPERTS..................................................................................................232
8.5 TEAMING-UP NOVICES AND EXPERTS.................................................................................................232
BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................................................235

13

Appendices

A. RESEARCH IN BRAINSTORMING AND CREATIVE THINKING..............................................273

A.1 BRAINSTORMING....................................................................................................................................273
A.2 BRAINSTORMING IN GROUPS...............................................................................................................284
A.3 PERCEPTION OF THE VALUE OF GROUPS..........................................................................................292
A.4 COMPUTER-BASED BRAINSTORMING ................................................................................................293
A.5 PERSONALITIES AND GROUP BRAINSTORMING................................................................................296
A.6 IDEA BLOCKING IN GROUP BRAINSTORMING...................................................................................298
A.7 INDIVIDUAL M OTIVATION AND SOCIAL LOAFING..........................................................................302
A.8 EVALUATION A PPREHENSION AND CRITICISM ...............................................................................309
A.9 EXPERTS VERSUS NOVICES ...................................................................................................................311
A.10 THE NINE DOT PROBLEM ..................................................................................................................312
A.11 CORT RESEARCH STUDIES.................................................................................................................315
B. THE ASSESSMENT TOOLS: BOOK ONE AND BOOK TWO....................................................323

C. CASE STUDIES, STANDARD SOLUTION CATEGORISATION AND RANKING.................377

C.1 GENERATING SAFETY SOLUTIONS: CASES ONE TO SIX..................................................................377
C.2 PRIORITIZING SAFETY SOLUTIONS: CASES SEVEN TO TWELVE ...................................................384
D. TABULATIONS OF RAW DATA.......................................................................................................395
D.1 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLES.........................................................................395
D.2 ENGINEERING STUDENTS: GENERATING SOLUTIONS .....................................................................396
D.3 ENGINEERING STUDENTS: PRIORITIZING SOLUTIONS ....................................................................400
D.4 TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS GENERATING SOLUTIONS......................................................................412
D.5 TECHNOLOGY ST UDENTS PRIORITIZING SOLUTIONS.....................................................................420
D.6 INDUSTRY A DVISERS: GENERATING SOLUTIONS .............................................................................440
D.7 INDUSTRY A DVISERS: PRIORITIZING SOLUTIONS ............................................................................444
D.8 GOVERNMENT A DVISERS: GENERATING SOLUTIONS......................................................................456
D.9 GOVERNMENT A DVISERS: PRIORITIZING SOLUTIONS.....................................................................468

14

Chapter One

Introduction

1. Introduction
1.1 The Problem
Each year in Australia there are approximately 650,000 workplace injuries (Industry
Commission 1995). Five-hundred of these injuries result in death and 160,000 involve
greater than five days lost time (Worksafe Australia 1995). In financial terms the
workers compensation bill is approximately $4,800M per annum (ABS 1995; 1993-94).
When allowing for the substantial indirect costs and also the many unreported injuries and
diseases, estimates of the total cost are much greater.

Worksafe Australia (1994)

suggested the figure could be as high as $37,000M (1992-93), while the Industry
Commission (1995) estimated the total cost to be around $20,000M (1992-93).

To place these figures in context, Australian Gross Domestic Product and the Gross Farm
Product were estimated at $430,000M and $12,000M respectively (ABS 1996; 1992-93).
The health and safety problem (based on $20,000M) can therefore be considered to be of
the order of five percent of GDP and greater in magnitude than the Gross Farm Product.

The sponsor of this research, the National Occupational Health and Safety
Commission (NOHSC or Worksafe Australia), directed the research toward the problem
of mechanical equipment injuries. The National Commission estimated that mechanical
equipment featured in over 80% of all work related fatalities and contributed to 28% of
compensible injuries (NOHSC 1990c). Mechanical equipment is therefore involved in 400
workplace deaths and probably contributes $5600M (based on $20,000M total) annually to
the cost of workplace injuries. Behind the economic losses obviously exists a considerable
burden of pain and suffering, especially considering the high involvement of mechanical
equipment features in workplace deaths. While small in number compared to the total
number of injuries, workplace fatalities obviously have a profound impact. In summary, it
is clear mechanical equipment injury contributes a sizeable legacy of pain, suffering and
economic loss and is an area where great improvement should be sought.

17

In the National Strategy for the Prevention of Mechanical Equipment Injury, the
NOHSC (1990c), outlined their approach to address this problem.

They highlighted

research priorities in the areas of legislation, education, management, and engineering and
technology interventions. The research here concentrated on engineering and technology
interventions; about which the National Commission said;

Research is needed on the development, implementation and evaluation of interventions

which:
facilitate research and development of new approaches to engineering/technology safety
measures and their incorporation into the design of equipment;
stimulate greater application of known engineering/technology safety measures in the
design or redesign of mechanical equipment, work processes, etc; and
increase application of known engineering/technology safety measures already in the
workplace. (NOHSC 1990c, p. 14.)

These research needs were distilled to two main themes;

1. the development of new safety measures; and
2. the application of existing safety measures.

The research described in this thesis focuses on these two themes, but is not limited to
mechanical equipment injury. The reasoning is that the methodologies for prevention of
mechanical equipment injury apply to a wide array of problems. In relation to this point,
the National Commission commented that ...many of the preventative measures
proposed in this strategy will also be applicable to other types of injury (NOHSC
1990c, p. 3).

Injury prevention measures should be aligned to the safe place model that underpins
current legislation in Australia and internationally, however efforts in the past have often
been preoccupied with behavioural strategies, or a safe person model. The safe person
way of thinking owes its origins to the unsafe act and unsafe condition model of accident
causation. Accident scenarios invariably implicated people and thus the unsafe act was
seen to be the dominant cause. However, as noted by the Industry Commission (1995),
encouraging safe behaviour is rarely an effective way to prevent injuries.
18

Only very limited, if any, control is possible by focussing on the behaviour of those who
may be injured. (Industry Commission 1995, p. xx)

Similarly, in the recently published standard for the Safeguarding of Machinery,

Standards Australia highlighted the misleading attention given to the role of unsafe acts
and the consequential concealment of opportunities for safe design.

Accidents with machines have often been attributed to unsafe acts, when a more
thorough study would have revealed a design deficiency which did not allow for typical
foreseeable human characteristics or behaviour. (Standards Australia 1996, AS4024.1, p.
12)

The alternative to the philosophy of encouraging safe behaviour, is to design the system to
minimise accidents, a course of action now referred to as safe place design. This way of
thinking, and the now familiar hierarchy of control, is a general methodology for tackling
health and safety problems. The emphasis for prevention is on employing controls that
eliminate hazards or maintain control over the hazards in a passive way. Passive control
implies the absence of reliance on the vigilance of people. As a consequence of the need
to design for people, ergonomics is now an integral part of the safe place approach.

The safe place ideal implies a vital role for engineers. Given their influence over design,
and the need for safety to be incorporated at the design stage, the education of engineers
in the principles of safety has been a priority for many years. For instance the UK report
known as the Robens Report said;

...professional engineering institutions could make their concern with the subject much
more explicit by including safety and health as an item in their syllabuses and
examinations (Committee on Safety and Health at Work 1972, p. 127)

In the United States, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, identified
the need for occupational health and safety in engineering studies (NIOSH 1984). They

19

recommended that engineering curricula feature required studies in occupational safety

and health as well as providing elective, and specialty options.

All undergraduate engineering curricula should include a required course that will
include instruction on the responsibilities of engineers for occupational safety and health
and an awareness of occupational safety and health engineering problems and solutions.
(NIOSH 1984, p. 28)

The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission in their National Education
and Training Strategy for Occupational Health and Safety (1993) made the
integration of occupational health and safety into all undergraduate and postgraduate
eduction one of its five goals. Clearly engineers are a key group to be targeted through
such a strategy.

[Goal:] To promote the integration of quality OHS into education and training for all
vocations and professions. (NOHSC 1993b, p. 6)

The Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEAust) emphasised the responsibility of engineers

for safety as a key ethical requirement. In its Code of Ethics (1994) the IEAust outlined
nine tenets of the ethical behaviour; the first of which stressed the importance of safety.

[Tenet One:] members shall at all times place their responsibility for the welfare, health
and safety of the community before their responsibility to sectional or private interests, or
to other members (The Institution of Engineers, Australia 1994, p. 3)

Since around 1980 a number of universities such as; Purdue University, and Ohio State
University, in the United States (Talty 1986); Delft University of Technology in the
Netherlands (Lemkowitz 1992); and the University of Ballarat here in Australia (Woolley
& Viner 1980) have begun the integration of safety topics with engineering studies.
Similarly in the United Kingdom the accreditation syllabus of the Institution of Chemical
Engineers has since 1983 required subjects on safety (Kletz 1990b). In addition, there
have been wider programs that aimed to facilitate the integration of safety and engineering
education. These have included the NIOSH (USA) Safety and Health Awareness for
20

Preventative Engineering program that began in the 1980s (Talty 1995) and more
recently, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commissions, OHS for Engineers
program (NOHSC 1990d).

While the integration of safety with engineering education is important, a number of

authors have commented that it has not been sufficiently widespread (NIOSH 1984;
Office of Technology Assessment 1985; Talty 1986; Kavianian 1989; NIOSH 1990; Hale
1994). It has been suggested that a barrier to integration of safety is the already crowded
nature of engineering curricula and the continued pressure for the inclusion of material
(Office of Technology Assessment 1985; Talty 1986).

While safety education for

engineers should remain a priority, there appear to be obstacles, at least in the short term,
to its full integration. The challenge for the work here was therefore to propose a
supplemental, innovative way of improving the ability of engineers to develop safe place
solutions.

The proposal is that while the importance of safety education for engineers is
unquestioned, there may be an application for education in creative thinking skills; skills
that apply not to safety specifically but to any area of work. This idea arose as it became
apparant that the thinking needed to apply the hierarchy of control process shares a
strong relationship with many of the principles of creative thinking. The high-order safe
place controls direct attention toward control at source. This is challenging as it involves
rethinking assumptions and re-examining hazardous work processes. Creative thinking
implies a similar approach, thinking outside the square. The role of creative thought
seems integral to the application of high-order hazard controls.

Together with a seemingly natural role in prevention, creative thinking now seems to be
gaining prominence as an important industrial skill. For instance, management writers
have emphasised the need for innovation (Senge 1992) while the Australian
Manufacturing Council Secretariat said that 'Innovation will be the next source of
substantial growth' (AMC 1994, p. 1). The AMC predicted (Figure 1-1) that innovation
represents the phase that will follow past sources of improvement such as cost and more
21

recently quality and service. Should they be accurate, innovation will shortly be a topic
of interest in Australian industry at a level equivalent to that of quality in the 1980s and
early 1990s.

Figure 1-1 Sources of Performance Improvement and Growth

(adapted from AMC 1994)

Similarly, the review of engineering education, Changing the Culture: Engineering

education into the future, commissioned by The Institution of Engineers Australia, the
Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, and the Australian Council of
Engineering Deans, stressed the need for creative thinking skills.

There is a need for the introduction into courses at an early stage of greater attention to
problem solving and the encouragement of creativity and innovation - knowing when
analysis stops and synthesis starts. (IEAust, ATSE & EACED 1996, p. 7)

It seems that techniques for creative thinking therefore may accord with a current
industrial need for innovation and a recognised need for these skills in engineering
education.

22

1.2 The Problem Summary

Improved safety relies on the application of the safe place design principle. Engineers
appear best positioned to achieve safe place design and so the enhancement of safety
studies in engineering education has been a priority, and this focus should be maintained.
However, given that the integration of safety with engineering education has been
problematic, the challenge is to investigate a supplemental and innovative way to improve
engineers ability to design for safety.

1.3 Aim
To investigate an innovative way of improving the ability of engineers to design for safety.

1.4 Hypothesis
The hypothesis is that training in creative thinking methods will be an effective way to
improve the ability of engineers to design for safety.

1.5 Objectives
To establish the model of prevention that would be effective for engineers to employ.
To establish what training can be employed to improve creative thinking of engineers.
To design a methodology to test the hypothesis, including selecting a technique for
implementation and developing a way to assess safety design in terms of the themes of
development and application of solutions.
To implement the research and report the results.

23

Chapter Two

Accident Prevention

26

2. Accident Prevention
The theory of the prevention of injury now gives priority to a concept known as control at
source.

For some time it has been established through common law that it is an

employers duty to establish and maintain a safe plant, premises, and a safe system.
Nowadays these responsibilities are outlined by legislation. While a safe system has been
required, the core meaning of what characterises such a system is best emphasised by the
importance that le gislation now accords the notion of hazard management. Control of
hazards at source has been clearly expressed by legislation in many parts of the world. In
particular the United States legislation from 1970 and more recent Australian legislation,
such as the Western Australian, Victorian and South Australian Acts, made the priority of
hazard control very clear.

Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of
employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to
cause death or serious physical harm to his employee.
(Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (USA) s.5.(a)(1), emphasis added)

The employer shall take all precautions necessary to prevent the employee from being
exposed to health hazards or accident risks.
(Work Environment Act 1977) (Sweden 1994), ch. 3 s. 2, emphasis added)

The objects of this Act are to reduce, eliminate, and control the hazards to which
persons are exposed at work
(Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (W.A.) s.5.(d), emphasis added)

The objects of this Act are to eliminate, at the source, risks to the health, safety and
welfare of persons at work
(Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 (Vic.) s.6.(d), emphasis added)

The chief objects of this Act are to eliminate, at the source, risks to the health, safety and
welfare of persons at work
(Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 (S.A.) s.3.(b), emphasis added)

The attention given to control at source represents a model of prevention known as the
safe place approach. The extreme alternative is the safe person approach where people
27

are encouraged to behave safely in a hazardous environment. Atherley (1975; 1978)

seemed to be the first to employ the terms safe place and safe person.

Safe place strategies aim at eradicating danger by seeking safe premises, safe plant, safe
processes, safe equipment, safe materials, safe systems of work, safe access to work,
adequate supervision and competent and trained people.
Safe person strategies aim at protecting certain people from danger by care of the
vulnerable (pregnant women, the disabled and young persons); personal hygiene;
provision, use and misuse of personal protection equipment; careful actions for safety of
self and others on the part of people at work in danger; and caution towards danger
generally.
(Atherley 1975, p. 54)

Atherley (1978) later defined the terms much more generally and said that safe place
strategies place emphasis on the control of the work place whereas safe person strategies
attempt to control the individual. Later authors such as the National Occupational Health
and Safety Commission (NOHSC 1991d), in their program for introducing health and
safety to undergraduate engineering students, and Stranks (1994) adopted the safe place /
safe person terminology.

The term safe place refers to the design of workplaces, processes and operations which
are intrinsically safe, that is, safety of persons within the workplace does not rely on
appropriate behaviour patterns. The term 'safe person' refers to the reliance on people's
behaviour for their safety. (NOHSC 1990d, p. 19, emphasis added)

Accident prevention strategies should thus be directed at, first, bringing about a
reduction in the objective danger in the workplace, and second, increasing the perception
of risk on the part of individual workers. This is brought about, in the first case. by the use
of safe place strategies, and in the second case, by safe person strategies...
(Stranks 1994, p. 144, emphasis added)

28

In summary, the safe place model underpins current legislation in Australia and in many
other countries. However its primacy has not always been so evident and even today
there is strong adherence to the safe person philosophy. The progress in thinking has
clearly been from a historically dominant safe person model to a situation today where that
model is questioned and the safe place approach is given greater credibility. Given that
over time the thinking has changed from the safe person to the safe place philosophy it is
natural to begin this chapter by discussing safe person way of thinking; its history and
problems.

2.1 The Safe Person Approach

The safe person approach to prevention is based on a premise that individual people are
able to avoid accidents by appropriate behaviour. This approach retains its strong appeal
among the general population and with some involved in specialist safety roles. However
there is a growing core of opinion attesting to the unjustifiable focus on unsafe acts and
the consequential attention given to behavioural modification as an effective strategy.
Similarly, among safety writers there is a common rejection of the accident proneness
theory. While rejecting the basis of the safe person model, many writers also point toward
the misguiding influence this type of thinking has on preventative efforts. These issues are
explored in the following pages.

2.1.1 Unsafe Acts and Unsafe Conditions: Unjustifiable Categories

Much of the focus of the prevention of injury from the mid 1800s to the early 1900s was
concerned with the guarding of machinery. Given the great problems with machinerybased injuries it became customary to view the causes of accidents in the machinery or
non-machinery dichotomy (for example; Stephenson 1926; Viteles 1932; Watkins &
Dodd 1940). These terms seemed to be the foundation for a model later known as,
unsafe acts or unsafe conditions (for example; Vernon 1936; Heinrich 1941; Denton
1982; Watson 1986; Stranks 1994).

The unsafe acts and unsafe conditions model seems to have had a powerful influence on
the thinking in safety. Part of this acceptance may be attributable to the popularity of the

29

work of Herbert W. Heinrich. Heinrich, an engineer working for an insurance company

in the USA in the 1920s, studied 75,000 reports of accidents gained from insurance files
and industrial records. In 1931 Heinrich first published Industrial Accident Prevention;
a text based on his findings from the analysis of the accident reports. Heinrichs (1941)
domino model (Figure 2-1) of the five factors that he thought represented the accident
process has since become very popular. The five factors considered were as follows.

1. Ancestry and social environment.

2. Fault of person.
3. Unsafe act and/or unsafe mechanical or physical hazard.
4. Accident.
5. Injury.
(The Five Factors in the Accident Sequence, Heinrich 1941)

(1) Industrial injuries result only from accidents, (2) accidents are caused directly only by
(a) the unsafe acts of persons or (b) exposure to unsafe mechanical conditions, (3) unsafe
acts and conditions are caused only by faults or persons, and (4) faults of persons are
created by environment or acquired by inheritance. (Heinrich 1959, p. 4)

Figure 2-1 The Injury is Caused by the Action of Preceding Factors (Heinrich 1941)

According to Heinrich, the accident process was sequential. One factor lead to another
and so on until the injury occurred. The dominoes represented this sequential and causal
relationship.

Heinrich thought that the central factor, and the key, to the accident

sequence was the unsafe act or unsafe condition. As mentioned above, at the time
Heinrich developed the model, this type of dichotomy in the cause of accidents was very
common.

30

Within the sphere of this model it has been a well-entrenched perception that unsafe acts
are the primary accident cause. Heinrichs study of accident reports found that 88% of
accidents were the result of unsafe acts and 10% the result of unsafe conditions.
Heinrich found that the remaining two percent were unpreventable and without apparent
cause. From these statistics Heinrich centred preventative efforts on the unsafe act.

The unsafe acts of persons are responsible for the majority of accidents.
(Heinrich 1941, p. 12)

The general idea around the time of this work was that much had been accomplished with
machinery safeguards and that the remaining, and growing problem, was with unsafe acts.
It may be that Hienrichs analysis simply became evidence for a way of thinking
widespread at the time. As evidence of the thinking of that time consider Eastmans
comments from 1910. Eastman wrote a report based on the Pittsburgh Survey; a survey
that examined fatalities in the district over a one year period. The resulting text chronicled
the stories of the fatalities, the law, and family issues of a year of destruction mainly in the
infamous railroad, mining, and steel industries.

Eastmans characterisation of the

archetypical response of an industrial manager shows how she found the victim blaming
paradigm embedded among managers.

So youve come to Pittsburgh to study accidents, have you? says the superintendent, or
the claim agent, or the general manager, as the case may be. Well, Ive been in this
business fifteen years and I can tell you one thing right now,-95 per cent of our accidents
are due to the carelessness of the man who gets hurt. Why, you simply wouldnt believe the
things theyll do. For instance, I remember a man,-and he goes on to relate the most
telling incident he knows, to prove his assertion. (Eastman 1910, p. 84)

Eastman (1910) stood apart as a sceptic among many writers who appeared certain that
victims were the main source of the problems. For instance, Stephenson (1926) and
Watkins and Dodd (1940) made the following comments.

To sum up, much has been done towards accident-prevention by the use of mechanical
safeguards, and a little more may possibly be accomplished by this means. ... The problem
of accident-prevention to-day is largely a psychological one. Much may be done by

31

education and propaganda, still more, probably, by scientific selection. (Stephenson

1926, p. 200)

If complete information were available, we should probably find that the greater number
of accidents in industrial communities is caused, not by the absence of adequate
safeguards, but by negligence, carelessness, want of instruction, want of thought, and a
lack of appreciation of the dangers involved in the complex and intricate machine
processes in modern industry. ...The workman himself, by his carelessness, may be
responsible for a large percentage of accidents, or the negligence of his fellow workmen
may be an equally accountable factor... accidents depend in the main on carelessness and
lack of attention of the workers.
(Watkins & Dodd 1940, p. 340-341,)

The following quotes from the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s illustrate how the perception of
the role of unsafe behaviour in accident causation then continued.

The 'unsafe attitude' is the most serious problem in accident prevention...

(Scott 1953, emphasis added)

Good industrial accident records may be marred by personal carelessness or lack of

cooperation. Irresponsible, inconsiderate, absent-minded, or incompetent drivers cause
more accidents than mechanical failure, highway conditions, or weather factors.
(Blasingame, in The American Public Health Association 1961, p. xx, emphasis added)

... [the] five main causes of accidents which kill approximately 20,000 people each year in
Britain ... were selfishness, lack of interest in others, inefficiency, bravado, and
carelessness ... [and] it was vitally important to train young people to realise the necessity
of adjusting themselves to their environment and their equipment. (Porritt 1965, p. 5,
emphasis added)

... Heinrich informed us of what is now painfully obvious and simple truth-that people, not
things, cause accidents. (Petersen 1978, p. 15, emphasis added)

...we also know today that his [Heinrich's] concept was meaningful and extremely valid.
People are the primary cause of accidents. (Petersen 1984, p. 5, emphasis added)

32

In fact safety statistics suggest that 85% ... can be attributed to unsafe behaviour alone.
(Watson 1986, p. 20, emphasis added)

Recently it has been demonstrated in Australian surveys of workers that the conviction
about the role of unsafe behaviour remains entrenched. Biggins, Phillips and OSullivan
(1988), Biggins and Phillips (1991) and Gaines and Biggins (1992) conducted surveys of
workers in various states of Australia and showed a perpetuation of the careless worker
theory. The surveys showed that approximately 50% of their study groups (98 health and
safety representatives in Western Australia, 125 workers undergoing health and safety
training in Queensland, and 82 workers undergoing health and safety training in the
Northern Territory, respectively) believed worker carelessness was the main cause of
accidents. An earlier evaluation of health and safety representative training by Else &
Cowley (1987) found similar views. A survey commissioned by Worksafe Australia
recently found that when asked to nominate the main cause of accidents, about 50% of a
sample of 2000 working age people across Australia nominated lack of training or
education or worker carelessness (ANOP 1995). Likewise a recent study of health and
safety representatives in South Australia (Culvenor, Cowley & Else 1996) found that
many of the 400 respondents (from a sample of 1200) indicated strong agreement that
factors such as carelessness and lack of training in how to behave safely were
important causes of accidents at their workplace. These surveys show that the victimblaming paradigm remains strong among the general community and among health and
safety representatives.

In summary, accident causation has been viewed through the spectacles of the unsafe act
or unsafe condition model. Within this model, unsafe acts has been considered by many
to make up the great majority of the problem. This is evident from the comments made by
writers in safety, through the surveys mentioned above, and indeed in popular culture such
as in discussions of safety in newspaper and television reports.

While still well believed in popular circles and even among workers involved in health and
safety such as health and safety representatives, many authors have questioned

33

Heinrichs focus on unsafe acts and the usefulness of the classification of accidents with
this model (for example; NSC 1959; ILO 1961; Blake 1953; Hammer 1976; ILO 1983).

In most industrial accidents, both an unsafe condition and unsafe act are contributing
factors. ... It must be remembered, however that an unsafe condition, in addition to being a
direct cause of accidents in itself, often can lead people to perform unsafe acts. Many
times, an unsafe act is the result of poor machine design, inadequately planned method,
and other engineering deficiencies.
Experience shows that when an injury occurs, the unsafe condition often is not as
glaringly evident as the unsafe act. Unless a careful study is made of the accident
occurrence, the correctible physical hazard may escape notice.
Elimination of a hazard due to an unsafe condition removes one of the accident-causing
factors, and thereby reduces the likelihood of injury from an unsafe act. (NSC 1959, p. 44)

The ILO proposed that a reworking of accident reports could easily result in reversal of
claims about the ratio of unsafe act/unsafe condition statistics.

An accident is very seldom due to solely to unsafe behaviour. As already stated, accidents
are usually caused by a group of circumstances; one of these may be unsafe behaviour, but
in all probability unsafe conditions are present as well, and so it would be equally
justifiable to classify the accident as due to unsafe mechanical or physical conditions.
(ILO 1961, p. 25)

Blake (1963) said that invariably both a poor condition and an unsafe act occur leading up
to an accident, but all too frequently the unsafe behaviour is the centre of attention.

... in each case of injury both the factor of hazard and that of faulty behaviour are
inescapably present... Too often, however, these fundamentals are over-looked and sole
attention is given to the unsafe act. (Blake 1963, p. 56)

In the report titled Bitter Wages: Ralph Naders Study Group Report on Disease and
Injury on the Job, Page and OBrien (1973) commented that the unsafe behaviour model
is a hoax with little real basis.

34

One of the most persistent of the arguments mounted against broad federal involvement in
the struggle against work accidents and diseases emerged from the notion that the
overwhelming majority of job injuries result from worker carelessness; therefore, the
proper and better approach to occupational safety is to educate employees, rather than
impose mandatory standards on employers.
Some companies have gone to great lengths in their efforts to teach safety and motivate
workers to be careful...
A closer look [at statistics] reveals that the worker-carelessness theory is a hoax. It is a
version of the nut behind the wheel argument used in the unsuccessful attempt to stop
legislation giving the federal government authority to impose performance standards
upon automobiles. As hoary as the work safety movement itself, the worker-carelessness
argument has a very shaky basis in reality. Although one cannot deny that some work
accidents are causally related to worker carelessness, this does not mean that they all are.
Nor does it mean that the frequency and severity of these accidents cannot be
substantially reduced by designing the work environment and work practices to take
human failings into account. (Page & OBrien 1973, pp. 145-146)

Johnson (1973), in his text on risk management, suggested that behind many so-called
unsafe acts lie a lack of human factors in design.

Experience indicates that accidents previously attributed to unsafe acts are often
reduced after human factors review and correction.

This implies that the previous

description of unsafe acts was largely incorrect, and that we really had an errorprovocative situation, and therefore an unsafe condition. (Johnson 1973, p. 273)

In his text on accident prevention and engineering, Hammer (1976) commented that
reclassification of Heinrichs data could easily result in a reversal of ratio of unsafe acts to
unsafe conditions. Hammer wrote that '...until a few years ago it was considered that
if a man was involved in an accident it was probably his fault.. Hammer illustrated
his point with the example that plane crashes were once generally blamed on pilot error.
Hammer said that this perception was difficult to justify when the Armed Services
investigated crashes of ballistic missiles that had no pilot to blame; they therefore
concluded that the design systems were inadequate.

In his 1991 review and overview of safety concepts, Thomas indicated that Hienrichs
model had been useful in many ways but had a fundamental weakness in its terminology.
35

Much good work resulted from the use of this model. Its weakness is the result of the use of
the highly subjective word unsafe. (Thomas 1991, p. 100)

The word unsafe is subjective and thus can be self perpetuating. A person is always
present at some point in the failure that leads to an accident and often the person most
proximate in time and in space is the victim. Beginning an accident investigation with the
unsafe act model in mind invariably implicates a person (normally the victim) in the cause.
Thus the unsafe act paradigm is self-perpetuating. Given a perception that unsafe acts
cause accidents, it follows that this label is simple to ascribe to virtually all accidents. This
is the case not only in occupational accidents but has been a common flaw in thinking
about road accidents, as Ralph Nader indicated.

Today almost every program is aimed at the driver-at educating him, exhorting him,
watching him, judging him, punishing him, compiling records about his driving
violations, and organizing him in citizen support activities. Resources and energy are
directed into programs of enforcement, traffic laws, driver education, driver licensing,
traffic courts, and vehicle inspection. The reasoning behind this philosophy of safety can
be summarized in this way: Most accidents are in the class of driver fault; driver fault is in
the class of violated traffic laws; therefore, observance of traffic laws by drivers would
eliminate most accidents.
(Nader 1965, p. 235)

There is considerable doubt about the usefulness of attributing accidents to an unsafe act
alone, or an unsafe condition alone. Within such a framework the attribution of a great
many accident to unsafe acts has been largely arbitrary. As a consequence, the model is
rejected in many circles and considered an unhelpful tool for prevention.

36

2.1.2 Safe Behaviour Promotions: The Myth of the Careless Worker

The accident prevention literature from the early 1900s focussed heavily on the
promotion of safe-behaviour (for example; Stephenson 1926; Vernon 1936; Watkins &
Dodd 1940; Heinrich 1941).

This was a natural extension of the belief that unsafe

behaviour lead to most accidents.

As mentioned, Heinrich suggested that the unsafe act or unsafe condition was the central
factor in the accident sequence. The theory of prevention that followed was then to
remove the central factor to interrupt the sequence (Figure 2-2).

Figure 2-2 The Removal of the Central Factor Makes the

Action of Preceding Factors Ineffective (Heinrich 1941)

Tracing the dominoes backward it was believed that unsafe acts were causally linked to
faults of persons created by environmental conditioning (learned behaviour) or acquired by
inheritance. The means to prevention were then two fold; one of weeding out those who
had an inherited accident-proneness (discussed later) and secondly by behaviour and
attitude change programs. Scott (1953), in a brief commentary about attitude problems,
warmed to the risk homoeostasis theory when he maintained that improving environmental
conditions should be avoided as it may worsen the safety situation by creating an illusion
of safety and thus lead to a less alert attitude and hence more accidents! There was a
great belief among many commentators such as Vernon (below), a psychologist, and
Blasingame (below), then president of the AMA, that maintaining a safe state of mind
would be useful in preventing accidents.

37

Everyone is bound to be exposed almost every day to risk of accident in the home and on
the roads, while a part of the population is exposed to additional risks in factories, coal
mines and other places. No one can possibly keep himself always at the maximum degree
of alertness and attention, and it inevitably follows that when attention relaxes liability to
accident increases.

Everyone should therefore endeavour to acquire the habit of

increasing his alertness at time when specially exposed to risk, and this habit is best
acquired by long-continued education. The earlier in life this is begun the more effective
is likely to be.

The safety habit should become to some extent instinctive and

subconscious, so that exposure to a risk results in the potential victims taking almost
automatically the appropriate steps to avoid it. (Vernon 1936, p. 325)

The physician is also challenged by the psychological aspects of accident prevention. He

is conscious of his responsibility to help control the effects of anxiety, frustration, sorrow,
depression, compulsions, confusion, fear, rage, or resentment on the individuals
judgement and coordination, whether at the wheel, afoot, or while working or playing
about the home, or on the farm. (Blasingame, in The American Public Health Association
1961, p. xx)

More recent writers now tend to point out that changing behaviour is really more central
to the argument than the changing of attitudes. Consequently recent journal articles have
promoted schemes that use training or coaching to hopefully change behaviour and thus
avoid accidents (for example; Grummon and Stilwell 1984; Watson 1986; Ashton 1994;
Hidley and Krause 1994; Geller 1995).

These authors have suggested that unsafe

behaviours be identified, corrected and monitored by training and coaching. Grummon and
Stilwell (1984) actually promoted teasing as an accident prevention measure. They
suggested that teasing will prevent unsafe acts by engendering peer pressure to be safe.

The thinking behind behaviour and attitude safety programs is that promotion will lead to a
subsequent motivation to be safer. Posters are a common example of attempting to
reduce accidents by simply promoting the safety cause.

38

Figure 2-3 Safety Poster Competition Third-Prize

Winner, UK National Coal Board (Wood 1965)

Figure 2-4 WorkCovers Current Safety Slogan (WorkWords, no. 18, 1996)

Figure 2-3, a prize winner among 2,390 entries in a safety poster competition organised by
the National Coal Board in the United Kingdom in 1962 (Wood 1965), and Figure 2-4, the
similar slogan currently promoted by the WorkCover Corporation here in Victoria,
represent most succinctly the technique of encouraging a safe mindset as a means to
prevention. Unfortunately the older poster shows a picture of a worker; implying the
importance of their conscious effort. The more recent poster is hopefully directed at
management level. This would certainly be in keeping with todays legislation however
there is nothing in the promotion to indicate that management is the target and it thus could
be mistakenly construed as a call for workers to work safely.

As noted above, a number of research studies have shown that there is a strong
perception that worker behaviour is the cause of accidents (refer to section 2.1.1; Else &
Cowley 1987; Biggins, Phillips and OSullivan 1988; Biggins and Phillips 1991; Gaines and

39

Biggins 1992; Culvenor, Cowley & Else 1996). From such a belief stems a strong
temptation to employ exhortations and encouragement in the hope that workers can be
made to modify their behaviour. However, Kinnersly (1973) and Mathews (1986; 1993),
whose work became standard texts for workplace health and safety representatives in the
United Kingdom and Australia respectively, ridiculed schemes that aimed to achieve
prevention by attempting to encourage safe behaviour rather than addressing the
environment.

Kinnersly said that the schemes address the problems too late.

'Exhortations and posters start to fly after the ill-conceived work system has been
set up and accepted as quite normal. (1973, p. 196) while Mathews (1986) derided
bonus schemes that purport to encourage safe behaviour with some kind of reward.
Mathews related an example of how one scheme relied on the incentive of a free chicken
as an enticement for a period of no lost-time accidents. These kind of schemes seem
absurd. If someone was in control of their own injuries (as per the unsafe act theory),
how would a free chicken possibly significantly add to the incentive of not losing a
personal body part? Kinnersly and Mathews attributed such schemes to the myth of the
careless worker.

It is possible to draw some parallels with these approaches in occupational safety to those
in public health and safety. For some time, commentators have noted that the vagueness
and myths surrounding disease hampered the development of reliable public health
interventions (for example; Rapoport 1961; Haddon 1973a; Wigglesworth 1978). Both
Haddon and Wigglesworth drew examples from the times of the European plague where
there was thought to be a link between the disease and the loose morals and emotions of
the victims. For instance a German physician recommended avoiding emotions of the
mind such as jealousy, anger, hatred, sadness, horror or fear, licentiousness, and so on,
while some regulations in Germany, in the 1500s prohibited immoral behaviours such as
gambling, drinking and cursing (NOHL 1926). These controls were obviously wrongly
directed as we now know that the disease was controlled by focussing on the control of
bacteria, mainly by better sanitation.

Like earlier writers above, Kjelln and Hovden (1993) recently commented that accidents
were often viewed as being a fatalistic predisposition of people with an inherent fault.
40

In older days, accidents were often viewed as being outside the scope of human control,
i.e., they were determined by fate or were a punishment of sins and lack of moral
standards. (Kjelln & Hovden 1993, p. 418)

However odd the plague stories sound now there are parallels with approaches today.
For instance, the Victorian Traffic Accident Commission (TAC) use violent images of the
supposed consequences of the lack of concentration and impatience when driving.
Their relationship between emotions such as impatience and road crashes seems similar to
the notion that bad morals once caused major plagues. Nohl (1926) described the story of
a servant in plague-ridden Germany who contravened regulations, subsequently contracted
the disease and then died before being punished. To send a message to others she was
supposedly exhumed, executed, and then burnt, after her death. While this story is rather
extreme, the principle is not unlike modern day efforts to chastise people for their
behaviour. This way of thinking seems to be popular and may appeal to a sense of
righteousness and punishment, but the link to the reduction of injury is illogical and
unsubstantiated. In a review of the relationship between insurance and prevention, Luntz
(1994) said that although there is strong community support, and a community perception
that the TAC campaigns are successful, in terms of the simultaneous reductions in the
road toll while the campaign has been running; '...it cannot be shown conclusively that
the advertising campaign has been causally relevant.

Ralph Nader, a road safety enthusiast, who has arguably done more to influence safety in
automobile design than any other individual, described how the National Safety Council in
the United States continually berated drivers for the behaviour in the hope that this would
prevent accidents, much like the predictions given great credibility on news programs now.

While the AAA may occasionally raise a voice that is displeasing to the automobile
industry, that hub of the safety movement, the National Safety Council, remains the
unswerving keeper of the traditional faith. Almost everyone in America has heard the
councils repeated injunction that to be safe one simply has to be careful. Before every
holiday weekend, the council makes its highly publicized prediction of the number of
highway deaths. Should the prediction be exceeded, it shows how important are the

41

councils warnings against carelessness; if the prediction exceeded the actual toll, then
the council concludes that its warning made people drive more carefully. Either outcome
serves to nourish the councils image of always being on the side of the angels. The
council gets enormous publicity as the nations caretaker of traffic safety. Since its
founding in 1915, the council has saturated the country with slogans, printed material,
and broadcasted exhortations for safer driving. It has helped to form state and local
safety councils, accrediting seventy-two of them as council affiliates, all devoted to
persuading the public to drive carefully. This may be a generally useless endeavor but it
is not a harmless one. What seems to fill a need in form succeeds very well in excluding
alternative methods that could fill it in fact.
(Nader 1965, p. 261, emphasis added)

It could be said that there remains unreasonable attention given to the culpability of
workers for their own injuries. Recent surveys show a strong belief in this way of
thinking. Similarly, public efforts in road safety seem to reinforce this approach. It could
not be said though that the model of bad worker behaviour and the subsequent
encouragement of good behaviour is a very competent application of occupational
legislation throughout Australia. Whether effective or not, and I would argue not, it needs
to be recognised that this approach does not coincide with what the law requires.

2.1.3 Accident-Proneness: A Case of Mistaken Identity

Along with learnt reckless behaviour, it was thought that some unsafe acts could be traced
back to unchangeable psychological traits. This theory labelled workers with apparently
higher than normal accident rates as accident prone. Given that it was an apparently
unchangeable inherited characteristic, the problem was thought to be best handled by
avoiding the employment of this type of person. The theory finds little support now.

Powell, Hale, Martin and Simon (1971) investigated over 2000 workshop accidents in the
United Kingdom and found that personal characteristics had little to do with accident
rates.

Cronins (1971) study of 1800 industrial accidents showed no relationship between age of
employee even though attributing high accident rates to young and old people was popular
at the time (and continues to be popular).
42

Leigh (1986) studied accident data gained from around 5000 subjects in national surveys in
the USA in 1978 and 1979 to examine the relative importance of individual and job
characteristics in accident prediction. Through analysis of the data Leigh concluded; The
results suggest that job characteristics are better predictors of industrial accidents
than personal characteristics (Leigh 1986, p. 216). That is, the job environment and
system are predictors of accidents rather than the personal features of the victim.

Mohr and Clemmers (1988) study of the work history records of about 1000 workers in
the offshore (US) oil industry found little evidence that the study of accident proneness
was a useful accident prevention measure. They commented 'From the results of the
present and cited studies it is unlikely that overall injury rates in the workplace can
be effectively reduced by screening out workers with excessive numbers of injuries
in any given time period despite the intuitive appeal of this approach (Mohr &
Clemmer 1988, p. 127).

If accident proneness was real, human resource managers would have the task of making
this selection. An examination of human resource texts indicates that human resource
specialists generally agree that they have no way to measure the phenomenon (for
example; Sikula 1976; Robbins, Low & Mourell 1986; Schuler, Dowling & Smart 1988).
Sikula (1976) agreed with many safety writers that attribution of accidents to accident
proneness is a statistical misunderstanding that has retarded the progress of accident
analysis.

Evidence seems to disagree with Heinrichs assertion that inherited personal

characteristics are related to accident rates. MacIver (1961) many years ago commented
that accident proneness was then discredited as a useful tool in accident prevention.
Many authors since have suggested that blaming people with an apparent overrepresentation in accidents is a sham based on statistical misunderstanding (for example;
Energy Research and Development Administration 1977; Kletz 1990c). Kletz illustrated
the potential for being mislead by accident statistics with the following example.

43

Assuming 100 accidents per year were distributed randomly among 200 workers at a
single factory, the Poisson equation predicts that 121 people will have no accidents, 61 will
have one accident, 15 will have two accidents, and 3 will have three or more accidents.

The mean accident rate per person is 0.5 per year. It is simple then to be mislead by the
fact that three people have had six times the average number of accidents, and that 10%
of the workforce had 40% of the accidents. These type of statistics are true but indicate
incorrectly that theres something accident prone about these people. There is nothing
different about these people as the accident rates are merely the result of chance.

In summary many writers have dismissed the accident-prone worker theory (for
example; MacIver 1961; McFarland & Moore 1961; Suchman & Scherzer 1964;
International Labour Organisation 1971; Wigglesworth 1984).

Often it has been

suggested that the misdirected attention directed toward accident-prone personality in

accident rates is due to a misunderstanding of statistics (MacIver 1961; McFarland &
Moore 1961; ERDA 1977; Kletz 1990c). Furthermore one could easily draw a parallel
between the study of accidents and the study of quality where Edwards Deming (1982)
went to pains to explain the fallacy of rewarding and punishing staff based on similar
statistical ignorance.

44

2.1.4 Beginning from Inherent Hopelessness

Accident:
an undesirable or unfortunate happening; casualty; mishap
anything that happens unexpectedly, without design or by chance
the operation of chance
a non-essential circumstance; occasional characteristic
(The Macquarie Dictionary 1985)

The popular, or dictionary-based, definitions of accident quote words like unexpected,

unintentional, damage and chance. Scientific or professional definitions are often not the
same as popular definitions. For instance terms like stress and strain have particular
meanings to engineers and different meanings to the general population.

A scan of the terminology employed in the definition of accident from a variety of safety
literature over a wide time span shows that unplanned, unintended and unexpected are
often used to describe the phenomena of accidents (Table 2-1).

Many scientific

definitions thus conform to the popular (dictionary) definition.

Accident Definitions

Source

Unplanned

Heinrich 1941; Blake 1963; Wigglesworth 1972; James

1983; Bamber 1994; West 1994; Stranks 1994

Unintended

Blake 1963; Yellman 1987; NSC 1990; Stranks 1994

Uncontrolled

Heinrich 1941

Unexpected

Kuhlmann 1986; Bamber 1994; West 1994; Stranks 1994

Undesirable

Harms-Ringdahl 1993

Sudden

Berman & McCrone 1943

Table 2-1 Terminology in Accident Definitions

45

The view that accidents are not planned encouraged a very narrow view of accident
causation. Notably, while Stranks employed the terminology listed above (Table 2-1), he
emphasised that accidents are unforeseen by the victim. Thereby implying that those with
a wider understanding of the hazards with which the victim is associated, for example
management, should have the ability to foresee, predict and so on.

Haddon, Suchman and Klein (1964) commented that much of the thinking about accident
causation is bound in folklore rather than systematic thinking.

It is not uncommon, for example, to encounter physicians, lawyers, economists, and other
men whose training has involved analytical thinking and the continuous search for cause
who believe that accidents are "acts of God" that "just happen," and that "lightning never
strikes twice", that accidents are as uncontrollable as the weather; that, in short,
accidents somehow mysteriously defy any kind of systematic study beyond mere
tabulation.
(Haddon, Suchman & Klein 1964, p. 6, emphasis added)

As Brauer (1990) discussed in the text for engineering students, Safety and Health for
Engineers, the most obvious lack of science in accident analysis is in the use of terms
such as, unplanned, uncontrolled and unpredictable. Defining accidents as unpredictable
means that by definition there is no possibility of prediction; thus no possibility of control or
prevention. Similarly, Gibson suggested that the unpredictable approach is fatalistic.

Defined as a harmful encounter with the environment, an accident is a psychological

phenomenon, subject to prediction and control. But defined as an unpredictable event, it
is by definition uncontrollable. (Gibson 1961, p. 87)

If accidents are unpredictable, then they are also uncontrollable and unplannable.
Obviously this is not true and some authors point out the fatalism of considering accidents
to be unpredictable (for example; Gibson 1961; Bird & Loftus 1976b; Terry 1991).

Many authors, from an engineering standpoint, have lamented the lack of forethought by
engineers at the design stage. Engineers have a clear opportunity to thwart accidents via
user-friendly design; design sympathetic to humans rather than in conflict with humans.
46

Engineers have many opportunities to eliminate or reduce unsafe conditions. ... Engineers
also have many opportunities to minimize unsafe acts.
(Brauer 1990, p. 18, emphasis added)

Designers have a second chance, opportunities to go over their designs again, but not
operators ... Plants therefore should be designed, whenever possible, so that they are userfriendly ... so that they can tolerate departures from ideal performance by operators.
(Kletz 1990c, p. 3, emphasis added)

Nearly all accidents are caused by some event or physical phenomenon that was entirely
predictable at the design concept stage. The reasons as to why such obvious potential
hazards are not identified or catered for are numerous. However, all too often the reason
is we didnt think of it. (Terry 1991, p. 21, emphasis added)

... modification of products or the physical surroundings is the most effective strategy for
injury prevention. (Torell & Bremberg 1995, p. 71)

There is therefore substantial opinion that use of terms like unplanned, uncontrolled,
unpredicted and so on, in the definition of accident leave the process of planning for the
prevention of these accidents unplannable, uncontrollable and unpredictable. Furthermore
there is a recognition that many so-called unsafe acts are the result of design inadequacy
and thus designers are in the best position to minimise the opportunities for, and outcomes
of, operator mistakes.

2.1.5 Misguiding Preventative Action

Kinnersly (1973) claimed that careless worker theory causes workers to accept
responsibility for accidents and thus make little effort to encourage management to
improve systems. Many authors have suggested that management finds it convenient to
be absolved of responsibility if the blame or fault of an accident can be attributed to
someone else, often the victim (for example; Kinnersly 1973; Wigglesworth 1978; Kletz
1985; Cohen & Cohen 1991). Kletz, an engineer and well-known writer in safety, wrote
that attributing accidents to human failing is ...comforting for managers. It implies that
there is little or nothing they can do to stop most accidents (1985, p. 1).

47

The main problem with the careless worker theory is that it points prevention efforts the
wrong way. In his discussion of accident causation within the overall framework of
industrial safety, Blake (1963) criticised Heinrich saying that the classification system he
used was an over simplification and 'had the very unfortunate effect of drawing
attention away from the even more important fact that the first and basic approach
to injury prevention is and always should be one of hazard reduction

or, if

possible, complete elimination (p. 60). The ILO (1983) concluded that the approach of
fixing blame on unsafe acts has done little in the area of prevention. 'The onus is often
incorrectly put on the worker, and the conditions that have resulted in the unsafe
act are not given full consideration.' (p. 103). The following comments from Chapanis
(1965), Emerson (1985), Kletz (1985), Office of Technology Assessment (1985), Hale
(1990a) and Thomas (1991) demonstrate a growing belief that the attention placed on
unsafe acts in the past has been harmful to the development of reliable solutions.

Accident statistics compiled by insurance companies on home, street, railway and industry
accidents are full of causes such as carelessness, faulty attitude, and inattention.
Although labels such as these appear to tell us something, they really don't. Everyone is
inattentive at some time or other, and to say that an accident was caused by
inattentiveness gives us no clue whatsoever about how we could have prevented it.
(Chapanis 1965, p. 9)

This human error fault concept provided the greatest impediment to the development of
safer design considerations because of the widespread belief that human error is the cause
of most accidents. Terms like unsafe act, unsafe condition after Heinrich and his ratio of
"88 human errors: to 10 design problems: to 2 acts of God" have retarded the thinking of
members of the safety profession in recent years.

A distressing number of safety

practitioners held the belief that human error caused most accidents. (Emerson 1985, p.
22)

Accidents are due to human failing. This is not untrue, merely unhelpful. (Kletz 1985, p.
2)

The traditional partition between unsafe acts and unsafe conditions unfortunately often
draws attention away from the job or equipment redesigns that can remove or minimize
hazards. (OTA 1985, pp. 70-71)

48

In other words behavioural rules cannot be used to patch over bad design decisions.
(Hale 1990a, p. 18)

This approach [unsafe acts and unsafe conditions] has bewildered the safety movement for
a long time, particularly when coupled with some early research work which indicated
the prime causes of industrial accidents as unsafe personal acts. This lead to undue
emphasis on safety training as the most appropriate remedy to the detriment of removing
hazards at their source by engineering means. (Thomas 1991, p. 100)

Ironically, Heinrich pointed to the weakness of behavioural controls.

In the same breath it can be truthfully said that although man failure causes the most
accidents, mechanical guarding and engineering revision are nevertheless important
factors in preventing most accidents. (Heinrich 1941, p. 18)

...the guarding of machines and hazards has been and always should be a fundamental of
a complete safety program. Incidentally, guarding and other action of an "engineeringrevision" nature often provide an immediate remedy even for accidents chiefly caused by
man failure. (Heinrich 1959, p. 34)

Kletz (1993) said that the notion of unsafe act or human error seems to contaminate
prevention to the point where it should not be listed as a cause at all when undertaking an
accident analysis. The most well-known studies to devalue the human error concept has
been those by Fitts and Jones in the late 1940s (Fitts & Jones 1961a; 1961b). Fitts and
Jones analysed errors by civilian and military pilots.

Five-hundred pilots returned

questionnaires related to control operation errors and instrument reading errors. The main
error types in the operation of controls (1961a) were substitution or wrong control
(50%), wrong adjustment (18%), forgetting or not operating a control (18%), and
reversal, unintentional activation or unable to reach (14%). Fitts and Jones (1961a)
concluded that more than 50% of the errors were related to a lack of uniformity in the
location and operation of controls. The errors in instrument reading (Fitts & Jones 1961b)
consisted of misreading multi-revolution indicators (18%), reversal errors (17%), signal
interpretation errors (14%), legibility errors (14%), substitution errors (13%), using
inoperative instruments (9%), and an assortment of other errors (15%).
49

All but the inoperative instrument errors could have been easily attributed to pilot error.
From this point a program of pilot training or maybe even discipline would have been
likely. However Fitts and Jones took quite the opposite approach.

Aircraft accidents usually are classified as due to pilot error, to materiel failure, to
maintenance, or to supervision, with a large proportion of all accidents attributed to the
pilot error category. It has been customary to assume that prevention of accidents due
to materiel failure or poor maintenance is the responsibility of engineering personnel and
that accidents due to errors of pilots or supervisory personnel are the responsibility of
those in charge of selection, training and operations. The present study was undertaken
from a different point of view; it proceeded on the assumption that a great many accidents
result directly from the manner in which equipment is designed and where it is placed in
the cockpit, and therefore can be eliminated by attention to human requirements in the
design of equipment. (Fitts & Jones 1961a, p. 336, emphasis added)

Based on military research into control design, Fitts and Jones made detailed explanations
of the types of redesign that could minimise the types of errors that had been common in
the past. In general they suggested that uniformity of controls, and natural direction
principles in the operation of the controls and instruments.

Substitution errors can be reduced by: (1) uniform pattern arrangement of controls; (2)
shape-coding of control knobs; (3) warning lights inside the appropriate feathering
button; and (4) adequate separation of controls. (Fitts & Jones 1961a, p. 333)

Reversal errors can be eliminated almost entirely by adherence to uniform and natural
directions of control movement. (Fitts & Jones 1961a, p. 333)

Further to their application of engineering solutions to human error problems Fitts and
Jones debunked some myths about the distribution of errors among the inexperienced or
accident prone. They found errors to be distributed across all age and experience
groups.

Practically all pilots of present-day Army Air Force aircraft, regardless of experience, or
skill, report that they sometimes make errors in using cockpit controls.

50

(Fitts & Jones 1961a, p. 333, emphasis added)

Instrument-reading errors are not confined to any single class or group of pilots or to any
particular experience level. (Fitts & Jones 1961b, p. 360, emphasis added)

Fitts and Jones (1961a; 1961b) demonstrated that defining an accident as due to human
error did not provide a reason to embark on training or attitude changing programs. Their
research clearly showed that accidents as a result of human error can be reliably
prevented by switching the focus back on to the design. Design can be used to prevent,
and mitigate the effects of, predictable human errors.

Nader (1965) placed similar attention for the prevention of road trauma firmly on the
makers of the motor cars and in the following quote drew support from the Federal
Highway Administrator of the time, who suggested that behaviour based programs have
the unfortunate effect of discouraging more reliable methods of prevention.

Perhaps the time has come, Mr. Whitten said, to examine some of our present safety
programs and some of our present safety concepts. The truth, as I see it, may be painful. ...
I am concerned about the great amount of energy being devoted to hard sell efforts to
reform the driver-to scare or shame him into being a better one. I believe we have
exhausted the value of this continuing assault on human nature. And I have grave doubts
that it works. ... In many cases havent we given the driver a task beyond the capacity of
his senses, nerves, and muscles? ...
WE must face up squarely to this premise: the majority of drivers and performing as well
as we can reasonably expect, under existing conditions. From that premise it is logical to
reason that the conditions must be changed-we must improve the road, the vehicle, and
the basic control measures of the system. (Nader 1965, p. 293 drawing on Rex Whitten,
US Federal Highway Administrator 1963, emphasis added)

... our attention is being distracted and our energy is being diverted from the essential
things we could and should be doing to reduce the traffic accident toll.
(Whitten, in Nader 1965, p. 293; emphasis added)

The absence of any positive value of behaviour-based programs is only part of the
problem. The continued promotion of the safe person approach hampers the strengthening

51

and implementation of safe place measures. Rather than being motivated to implement a
reliable safe place control, employers, employees, engineers, governments, and anyone
else, could be excused for continuing to be exasperated by the apparant unwillingness of
people to avoid injury.

2.1.6 Summary: Problems with the Safe Person Approach

The safe person strategy springs from the largely arbitrary classification of accidents as
unsafe acts or unsafe condition, with a bias toward unsafe acts. The emphasis on unsafe
acts has lead to campaigns focussing on either a dubious process of selecting-out accident
prone people or on changing individual behaviour. While these may appear to address the
problem, they make no actual change to the system and rely on the continuing active
vigilance of those at risk.

2.2 The Safe Place Approach

The safe place approach relies on a different set of definitions and methodologies to the
safe person approach. The safe place approach to prevention concedes that different
human behaviour may have avoided accidents, but that attempting to encourage this type
of appropriate behaviour to avoid further accidents is not as effective as improving the
safety of the system itself.

The safe place approach or the hazard management

approach to the prevention of accident rests on a number of key models and theories.

52

2.2.1 Control at Source

The concept behind the hierarchy of control is that the most effective means of hazard
control is to target the hazard source. This concept is now a key feature of occupational
health and safety legislation in Australia and in other countries. As mentioned above, the
United States legislation from the early 70s indicated that workplaces should be free of
hazards. More recent Australian legislation expresses the concept of control at source
explicitly (especially the Western Australian, Victorian and South Australian legislation).

The hierarchy of control stems from the study of occupational hygiene, where it became
customary to view the source of contamination as the hazard. The process was modelled
as; hazard source pathway receiver. Consequently it was realised that the most
effective prevention was to place the attention for control firmly on the hazard source
(Hamilton 1929). Hamilton, recognised as a pioneer figure in the establishment of the
hygiene profession, made it clear that controlling the source of the problem was the only
reliable way to preventing occupational diseases. Personal protection is usually near to
the last resort as it does not address the problem source and its reliability has been shown
to be poor. Personal protective equipment is also a lower order control as there is no
supplemental control for this method; there can be no back up as it is the last line of
defence.

According to Hamilton protective equipment was suitable for emergency

situations but not for every-day control.

If this [mode of entrance into the body] is by way of the inspired air, the prevention of
fumes and dust becomes the matter of first importance. Whatever money is available for
factory hygiene must be expended first on mechanisms to prevent poisoning of the air...A
mask, carefully selected for the particular poison against which protection is needed,
should be provided for emergency use, during short periods only, in all places where there
is danger of fumes or dust, but to place ones trust in masks for the continual protection of
men is simply to close ones eyes to unpleasant facts. (Hamilton 1929, p. 538, emphasis
added)

These sentiments are now echoed by various legislation, such as the Swedish Work
Environment Act 1977.

53

Personal protective equipment shall be used when adequate security from ill-health or
accidents cannot be achieved by other means.
(Work Environment Act 1977 (Sweden 1994), Ch. 2. S. 7)

From the hazard source pathway receiver model arose a systematic approach to
prevention known as the hierarchy of controls. Bloomfield (1936) and Brandt (1947)
outlined the following hierarchies for the management of occupational hygiene.

Early Hierarchies for the Prevention of Occupational Disease

Bloomfield (1936)

Brandt (1947)

1. Substitution of a non-toxic material for the toxic one.

1. Eliminating the sources of contamination

2. Isolation of the harmful process.

or reducing the amount

3. Wet methods in the case of some dusty processes.

2. Prevention of contaminant dispersion

4. Exhaust ventilation.

3. Protecting the worker

5. Respiratory protection.
Table 2-2 Early Hierarchies for the Prevention of Occupational Diseases

Bloomfield (1936) commented that the hierarchy is a general model for prevention rather
than a fixed set of specific rules.

No set rules may be established for the mechanical protection to be instituted in an

attempt to control an industrial poison. Specific conditions encountered in a plant will
determine the type of protection to be employed. In general there are five methods which
may be attempted in the minimization of an industrial poison... (Bloomfield 1936, p. 662)

The concept of control at source has been often illustrated by models such as Figure 2-5
and Figure 2-6. These are used to demonstrate more clearly the concept of the hazard
source, pathway and receiver. The pictorial models illustrate that placing a control near to
the source minimises the potential problem while barriers at the person are a last resort.

54

Figure 2-5 Source, Pathway, Receiver Model (from NSC 1971)

Figure 2-6 Conceptual Model of the Three Zones of

Influence to Control Workplace Hazards (US DHHS
NIOSH 1984)

In the post-war period there was much comment about the relationship between the
prevention of injury and established approaches in the area of occupational hygiene (for
example; McFarland & Moore 1961; Suchman 1961). Around this time discussion began
about the application of the hierarchy of control to injury prevention.

The engineer should include in his planning and follow-though such measures as will
attain one of the accident prevention goals listed as follows (in the order of effectiveness
and preference):

1. Elimination of the hazard from the machine, method, material, or plant structure.
2. Guarding or otherwise minimising the hazard at its source if the hazard cannot be
eliminated.
3. Guarding the person of the operator through the use of personal protective equipment
if the hazard cannot be eliminated or guarded at its source.
(National Safety Council 1959, p. 4 -2)

55

Nowadays the hierarchy of control is seen as a general approach to health and safety.
This model is the central theme of a multitude of the state-based regulations and codes of
practice throughout Australia.

The hierarchy has been adopted by the National

Occupational Health and Safety Commission in many standards and codes of practice
such as those covering plant (NOHSC 1994b), manual handling and occupational overuse
syndrome (NOHSC 1990a; 1990b; 1994a) and noise (NOHSC 1993a; 1993c) and recently
by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand in the draft standard Occupational
Health and Safety Management Systems (SA/SNZ DR 96311 1996).

There are many versions of the hierarchy such as those within the regulations and codes
of practice above.

Table 2-3, Table 2-4 and Table 2-5 show a historical account of

various versions of the hierarchy of control (not including the many versions that now
appear in documents such as those mentioned above). These tables show a variety in
terminology and the number of points, however they show commonality of approach along
the following lines and modelled on the process shown by Figure 2-7.

1. Reducing the hazard source.

2. Containing the hazard source.
3. Separation of the hazard and people (by barriers, distance, etcetera).
4. Protecting the worker with PPE or relying on safe behaviour.
5. Post-Event strategies

Figure 2-7 Three Major Areas Where Hazards can be Controlled

56

Focus of Control

Source Reduction

Bloomfield

Heinrich

Brandt

NSC

Haddon

Surry

NSC

1936

1941

1947

1959

1963

1968

1971

Eliminate Task

Substitution

Eliminate/Substitut

Change Process

Prevent or Modify

Isolation

Energy Release

Wet Methods

Substitution

Elimination or

Eliminate Hazard

Eliminate Energy

Reduction

e Energy

Containment

Separation

Isolation

Wet Methods

Exhaust

Separation

Remove Recipient

Local Ventilation

Ventilation

Barrier

Barrier

General

Modify Energy

(2) Engineering

Revision

Prevention of

Dispersion

Minimise Hazard /

Prevent Release

Ventilation

T ransfer

Behaviour & Worker

Protection

PPE

(1) Education

Placing

Discipline

Medical

Worker

PPE

Protection

Treatment

Psychology

Post-Event
Table 2-3 Control Hierarchies over Time Showing Their Alignment with Common Approach shown in Column One (Table 1 of 3)

PPE

Focus of Control

Source Reduction

Wigglesworth

Haddon

Johnson

NIOSH

Bird & Loftus

Hammer

1972

1973

1973

1973

1976b

1976

Remove Energy

Limit Energy

Eliminate/Substitut

Eliminate Hazard

Reduce Energy

Prevent Energy

e Energy

Reduce Hazard

Engineering, Fail-

Remove Hazard

Substitution

Buildup

Containment

Control Hazard

Prevent Energy

Prevent Release

Release

Slow Release

Isolation

Reduce Energy

Energy Barrier

safe Designs,

Modify Energy

Monitoring,

Release

Failure
Minimisation

Separation

Separation

Source Barrier

Barrier

Barrier Between

Modify Contact

Ventilation

Modify Contact
Surfaces

Source and Man

Surface

Behaviour & Worker

PPE

Protection

Education &

Strengthen

Barrier on Man

Recipient

Strengthen

Training

Post-Event

Education

Strengthen Target

Recipient

Emergency

Treat/Repair

Control

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation &
Stabilization

Table 2-4 Control Hierarchies over Time Showing Their Alignment with Common Approach shown in Column One (Table 2 of 3)

58

Emergency
procedures

Focus of Control

Source Reduction

Viner

Gallagher

Stephenson

Harms -Ringdahl

HSE

MacCollum

1982

1991

1991

1993

1993

1994

Eliminate Hazard/

Eliminate Energy

Eliminate

Eliminate/

Risk

Limit Energy

Reduce

Substitute

Accumulation

Safer Alternative

Prevent Energy

Prevent Build-up/

Engineering at

Hazard/Energy
Reduction

Containment

Hazard Control

Technology

Release

Energy Barriers

Release

Eliminate Hazard

Guarding

Training &

Source

Controlled
Reduction

Separation

Modify Energy
Transfer

Behaviour & Worker

Protection

Strengthen

Release Pattern

Recipient

Training &

Strengthen Targets

Separate in Space /
Time

Barriers on Energy

PPE

Warnings

Post-Event

Change Energy

Work Systems

PPE

Warnings

PPE

Treat Harm

Damage Control

Table 2-5 Control Hierarchies over Time Showing Their Alignment with Common Approach shown in Column One (Table 3 of 3)

PPE

2.2.2 Defining the Hazard Source: Energy Barrier Models

As discussed above, the hierarchy of control owes its history to the studies of occupational
hygiene. Often in occupational disease the source of the problem, a contaminant of some
kind, was easy to conceptualise. The broadening of the hierarchy into the field of accident
prevention was stifled because the source of the injury was unclear. The notion of unsafe
acts and unsafe conditions made application of the hierarchy concept difficult as the
classification according to these terms is largely arbitrary. As an alternative way of
thinking, many of the hierarchies mentioned above refer to eliminating energy as the
priority. Since the 1960s there has also been growing interest in modelling the hazard
source as a source of energy. The descriptions of the injury process based on the energy
principle by Gibson (1961) and Haddon (1963) are markers in this development.

...injuries to a living organism can be produced only by some energy interchange.

(Gibson 1961, p. 79)

...all injuries are causally in one of two groups, either, 'interference with whole body or
local energy exchange' or 'delivery to the body of amounts of energy in excess of the
corresponding local or whole body injury thresholds. (Haddon 1963, p. 636)

These definitions made application of the hierarchy concept somewhat easier as hazards
could be thought of in terms of a physical energy. The hygiene model of hazard source
pathway receiver could be neatly applied to the study of injury. Haddon applied
the concept of energy damage to the hierarchical based model of prevention and
developed the following version of the hierarchy of control.

1.

Prevent marshalling of energy

2.

Prevent or modify the release of energy

3.

Remove the man from the vicinity of the energy

4.

Impose a barrier

(Haddon 1963)

The energy approach to accident analysis has since been popularised particularly by
Johnson (1973; 1980) in the text, The Management Oversight and Risk Tree (MORT).
60

Johnson (1973) embedded the energy transfer concept within the accident analysis and
risk modelling of the MORT tool, a technique developed for the US Atomic Energy
Commission. He defined an accident in the following way.

The accident definition which evolves is:

1. An unwanted transfer of energy,
2. Because of lack of barriers and/or controls,
3. Producing injury to persons, property or process,
4. Preceded by sequences of planning and operational errors, which:
a. Failed to adjust to changes in physical or human factors,
b. And produced unsafe conditions and /or unsafe acts,
5. Arising out of the risk in an activity,
6. And interrupting or degrading the activity. (Johnson 1973, p. 25, original emphasis)

Johnson reinforced the energy barrier idea as a way of conceptualising methods of

accident prevention, and introduced the energy trace as a method of system and accident
analysis. The model emphasised the identification of energy sources by way of energy
trace analysis and energy barrier analysis. Johnsons use of energy trace has since been
cited by many authors in the area of safety (for example; Rahimi 1986; Ferry 1990;
Stephenson 1991; Harms-Ringdahl 1993; Vincoli 1993). The process of injury and also
the definition of hazard has often expressed in terms of energy.

Control and guard all energy, and the environment will be right for people to work safely.
(Aitken 1973, p. 7)

Accident: An unwanted energy transfer (an incident) causing property damage and/or
human injury. (Energy Research and Development Administration 1977, p. vi)

In abstract terms we should only consider the results of damaging energy exchange and
provide countermeasures, preferably passive, to control the magnitude of this.
(Emerson 1985, p. 25)

Let us begin by defining accident as an event involving an unwanted transfer of energy.

Energy produces injury and damage unless there are adequate controls or barriers.
(Ferry 1990, p. 239)

61

An accident is defined as occurring when this unwanted flow of energy, in the absence of
adequate barriers, strikes targets in the energy path and injures people and/or damages
property. (Stephenson 1991, p. 147)

...an incident is defined as an unwanted flow of energy resulting from inadequate barriers
or having failure without consequence. An accident is further defined as an unwanted
flow of energy or an environmental condition that results in adverse consequences.
(Vincoli 1993, p. 101)

Hazarda source of potentially damaging energy or a situation that may give rise to
personal injury or disease. (Standards Australia 1996, p. 9)

Thus the energy terminology has become reasonably common in the descriptions of the
accident/injury process. Similarly the defintion of hazard as the source in the pictorial
model of the hazard source pathway receiver model been outlined by several
writers (for example; Figure 2-8; Figure 2-9; Figure 2-10).

Figure 2-8 Injury Causation Model (Adapted from Wigglesworth 1972)

Figure 2-9 Extended Energy Damage Model (Viner 1982)

62

Figure 2-10 Generalized Occupational Exposure

(Office of Technology Assessment 1985)

An injury was thought to result from an escape or loss of control of a hazard, transfer of
this energy to a recipient, and lastly injury to the recipient. The modelling in this way
provided a sense of scientific rigour in contrast to the subjectivity of the unsafe act /
unsafe condition model. The Energy Research and Development Administration (1977)
outlined the following process for the systematic assessment of risk.

1. All energy sources must be controlled

2. All potential targets of uncontrolled energy release must be identified for each energy
source.
3. All control mechanisms and barriers to energy release must be identified for each
energy source.
4. An analysis must be performed in each case to determine failure modes and effects, in
order to identify the residual risks. (ERDA 1977, p. 3)

While Kjelln and Sklet (1995) point out that the use of energy analysis can bias hazard
identification toward accidents with large consequences and well-defined energy sources,
they recognised that the methodology is a useful broad identification tool especially given
the clear link to hazard controls.

There is now considerable support for energy damage as fundamental to the study of
accidents and injury. In general, the process of injury has been described as beginning
with the existence of an amount of energy that could cause harm, hence the term;
potentially damaging energy (for example; Waller & Klein 1973; Wigglesworth 1984;
Viner 1991). An accident then consisted of a release or loss of control of this energy

63

(Aitken 1973; Hoyos & Zimolong 1988; Viner 1991). The loss of control of potentially
damaging energy, may then lead to injury via a transfer, or exchange of energy with
humans (Gibson 1961; Haddon 1963; Bird & Loftus 1976b; McFarland 1973; Viner 1982;
1991; Wigglesworth 1984; Waller 1987; Ferry 1988; Thygerson 1992; Harms-Ringdahl
1993; Vincoli 1993). This separated the notion of the accident, or damaging energy
release, and the interaction of that energy with humans.

The exchange of energy,

however, does not automatically imply injury, as many authors have pointed out, the
exchange of energy only results in injury if it exceeds the human threshold of energy
exchange (Gibson 1961; Haddon 1963; McFarland 1973; Viner 1982; 1991; Wigglesworth
1984; Emerson 1985; Ferry 1988) or interferes with whole body energy systems, as in the
case of suffocation (Haddon 1963; Bird & Loftus 1976b; Wigglesworth 1984).

In summary the overall valuable points taken from the energy damage models are that
they;

1. Show the process (energy source pathway receiver).

2. Highlight ways to manage the process (energy controls, path controls, PPE)
3. Highlight the problem source rather than the person.

64

2.2.3 Ergonomics and the Study of Work

Ergonomics is a science which developed from the need to understand the physiological,
psychological and social needs of operators during the process of designing work
environments. ... The word ergonomics, first used in 1949, is derived from two Greek
words, ergon meaning work, and nomos meaning natural laws. Thus, ergonomics means
the natural laws relating to work. (Standards Australia SAA HB591994, p. 5)

Ergonomics, or human factors, is the study of the interaction of people, with their
surroundings and equipment. The importance of considering the capabilities of people in
design is emphasised by many regulatory documents such as the Swedish Work
Environment Act and the New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Working conditions shall be adapted to peoples differing physical and mental aptitudes.
(Work Environment Act 1994 (original 1977) (Sweden) ch.2.s.1)

The objects of this Act are: to promote an occupational environment for persons at work
which is adapted to their physiological and psychological needs
(Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 (NSW) s.5.(1)(c))

Fashioning tools to human needs is age old, however in terms of the scientific application
of ergonomics to work methods, the work of Taylor (1911) and Gilbreth (1911) are
significant markers. Taylor and Gilbreth were primarily interested in the improvement of
manual work, probably because that was the main type of work at the time.

Taylor began work as a labourer and developed an interest in work methods while
working in a steel company in the late 1800s. The terms Scientific Management,
Taylorism, and Time Study resulted from Taylors development of systematic work
analysis, improvement and organisation. As a management model, Taylorism now seems
to be out of favour and discussion of why this is so might be interesting but probably
belongs elsewhere. The relevant aspect of Taylors work are the studies of manual
handling.

Although he didnt use physiological terms like static muscle work, his

investigations centred on this type of theory. Much of Taylors early work was about
manual work efficiency. Aside from an over-emphasis on the selection of workers,
65

Taylor embodied the principles of ergonomics with the attention he gave to matching work
to the physical capabilities of humans. Taylor also worked in non-manual handling areas
such as the study of efficient metal machining.

Gilbreth (1911), whose work became known as Motion Study, also aimed toward the
improvement of manual work productivity. Gilbreth showed that improvements in the
motions of work could be vastly improved; often many movements could be eliminated.
Gilbreths writing embodied the ergonomic model more clearly than Taylors. The
improvement of work according to Gilbreth involved considering;

1. the worker;
2. the surroundings, equipment, and tools; and
3. the motions.

A careful study of the anatomy of the worker will enable one to adapt his work,
surroundings, equipment, and tools to him. (Gilbreth 1911, p. 10)

For example; the improvement of bricklaying involved modifying the trowel, raising the
height of the mortar box, raising the height of the brick tray, developing a brick stacking
and delivery system so that the bricks were the right way round, and so on. Gilbreth
employed the now popular notion of best practice to describe the first step in motion
study.

There are three stages to this study:

1. Discovering and classifying the best practice.
2. Deducing the laws.
3. Applying the laws to standardize practice, either for the purpose of increasing output
or decreasing hours or labor, or both. (Gilbreth 1911, p. v., emphasis added)

In summary, while Taylors name might be out of vogue by association with a

management style of the past, Taylor and Gilbreth made important contributions by
showing how improvements were possible by considering the human-equipment-

66

environment relationship. They drew attention to the possibility of improving work though
understanding human abilities and designing the environment and tools to suit.

Later, during World War II, ergonomics as a discipline was formalised when it became
recognised that psychology had an important role in engineering design. Psychologists
assisted engineers in the design of miliary equipment to improve operations such as gun,
radar and aircraft control (Stevens 1946; Fitts 1947; Kappauf 1947; Taylor 1947;
Chapanis, Garner & Morgan 1949). One of the simplest examples was the redesign of
aircraft insignia to distinguish US aircraft from Japanese aircraft to reduce the incidence
of incorrect anti-aircraft fire. Similarly, McFarland and Moore (1961) pointed out the
gains to be made using ergonomics in the design of aircraft controls.

Confusion has arisen when the controls for operating the flaps and landing gear are
located too close together or reversed in some planes. In one 22-month period during
World-War II inattentive manipulation or mistaken identity caused 547 accidents in one of
the services. (McFarland & Moore 1961, p. 36, emphasis added)

The emphasis for the role of psychology was changed from one of trying to change the
person to fit the job, or maybe even select a suitable person for the job, to one of providing
assistance to engineers to integrate human factors into the design.

The designing of all forms of equipment is generally considered to be a purely engineering

function. But most of the tremendous variety of articles designed by engineers, be they
industrial machinery, household appliances or childrens toys, are intended for use or
operation by human beings. It is apparent that the utility or success of such equipment
must be, at least in part, dependent upon the degree to which it is suited to the
psychological characteristics of the human beings who must use it. (Fitts 1947, p. 93,
emphasis added)

The main message arising from the study of psychology in the military was ...the art or
gearing machines to the minds and muscles of men... (Stevens 1946, p. 390). Aside
from Taylor and Gilbreths work, designing for humans represented a reversal of
approach. For instance in 1932, Viteles devoted around 200 pages of the text Industrial

67

Psychology, to a section headed Fitting the Worker to the Job; the very anti-thesis of
modern ergonomics.

The fitting of people to tasks required an understanding of physiology and psychology. A

great deal of psychological data about equipment controls was collected during the war,
while long before this time Galton (1889) collected and collated some of the first
anthropometric data such as weight, height, strength, arm span, and so on.

From the military studies the concept of the person-machine, or ergonomic system was
created. The experience gained in the wartime studies lead researchers of that time to
develop the ideas into pictorial information-flow models (Figure 2-11). Birmingham and
Taylors (1961) model presented in 1954 showed the role that people play in the operation
of machinery in monitoring and controlling the machine.

Later, Taylor (1957) and

Grandjean (1982, original 1963), Meister (1971) and Singleton (1972) simplified the model
by including diagrams to better illustrate the flow of information.

Chapanis (1965), and more recently Hammond (1978) went beyond the man-machine
interface to include the environment factor, however their models indicated that the main
interaction is between the person and the equipment. The working environment seemed
to have a passive influence. Sometimes it seems convenient to include the environment as
something that must be part of the interaction. For instance, in the road system, its
probably more convenient to think of road signs as environmental features rather than
equipment features. McCormick (1970, p. 5) indicated that the model of ergonomics
should emphasise interaction with the environment, and so should be known as; '...manmachine-environment systems, since we shall be primarily concerned with systems
that are a combination of people and machines and the environments in which they
function. Thus the three factors of person, equipment and environment are now often
represented to show the interaction between these three elements (Kuhlmann 1986;
Figure 2-11).

68

Ergonomic System Models

Figure 2-11 Ergonomic System Models

Clockwise from Top Left: Birmingham & Taylor (1961, original 1954); Taylor (1957); Chapanis (1965);
Kuhlmann (1986); Hammond (1978); (Grandjean 1982, original 1963)

69

In summary, the study of ergonomics has shown the importance of the interaction of
system elements. It is not only good human skills, good equipment, and good environment
conditions or systems that are important for good design, it is the quality of the interaction
between these elements. Furthermore it is recognised that the most reliably adapted
components are the environment and equipment. The essence of ergonomics is ...fitting
a job to a man (Kappauf 1947, p. 85), or nowadays perhaps; fitting the job to the
person. This represents a different way of approaching the study of hazard control
compared with the unsafe acts/unsafe conditions model. Finally, Gary Larson captured
the importance of good ergonomic design (Figure 2-12).

Figure 2-12 How Poor Design Contributes to

Human Error (Larson 1992)

70

2.2.4 Safe Place: Consolidated Concepts

2.2.4.1 A Commonality of Approach
The concept of a hierarchy of control is now common and bears a strong relationship to
the control-at-source models, emphasising elimination of the hazard, or passive hazard
control, as a preference over measures relying on appropriate hazard-avoidance
behaviour.

Identifying the hazard source is obviously important when using the hierarchy. In
occupational hygiene the hazard has often been easy to conceptualise, however in the
area of injury it has not been so clear. Nowadays the definition of hazard seems to fall
into two main categories; the potential to cause injury or illness and the energy-based
definitions. Whether the hazard is defined in terms of the energy approach or some other
way, the main intention of control at source is made clear by the hierarchical approach.

Table 2-3, Table 2-4 and Table 2-5 (pp. 57-59) show the relationship between the
hierarchies and the following model.

1. Modifying the hazard source

2. Containing the hazard source
3. Separating the hazard from the person
4. Relying on personal protection and behaviour
5. Post-event measures

While categorising a particular type of control is difficult, the agreement about a general
approach to prevention is evident. The ideal safe place control is complete elimination. In
contrast low-order controls are often known as safe person controls; that is; the person is
encouraged to be safe in a poor environment. In summary, the United States Congress,
Office of Technology Assessment (1985) said that 'Put simply, the principle of the
hierarchy of controls is to control the hazard as close to the source as possible'.

71

2.2.4.2 Integrating Ergonomics and the Hazard, Path, Receiver Model

The hierarchy of control is very much a result of the linear source pathway
receiver model. Similarly the ergonomic approach has been a significant influence in the
development of the understanding of reliable ways of preventing accidents. It seems then
logical to combine these two models.

In the model of source pathway receiver, a symbol is sometimes drawn around

the hazard source to indicate the means of hazard control. If the control is to be reliable
then it must employ the ergonomic methodology. Wigglesworths (1972) model (Figure 28) showed how the concept of human error related to the common linear model and went
some way to integrating some of the ergonomic methodology.

Later, Kjelln and Larsson (1981) described the energy damage process as consisting of
the initiatory, concluding and injury phase. These three elements were thought to occur
against a background of a system that could contribute to accidents by way of deviations
in; material; labour; information; man/machine system; intersecting or parallel activities;
and the surrounding environment.

Their modelling therefore emphasised the role of

ergonomics in building a safe system in order to maintain hazard (energy) control.

Taken a step further, the classic person-equipment-environment ergonomic model can be

combined with the traditional hazard source pathway receiver model to show
more clearly the relationship of the ergonomic elements in the action of control (Figure 213).

The model shows the ergonomic relationship between people, equipment and the
environment that contributes to hazard control systems, while showing that these elements
also represent the exposures to the hazard. The hazard in this model could be described as
a potentially damaging energy or in general terms such as the potential to cause harm.

72

Figure 2-13 Ergonomic Hazard Management

While the linear models could be seen to give equal emphasis to the importance of controls
at the person and controls at the hazard, this model centralises the issue of the hazard.
The importance of control at source is therefore made more apparent. Furthermore this
model shows that damage as a result of an accident can be to people, equipment, or to the
environment.

The environment is intended to mean the physical and organisational

working environments as well as the natural environment which may also be at risk of
exposure. The model shows that hazard management is dependent on the relationships
between the human elements, equipment and environment features.

Methodologies for minimising risk then follow the familiar hierarchy of control; minimising
the hazard source; minimising the exposures and maximising the integrity of the hazard
control system (considering the role of human, equipment & environment factors).

73

2.2.4.3 Intrinsic

Safety,

Passive

Safety,

and

the

Two-Dimensional

Hierarchy

Passive safety measures ... do not require anything of the person; they do not depend on
human memory or constant human care. (Kalin 1994, p. 25)

The top-order hierarchy of control measures revolve around the concept of making a safe
environment. These safe place strategies are seen by many as the most effective form
of accident prevention and their success depends on two factors; the degree of reduction
of exposure to the hazard source, and the degree to which control over the hazard source
is passive, ergonomic, and intrinsically safe.

Intrinsic safe design, or passive

countermeasures, do not rely heavily on active involvement or the continuous attention of

potential victims for safety. The case for the importance of passive safety has been
argued in the areas of automobile safety (Nader 1965), occupational health and safety
(The Committee on Safety and Health at Work 1970), and public health (Wigglesworth
1978).

The seat belt should have been introduced in the twenties and rendered obsolete by the
early fifties, for it is only the first step toward a more rational passenger restraint system
which modern technology could develop and perfect for mass production. Such a system
ideally would not rely on the active participation of the passenger to take effect; it would
be the superior passive safety design which would come into use only when needed, and
without active participation of the occupant. ... Protection like this could be achieved by
a kind of inflatable air bag restraint which would be actuated to envelop a passenger
before a crash. Such a system has been recently experimented with for airplane passenger
protection. Both General Motors and Ford did work on a system like this about 1958 but
dropped the inquiry and now refuse even to communicate with outside scientists and
engineers interested in this approach to injury prevention. There are a number of general
energy-absorption systems that engineering ingenuity could devise to operate whether
inside or outside the vehicle.
(Nader 1965, p. 124)

...the first step in the promotion of safety and health at work is to ensure, so far as may be
practicable, that plant, machinery, equipment and materials are so designed and
constructed as to be intrinsically safe in use.
(The Committee on Safety and Health at Work 1970, p. 111, emphasis added)

74

The consensus that passive countermeasures (i.e., those that are independent of human
behaviour) are more likely to be successful than those that are active (i.e., those that
require some component of human behaviour for their success) follows a basic principle of
public health in that countermeasures apply to persons at risk without their active
involvement. (Wigglesworth 1978, p. 793).

If the minimisation of risk is by a combination of hazard exposure and the creation of an

intrinsically safe, passive, or ergonomic hazard control, then the hierarchy can be thought
of as a two-dimensional construct. Within this one could argue that the minimisation of
hazards and the minimisation of exposure represents two variables.

However by

eliminating the hazard so too do we effectively eliminate exposure to that hazard.

Likewise by eliminating exposure we effectively eliminate the possible impact of the
hazard. Conceptually, exposure can be considered to represent a unit person, being
exposed at unit proximity to a unit hazard. We can say then that the safe place concept is
composed not of a one dimensional variable along the continuum of controlling the problem
at the source to controlling it at the person, but a two dimensional variable. The two
dimensions are those of exposure and that of integrity of control (ergonomics).

Stephenson (1991) referred to a draft US Army document Facility System Safety

Manual, that modelled risk controls in a matrix format (Table 2-6).

Hazard Control Mechanism

Hazard Control

I.

Design

II. Passive
Safety
Device

III. Active
Safety
Device

IV. Warning
Device

A. Eliminate Energy Source

B. Limit Energy Accumulated

C. Prevent Release

D. Provide Barriers

E. Change Release Patterns

F. Minimize/Treat Harm

Table 2-6 Control Rating Code (CRC) Matrix (from US Army Facility System Safety Manual in Stephenson
1991)

75

A score of one indicated the best control (for example eliminating the energy source
through design) while a score of four indicated the least desirable control (for example
minimising or treating damage through a behavioural mode of action). This matrix showed
the two dimensional nature of the hierarchy of control. This concept can be perhaps more
effectively represented by the following model (Figure 2-14).

Figure 2-14 Safe Place Matrix

The Safe Place Matrix (Figure 2-14) represents the relationship between safe place and
safe person control measures in terms of hazard reduction and control. The link between
safe place and safe person is a continuum based on the following.

1. A reduction in hazard exposure (by hazard reduction or exposure reduction).

2. Improvements to the ergonomics of the hazard control (enhancing passive control).

An ideal safe place control is one that eliminates the hazard and maintains this elimination
by passive means, whereas a safe person control is one that leaves the hazard in place
and control the hazard by way of active involvement of people (normally the potential
victims). The banding on the model indicates levels within the safe place to safe person
continuum.

76

2.2.4.4 The Hierarchy: A Problem Solving Tool

Leading to the discussion in the following chapter (creative thinking), one would hope that
the hierarchy of control serves as a productive thinking tool. Whether employing the
common one-dimensional list-based hierarchy or the two-dimensional construct suggested
above, one would hope that the outcome would be better solutions. The hierarchy ideally
plays an active role, guiding the thinking first toward the higher order controls. This is
important in that the hierarchy should assist the development of good solutions.

Alternatively the hierarchy can be used to classify one solution against another. In this
way the system is simply a set of boxes to put controls in after theyve been developed.
This may have some advantage in comparing the controls but the disadvantage of using
the hierarchy in this way is that there is potential to become very confused as it often
seems that one solution belongs in many categories.

The relationship between the hierarchy of control and the methodologies for creative
thinking are very strong. A key to creative thinking is to escape from assumptions that
have become dominant though experience.

The hierarchy of control is a specific

application of these techniques to accident prevention. By its nature the first step of
eliminating the hazard is a challenge to the current situation; it implies that some hazard
put in place probably for some very justifiable reason should be eliminated. As Laflamme
(1990) noted, the important features of accident models is that they direct preventative
thinking toward transforming the system (macroscopic thinking) rather than focussing on
microscopic issues with the current system such as the behaviour of people.

In fact, prevention could find its source in the man-machine system, at a microscopic level,
but also in eventual corrections and transformations of the general conditions prevailing
in the workplace. (Laflamme 1990, p. 159)

Stepping back from the microscopic level of analysis and considering workplace
transformations implies an approach sought when encouraging a creative style of
thinking. The parallels to creative thinking are thus very strong. The main links are that

77

the hierarchy provides a challenge to current assumptions and that the hierarchys key
function is to act as a thinking directing tool, positively affecting the outcome.

2.3 Accident Prevention Summary

From early this century, accidents have been seen mainly to be a result of either unsafe
acts or unsafe conditions. This way of thinking was an extension of the dichotomy of
machinery and non-machinery accidents that was a relevant way of thinking about
accidents in the industrial revolution of the nineteenth century.

From a premise that accidents were the result of either unsafe acts or unsafe conditions,
the work of Heinrich in the 1930s embedded a psyche that the primary cause of
accidents were the unsafe acts of people. In popular culture and in many scientific
circles, this model continues to be accepted and promoted. However popular the model
remains, there is a growing core of opinion that the unsafe acts and unsafe conditions
model has little validity, is easily manipulated, and unfortunately has the tendency to lead to
ineffective accident prevention measures.

Any accident can be explained as due to either unsafe acts or unsafe conditions; thus the
attribution to one or the other is largely arbitrary and depends on the investigators bias.
The investigator is likely to be affected by a general belief about the pre-eminent role of
people in accident causation; thus the model becomes self perpetuating.

The model

invariably assigns the cause of accidents the bad behaviour of people (often victims) and
therefore typical prevention measures aim at altering the attitude and behaviour of people.

Escaping from this trap demands a new model. The unsafe acts and unsafe conditions
model is widely criticised due to the imprecision involved in making a decision between
these two options. Given the difficulty of assigning a cause of an accident as either an
unsafe act or unsafe condition, this way of thinking would seem to be of little use.

Legislation now universally adopts the model of focussing on the hazard source. Rather
than identifying unsafe acts and unsafe conditions, these laws require a focus on hazards.
The hazard source concept is one that arises most directly from the study of occupational
78

diseases. Often the source of the problem was readily identified as a contaminant (such
as an airborne chemical or dust). The study of occupational diseases was then modelled
as being composed of hazard source pathway receiver. The priority for
effective prevention was then control at source.

The now familiar hierarchy of control model emerged from this way of thinking and
eventually became a standard methodology for understanding accidents and prevention.
A useful concept that facilitated the application the model to the study of traumatic injuries
was the defintion of energy sources as the primary source of hazard.

This

conceptualisation has now become reasonably popular and has provided a more rigorous
approach to the analysis of risk. However the energy-based approaches are not
universally used, hazards often being defined simply, as the potential to do harm, or
similar. There is yet to be a fix on a standard set of definitions, although the model of
hazard source pathway receiver is established.

The safe place concept revolves around two main themes. Firstly the reduction of
exposure to a hazard. Exposure to the hazard takes in the concept of the hazard itself and
the exposed groups; thus the exposure can be reduced by focussing on either element; by
reduction or substitution of the hazard itself or by rearranging the way work is done so
that the groups at risk are exposed to a lesser degree. The second concept is that of
control over the hazard and how the integrity of the system is maintained. The core
concept here is that of the primacy of passive controls; those controls that place little
reliance on human vigilance for its success. Achieving these controls implies a good
understanding of ergonomics in design. In summary then the following points describe the
models of thinking that would be important in engineers application of contemporary
approach to the prevention of injury.

Accidents are plannable, predictable and controllable.

Accidents are best prevented by the safe place approach.
The hierarchy of control is a tool to guide hazard controls toward safe place controls.
The hierarchy of control is a list of general control ideas ranging from controls that
focus on the hazard source to controls that focus on those people at risk.
79

 The hierarchy of control draws its beginnings from the study of occupational hygiene
where the hazard source pathway receiver model was employed.
The hazard source pathway receiver was generalised to the problem of
injures especially through the energy approach.
The hierarchy of control can be conceptualised as a two-dimensional construct
composed of the minimisation of exposure and the maximisation of the integrity of the
control considering the ergonomic s of that mechanism.
The hierarchy of control is a problem-solving methodology that shares strong parallels
with general creative thinking tools.
The hierarchy of control encourages a re-examination of the current work system.
The same solution can be suggested more than one in the hierarchy of control as the
hierarchy is for the development of solutions rather than their categorisation.
The development of multiple solutions allows a greater choice of action and also may
be important given the potential for the staged implementation of controls.

80

Chapter Three

Creative Thinking

82

3. Creative Thinking
3.1 Creative Moments

Create:
1.

to bring in to being; cause to exist; produce

2.

to evolve from ones own thought or imagination

3.

to be the first to represent (a part or role)

4.

to make by investing w ith new character or functions; constitute; appoint

5.

to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to

6.

to be engaged, often ostentatiously, in creating something, as a work of art.

(The Macquarie Dictionary 1985)

There are many well-known stories describing great moments of things coming into being
in the midst of original thought and imagination.

Archimedes is said to have leapt from the public bath and run down the streets of
Syracuse shouting Eureka!, meaning, Ive found it! Archimedes observed that as he
immersed himself in the water the level rose. Archimedes realised this would be a good
way to measure the volume of metal in a complicated crown so that he could then
determine if the crown was entirely gold or a mixture of gold and another metal.

Darwins theory of selection became clear to him while relaxing reading a paper for his
own entertainment about population growth.

Watt is supposed to have observed a kettle lid bouncing away under the pressure of the
steam and transferred the concept to a larger system; the steam engine.

Pythagoras discovered a basic principle of physics, not in a laboratory, but when passing a
blacksmiths shop and noting that rods of iron being hammered gave off varying sounds
according to their length.

Alexander Fleming happened across penicillin by observing mould on a culture plate.

83

French mathematician, Henri Poincar, found the concepts of mathematical functions

called Fuscian functions bouncing around in his head while unable to sleep after drinking
coffee and then later while taking a bus trip to the beach.

Mozart claimed that he did not know from where his musical ideas came. They appeared
in his mind while daydreaming, when relaxed and in good spirits.

In 1885 Rntgen noticed by chance that a paper screen covered in barium platinocyanide
became fluorescent while a cathode ray tube was operating inside a black cardboard box.
At the time it was thought no radiation could penetrate this box. Rntgen soon discovered
that these X rays could also penetrate human flesh and reveal an outline of the skeleton.

In 1821 Faraday invented the electric motor and made a working model, however the
invention attracted little interest. Ten years later Faraday invented the dynamo which
became very popular for generating electricity from steam engines. The electric motor
was ignored until 1873 when a technician mistakenly connected a second dynamo to one
already being driven by a steam engine. The second dynamo sprung into life and the
electric motor was reborn; fifty years after its invention! In hindsight it was obvious that
the motor was the reverse of the dynamo but beforehand it was not, even to the inventor!

For a century after vaccination (arising from vacca meaning cow owing to the connection
with cow-pox) to immunise against small-pox became common, it had not been realised
that the same principle could be applied more widely. In 1879, Pasteur was investigating
chicken cholera and mistakenly left a culture aside for several months.

When

subsequently injecting chickens with the weakened culture they survived, and were then
found them to be immune from the disease. One hundred years after its establishment as
a way of preventing small-pox, Pasteur had discovered that vaccination had wider
application.

84

3.2 Creative People

Creativity is often discussed in terms of great creative achievements such as those
outlined above and its been common to associate the creative outcome with the greatness
of the person involved. Rickards (1988) argued this case suggesting that creativity is
usually viewed by most people as a special skill held by special people. He described
experiments where he has asked people to think of someone being creative. Upon this
request, he says that the subjects rarely think of themselves. The image they have is
usually that of a painter, writer, architect, or maybe a famous thinker, like Newton or da
Vinci. Ive done this small experiment too and found much the same result. Passmore
(1991) commented that the notion of a work of imagination, tends to be narrow, not only
implying greatness but tending to be limited to works of art or literature such as poetry to
the exclusion of other fields like science or engineering. Weisberg (1986) said that it may
be surprising to many that great thinkers like Newton and da Vinci once experimented
with now odd notions such as the practice of alchemy and the idea of people flying by
attaching feathers to their arms (although this sounds something like a modern hang-glider
so maybe da Vinci has been proved correct). Seeing creativity as something other,
special, people do is a great barrier to creativity as Ribot suggested a century ago.

Invention is thus unduly limited when we attribute it to great inventors only.

(Ribot 1906, p. 156)

Furthermore a person who is creative is often characterised as eccentric or perhaps

mentally unstable (Kubie 1961; Prentky 1989). For example great thinkers like Socrates
and Newton were thought to be mentally unstable (Prentky 1989). Torrance commented
that this common perception has limited the wide teaching of creative thinking.

Doesnt everybody know that the highly creative person is "a little crazy" and that you
cant help him anyway?...Unfortunately, these are attitudes which have long been held by
some of our most eminent scholars and which still prevail rather widely. (Torrance 1962,
p. 1)

85

An analysis of abstracts of creativity research reveals a great interest in personality,

giftedness, intelligence, sex, age, socio-economic status, reading skills, etcetera. Great
effort has been expended testing relationships between personal factors and creativity.
For instance, Furnham and Yazdanpanahi (1995) recently reported that psychotics tend to
produce more creative ideas when brainstorming than non-psychotics. Many writers in
the area of creativity have agreed with Torrance (above) and have said that the focus on
personality is misleading and unfortunately guides efforts away from examining the
creative process (for example; Harrisberger 1966; Perkins, 1981; Isaksen 1987b; Niemark
1987; Zaleznic 1988; Halpern 1989; Mason 1989; Barry & Rudinow 1990; Torrance 1993;
Sternberg & Lubart 1996). In short, the study of creativity as it relates to the personalities
of the great achievers gives little clues as to how other people can be more creative. The
alternative is to consider great creative outcomes in terms of some type of process or
method.

3.3 Problem-Solving Process

Formal descriptions of the problem-solving process have often followed a step-by-step
model (Table 3-1). The typical steps include problem identification, information gathering,
ideation, exploration, incubation, etcetera (for example; Harrisberger 1966; Gordon 1969;
Bransford & Stein 1984; Zechmeister & Johnson 1992).

Problem Solving Processes

Harrisberger (1966)

Bransford & Stein (1984)

Zechmeister & Johnson (1992)

1. Define

1. Identify

1. Identify

2. Ideation

2. Define

2. Define

3. Synthesis

3. Explore

3. Set goals

4. Optimisation

4. Act

4. Alternatives

5. Detail & development

5. Look

5. Narrow alternatives

6. Test & improve

6. Evaluate alternatives
7. Decide
8. Trial

Table 3-1 Problem Solving Models

These processes can be traced to the methods of Ribot (1906) and Wallas (1926) shown
in Table 3-2. Wallas (1926) based the process on the work of Helmholtz and Poincar.
86

To begin the problem solving process Poincar emphasised preparation and then
incubation.

These sudden inspirations ... never happen except after some days of voluntary effort which
has appeared absolutely fruitless and whence nothing good seems to have come, where
the way taken seems totally astray (Poincar 1952, p. 38)

Most striking at first is this appearance of sudden illumination, a manifest sign of long,
unconscious prior work. The role of this unconscious work in mathematical invention
appears to me incontestable, and traces of it would be found in other cases where it is less
evident. Often when one works at a hard question, nothing good is accomplish ed at the
first attack. Then one takes a rest, longer or shorter, and sits down anew to the work.
During the first half-hour, as before, nothing is found, and then all of a sudden the decisive
idea presents itself to the mind. (Poincar 1952 p. 38)

Problem Solving Processes

Ribot (1906) - Complete

Ribot (1906) - Abridged

Wallas (1926)

1. Idea (the aim) and

1. General preparation

1. Preparation

Incubation

(unconscious)

2. Incubation

2. Invention or Discovery

2. Idea, Inspiration, Eruption

3. Illumination

3. Verification or Application

3. Constructive and

4. Verification

Developing period
Table 3-2 Problem Solving Models from the Early 1900s

Incubation, like intuition, was intended to allow the brain to unconsciously sort the chaos
into order. Ochse (1990, p. 243) described intuition as ...unconsciously triggered
automatic integration of relevant elements of information.... Because this process is
apparently illogical, it is sometimes called gut feel, not really a function of the supposedly
logical brain. Situations where definitions are poorly defined or information appears
unclear lend themselves to this type of thinking. Following incubation, a further period of
conscious effort was thought to give rise to illumination; the flash of insight about a
potential solution. A period of more conscious effort was then recommended in the
verification phase to the test the validity of the solution.

87

These procedures describe a metacognitive guide to attacking a problem. They systemise

a way of thinking about problems. However, the attention placed on problem defintion
and the assumption that the right problem can be identified at the beginning has been
criticised (for example; Harrisberger 1966; Brann 1991; Csikszentmihalyi 1992). These
are criticisms of the methodologies in their totality and are valid, but here I intend to focus
on the core; the creative event; the breaking of conceptual boundaries.

3.4 Thinking Outside the Boundaries

Great creative efforts seemed to be characterised by changes in paradigms. The pivotal
events have been those that changed the domain of the potential solution. The key
element to the creative process seems to be some insightful thinking that forms a new
arrangement out of old information. Guilford (1950), a guiding influence over creativity
research, stressed the importance of transformations; the change of paradigms as the
key process, and employed the term divergent thinking to describe this way of thinking.
The change of paradigm, or divergent thinking, si characterised by the nine dot task
(Figure 3-1). The task is to connect the dots with a continuous line of no more than four
straight sections.

Figure 3-1 The Nine Dot Task

The classic solution requires moving outside an assumption that the lines need to be within
the boundaries of the square (Figure 3-2). Part of solving the nine dot problem is
breaking the assumed boundary. This is the pivot to solving the problem.

88

Figure 3-2 The Classic Nine Dot Solution

The insightful model of creative thinking was discussed early this century and many of the
concepts considered at that time remain current. Wallas (1926), like others, discussed
illumination but did not speculate on how illumination can be encouraged; other than to be
prepared. In the text Creative Mind, Spearman suggested that new ideas could be
formed by abstracting the principles of one idea into the realm of another (Figure 3-3).

When two or more items (percepts or ideas) are given, a person may perceive them to be in
various ways related... (Spearman 1930, pp. 18) ... When any item and a relation to it are
present to mind, then the mind can generate in itself another item so related.
(Spearman 1930, p. 23, emphasis added)

Figure 3-3 Principle of Experience, Relations and Correlations (Spearman 1930)

Like Spearman, Ribot (1906) considered creative thinking to chiefly involve association,
and especially analogy; a form of association involving association by resemblance.
89

Analogy, an unstable process, undulating and multiform, gives rise to the most unforeseen
and novel groupings. Through its pliability, which is almost unlimited, it produces in
equal measure absurd comparisons and very original inventions.
(Ribot 1906, p. 27, emphasis added)

Spearman and Ribot emphasised the abstraction of ideas from one domain to another.
Later, Hebb (1949) commented that a feature of creative thinkers is a willingness to
borrow ideas from another field; a willingness to connect the apparently unconnected.

It is, likewise, a basic factor in originality, the original and creative person having,
among other things, unusual sensitivity to the applicability of the already known to new
problem situations. (Hebb 1949, p. 110)

The central element of creative thinking seems to be this movement, or breaking of

assumed boundaries, or dominant paradigms. However not all ascribe to the theory that
creativity is characterised by insight. Ochse (1990) commented that a great deal of
unremarkable work normally accompanies great achievements. Burnham and Davis
(1969) demonstrated this concept with some experiments using the nine-dot problem (see
Appendix A for detail). They measured the success of subjects working on the nine dot
problem when given various clues. While drawing outside the boundary is important to the
ultimate solution, a clue to this effect facilitated only reasonable improvement. However,
changing the diagram (Figure 3-4) lead to a dramatic improvement.

Similarly, Weisberg and Alba (1981) conducted a series of experiments that showed that
breaking the boundary did not lead to an immediate solution (see Appendix A). From
these experiments Weisberg and Alba (1981), like Burnham and Davis (1969) showed
that while the clue to break the assumed boundary exposes the subjects to the domain in
which the solution can be found, it does not necessarily quickly lead to the solutions itself.

90

Figure 3-4 The Eleven Dot Nine Dot Task

(from Burnham & Davis 1969)

Weisberg (1995) later argued that the attention given to restructuring is too high. This
claim is supported by the experiments of Burnham and Davis (1969) and Weisberg and
Alba (1981). Their implication was that the aim of thinking outside the square has been
overemphasised.

It would seem though that their experiments did not reject the

importance of thinking outside the square, but showed that making use of a suggestion like
what about drawing outside the square, will probably require a substantial amount of
subsequent work to ultimately be useful. This does not mean that the divergence to
thinking outside the square is not vital to the solution. While divergent thinking does not
necessarily offer quick solutions it is an important pathway to solving many problems.

De Bono (1992a) described this divergent thinking as escaping from the boundary of
reasonableness (Figure 3-5). In the classic stories of creative achievement it seems that
a fortuitous event typically triggered a new way of thinking. It seems often the boundary
of reasonableness has been prodded by happenstance events. Watt had a cup of tea.
Fleming and Pasteur forgot to do the dishes. Darwin read a magazine. Archimedes took a
bath. Mozart had a good time and a daydream. Whats the message in this for the
development of the type of creativity these people enjoyed? The gathering of information
wont in itself necessarily inspire the creative moment. As Dewey said; Observation
supplied the near, imagination the remote (Dewey 1910, p. 223). The challenge is to
arrange more of these useful events that cause a re-examination of the domain of the
likely solutions.
91

Figure 3-5 Thinking Outside the Boundaries

(de Bono 1992a)

As a demonstration of the continuous need for divergent thinking, Adams (1987) wrote
that a young reader had written him a letter explaining that he had solved the nine-dot
problem with one-line line. Adams correspondent had broken normal assumptions about
the thickness of lines relative to the dots and had used one really thick line! However,
while the elegance of this new solution is obvious, there are widely discussed reasons why
insights such as these are unlikely to occur.

3.5 Thinking Inside the Boundaries: Uncreative Mind

The notion of thinking outside the boundaries is thought to be unnatural. The mind
seems more adept at repetition rather than the creation and this theory that basic function
of the mind impedes creative thinking is now widespread (for example Gerard 1952; de
Bono 1969; Gardner 1982; Adams 1987; Rickards 1988; Kosko 1993).

The way the mind is suited to repetition and the relationship of this to creative thinking is
widely mentioned now, but was also apparent in the writings of Locke (c. 1680), Hume
(c.1740) and early this century, such as Dewey (1910), Khler (1930), and Spearman
(1930). Drawing from the ancient Greek principles, Hume for instance referred to the
principle of custom, and suggested that repetitive experience of the association of ideas
tends to infer a similar association in the future, even when this may not exist. Locke
suggested that given the tendency toward self-organisation of information, that the
gathering of information was not thinking or learning.

Learning was facilitated by the

independent reorganisation of the information; or a transformational approach, to use

Guilfords (1967) terminology. The gathering of information then is preparatory but

92

clearly not central and can play a negative role by reinforcing invalid ideas. Both Locke
and Hume considered that familiarity represented an impediment to creative thinking.

Let a man be given up to the contemplation of one sort of knowledge, and that will become
everything. The mind will take such a tincture from a familiarity with that object, that
everything else, how remote soever, will be brought under the same view.
(Locke 1882, p. 45, original c.1680)

For wherever the repetition of any particular act or operation produces a propensity to
renew the same act or operation, without being impelled by any reasoning or process of
the understanding, we always say, that this propensity is the effect of Custom.
(Hume 1910, p. 339, original c. 1740)

Deweys writings around the turn of the century similarly suggested that the selfsupporting nature of most evidence was a barrier to creative thought.

Empirical evidence follows the grooves and ruts that custom wears...failures to agree with
the usual order are slurred over, cases of successful confirmation are exaggerated.
(Dewey 1910, p. 148)

Experience is not a rigid and closed thing; it is vital and hence growing. When dominated
by the past, by custom and routine, it is often opposed to the reasonable, the thoughtful.
(Dewey 1910, p. 156)

Ribot (1906) suggested that the brain does not record accurately but records information
selectively based on experience and reinforcement. Ribot said that images stored by the
brain are changed according to experience. Spearman then went further and suggested
that this process is a hindrance to creative thought.

93

[The mind]... is not at all like a photographic plate with which one may reproduce copies
indefinitely...the image undergoes change like all living substance...
(Ribot 1906, p. 19, emphasis added).

...the mental energy, taking the line of least resistance, is directed along those channels
which have by previous usage-that is to say, by virtue of retentivity-acquired a disposition
to receive it. All such mere reproduction, or course, is the very antithesis to creation.
(Spearman 1930, p. 32, emphasis added)

These ideas, established about a century ago, form the basis of todays understanding of
the conservative nature of thinking. Patterns of experience, or memory make everyday
life possible. The more familiar, the stronger the pattern. Like a river does not suddenly
change its course due to a small change in rainfall patterns, the mind does not alter
patterns readily; they are moulded into shape over time.

We recognize but cannot define. The neural nets in our brains are good at that. They
evolved over hundreds of millions of years to do that, to quickly and ceaselessly match
sensed patterns to stored patterns. We recognize faces and music and seasons and we
have little or no idea how to define them. We cannot explain how we recall a name or
answer a question or have a new idea. We just do it. Our neural nets just do it. (Kosko
1993)

Luchins (1942) conducted a series of experiments examining the effect of prior

experience on problem solving. Luchins referred to this as the effect of einstellung.
Luchins used the water jar problems where given three different sized jars the task was
to arrive at a certain volume of water. For example; Jar A=21, Jar B=127, and Jar C=3,
obtain 100 units of water. The result can be obtained by B-A-2C (127-21-3-3=100). The
first five problems had jars of different sizes and different goals but could all be solved by
this formula. The next two problems (six and seven) be solved in this way but could also
be solved by a more direct route. For example, problem seven, A=23, B=49, C=3, obtain
20 units of water. The previous method works (B-A-2C=20), but the problem can be
solved more simply by A-C=20. Luchins compared the way that subjects solved problems
six and seven if they had previously completed the first five (experimental groups) with
94

the way that subjects completed six and seven having done no prior problems (control
groups). Subjects were 222 college students (aged 17-21), 913 adult high school students
(aged 16-40), 1259 public school students (aged 9-14), 40 private school students (aged 812) and 275 university students (aged 19-52). About one third of the subjects were
controls (no pre-conditioning) and the remainder experimental subjects. Luchins found
that for all subjects virtually 100% of the control group subjects used the simple method.
In stark contrast only around 25% of the pre-conditioned subjects chose the simple
method, the remainder opting for the familiar but longer method.

Birch (1945), drawing on the work of Khler, investigated the effect of previous
experience on problem solving with chimpanzees. Six chimpanzees were given the use of
a stick with which they could retrieve food from outside their cage. In 30 minutes only
two of chimpanzees used the stick to retrieve the food; and one of these discovered the
use of the stick by chance when bumping it and noticing the food moving. In contrast, all
the chimpanzees solved the problem within 20 seconds, when the experiment was
repeated following three days of being allowed to play with the sticks,. The results
indicated that the chimpanzees were able to solve the problem by employing the
knowledge gained through previous experience. However this experiment showed the
positive value of previous experience rather than the potential negative effect.

Later, Birch and Rabinowitz (1951) showed the inhibiting effect of previous knowledge on
problem solving. The task was to connect two strings hanging from the ceiling. The
strings couldnt be grasped at the same time, however on the floor were two pieces of
electrical equipment, a relay and an electric switch. Both items could be used as a weight
to convert one string into a pendulum to complete the task. A control group of six
electrical engineering students, familiar with the use of both objects, showed no bias
toward either object; three using the rela y and three using the switch. A further 19
college students who were not experienced with electrical equipment were divided into
two groups. One group were trained to use the relay to solve an electrical circuit problem
and the other group trained to use the switch to solve the same problem. The ten subjects
who used the relay to solve the circuit problem all used the switch as the pendulum,
95

whereas almost all (seven out of nine) of the subjects who used the switch to solve the
circuit problem chose the relay as the pendulum. The pre-conditioning biased the later use
of the objects. When asked for reasons, subjects tended to be defensive about their
choice and its superiority over the alternative object. Both groups offered seemingly
logical explanations; claiming their choice was easier to attach, more compact, heavier and
so on.

Like Birch and Rabinowitz (1951), Schooler and Melcher (1995) demonstrated that
previous experience can limit problem solving. Schooler and Melcher showed that poorly
focussed photographs are more difficult to distinguish when subjects have previewed the
same photograph even more poorly focussed (their methodology is not reported in detail).

Repetition, custom and habit have all been ways to express the same problem. Gardner
(1982) said that the ability to copy and mimic are basic learning functions, however they
can block the development of new ideas. Likewise, Osborn (1948) suggested that better
recall abilities may even be a hindrance to creative thinking. It is recognised that the best
abilities of the mind constitute something of a barrier to creative thinking. From this arises
a need for mechanisms to aid the process of creativity; as Rickards said; ...the need for
lateral thinking arises because the mind does not record successive data in an
objective way, but produces understanding through creating pattern. (Rickards
1988).

3.6 Uncreative Culture

Sometimes the cultural effects on creativity can be harsh. For example, despite being
right, Copernicus became very unpopular by suggesting that the Sun was the centre of the
solar system. The assumptions held by his detractors were learnt from their surroundings
and experience. However, criticism, victimisation, short-sightedness, and ridicule, are not
confined to uneducated times well past. Peters (1987) illustrated this with a number of
more contemporary examples where creative ideas were subjected to harsh criticism that
later proved to be very short-sighted.

96

Who in the hell wants to hear actors talk?

Harry Warner, founder of Warner Bros. Studio, in 1927

I think theres a world market for about five computers.

Thomas J. Watson, Chairman of IBM, in 1943

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.

Ken Olson, President of Digital Equipment, in 1977

Cultural rigidity and cultural barriers to creativity are not only features of the western
world. The geniuses are kicked out! This was the comment of Tadatsugu Taniguchi,
Molecular Biology Director at University of Osaka, about that way that the Japanese
education system promotes evenness, overlooking individuals brilliant in special areas (in
Bylinski & Moore 1987). Although a recognition exists of the industrial importance of
innovation in Japan (Tatsuno 1990), their societal, cultural and education systems tend to
obstruct creativity. These cultures equate seniority with wisdom, suppresses individuals in
favour of groups, values improvement little -by-little rather than concept changes, and
resists the conflict that often comes with creativity (Bylinski & Moore 1987).

It seems that like our brain, our way of living prefers order. Parnes (1971) said that In a
society each individual must live in a box, hemmed in somewhat. A post to creativity
discussion group captured elegantly the thinking limitations of a boxed-in lifestyle.

A few years ago I met some Indians from the Amazon rainforest visiting the US... I asked
what they found interesting or surprising about the U.S. One of the things they offered
was that they had always been confused by North American/European visitors to the
rainforest because they all appeared to think and talk in boxes. After visiting NYC and
other metro areas, they realized it was only natural. Everyone lived in small boxes, many
of them stacked on top of each other. To them, this explained many of our conceptual
limits (Baker 1995)

97

In an attempt to compare cultures, Li and Shallcross (1992) investigated the difference

between Asian and American students on the nine dot problem. Subjects were 80
Chinese and 80 American students split equally into four age groups (6-7; 10-11; 15-16;
17-18).

Li and Shallcross measured several variables and found that the Chinese

students;

succeeded more often (43 compared with 17)

went beyond the boundaries more often (55 compared with 38)
took longer to break the boundary (32 minutes compared with 21 minutes)
took longer to solve the problem (41 minutes compared with 26 minutes)
took longer to give up (75 minutes compared with 30 minutes)
took more trials to solve the problem (39 compared with 29)

The mean time that Chinese students took to solve the problem was 41 minutes.
American students who did not solve the problem gave up after 30 minutes on average.
Given that most of the Chinese success was beyond the 30 minute time, this seems to
indicate that persistence is significant in the overall success of the Chinese compared to
the Americans.

The lack of persistence is possibly linked to the issue of ego. Ego is a term intricately
linked with social culture. In Freuds definition ego is social awareness and conscious. In
social interaction the ego is a restriction to explorative thinking. For instance in the case
of solving the nine-dots problem, if subjects fail to persist it may be because they dont
wish to be involved in something at which they fear being incompetent. Once committed
to a point of view, for instance that the task is impossible, there is not much incentive to
continue. Social awareness (ego) leads people to be wary of looking foolish, being
indecisive, changing their mind frequently or backing eventual losers. Like the response of
the Editor of the Daily Express of London, when John Baird, inventor of television, wished
to see him in 1925; For Gods sake, go down to reception and get rid of a lunatic
whos down there. He says hes got a machine for seeing by wireless! Watch himhe may have a razor on him (in Peters 1987).
98

Adams (1987) reasoned that fear to make a mistake, to fail or to take a risk are common
emotional blockages to new ideas. Some authors cite the strong ancient Greek influence
as the basis for this passion for rightness. Western science took a full two-thousand
years to liberate itself from the hypnotic effect of Aristotle. (Koestler 1969, p. 176)

The belief in a concept of a fixed truth encourages a search for the truth and the ego
creates a desire to be seen to know the truth. Many authors have commented that
spontaneous judgement of rightness is an obstacle to creative thinking (Osborn 1948;
Gerard 1952; Perkins, 1981; Adams 1986; Rickards 1988).

Osborn (1948) said that

judgement is a safe kind of thinking as it produces only a verdict rather than an idea.
Gerard concurred and said that judgement often rejects new ideas.

For ideas, like mutations, are mostly bad by the criteria of judgement, and experience and
expertness suppresses them - unless imaginings get out of hand and displace reality, as in
the insanities. (Gerard 1952, p.227)

In summary, the box that creative thought escapes from, is a box of assumptions, a box of
perception based on past experience and learnt patterns. Originality is characterised by
an altering of perception, a break from the boundary. There is not only the conservative
nature of the mind to cope with but the conservative nature of social and cultural
interaction. Rickards (1988) noted that yes, but... was the most likely retort to a new idea
and that this expression represents the epitome of judgemental thinking. The message is
that methods to provoke thinking out of dominant boundaries and ways to be sympathetic
to seemingly illogical ideas are vital for a real change of paradigm. Gary Larson (1992)
characterised the superficiality of many creative efforts when thinking becomes
embedded in habit (Figure 3-6).

99

Figure 3-6 A Cartoon Comment on Superficial Thinking

Embedded in Habit (Larson 1992)

3.7 Intelligence
Early definitions of thinking were such that thinking was only subliminal movement of the
vocal chords. Thinking was no more than talking to yourself. Words were thinking; and
therefore good thinking meant good verbalising (Koestler 1969).

Language has subsequently dominated education and in the assessment of intelligence its
role has always been central. The dominance of language skills, and mathematical skills,
in the assessment of intelligence has been widely criticised on the basis that the tests
attempt to determine a single value and are too narrow in their approach (for example;
Gardner 1985; Guilford 1987; Sternberg & Lubart 1995). Gardner (1985) suggested that
intelligence tests show past learning rather than future potential. They reveal little about a
persons ability to re-organise information or solve a new problem. Gardner illustrated the
problem by showing that some people who were excellent in some areas of thinking, were
poor in others. For example, Leonardo da Vinci is upheld as being creative in many areas
but was not particularly good at music.

Thus, if IQ tests were based on musical

intelligence, da Vinci would be classified as unintelligent.

Similarly, Adams (1987)

commented that tests based on good skills in mathematics and language (often the
hallmarks of intelligence and school testing) lead to similarly poorly based claims that those
100

who do well have high intelligence, and those who do poorly have low intelligence. These
contemporary writers echoed the sentiments of Deweys earlier writing.

The conviction that language is necessary to thinking (is even identical with it) is met by
the contention that language perverts and conceals thought. Three typical views have
been maintained regarding the relation of thought and language: first that they are
identical; second, that words are the garb or clothing of thought, necessary not for
thought but for conveying it; and third (the view we shall here maintain) that while
language is not thought it is necessary for thinking as well as for its communication.
(Dewey 1910, p. 170)

Verbalising to memorise is a common way for western people to learn. Hebb (1949)
described an experiment where subjects were asked to remember an image of 16
characters arranged in a four-by-four matrix. The image was typically recalled in the
familiar, left to right, horizontal orientation, showing that that the stored image of the
square was not remembered as a spatial image but memorised according to the normal
reading culture.

While words are useful for reading, are they useful for thinking? Michael Faraday saw
the stresses surrounding magnets and electric currents as curves in space.

James

Maxwell made mental images of problems, that is symbols without words and Francis
Galton said I fail to arrive at the full conviction that a problem is fairly taken on me
unless I have continued somehow to disembarrass it of words (in Gordon 1961).
Einstein commented that words are useful for describing thinking but have little to do with
the thinking itself.

The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in
the mechanism of thought. The physical entities which seem to serve as elements in
thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be voluntarily
reproduced and combined. (Einstein 1952, p. 43)

While words are certainly useful for analysis, description and communication they are not
necessarily a part of the actual process of thinking (Einstein 1952). Yet formal thinking is
101

dominated by verbal logic as the main form of thinking (Kornhaber & Gardner 1991).
Relying only on analysis, description and logical explanation of the way the things are
perceived to be is a major cause of irrationality and an obstacle to creative thinking
(Adams 1989; de Bono 1992a). Many authors have suggested that Western education
systems have a large responsibility for building barriers to creativity by promoting
judgemental thinking (Osborn 1953; Torrance 1962; Rickards 1988).

While language has dominated the testing of intelligence, models of the functions of the
mind have for a long time considered wider range of factors; the five senses perhaps
constituted the simplest model of this type. Spearman (1930) vigorously questioned the
validity of assumptions made about intelligence and intelligence testing. Spearman felt
there was some commonality in intelligence, or a general intelligence, and yet was
dissatisfied with the indiscriminate application of intelligence tests that measured one
aspect and then transposed this to indicate overall intelligence. Recently Guilford (1987)
commented that the attention given to language has been to the detriment of creativity.

It should be remembered that from the time of Binet to the present, the chief practical
criterion used in validation of tests of intellect has been achievement in school. For
children, this has meant largely achievement in reading and arithmetic. This fact has
generally determined the nature of our intelligence tests. Operationally then, intelligence
has been the ability (or complex of abilities) to master reading and arithmetic and similar
subjects. These subjects are not conspicuously demanding of creative talent. (Guilford
1987, p. 36)

In 1909, Binet (1975), who somewhat ironically was also one of the first involved in the
development of intelligence tests for children, said that good teaching must activate a full
range of senses. Some years later, Hebb (1949) found that patients with the entire right
cortex removed could often still achieve excellent IQ scores. Hebb suggested that this
showed that good language skills are commonly associa ted with high intelligence, while
the skills more strongly associated with the right cortex are not measured. It seems
commonplace for those with poor speech to be seen as having an impaired intelligence.
For instance, it would be rare for someone lacking in musical ability to be labelled

102

retarded, but labels like these are often unfortunately ascribed to those with poor speech.
Torrance said that ...it is safe to say that IQ represents a gross oversimplification of
human giftedness (Torrance 1992, p. 10), while Dewey (1910) earlier commented that
signs are necessary for thinking, but words are not the only kind of sign.

...language includes much more than oral and written speech.

Gestures, pictures,

monuments, visual images, finger movements - anything consciously employed as a sign is,
logically, language. (Dewey 1910, pp. 170-171)

While the actual testing of intelligence concentrated on abilities in the verbal and
mathematical area, it has been well recognised that there are clearly a range of other
ways that intelligence can be expressed.

The brain cortex is usually described in terms of a left and right hemisphere and so there
has been much interest in determining which types of intelligences relate to which
hemisphere. The division of the brain into two parts has been known for several hundred
years (Blakemore 1990). Thomas Willis in 1661 began dissecting brains and came to the
conclusion that perception, memory, voluntary activities and so on, occur in the cerebral
hemispheres. Mainly during the last century there has been a mapping of functions to
certain areas of the brain. In the 1960s, Sperry, Gazzaniga and Bogen (1969) conducted
experiments with patients whose brain hemispheres had been disconnected.

They

observed that each of the separated hemispheres had its own visual sensations and
memory, however the left hemisphere was dominant in verbal and mathematical tasks.
Their testing equipment involved a patient looking at a screen, on the back of which could
be projected silhouette images. The patients could reach under the screen to manipulate
objects, but could not see past the screen. In one experiment the patient was asked to fix
vision on the centre of the screen. Two images were projected for 1/10 second; one on
the left field and one on the right. If asked to select the object they saw, by feeling with
the left hand, the patient selected the object matching the left-field image. When asked to
name the same object the patient responded with the name of the object in the right-field.
Objects seen in the left-field, or manipulated with the left-hand, could not be verbalised,

103

whereas those on the right-side could be verbalised. Similar effects were shown for
mathematical tasks. Under normal conditions, where the eyes scan all around, these
results were not found and speech and mathematical ability appear normal. From these
studies and others, the functions dominated by each hemisphere are usually described as
follows.

Left Hemisphere

Right Hemisphere

Words

Spatial

Logic

Perception

Numbers

Imagination

Sequence

Rhythm

Symbols

Colour
Wholeness
Dimension

Table 3-3 Typically Cited Dominant Functions of the Left and Right Hemispheres

Sperry (1983) later suggested that most education focuses on the development of the left
hemisphere. This has perhaps been to the detriment of creative thinking, that is thought to
importantly involve reorganisation, imagination and so on. As a result methods that are
supposed to promote thinking using the right-hemisphere have made their way into many
texts on creative thinking. For instance, the spatial technique of taking notes, known as
mind-mapping, mainly promoted by Buzan (Buzan 1974; Buzan & Buzan 1993), is based
on tapping a non-linear type of thinking (Figure 3-7).

104

Mind Maps

Figure 3-7 Examples of the Structure and Layout of Mind Maps

Clockwise from Top Left: Glenn 1973; Buzan 1974; Lazear 1990; Rickards 1988

The left/right brain model has appeared in many texts and research studies of creative
thinking. For instance, Williams, Stockmyer and Williams (1984) compared brainstorming
with a program designed to activate both sides of the brain.

Subjects were 62

undergraduate students in two equal-size groups who were required to think of similarities
between an island and a school. They found a similarity in the number of ideas, but the
techniques to stimulate both sides of the brain lead to more creative ideas.

105

However some authors have suggested that the distinctions are over-played and are not
nearly as clear as the typical lists indicate (for example; Sperry 1983; Dobbs 1989).
Gardner (1982; 1985) claimed that no function resides wholly in any one area of the brain;
some areas simply are relatively more important for certain functions. Correspondingly,
Perkins (1981) said that drawing conclusions like intuition and rationality lie in the right and
left brain respectively involves definitions far too loose to be of practical use. Sperry,
awarded a Nobel Prize for work in this area, summed up the difficulties of the typical
classifications with the following comment.

One must caution in this connection that the experimentally observed polarity in right-left
cognitive style is an idea in general with which it is very easy to run wild. You can read
today that things such as intuition, the seat of the subconscious, creativity, parapsychic
sensitivity, the mind of the Orient, ethnocultural disposition, hypnotic susceptibility, the
roots of the counterculture, altered states of consciousness, and what not, all reside
predominantly in the right hemisphere. The extent to which extrapolations of this kind
may eventually prove to be more fact or fancy will require many years to determine.
Meanwhile it is important to remember that the two hemispheres in the normal intact
brain tend regularly to function closely together as a unit, and that different states of mind
are apt to involve different hierarchical and organizational levels, or front-back and
other differentiations in laterality. (Sperry 1985, p. 19)

While the left and right model of the brain is probably the most pervasive, there have been
other ways to split up the functions of thinking. Guilford introduced the widely accepted
structure-of-intellect (SOI) model, a cubic morphological model of intellect (Guilford 1967;
Figure 3-8).

106

Figure 3-8 Structure of Intellect (SOI) Model (Guilford

1967)

The SOI model consisted of a cube; each dimension representing a series of related
intellect factors. Guilford (1988) later extended the model to include a greater number of
factors; dividing memory into memory retention and memory recording, and dividing
figural content into visual and auditory content.

The factors then consisted of the

following.

1. Content
Visual (visual-figural)
Auditory (auditory-figural)
Symbolic (signs, symbols, words)
Semantic (thoughts, without visual or auditory images)
Behavioural (behaviour cues such as body language)
2. Products
Units (any bit of information)
Classes (grouping due to similarity)
Relations (one thing directly related to another)
Systems (organised units)
Transformations (the change of something into another)
Implications (one thing associated with another)
3. Operations
Cognition (knowing)
Memory Recording (holding on to the knowing long-term)
Memory Retention (holding on to the knowing short-term)
Divergent Production (generation of alternatives)
Convergent Production (looking for one answer)
Evaluation (judgement)

107

Guilford (1988) wrote that experiments employing the technique of factor analysis have
shown that over 100 of the 180 potential abilities have been individually demonstrated.
The model provides a mechanism for understanding intelligence and creative abilities in a
broad sense. Recently theres been growing educational interest in a similar, but simpler,
model proposed by Gardner (1985).

Gardner suggested that intelligence could be usefully divided into seven intelligences;
linguistic, mathematical, musical, body kinaesthetic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal
intelligence. Hatch and Gardner (1990) undertook a project with a small sample of
preschool children with a series of intelligence evaluation tools that were designed to
reflect a broad range of intelligences, loosely related to Gardners multiple intelligence
model. They found that the childrens strengths in various areas were unrelated to
strengths in other areas and that standard Stanford-Binet (IQ) scores only correlated well
with mathematical functions. The multiple intelligence model would seem to share a
similarity with the content factors in Guilfords model, with a few modifications and
additions. While Gardners model has not received the research interest of Guilfords, it
seems to be having a growing influence in the educational field. The model provides a
simpler approach than Guilfords and while the terms may not be validated in a scientific
sense they provide a model for widening the scope of activity that might be designed in to
class activities and tests. Much like the split of functions into the hemispheres encouraged
development of tools like mind mapping, Gardners model may at least serve to highlight a
range of thinking skills; a worthwhile outcome for the enhancement of creative thinking.
As evidence of the validity of such an approach, studies have shown that physical
exercise (Gondola 1986; Curnow & Turner 1992), and especially aerobic exercise (Hinkle,
Tuckman & Sampson 1993) can improve creativity. Others have shown that programs
involving music (Curnow & Turner 1992), dance (Flaherty 1992), creative arts combining
physical expression such as dance and visual art (Gruber, McNinch & Cone 1991; Goff
1992), and programs designed to enhance self-control of thinking (Berretta & Privette
1990) can be worthwhile in enhancing creativity.

108

If the studies of intelligence have aided the study of creativity it is by showing the
importance of encouraging broad application of thinking abilities. Various models that
expand the notion of thinking, such as the simples senses model, the hemispheres model,
Guilfords structure-of-intellect model, or Gardners multiple intelligence model all
serve to encourage thinking to be considered in wider terms than language and logic.

3.8 Active Divergent Thinking (ADT)

Einstein suggested that the process of productive thought involved the manipulation or
combination of abstract ideas.

...from a psychological viewpoint, this combinatory play seems to be the essential feature
in productive thought-before there is any connection with logical construction in words
or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others (Einstein 1952, p. 43)

Thus according to Einstein, productive thought was not logical, but abstract. Logical
descriptions or explanations came after this abstract thinking. Psychologist, Abraham
Maslow (1965) agreed and said that making connections and reforming ideas in a new
way will require patience or perhaps an acceptance of uncertainty, wrongness and
ambiguity.

It was noted above that often a fortuitous event provided the inspiration of divergence
from the established train of thought. Guilford referred to this kind of thinking as divergent
thinking. The techniques that aim to increase the likelihood of the movement of thinking
outside dominant paradigms Ive labelled active divergent thinking. The term, active,
meaning that the thinker takes deliberate steps to encourage divergent thinking. A
summary of the main techniques or features of active divergent thinking follow.

109

3.8.1 Chance
The classic tales of creative success often involve a seemingly fortuitous combination of
the problem at hand with a useful by-chance event that jogged the thinking into a new
mode. Mednick (1962) used the term serendipity to describe the by-chance association
that is a typical part of famous incidents of creative inspiration.

Mednick (1962)

suggested that the central element of creativity is the association of previously

unassociated elements. Waiting for these events is unreliable and so the active use of
chance has been suggested as a way to bring more certainty to the process. For instance,
introducing a random word or random object has been suggested as a simple way to
stimulate new perception of a problem (Mednick 1962; de Bono 1971).

A useful technique that sometimes helps towards the formation of new ideas or new ways of
looking at things is to pick an object out of the environment and then try to see how it
could be relevant to the matter under consideration. The supposition is that if both the
objects and the problem are simultaneously held in consciousness, some sort of context
will gradually develop to embrace them both. (de Bono 1971, p. 104)

3.8.2 Analogy
Ribot (1906) considered that analogic comparisons to be the centre of creative thought.
Many writers since have promoted its use as a creative thinking technique (Gibson &
Phillips 1958; Gordon 1961; Koestler 1969; de Bono 1971; Bransford & Stein 1984).

A further technique for breaking down the rigidity of a particular way of looking at things
is to transfer the relationships of the situation to another more easily handled situation.
(de Bono 1971, p. 80)

The synectics model (Gordon 1961) is probably the most well-known for using analogy as
a method for active divergent thinking.

In 1944 Gordon and others instigated the

Synectics program at Cambridge University. Synectics, a Greek word, means joining

together different or apparently irrelevant elements and reflected the diversity of the group
membership. However, synectics later related to the creative processes of analogy that
the program emphasised.

The method is now commonly mentioned, sometimes as

synectics, or sometimes just as analogy. Barry and Rudinow (1990) suggested using
110

analogies to relate difficult problems to simple problems. They used the example of a ping
pong tournament with 208 competitors. The tournament is a knock-out and the problem is
to work out how many matches are needed to arrive at the winner. Often people
approach the problem using a tree diagram or a mathematical technique. An alternative is
to draw an analogy between the 208 entrant tournament and a tournament with two
entrants. Clearly only one match would be needed. With three entrants, two would be
needed.

It is then apparent that 207 matches will be needed for the 208 entrant

tournament.

Analogy between the moving parts in an ear and an idea for a telephone is supposed to
have helped Alexander Graham Bell to invent the telephone. Gutenberg is thought to have
invented the printing press by drawing an analogy between a wine press and a coin
stamping machine. Analogies make new things familiar by comparison to already
understood ideas.

Halpern (1989) said that analogies used in this way make

understanding new or complex things less difficult. In the examples of inventions cited
earlier, analogy was often part of the development of a new idea.

Bouchard (1972) compared brainstorming with and without the technique of personal
analogy as described by Gordon (1961). Subjects were 44 undergraduate students
arranged into three groups of four who brainstormed using the analogy method and eight
control groups of four who brainstormed in the usual way. Each group worked on nine
alternative uses problems in three sessions. The subjects in the groups using personal
analogy were instructed to take turns at acting like the object in question (for example
they had to pretend to be a cigar when this was the object). The results showed that for
the first session (three problems) the personal analogy groups generated significantly more
ideas (100%) than the control groups. However in the subsequent two sessions (six
problems) the analogy groups were not significantly better. There were indications of
success, however Bouchard did not conclude with certainty that the personal analogy
technique improved idea generation.

111

In addition to sometimes being known under the synectics banner, bisociation has been
used to describe analogic thinking (Koestler 1969). Bisociation meant the linking of
concepts, or in Koestlers terminology, thinking on two planes rather than one. The
technique of bisociation was to amalgamate two normally unconnected ideas which is
another way of expressing the idea of analogy. The purpose of analogy as an active
divergent thinking technique is to establish links by association. Often this association
shifts perception showing the situation in a new light.

3.8.3 Forcing Relationships: Morphology

Forcing ideas together can be an effective method to generate new ideas (Parnes 1967).
Putting this into practice can be achieved via the technique of morphology as described by
Allen (1962) and Zwicky (1969). Morphology is the practice of idea combinations usually
using a matrix. Morphology has since been widely discussed in texts on creative thinking
(for example; Koberg 1981; Adams 1986; Rickards 1988). Sometimes the method is
called attribute analysis, especially when related to product design (Parnes 1976; Adams
1986). As an example of product design, Table 3-4 shows Allens matrix for the design of
a kettle.

Container
Construction

Metal Used

Type of
Bottom

Automatic
Heating
Controls

Capacity
(Quarts)

Power
Rating
(Watts)

Pressed

Aluminium

Single Metal

Underneath Kettle

500

Case

Stainless Steel

Double Metal

On Kettle

850

Single Wall

Copper

Solid

On Handle

1350

Double Wall

Double Bottom

On Cord

2000

With Air Space

With Air Space

Table 3-4 Morphological Matrix (Morphologizer) to Design a New Kettle (Allen 1962)

By thinking of the relevant parameters, and then developing a few options for each
parameter, the resultant combinations soon amount to a large set of options. The kettle
matrix has six parameters with only three or four options for each parameter, and yet this
yields 3000 different kettles. Listing the 3000 options would be monotonous and many
options would seem not too different from many others, however the power of the

112

technique comes by way of forcing relationships that would ordinarily be not considered,
and by opening an appreciation of the many variations that are possible.

As a further example, Niemark (1987) reproduced the following phrase generator (Table
3-5). Choosing a random number such as 241 or 735 yields impressive phrases like
diverse harmonious awareness or realistic dialectical response. The method force
fits words together and provides a fast way to generate a phrase. Although a little
facetious, this example shows random combinations to be a powerful method of idea
generation.

Column A

Column B

Column C

Profound

Interpersonal

Awareness

Diverse

Emotional

Oneness

Genuine

Dialectical

Relationship

Subjective

Harmonious

Network

Complex

Communal

Response

Sophisticated

Open

Linkage

Realistic

Humane

Consensus

Meaningful

Interactive

Context

Mutual

Collective

Dialogue

Objective

Societal

Forum

Table 3-5 Phrase Generator (Niemark 1987)

The element of active divergent thinking in morphology is to employ the matrix to force a
link between ideas that are not normally linked. The technique thus employs the principle
of combinations as a thinking diversion.

113

3.8.4 Brainstorming

Brainstorming: a technique in which a group meets in order to stimulate creative

thinking, new ideas, etc (The Macquarie Dictionary 1985)

Brainstorming is probably the most well-known term in creative thinking. Alex Osborn
(1948) first used brainstorming at his own company in 1939 and it has since become a
popular method for creativity. For instance, Fernald and Nickolenko (1993) recently
surveyed 1000 businesses in Orlando about creative methods. One hundred responded
and the results showed that brainstorming was the most frequently mentioned technique.
According to Osborn, the name brainstorm meant to use the brain to storm a problem.
Osborn said that at least four hundred years ago, Hindu Indians practiced a group creative
process called Prai-Barshana. Prai meaning outside yourself. Barshana meaning
question. The process of prai-barshana thus meant to question outside yourself; to air the
thinking in a group. Osborns brainstorming rules were;

1.

Judicial judgement is ruled out. Criticism of ideas will be withheld until the next

day.
2.

"Wildness" is welcomed. The crazier the idea, the better; its easier to tone down

than think up.

3.

Quantity is wanted. The more ideas we pile up, the more likelihood of winners.

4.

Combination and improvement are sought. In addition to contributing ideas of our

own, lets suggest how anothers idea can be turned into a better idea; or how two or
more ideas can be joined into still another idea. (Osborn 1948, p. 269)

These rules were intended to create a setting for the generation of ideas.

Osborn

suggested that the first rule was most vital as attempting to combine idea creation and
criticism is like getting hot and cold water out of a tap at the same time (Osborn 1948).
The theory was that deferring judgement overcame education and experience that
encouraged judgment and criticism. Ideas are much like seedlings in that they are easily
trampled when they first appear and require a little nurturing before they are uj dged
critically. Osborn suggested that judgement must be deferred for two main reasons.

114

1. Sometimes the suggestions may change the parameters of the problem.

2. Ideas of little value may be modified or lead to worthwhile ideas.

Following experience with brainstorming, Osborn (1979) claimed that the more ideas that
are produced the higher the quality becomes. That is, the best ideas tend to be developed
near the end of the session. The message therefore was to create an abundance of ideas
and then choose the best. However Adams (1987) said that the natural tendency is to
choose the first one that comes to mind. Osborn stressed the importance of multiple
options for two reasons. Firstly, more options increases the probability of a worthwhile
idea, and secondly many ideas encourages associations; a chain reaction. However getting
started can be difficult. Blank paper is threatening and anything put on it will stand out. If
judgement is deferred then starting should be easier. This has a snowball effect as once
there are a few ideas it seems less threatening to add one or two that even seem a bit
silly. Connections and modifications are easier to make once the list grows. The principle
of the generation of alternatives as a key feature of problem solving seems universal
among creativity literature (for example; Guilford 1950; Kogan & Bagnall 1981; Adams
1987; Sventesson 1990).

While Osborn is best known for promoting brainstorming in groups, he made observations
that group idea generation was not always the most efficient.

For one thing, during certain periods in a creative quest, each member of a team should
go off by himself and do some brainstorming on his own. When the partners come together
after such solo thinking, they will find that they have piled up more worthwhile
alternatives than if they had kept on working as one all the time. (Osborn 1948, p. 264)

Group work has a strong connection to creativity. The techniques of brainstorming are
applicable to individual work, however the group setting of brainstorming has been strongly
associated with the method. This is in part due to considering creativity as a trait of
people. If some people are creative and some are not, and its difficult to tell the
difference between them, then the best way to ensure a creative result is to mix a few
people together. Hopefully one of them is creative and will spur the others forward.
115

Gordon (1961) wrote that the common approach to creativity is as follows; I will select
creative people, but since creativity is so mysterious and unpredictable, I may have
missed on some, so I will put several together and hope for the best. Gordon (1961)
said that the team using an undisciplined approach degenerates toward the safest, most
obvious and most superficial solution available; far from the cooperative ideal of group
creativity.

Brainstorming provided a setting for idea generation.

As noted already the central

element to creativity is a change in perception, a move outside the square. Osborns

(1948) model included techniques for active divergent thinking, but in many ways they
have been overshadowed by the brainstorming model. The techniques Osborn (1948)
suggested for promoting divergent thinking was the following list of focussing verbs.

1. Seek alternatives
2. Find other uses
3. Find similar ideas and copy
4. Modify
5. Magnify
6. Exaggerate
7. Minify
8. Substitute
9. Re-arrange
10. Reverse
11. Combine
(Focussing Verbs; Osborn 1948)

The checklist provided ways to jog thinking from dominant paradigms. The method
requires discipline and focussed effort to explore the resulting possibilities. For instance, a
suggestion like magnify may initially lead to no ideas, but some effort must be made to
follow this train of thought, otherwise perceptions remain unchanged. The purpose of
focussing verbs is to actively divert the mind in a direction that might not occur if old
habits are allowed to dictate.

116

Osborns personal experience of brainstorming was in the advertising industry. De Bono

(1992a) has been critical of brainstorming and suggested that the advertising industry
relies on novelty and that this approach is not always appropriate where ideas must have
greater serious application. Likewise, Osborn intended brainstorming to be purposeful.

But in almost every other field a scatter-gun approach to creativity makes no more sense
than having a thousand monkeys banging away on typewriters in the hope that one of
them might produce a Shakespeare play. (de Bono 1992a, p. 39)

The first rule is that the problem should be specific rather than general-it should be
narrowed down so that the brainstormers can shoot their ideas at a single target.
(Osborn 1948, p. 268)

It may be that Osborns intention of a specific purpose for brainstorming session has been
poorly adopted. Perhaps the generation of wild ideas has become the main thrust of many
brainstorming efforts? The scattergun approach clearly would be a normal and necessary
feature of the free-association of brainstorming, but hopefully this approach would be
taken within the confines of a certain domain. Alternatively the employment of focussing
verbs as tools of active divergence do not necessarily involve free association; the new
ideas may arise not from enthusiastic association but through forced divergent thinking.

In terms of the success of the brainstorming model, Osborn cited examples from many
organisations and people that attested to its value. These examples appeared to be an
indication of the usefulness of the process and its continued popularity has lead the term
brainstorming to be synonymous with creative thinking. Further to this there have been
many studies that examined the effect of brainstorming (discussed later). In some studies
the method was described as the Osborn-Parnes method and as such this deserves a brief
explanation. The term Osborn-Parnes refers to the process Parnes (1967) developed
based on the brainstorming model. The Osborn-Parnes model consisted of the steps
outlined below. The model was a problem-solving framework around the brainstorming
core.

117

1.

Understanding problems, problems as opportunities

2.

Defining the problem, what is the real problem, Asking Why?

3.

Deferring judgement (brainstorming model) and challenging habits

4.

Forming associations

5.

Evaluating ideas

6.

Putting ideas into action

7.

Finding; facts, problems, ideas, solutions and acceptance

8.

Observation and perception

9.

Applying the total process to practice problems

10. Using checklists for idea finding (Osborns tools)

11. Making unusual ideas useful
12. Applying total pro cess to own problems with direction
13. Forcing relationships, morphology and matrix
14. Applying total process to own problems, self-directed
15. Making snap decisions
16. Summary
(Osborn-Parnes Problem Solving Method; Parnes (1967))

In summary, Osborn recognised many of the typical blockages to creative thought and
sought to overcome these with a set of simple rules for group meetings that would
facilitate free expression, combination of ideas and exploration of seemingly weak
possibilities. These rules also applied to individual thinking although were often applied in
a group setting. Furthermore Osborn recognised that creative thinking could be enhanced
by techniques that provided a way to actively divert thinking from its well-worn pathways.
This part of the model has been overshadowed by the brainstorming rules for group
efforts.

118

3.8.5 Lateral Thinking

Lateral thinking: a way of thinking which seeks the solution to a problem by making
associations with apparently unrelated areas, rather than pursuing one logical train of
thought (The Macquarie Dictionary 1985)

Lateral thinking characterises thinking outside the boundary. In many ways its usage
as a term for creative thinking is convenient being not associated with artistic endeavour.
In connection with creative thinking, the use of the term lateral thinking arises from the
work of de Bono (1971) who defined main features of lateral thinking as follows.

1.

Recognition of dominant polarizing ideas.

2.

The search for different ways of looking at things.

3.

A relaxation of the rigid control of vertical thinking.

4.

The use of chance.

(de Bono 1971, p. 68)

De Bono characterised lateral thinking with the diagram below (Figure 3-9) showing that
lateral thinking is a jump from the obvious. While the side path looked small, once the
jump is made the pathway appears as wide as the original path. Like Koestler (1969), de
Bono (1992a) described lateral thinking as a way of thinking that we normally associate
with humour. A punch-line delivers an alternative way of seeing the situation described in
the main body of a joke. Similarly, lateral thinking describes a way of thinking that diverts
off the main path to potentially show another way of looking at a problem.

Figure 3-9 Lateral Thinking (de Bono 1992a)

119

The model employs the classic, outside the square model of creative thinking, but moving
outside the dominant ways of thinking requires some stimulation. Escaping from the wellworn path can be firstly achieved by recognising the dominance of the path. Creating the
new idea can be achieved by a deliberate examination of current assumptions and making
a challenge to these assumptions. De Bono (1971) called this recognition of dominant
polarizing ideas. Once assumptions are recognised they can be challenged by first
simply attempting to find another way to view the situation. More directly though, the
assumed boundaries can be challenged directly by employing processes such as Osborns
(1948) focussing verbs as prompts. Alternatively the problem domain might be shifted by
the introduction of a random word, or perhaps by analogy to another situation, or maybe
by deliberately reversing an assumed relationship.

Another useful technique is to turn upside down deliberately by consciously reversing

some relationship. Instead of looking at the walls of a house as support for the roof, the
walls may be considered as suspended from the roof. (de Bono 1971, p. 79)

As noted so far restructuring of ideas in a new way is pivotal to creativity. Often this can
be facilitated by forcing thinking outside current patterns.

The divergent thinking

techniques to achieve this shift often result in unreal or illogical concepts. As noted
earlier, Einstein observed that many of his constructing thoughts involved illogical ideas.
To facilitate the consideration of possibilities brought about via divergent thinking, de Bono
(1969) introduced the word PO.

The whole purpose of PO is to provide a temporary escape from the discrete and ordered
stability of language which reflects the fixed patterns of a self-organizing memory-system.
(de Bono 1969, p. 287)

Sometimes it is necessary to consider an idea that is an impossibility to subsequently arrive

at a new, possible, idea (Rickards, 1988). PO can act as a signal that an idea is intended
to be provocative, intended to be a stepping stone, rather than a firm, fixed idea. PO is
simply a word to facilitate the processes important in creative thinking.

120

Lateral thinking then is in some ways synonymous for divergent thinking. The techniques
associated with the term involve the recognition and challenging of dominant ways of
thinking and the injection of stimulation to encourage thinking outside the square.

3.8.6 Six Thinking Hats

The tendency in our culture toward critical thinking and judgement is recognised as a
major obstacle to creative thinking. As such Osborns model of brainstorming in groups
placed great importance on the elimination of criticism. Similarly, de Bonos (1985) six
thinking hats tool can separate phases of thinking into bite size pieces thus offering the
opportunity to be focussed on creative thought at one time and the judgement of ideas at
another time. The six hats represented six modes of thinking (Table 3-6).

Metaphor

Focus of Thinking

Green Hat

Creativity, alternatives, possibilities

Yellow Hat

Benefits, values, opportunities

Black Hat

Caution, risks, judgement

Blue Hat

Control, managing the thinking

Red Hat

Emotion, feelings, intuition

White Hat

Information, facts, data

Table 3-6 Six Thinking Hats (de Bono 1985)

Obviously these words described the kind of thinking that all people do sometimes. Thus
rather than anything new in the way of content, the six hats represented a way to
structure thinking. The method aimed at providing a better way to organise thinking to
achieve greater thinking breadth. One of the main reasons for this was to overcome a
common tendency for criticism and judgement to dominate our thinking.

Clearly

judgemental thinking is important however it is well recognised that overused it is a

hindrance to idea production. The six hats method provides a model for focussing on one
kind of thinking at a time, such as creative thinking. The model provides a way to signal
that other types of thinking will be used at an appropriate time. In some ways the blue hat
is the key to the system. The blue hat is the control hat; the thinking about thinking hat,

121

planning when creative thinking is appropriate and when other types of thinking are
appropriate.

The six hats method was intended to create a model of parallel thinking as against
adversarial thinking. Parallel thinking meaning the situation where groups of people think
in the same mode at the same time. Thus all the yellow hat thinking is done at the same
time, all the black hat thinking at the same time, and so on.

The method promotes involvement.

In de Bonos words it separates ego from

performance. Often it seems that we are discouraged from thinking about both sides of
an argument because we find ourselves committed intellectually to one side. Backing
winners in a social sense, involves making early judgements and seeing them though
whereas the six hats system encourages all people to put forward ideas on both sides.
Everyone is able to contribute to the exploration without denting egos as they are just
playing the game.

The metaphor of thinking hats is a convenient way to signal various thinking modes for a
number of reasons. Hats have been traditionally associated with thinking, for example;
put on your thinking cap. The six hats represent roles which is in accordance with the
traditional association of hats and roles. For instance police officers, chefs, baseballers,
surf-lifesavers, are all easily identified by their hats. Hats are also physically near to the
mind, and are also physically easy to swap around. Koestler (1969) used the symbol of the
thinking cap to describe the switch of thinking necessary to recombine old data in a new
way. He said that the most difficult form of thinking is the art of handling the same bundle
of data as before but relating them in a different way; and this virtually means putting
on a different kind of thinking-cap for the moment (Koestler 1969, p. 235).

Koestler highlighted that the thinking cap can be on for a moment; a switch of thinking for
a set amount of time. This facilitates the key value of the six hats method which is to
provide a focus on creative thinking at the exclusion of other kinds of thinking.

122

3.8.7 Illustration of the Process of Active Divergent Thinking

To illustrate the processes of active divergent thinking, consider the following examples.

3.8.7.1 Example One: The Monk and Mountain Trail

One morning exactly at sunrise, a Buddhist monk began to climb a tall mountain. The
narrow path, no more than a foot or two wide, spiralled around the mountain to a
glittering temple at the summit.

The monk ascended the path at varying rates of speed, stopping many times along the way
to rest and to eat the dried fruit he carried with him. He reached the temple shortly before
sunset. After several days of fasting and meditation he began his journey back along the
same path, starting at sunrise and again walking at variable speeds with many pauses
along the way. His average speed descending was, of course, greater than his average
climbing speed.

Prove that there is a spot along the path that the monk will occupy on both trips at
precisely the same time of day. (Koestler 1969, p. 183-184)

Logical reasoning seems to indicate that it would be very unlikely for the monk to be in
any one place at the same time on both days. Koestler cited an example of how a person
with no scientific background solved the problem by visualising the monk travelling up and
then superimposed the monk also travelling down. It was then clear that the monks must
meet. Travelling up and down simultaneously is impossible and yet thinking about the
problem this way lead to the solution. Logic can easily get in the way of a logical solution.
An active injection of an illogical visual image lead to a logical solution.

3.8.7.2 Example Two: The Gardener and the Olive Trees

Youre a gardener. Your employer asks you to plant four olive trees so that each one is
exactly the same distance from each of the others. How would you arrange the trees?
(Barry & Rudinow 1989, p. 376)

123

Arrangements in a square or in a line didnt work. Three trees in a triangle worked but
wherever the other one goes it is closer to some than others. To solve the problem I
challenged what I was assuming about the problem. Trees are normally outside; as a
challenge to this I considered the idea that the trees be indoors. This lead me to the
possibility of having some of the trees on a different story of the house. The solution then
seemed to be to have three trees on one level in a triangle and the other tree upstairs at
the centre of the triangle. Given appropriate proportions the problem would be solved.
Outside the house trees could be planted in a pyramid by using a small hill or depression.
This solution is obvious and logical; but that doesnt mean that I found the solution by
logic. Indeed putting the fruit trees inside had nothing to do with logic at all. As in the
previous example, actively injecting an illogical challenge lead to a logical solution.

3.8.7.3 Example Three: Active Divergent Thinking and Safe Design

To illustrate the process of creative thinking in safe design, consider a piece of equipment
found in many homes. Some time ago the ABC in Australia screened a program about
the safety of exercise cycles. The main focus of the television program was the problem
of children becoming caught in the moving parts. They investigated a number of exercise
cycles and showed how the guarding of the wheel, chain, sprocket and so on, was often
inadequate. The program was critical of the poor guarding on many bicycles. Australian
Standard 40921993, Exercise Cycles - Safety Requirements, noted that there has
been injuries to the fingers and hands of young children mainly involving the chains,
sprockets, flywheel spokes and flywheel loading mechanisms. To solve the problem, the
most obvious route would be to follow the advice of the Standard.

Guards shall be provided to protect dangerous parts at all locations which constitute
shear, crushing, or drawing-in hazards, giving particular attention to the following:
(a) The flywheel
(b) The drive train
(c) The flywheel loading mechanism. (SAA AS 4092-1993, p. 6)

Exercise cycles in the stores now would seem to be guarded according to the standard,
but are more expensive. Maybe safety comes with a price tag? In safety, the hierarchy
124

of control model gives priority to elimination of the hazard. Therefore consider the
following.

1. Hazard (potential to cause injury): Moving Parts

2. First Priority: Eliminate Moving Parts
3. Risk Control: Redesign the exercise cycle eliminating the wheel, chain and sprockets.
4. Outcome: Simpler, lighter, cheaper and inherently safer exercise machine.

In hindsight this is completely logical (Figure 3-10). The wheel serves no purpose. The
necessary resistance could be built into the pedal crankshaft. This machine would seem to
have potential to be cheaper and inherently safer, due to the absence of many of the
hazardous parts. This example shows the value of adopting the hierarchy of control
model. The focus on high-order elimination control lead to improved safety along with
simultaneous benefits such as cost savings, and a lighter cycle with lower maintenance
needs. This contrasts with the guarding options that involved increased costs and offered
no side benefits. The hierarchy of control thus served as a means of actively diverting the
thinking from the dominant paradigms.

Figure 3-10 Active Divergent Thinking and Exercise Cycle Safety

125

3.9 Research Studies in Creative Thinking/Brainstorming

In 1950, Guilford wrote of the neglect on the part of psychologists of the subject of
creativity.

Guilford (1950) analysed the index of Psychological Abstracts for the

preceding 23 years and found that only 186 of the 121,000 (or approximately 0.15%) of
titles were listed as relating the subject of creativity. Recently, Sternberg and Lubart
(1996) conducted a similar analysis of Psychological Abstracts between 1975 and 1994
and found that papers relating to creativity represented approximately 0.5% of the total.
This represented something of an increase in the interest in creativity as a proportion of
the field of psychology, but Sternberg and Lubart highlighted the relative lack of research
about creativity by showing that in the same period studies of reading skill, represented
1.5% of the abstracts; three times that of creativity.

Among the relatively small pool of creativity research noted above, only a portion of this
research has concentrated centrally on methods for improvement of creativity. While the
subject of creative thinking is wider than brainstorming, its influence has been strong.
The discussion that follows thus centres on research that was undertaken following the
growth in use of the brainstorming technique. A full description of each of these research
studies in a way so as the methodologies and results could be fully understood would
impede the reading to a significant extent, therefore the summaries of the following
research studies can be found in Appendix A.

3.9.1 The Effect of Brainstorming

Studies on the subject of brainstorming have typically tested the effect of either training in
brainstorming versus no training; or tested the effect of encouraging subjects to use the
brainstorming instructions versus giving them no such instructions. The subsequent tests
have mainly been based on generating alternative ideas in response to a simple problem
such as; find alternative uses for a coat hanger. Assessment then has typically
involved measuring the quantity and quality of the output; a model established by Guilford
(1950).

126

Many studies have shown that training in brainstorming lead to improvement on these
tests; both in terms of idea fluency and often a measure of the quality of the ideas
(Meadow & Parnes 1959; Parnes & Meadow 1959; Parnes 1961; Reese and Parnes
1970; Baer 1988). The magnitude of the changes, where reported, have been in the order
of 100% (Parnes & Meadow 1959) and some have been reported to have maintained
some years after the training (Parnes & Meadow 1960).

While the studies of

brainstorming training have usually been confirming of each other, one contrasting study
found an increase in the originality, or quality, but no effect in terms of idea fluency
(Kabanoff & Bottger 1991).

Further studies, have shown that creative output was improved by encouraging subjects to
use brainstorming instructions as against emphasising non-brainstorming where subjects
were encouraged to be critical of ideas (Parnes & Meadow 1959; Meadow, Parnes &
Reese 1959; Weisskopf-Joelson & Eliseo 1961; Parloff & Hanson 1964; Sappington &
Farrar 1982; Szymanski & Harkins 1992). Where reported the increases in total idea
output have been 70% (Parnes & Meadow 1959), 100% (Szymanski & Harkins 1992),
100%-300% (Weisskopf-Joelson & Eliseo 1961) and 450% (Parloff and Hanson 1964)
and in terms of good ideas have been between 50% (Sappington and Farrar 1982) and
100% (Meadow, Parnes & Reese 1959; Parloff and Hanson 1964).

Osborn asserted that brainstorming should lead to an increase not only in the number of
ideas but also in the quality. The research by Weisskopf-Joelson & Eliseo (1961), Parloff
and Hanson (1964), and Szymanski and Harkins (1992) tended to not support Osborns
claims about this relationship. However, Parnes (1961) examined the brainstorming output
of individuals and compared the ideas produced at various stages of the brainstorming.
Parnes showed that the number of good ideas as a proportion of the total, improved as the
brainstorming progresses, thus supporting Osborns claim.

Osborns model encouraged thinking in a free-wheeling, anything-is-possible style. In

reality, this may be difficult to engender given the relative seriousness of many real-life
problems. Some studies have examined the link between the potential end uses of the
127

ideas and the productive output. Sessions that seemed to lead to direct consequences
have been shown yield less ideas than when the session seemed to be a training exercise
only (Harari & Graham 1975; Maginn & Harris 1980).

Further studies have

demonstrated that controversial topics lead to less ideas than mundane topics (Harari &
Graham 1975; Diehl & Stroebe 1987). These findings show the importance of generating
an atmosphere of free-wheeling, but that creating this environment may be difficult
depending on the perceived end-uses and seriousness of the issue at hand.

One of the appeals of group work is the possibility that the ideas flowing around can
prompt the thinking of individual members. One of Osborns claims was that the stimulus
of other ideas are an important part of the value of generating ideas in groups. This
prompted a number of research studies that isolated this effect to measure if it indeed was
important. The studies that have directly examined the effect of idea-stimulus showed
that it had no effect (Madsden & Finger 1978; Connolly, Routhieauz & Schneider 1993;
Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes & Camacho 1993). It appears that the supposed value of the
stimulation given to individual thinking by the presence of other ideas has not been
supported by research. It seems that this is not a particular reason to work in groups.

Criticism is supposed to be withheld in brainstorming. Studies in this area have shown that
performance can be reduced with a deliberate increase in the level of criticism (Smith
1993). Direct monitoring of the group's performance has been shown to reduce idea
output (Diehl & Stroebe 1987) while another study showed that direct monitoring had an
equal effect with video taping and the prospect of later evaluation (Maginn & Harris
1980).

There is evidence that criticism reduces performance, however eliminating

criticism may be difficult as other work has shown that critical people are perceived as
more intelligent and capable (Amabile 1983). While reducing criticism may increase idea
production, there are social, ego-based reasons why criticism will be difficult to
discourage.

In summary, some studies have investigated training in brainstorming and found it to be

effective (Meadow & Parnes 1959; Parnes & Meadow 1959; Parnes 1961; Reese and
128

Parnes 1970; Baer 1988). Others have examined the effect of encouraging subjects to
employ the brainstorming instructions versus non-brainstorming instructions, and found this
to be also successful (Parnes & Meadow 1959; Meadow, Parnes & Reese 1959;
Weisskopf-Joelson & Eliseo 1961; Parloff & Hanson 1964; Sappington & Farrar 1982;
Szymanski & Harkins 1992).

Further work has shown that the components of

brainstorming are valid by showing that influences like criticism (Smith 1993) or the
potential for evaluation (Diehl & Stroebe 1987) have a negative effect on idea
productivity. The brainstorming model invites a free-flowing approach to the generation of
ideas. Some studies have shown that treating a topic as frivolous has been shown to be
beneficial as these types of topics lead to greater brainstorming performance (Harari &
Graham 1975; Maginn & Harris 1980; Diehl & Stroebe 1987). Idea-stimulus, however, a
key part of the supposed value of group brainstorming, has been shown to have no effect
(Madsden & Finger 1978; Connolly, Routhieauz & Schneider 1993; Paulus, Dzindolet,
Poletes & Camacho 1993).

While the studies above either investigated brainstorming components or the technique as
a whole, a great deal of research interest springing from the brainstorming method has
been in the area of the effectiveness of group thinking.

3.9.2 Performance of Nominal Groups versus Interacting Groups

The popularity of brainstorming encouraged group creative thinking. Many studies have
since compared group brainstorming with individual brainstorming.

To test this, the

productivity of nominal groups (the compilation of individual efforts) have often been
compared to that of interacting groups. Nominal groups have consistently been more
productive.

Studies of groups of four have shown that nominal groups were more

productive than interacting groups (Taylor, Berry & Block 1958; Bouchard, Barsaloux &
Drauden 1974; Harari & Graham 1975; Graham 1977; Maginn & Harris 1980; Jablin
1981; Diehl & Stroebe 1987; Diehl & Stroebe 1991; Thornburg 1991; Stroebe, Diehl &
Abakoumkin 1992; Camacho & Paulus 1995; Furnham & Yazdanpanahi 1995; Paulus,
Larey & Ortega 1995). Studies with larger groups have shown similar effects and have
shown that as group sizes increase these effects become pronounced (Bouchard & Hare
129

1970; Bouchard, Barsaloux & Drauden 1974). A variant on the typical nominal group
research has been studies where interacting groups interacted via a computer rather than
in actual contact. Comparison of these electronically interacting groups with regular
nominal groups have shown that they yield similar outcomes for groups of up to six or
eight participants, while the electronic method has been more effective for larger groups
(Dennis & Valacich 1993; Gallupe, Dennis, Cooper, Valacich, Bastianutti & Nunamaker
1992; Valacich, Dennis & Connolly 1994).

While the literature is dominated by studies showing the effectiveness of nominal groups,
there have been some studies showing that nominal and interacting groups were similar
for a group size of four. Bouchard (1969) found that semi-interacting and nominal groups
were similar, however the semi-interacting groups were worked half of the time as
nominal groups and half the time interacting. Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes and Camacho
(1993) also found nominal and interacting groups of four to be similar, however this only
occurred when comparing nominal groups to interacting groups under the influence of
individual assessment.

Madsden and Finger (1978) showed that nominal groups only

outperformed interacting groups after practice, without the opportunity for practice their
performance was similar to the interacting groups.

In groups of two and three the differences have not been so cle ar. Dyads, or groups of
two, have been shown to be equally effective when interacting as when in nominal groups
(Thornburg 1991; Furnham & Yazdanpanahi 1995). In groups of three, Street (1974)
showed that nominal groups were more effective than interacting groups of three,
however both these types of groups were outperformed by interacting groups of two!

In summary, interacting groups of four or more are rarely as productive as nominal

groups.

Due to the decline in per-person performance in interacting groups, the

superiority of nominal groups grows as the group size grows. The performance of
interacting groups has actually been shown to not improve as group size was increased
from four to seven (Bouchard, Barsaloux & Drauden 1974). In terms of idea quality,
nominal groups have sometimes been shown to generate better ideas (Diehl & Stroebe
130

1991) and sometimes been shown to be no different (Taylor, Berry & Block 1958). The
acceptance of ideas, and the ratings of quality has been found to be equally good following
nominal group work as following interacting group work (Graham 1977). The superiority
of nominal groups has been demonstrated over a variety of brainstorming session lengths
(Diehl & Stroebe 1991).

3.9.3 Satisfaction and Perception of Success in Interacting Groups

Through objective comparison of performance, many studies have shown that interacting
groups were less effective than nominal groups. Measuring the perception of the subjects
however has drawn out the reversed impression. Some studies have questioned subjects
about how they perceived the relative performance of the groups. The results have
shown a contrast between the actual performance and the perception of performance.
Subjects believed that group brainstorming was more enjoyable (Diehl & Stroebe 1991)
and more effective (Stroebe, Diehl & Abakoumkin 1992; Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes &
Camacho 1993; Paulus, Larey & Ortega 1995). While the enjoyment is not argued, the
effectiveness would seem to be a clear mis-perception. Although only Diehl & Stroebe
(1991) measured enjoyment, this factor may explain the perception of effectiveness.

3.9.4 The Reasons for Failure of Interacting Groups

Given the failure of interacting groups to live up to the predictions of Osborn, a number of
studies have attempted to extract the factors that inhibit idea generation in interacting
groups. Some personality factors such as homogenous personality (Hoffman 1959),
apprehension toward communication (Jablin 1981) and social anxiousness (Camacho &
Paulus 1995) have been shown to inhibit interacting group brainstorming. The possibilities
for the poor performance generally centre on a few themes such as blocking, social
loafing and evaluation apprehension. Blocking is the term used to describe the situation
where people can't talk when they have an idea because someone else is talking, in the
meanwhile they forget their idea, or think it's too similar to another idea, and so on. Social
loafing is the phenomenon where an individuals motivation in an interacting group is
reduced as the assessment of the performance will be based on the whole group rather

131

than individually. Evaluation apprehension means that individuals may be discouraged

from making suggestions as they fear harsh evaluation of their ideas.

Sometimes it has been thought that the effectiveness of interacting brainstorming is

affected by the reduced individual responsibility and motivation that comes with having
others to provide the ideas. This effect has been known as social loafing. Like Sims
(1928) study showing the value of individual motivation in simple mental tasks such as
reading, the performance of interacting groups when brainstorming has been shown to be
improved with the use of individual assessment (Diehl & Stroebe 1987) and by giving
subjects an opportunity to compare their own performance with earlier participants
(Szymanski & Harkins 1992). This would indicate some type of individual motivational
increase or perhaps goal setting. Latham & Saari (1979) showed that goals increase
performance whether self-set or imposed, however Latham and Saari gave no indication
of the relationship of goals to performance. Locke (1982) showed that higher goals
increase performance, although Locke's study was flawed and Lorenzi (1988) later
found that higher goals lead to only slightly higher performance and this was dependant on
the incentive of a cash prize, without such an incentive the goal levels had no effect.
There seems to be no strong evidence that goal-setting can lead to substantial
improvements in the production of ideas. Further studies, investigating the impact of
individual assessment, have shown that individual assessment made no difference to the
performance of interacting groups (Diehl & Stroebe 1991; Price 1993). The evidence of
the existence of social loafing is thus mixed. Mongeau (1993) argued that the group
leadership that Osborn emphasised has not been stressed in many studies and that the
presence of stronger leadership may impact on the participation of individual group
members. Although intuitively attractive, there seems no clear evidence that individual
assessment will spur greater motivation and consequently greater group productivity.

In addition to these personality or personal factors, theres been substantial interest in the
examination of structural features of group interaction that give nominal groups an
advantage. Subjects in nominal groups are not restricted by the contributions of others
when adding ideas whereas in interacting groups it is difficult for more than one person to
132

speak at a time. Blocking of ideas has been suggested as a possible reason for the failure
of group brainstorming to live up to the perceptions and expectations. Introducing small
impediments to the additions of ideas in nominal groups (computer-based) has been shown
to reduce the performance of nominal groups. These impediments included a small delay
in the keyboard used to add ideas (Gallupe, Cooper, Gris & Bastianutti 1994); the
necessity to add ideas one at a time rather than simultaneously (Gallupe, Cooper, Gris &
Bastianutti 1994; Valacich, Dennis & Connolly 1994; Diehl & Stroebe 1987; Diehl &
Stroebe 1991); and the requirement to take turns in adding ideas (Gallupe, Cooper, Gris
& Bastianutti 1994). Diehl and Stroebe (1991) found that the presence of communication
between members did not reduce the effectiveness of nominal groups, but the imposition
of a speaking order with requirement to self-manage the order severely impeded the
performance of nominal groups. It seems that there is reasonable evidence that some of
the poor performance in groups is due to the difficulty in communicating and recording
ideas.

3.9.5 Studies of the CoRT Program

The CoRT program is named after the Cognitive Research Trust that de Bono established
in the United Kingdom in the 1970s. Studies of the CoRT program represent the only
substantial body of research that followed de Bonos writing. The objectives of the CoRT
program are as follows;

1. That there be an area in the curriculum where thinking is treated directly in its own
right.
2. That students come to regard thinking as a skill that can be improved by attention,
learning and practice.
3. That students come to regard themselves as thinkers.
4. That students acquire a set of transferable thinking tools that work well in all
situations and all areas of the curriculum. (de Bono 1991a, p. 1)

The main idea is to treat thinking as a skill in its own right; distinct from information about
any subject in particular. This is similar to the way that the skill of talking is independent
of the subject matter of the talking. The skill of talking can be applied to any subject area.

133

The thrust of the CoRT program seems to be to create a similar effect with thinking skills.
The CoRT teaching program has been used by school children for about twenty five
years. The program is used in several countries and by children of various ages and ability
(de Bono 1982; 1991a, 1991b). In a review of the program in the larger sphere of
cognitive education Wolfe Mays (1985) commented that there seems to be some evidence
that cognitive education of this type can increase ability in judgement, memory, attention
and motivation. McPeck (1983) wrote that the CoRT program has received little or no
critical attention from philosophers or professional educators, while Resnick (1987) said
that while some teachers involved had voiced their opinion, the CoRT program had
received little in the way of formal evaluation. However, both prior to 1987 and since that
time, some formal evaluations have been reported.

In addition to anecdotal support for the CoRT program (Chance 1986; Melchior, Kaufold
and Edwards 1988; Adams 1989), more formal studies (see Appendix A for detail) have
revealed an improvement in subjects' ability to generate ideas (Rosenthal, Morrison and
Perry 1977; de Bono 1978; Edwards & Baldauf 1982; Ruffels 1986; Edwards & Baldauf
1987; de Snchez 1987; Eriksson 1990; Edwards 1991). Some of the studies indicated a
potential transfer of the skills into improvement in school subjects (Ruffels, 1986; Edwards
& Baldauf, 1987; Edwards, 1991).

These indications of transfer are tentative and

sometimes contradictory. The skills have not been conclusively shown to transfer into
problems distant from those in the program itself (Eriksson 1991).

While the studies are all supportive in their nature, they are not without qualifications. For
instance Rosenthal, Morrison and Perry (1977) measured the effects of different methods
of teaching the techniques rather than the effect of the techniques themselves, while
others were only reported in summary (de Bono 1978), lacked a control group (Edwards
& Baldauf 1982; Edwards & Baldauf 1987), or included other material, or modified
material, in the program (Ruffels 1986; de Snchez 1987). Bearing these limiting factors
in mind, the studies have indicated that the CoRT program has value in improving thinking
skills.

134

3.9.6 Summary Research Studies in Creative Thinking/Brainstorming

In summary the research on brainstorming has shown that in terms of creative production
(usually measures of productivity of ideas and quality of ideas); brainstorming instructions
and brainstorming training are effective mechanisms.

Of the components of

brainstorming, the negative role of criticism has been confirmed, although the inje ction of
novel ideas has been shown to have no effect, and working in interacting groups has been
shown to be less effective than the combined ability of the individuals alone. The poor
performance of groups may be explained at least in part by personality factors such as
social anxiousness but more readily on restrictions on the processes of adding ideas. The
relationship Osborn predicted between quality and quantity has not been confirmed.
Studies of the CoRT program in schools have indicated that these type of techniques may
also be effective in terms of enhancing creative thinking.

3.10 Assessment of Creative Thinking

In the 1950s Guilford (1950) suggested that creative output could be considered as being
composed of factors such as fluency, flexibility and novelty as well as other factors such
as sensitivity to problems and synthesising ability. Since that time creativity has been most
often measured in terms of idea fluency (output of ideas) and some measure of idea
quality (like originality, novelty or usefulness), such as in the popular Torrance Tests
(Torrance 1974). The Torrance Tests were designed for use with school students. The
tests present the students with a case study problem. The cases are presented as a
picture, or a written description or sometimes both. An example is the test of unusual
uses.

Most people throw their empty cardboard boxes away, but they have thousands of
interesting and unusual uses. In the space below and on the next page, list as many of
these interesting and unusual uses as you can think of. Do not limit yourself to any one
size of box. You may use as many boxes as you like. Do not limit yourself to the uses you
have seen or heard about; think of as many possible new uses as you can. (Torrance
1974, p. 10)

135

The time for students to attempt the tasks ranged from five minutes to ten minutes.
Responses are scored against three main measures.

1. Fluency: The number of relevant ideas.

2. Flexibility: A measure of the breadth of ideas (by allocating ideas to standard
categories)
3. Originality: A measure of the originality of the ideas. This is measured against a
standard set of ideas. Based on past use of the tests with 500 subjects Torrance made
lists of potential ideas and then dived the list into three categories according to their
commonness. Ideas that were less often suggested were rated as more original.

The Torrance Tests for creative thinking are the most widely cited standardised test of
creative thinking (Shaughnessy 1995). While many researchers have used their own
assessment techniques, these have usually been based around a similar measurement such
as idea quantity and idea quality. This methodology has been extremely common
throughout studies of creativity.

Among the research cited in this thesis almost all have

used these factors in their assessment of creativity. Cooper (1991) added that the
Torrance Tests have significant validity and reliability although could benefit from some
updating in the breadth of creativity that is considered and some revision of materials.
Polland (1994) argued that relying on Guilfords components of creativity (fluency,
flexibility and originality) is far from ideal and suggested that the originality classifications
are subjective and can too easily classify ideas as un-original. Polland says that ...the
Torrance Tests call for responses to questions for which they already have too many
answers. (Polland 1994, p. 14). While not suggesting an alternative way to measure
creativity, Polland put forward the proposal that creativity is personal and depends heavily
of the motivation and personal interest of the subject and that output can be creative for
one and not creative for someone else. While there are some detractors, Guilfords model
is yet to be replaced as a methodology for the assessment of creative output.

136

3.11 Creative Thinking: Summary

Historically there have been some difficulties with the study of creative thinking by
examining people who were very creative. This has been limiting as it implied the role of
natural talent.

More fruitful gain has been made with the strong recognition by

psychologists early this century of the problem of the uncreative mind. It is thought that
the best functions of the mind, such as recognition and repetition, simultaneously inhibit the
generation of new ideas. By studying past creative moments it has become apparent that
there were often serendipitious events that provided a turning point in the thinking of those
involved. Consequently it has become common to suggest that more of these fortuitous
events can be deliberately generated by the use of specific techniques that widen the
potential domain of solutions to a problem. Some of the simplest involve just searching for
alternatives, or gathering a group of people to do the same, thus relying on different
viewpoints, and the possibility of combination. These methods might often be sufficient.
More formal methods involve active divergent thinking or deliberately challenging current
assumptions. The techniques can be summarised into three main areas (Table 3-7). The
first designed to create a creative climate, the second to force relationships between an
element of the problem at hand and an introduced idea, and the third group of techniques
are based on altering perception of a problem domain by challenging current assumptions.
To these we could add a fourth set of techniques that aim to broaden of thinking such as
Gardners multiple intelligences model, the techniques of mind mapping and so on.

Techniques of Active Divergent Thinking

Creative Climate

Forcing Relationships

Breaking the Boundaries

Separate Idea

Morphology

Magnify

Generation and

Analogy

Exaggerate

Analysis

Substitution

Minify

Exclude Criticism

Combination

Modify

Random Word

Re-arrange

Reverse, Challenge

Hierarchy of Control
Table 3-7 Techniques of Active Divergent Thinking

137

Importantly the most apparent technique to be added is the hierarchy of control, a

technique of active divergent thinking for safety improvement. In safety there is a
continuing need to develop new approaches to risk control and thus creative thinking
would seem to be relevant. The specific techniques share strong parallels. The example
shown above of the exercise cycles showed that the hierarchy of control is functionally
much the same as many tools in creative thinking. The high-order steps in the hierarchy
attempt to shift thinking outside the boundaries of the current paradigm.

Weisberg and Alba (1981) demonstrated an important lesson in creative thinking that will
be also relevant in the application of creative thinking to safety. They showed that
breaking the assumed boundary in the nine-dot problem, while integral to the ultimate
solution, was not an instant pathway to the solution. Similarly, the mechanisms of creativity
or the hierarchy of control, rarely lead to immediately elegant solutions. More often the
techniques of active divergent thinking (such as elimination) dont make any sense.
Therefore, there needs to be a period of manipulation to see if the idea can be made to
work, or to see what other ideas can be developed as a result. The value of active
divergent thinking may often be only realised with some manipulation of the ideas. Should
critical thinking be brought to bear on the process too early then its likely that the thinking
will move back inside the square. Thus active divergent thinking usually has to be
followed by some effort to manipulate and improve the ideas put forward by these
processes because it is likely that they will not immediately make sense. Their true value
will only be realised by some consideration of the possibilities that they propose. This is
why the creative climate is important. Nevertheless, the movement outside the square
gained potentially through the techniques described as active divergent thinking remains
the pivot to the creative process. Finally, Charles Darwin:

The Imagination is one of the highest prerogatives of man. By this faculty he unites former
images and ideas, independently of the will, and thus creates brilliant and novel results.
(Darwin 1952 (orig. 1871), p. 292)

138

Chapter Four

Methodology

140

4. Methodology
4.1 Hypothesis
Control at source and the hierarchy of control are the basis for preventative measures
required by occupational health and safety legislation in Australia and internationally. The
hierarchy typically extends from a priority of controlling hazards at their source, to less
dependable measures such as those that relying on safe behaviour. The high order
controls demand hazard elimination or controls that do not rely unduly on the appropriate
behaviour of those at risk. This approach can be described as the safe place philosophy.

The safe place principle implies that safety is best incorporated at the design stage. Given
their influence over design, the education of engineers in the principles of safety has been
seen for some time as a priority and some universities have integrated safety topics with
engineering studies. In addition there have been efforts at wider integration of safety and
engineering such as those by NIOSH (USA) and the NOHSC (Australia). The desirable
integration of safety with engineering education has been difficult due to already crowded
engineering curricula. The challenge therefore was to develop an innovative way to
improve the ability of engineers to develop safe place solutions to safety problems.

The hypothesis is that training in creative thinking methods will improve the ability of
engineers to develop safe place solutions to safety problems. Part of the reasoning behind
this hypothesis was that the thinking needed to apply the hierarchy of control shares a
strong relationship with the principles of creative thinking. The preferred controls direct
attention toward elimination of the hazard. The safe place thinking therefore challenges
the established ways of doing things and demands a rethinking of assumptions, a reexamination of the process of work. Techniques for creative thinking often aim toward
similar ideals; that is, to escape from dominant paradigms and generate thinking that is
outside the boundaries. For this reason it seemed likely that creative thinking may
facilitate the safe place approach to prevention. The potential for employing creative
thinking in prevention exists within a climate of a growing emphasis on creative thinking as
an issue of wider industrial relevance.

141

Hypothesis: The hypothesis is that training in creative thinking methods would be an

effective way to improve the ability of engineers to design for safety.

4.2 Development of Testing Tools

Training programs have often been evaluated by measuring the subjective usefulness of
the training and quality of presentation. However, as Hale (1984) pointed out, rarely have
training programs been evaluated in terms of their impact on performance.

There seems to be little available in terms of a general test to measure the ability to solve
safety problems. The Mental Measurements Yearbooks, published by the University of
Nebraska Press, list tests of mental abilities. The ninth yearbook (Mitchell 1985) listed
1409 various tests, but only a few of these had any relevance to safety. A few tests
(four) of trade competence mentioned safety, while one test, the Supervisory Inventory
on Safety developed by Kirkpatrick, specifically addressed the issue. Despite writing to
the author I have not been able to obtain this test.

The only review was not

complementary and suggested that the use of the test is not justified (Carbonell 1985).

Among a total of 477 tests, the Eleventh Yearbook, listed one further test with relevance
to safety; the Supervisory Job Safety, published by Organizational Tests Limited. The
summary said that the purpose of the test is to Measure knowledge of and attitudes
toward safety practices.

(Kramer & Conoley 1992).

The test consisted of 80

questions to be answered true or false. The test was first written in 1970, however I
purchased a recent copy. The test seems to be based on the unsafe act/unsafe condition
model and unfortunately emphasises the safe person philosophy. For instance, according
to the test the following statements are true;

Physical or mental inadequacy often produce unsafe practices.

Unless unsafe practices are detected early, they tend to become strongly entrenched
work habits.

142

One sound reason for employee medical examinations is to match employee physical
abilities to the requirements of the job.

Unsafe practices most often develop from faulty initial instruction.

Every unsafe act should be corrected immediately.

A good way to minimize accidents is to eliminate unsafe acts.

Keeping the back as straight as possible when lifting heavy objects will usually avoid
injuries.

Women workers should be required to wear caps or hair nets to prevent hair being
caught in moving parts of machines.

(A Sample of True Statements from the Supervisory Job Safety Test, Organizational Tests
Limited 1970)

The Supervisory Job Safety Test does not reflect the type of thinking sought in
prevention efforts today, and consequently would not be a suitable measure. For this
project, the key was to evaluate the effectiveness of the training intervention in terms of
its effect on the way that subjects would design for safety. Many studies of creative
performance have employed a methodology of presenting subjects with a case study
problem, allowing a limited time for solutions, and then assessing the performance by
measuring the number of solutions (fluency) and very often by taking a measure of the
quality of the ideas such as originality. This model stemmed from the methodology
suggested by Guilford in 1950 and seems widely accepted.

Given the absence of a suitable testing tool for creative thinking in accident prevention, a
new tool was developed to measure the success of the training (Appendix B). The
methodology employed was that widely used in studies of creative thinking but customised
to field of safety. A series of fictional accident case studies were developed (Table 4-1).
Subjects completed half the tasks individually and half in teams. Half the tasks involved
the generation of solutions for which six minutes per case was allowed and half involved
the prioritization (ranking) of six potential solutions to a case study problem, for which 2.5
minutes was allowed.

143

Case

Title

Team Size

Task

1.

Grain Worker and the Rail Carriage

Generate Solutions

2.

Lawyer and the Coconut Tree

Generate Solutions

3.

Motorist and the Car

Generate Solutions

4.

Sawyer and the Circular Saw

NNN

Generate Solutions

5.

Mining Supervisor and the Dump Truck

NNN

Generate Solutions

6.

Bank Manager and the Chain Saw

NNN

Generate Solutions

7.

Aircraft Fitter and Tug

Prioritize Solutions

8.

Gardener and the Gang Mower

Prioritize Solutions

9.

Cable Laying Contractor and the Bogged Utility

Prioritize Solutions

10.

Orchardist and the Power Line

NNN

Prioritize Solutions

11.

Transport Worker and the Falling Pipes

NNN

Prioritize Solutions

12.

Production Engineer and the Forklift

NNN

Prioritize Solutions

Table 4-1 Case Studies and Tasks

From this data collection, three variables of interest were drawn;

1. Generation of Solutions (Number)
2. Generation of Solutions (Quality: Proportion Safe Place)
3. Prioritization of Solutions (Correlation of Ranking with Standard Ranking)

4.2.1 Generation of Solutions (Number)

For cases one to six subjects were required to suggest risk control solutions. Cases
one, two and three were completed individually and cases four, five and six completed
working as a team of three people. This variable was evaluated by simply counting the
number of solutions generated by each subject, or team.

4.2.2 Generation of Solutions (Quality: Proportion Safe Place)

The assessment of the quality of the solutions was based a measure of the extent to which
solutions were nearer to the safe place or nearer to the safe person philosophy. To
measure this, test responses were classified into these two categories according to a
standard classification developed for this purpose.

For each case a list of potential

solutions was split into the safe place and safe person categories (Appendix C). This list

144

provided standard way to classify each solution to then calculate the proportion of safe
place solutions among a set of ideas from one subject, or from one team.

4.2.3 Prioritization of Solutions (Correlation of Ranking with Standard

Ranking)
A further task was introduced which has not been common in studies of creative thinking.
The purpose was to test the ability to prioritize solutions once they have been developed.
This is known sometimes as convergent production (Guilford 1950) and has been
described as the natural progression from creative efforts (Osborn 1948). However,
given that this factor is not a central part of creative production, it has subsequently not
been a strong feature of the assessment of creative thinking programs. While the
generation of control options is important there comes as stage where a decision must be
made as to which of the control alternatives are the best. Quality decision making skills
are clearly important in health and safety; it must be clear what types of solutions are
likely to be successful. Therefore the second part of the test (Book Two, Appendix B)
was based on the prioritization of control options for a given case study in terms of their
preventative potential. The prioritization variable was the Spearman correlation of each
subjects (or each teams) ranking with a standard optimum ranking.

The standard

ranking was validated by expert opinion (Appendix C).

4.2.4 Summary of Variables

In summary, the testing tools consisted of two main tasks; generating safety solutions and
prioritizing safety solutions. Subjects worked on half the cases individually and half as
teams. The test was carried out in the order that the cases are numbered (Table 4-1).

145

4.3 Training Interventions

4.3.1 Creative Thinking Training
4.3.1.1 Rationale for the Choice of the Six Thinking Hats Program
The creative thinking training consisted of the six thinking hats program (de Bono 1985).
The reasons for this choice were as follows.

Altering perception or breaking out of the box is a key element of creativity. The six
hats technique embodies this principle and includes divergent thinking tools.

Its widely believed that judgement and criticism are harmful to creative thinking but
keeping this type of thinking at bay is difficult.

The six hats model encourages

concentration on one type of thinking at a time. Potentially this facilitates the exclusion of
criticism from creative thinking time.

For individuals to focus on a certain type of thinking it would seem logical that they must
appreciate where that thinking fits in a larger framework (metacognition). The six hats
encourages the organisation of thinking thus facilitating this metacognitive approach.

While the effectiveness of team thinking may be questionable it is undeniable that the role
of teams represents a major influence in working and social life. Despite the failure of
team work in many experimental situations, their association with creativity is strong and it
seemed wise that experiments should be carried out in both individual and team settings.
The six thinking hats model lends itself to individual and team thinking.

Gordon (1961) said that models for creative thinking are useless if they are not simple.
Simplicity is one of the hallmarks of the six thinking hats method. The rules are easy to
remember and so instructions are usually unnecessary.

Overall the six thinking hats model provides a mechanism for creative thinking that is
simple, portable and embodies principles of creative thinking.

Furthermore while

brainstorming has been studied widely, other techniques like the six thinking hats model
146

have not been researched so thoroughly. As an indication of the potential usefulness, the
studies of de Bonos CoRT program for schools have been positive about the programs
value (for example; de Snchez 1987; Eriksson 1990; Edwards 1991).

4.3.1.2 Accreditation and Training Delivery Format

Advanced Practical Thinking Training (APTT) of Des Moines, USA, administer the
certification of trainers and the six thinking hats training materials. In November 1993 I
attended a four-day trainer's certification session in Toronto lead by de Bono.

APTT supported this research by supplying the necessary training materia ls for the
research. In return for this support they are to receive a copy of this thesis. APTT have
made no attempt to influence the design of the research in any way.

There were two versions of the training materials provided; the Short Course and Full
Course. The longer course is essentially the same but includes more exercises. The
project involved a mixture of these manuals, however all of the training was a similar
duration (about one day) and covered the same topics (see below). The Technology
Students training was about ten to twelve hours in five sessions over a five weeks while
the training for all other groups was completed in one day. The topics covered in the
training included;

The nature and history of creative thinking

The roles of argument and critical thinking
Overview of the six thinking hats
Developing skills in each hat
Switching thinking by switching hats
Developing sequences of hats
Using the hats individually or conversationally
Using the hats in formal meetings
Note: No safety information at all was included

147

The key dot-point was perhaps the last one. The purpose of the exercise was to examine
the effectiveness of a creative thinking training program on safety design ability.
Obviously the inclusion of any safety examples would have compromised the study and so
the topic of safety was positively excluded from the training. No safety examples, stories,
exercises, etcetera of any kind were used in the training.

4.3.2 Hazard Management Training

The hazard management training, used in only one part of the study, was conducted by
VIOSH-Australia over two days and involved an interactive style of learning that included
case studies. The training emphasised many of the ideas discussed in Chapter 2, such as;

1. Energy damage concept.

2. Hierarchy of controls.
3. Safe Place concept.
4. Risk management (identification, assessment and control).

4.4 Subjects for the Research

The focus of this writing has been engineers, given their impact on the design of
workplaces. There are clearly other groups who influence the design of workplaces and
consequently other groups were included. There were four study groups in the research;
three groups of students of the University of Ballarat and a group of government safety
advisers. All subjects participated voluntarily.

1. Engineering Students
2. Technology Students
3. Industry Safety Advisers
4. Government Safety Advisers.

148

4.4.1 Engineering Students

The engineering students were fourth year Bachelor of Engineering students at the
University of Ballarat. They were recruited by letter and participation was voluntary.
Forty-two students participated in the research on the 3 September 1994.

These students had been exposed to health and safety education, mainly through thirdyear Engineering Management and fourth-year Environmental Principles (University
of Ballarat 1994). Engineering Management consisted of three hours per week for the
entire third year with health and safety comprising 25% of the content. Environmental
Principles consisted of four hours per week for the entire fourth year. Approximately 60%
of the total, and 100% of first semester, was devoted to occupational health and safety.

The student engineers were mid-way through fourth year and therefore had completed
their exposure to health and safety. Formal contact had been about three hours per week
for half a semester in third year and four hours per week for a semester in fourth year.

4.4.2 Technology Students

The technology students were first-year Bachelor of Technology students of the
University of Ballarat. Eighteen students participated in the research over the first five
weeks of second semester, 1994. The first semester of this course included no studies in
safety.

4.4.3 Industry Safety Advisers

The industry safety advisers (referred to from here on as industry advisers) were
students of the Graduate Diploma in Occupational Hazard Management at the University
of Ballarat. This course operates by block mode over two years. The students who
volunteered were a mixture of first and second year students, who in the main were
working full-time as health and safety practitioners. Forty-eight industry advisers
participated in the research during the mid-year, on-campus session, on 9 July 1994. First
year students had completed one semester of the Graduate Diploma and the second year
students had completed three semesters.

This group had the benefit of extensive

149

experience in occupational health and safety. Many in this group had bachelor's degrees
and as mentioned all had partially completed a tertiary course in occupational health and
safety.

4.4.4 Government Safety Advisers

The government safety advisers (referred to as government advisers) were a group of
people who work for a state government organisation. Their professional role was mainly
as advisers to industry about health and safety. Mainly the subjects were trade qualified
with between five and ten years experience in this job. This group was specialised and
experienced in safety. Their formal training had typically consisted of in-house short
courses rather than formal tertiary education. One hundred and forty-six government
advisers participated in the research on 9 June 1995.

4.5 Experimental Design

The training was evaluated by comparing the performance of untrained subjects with that
of trained subjects. The only exception being the study with the technology students,
where subjects were pre and post-tested in a paired design. Table 4-1 shows the broad
experimental design while Figure 4-1, Figure 4-2, Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 show the
procedures involved with each group of subjects. Subjects fell into either the untrained or
trained groups by random selection from alphabetical lists of subject names.

Subjects

Treatment

Type of Design

Engineering Students (N=42)

Creative Thinking Training

Untrained (N=21) v Trained (N=21)

Technology Students (N=18)

Creative Thinking Training

Pre-test (N=15) v Post-test (N=12)

Industry Advisers (N=48)

Creative Thinking Training

Untrained (N=24) v Trained (N=24)

Government Advisers (N=146)

1. Creative Thinking Training

Untrained (N=15) v Trained (N=19)

2. Hazard

Untrained (N=15) v Trained (N=112)

Management

Training
3. Combined (1&2)

Table 4-2 Treatments and Experimental Design

150

HM Trained (N=112) v CT Trained

(N=19)

4.6 Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out on the effects of the treatment and the differences
between the four study groups on the three key response variables.
1. Generation of Solutions (Number)
2. Generation of Solutions (Quality: Proportion Safe Place)
3. Prioritization of Solutions (Correlation of Ranking with Standard Ranking)

4.6.1 Independent Samples and Related Samples

As Table 4-2 shows the research mainly involved testing independent untrained and
trained groups of subjects (engineers, industry advisers and government advisers). In the
case of the technology students the samples were related and so paired analysis (for
individual subjects) was employed. To account for the possible effect of practice upon
repeating the tests a second time in the trained condition, the technology students were
tested untrained (pretest1) and then tested again one week later after no training
(pretest2) before completing the training and again completing the test about five weeks
later. The practice effect was thus analysed by comparing the second pretest with the
first while the treatment effect was analysed by comparing the trained test with the
second pretest. In the case of the technology students working in teams, no statistical tests
of significance could be performed as the composition of the teams changed over the term
of the study.

4.6.2 Generating Alternative Solutions

These are count type data. The variable potentially ranges from zero to infinity on a
discrete ratio scale. For the comparison of two independent samples (engineers, industry
advisers and government advisers) the test used was the independent samples t-test. For
comparison of two related samples (technology students) the test used was the paired ttest. Analysis of variance was used for the comparison of multiple independent samples
(comparison of the groups).

The assumptions of the t-test are normality and equality of variance within each group,
although the t-test is known to be robust to violation of these assumptions (Kendell &
151

Stuart 1979). Tests of normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Kendell & Stuart 1979)
and Shapiro-Wilks (Kendell & Stuart 1979) tests were conducted (Table 4-4). The more
significant result of these two tests is reported in each case. The analysis shows that the
data representing the number of alternative solutions have a reasonable level of normality
and therefore the t-test is appropriate. An enhanced level of normality would be desirable
though and the often used square root (X=X) normalising transformation (Snedecor &
Cochran 1967) and also the log (X=lnX) transformation (Snedecor & Cochran 1967)
were trialed but made little improvement (detail of this is not reported). The t-test is
sensitive to equality of variance. Levenes test of equality of variance (Neter, Kutner,
Nachtsheim & Wasserman 1996) was conducted and where appropriate the t-test for
non-equal variance was employed and is noted where necessary throughout subsequent
reporting of the analyses in Chapter 5.

4.6.3 Generating Effective Solutions

In their raw form these data are counts (similar to above) when they represent the
number of safe-place solutions. A statistical analysis was performed on these data and
reported briefly (see section 5.2.7) however the most important measure of the quality of
solutions was the proportion of the total solutions that these good solutions represent.
These are then proportions type data. The variable thus ranges between zero and one
on a continuous ratio scale. For the comparison of independent and related samples the
tests used were the same as those for the number of solutions variable described above.
The normalising transform appropriate should the data be non-normal is the arcsin
(X=arcsin(X)) transformation (Snedecor & Cochran 1967) however tests of normality
(Table 4-4) revealed that no transformation was necessary.

4.6.4 Prioritizing Effective Solutions

These data are ordinal data in the raw form. However the variables analysed were
Spearman correlation coefficients that range from -1 to +1 on a scale of interval quality. A
t-test could be used however the tests of normality revealed poor normality (Table 4-4).
The Fisher (z=0.5ln((1+r)/(1-r))) normalising transformation commonly used for Pearson
correlation coefficients (Kendall, Stuart & Ord 1987) is not appropriate for the Spearman
152

coefficients in this case due to the occurrence of the extreme values (-1 and +1) which
result in meaningless transformations. Therefore, a non-parametric test (the MannWhitney U test) was used for the comparison of independent samples (engineers, industry
advisers and government advisers). An alternative would have been the KolmogorovSmirnov test, however as a direct test of centrality the Mann-Whitney (M-W) U test is
more appropriate (Siegel & Castellan 1988).

For comparison of related samples

(technology students) the test employed was the non-parametric Paired Wilcoxon test.
The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis (K-W) ANOVA (Siegel & Castellan 1988) was used
for the comparison of multiple independent samples (comparison of the groups).

4.6.5 Directional Tests

Previous research in creative thinking and the likely link between creative thinking and the
control of safety problems lead to the hypothesis that the treatment would enhance
performance on the development of solutions. Given that the treatment chosen is a broad
thinking enhancement program (as well as creative in intent) improvement was also
predicted on the prioritization tasks. For these reasons, directional (one tailed) tests were
used. The adopted level of significance was 5% (the actual test results are reported).

4.6.6 Summary of the Statistical Tests Employed

Table 4-3 summarises the statistical tests employed in the data analysis. All statistical
analysis was carried out using SPSS for Windows: Release 6.1.3 (Noruis 1995).

Variable

Two Samples

Multiple Samples

Independent

Related

Independent

1. Number of Alternative Solutions

t-test

Paired t-test

ANOVA

2. Proportion of Safe Place

t-test

Paired t-test

ANOVA

M-W test

Paired Wilcoxon

K-W ANOVA

Solutions
3. Correlation with Optimum Rank

Table 4-3 Summary of the Statistical Tests Employed

153

4.6.7 Tests of Normality

Table 4-4 shows the summary results of tests of normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov and
Shapiro-Wilks) conducted on the variables used for analysis as mentioned above in
Sections 4.6.2, 4.6.3 and 4.6.4.

Tests of Normality
Case

Tech.
Pre1

Pre2

Eng.
CT

Ind.
CT

Gov.
CT

CT

HM

CT+HM1

CT+HM2

CT+HM3

Variable: Number of Alternative Solutions

One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six

*ks

* ks
*** ks

*** ks

* ks

*sw

** ks

*** ks

* ks

*** ks

* ks

Variable: Number of Safe Place Solutions

One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six

**sw

*ks

*ks

*sw

***ks

***ks

*sw

***ks

*ks
*ks
*sw

Variable: Proportion of Safe Place Solutions

One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six

**sw
*sw

*sw

*sw
**sw

*sw

**sw

*sw

Variable: Correlation of Solution Ranks

Seven
*sw
***ks
**sw
**sw
*ks
**sw
Eight
**ks
**sw
*sw
**sw
***ks
**sw
Nine
*ks
*sw
**sw
**sw
***ks
*sw
*sw
*ks
**sw
Ten
*ks
*sw
**sw
**ks
**ks
**sw
***ks
Eleven
**sw
**sw
**sw
**sw
Twelve
**sw
*sw
**ks
*sw
**sw
**sw
Table 4-4 Tests of Normality Showing Significance Levels Based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilks
Tests
Note: The significance level shown is the more significant of the two tests in each case
ks: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
sw: Shapiro-Wilks test
(*/**/***) Statistically significant at 0.05/0.01/0.001 level
Blank Cells: Not Significant
U: Untrained
1: One Team Member Creative Thinking Trained
2: All Team Members Creative Thinking Trained
3: At Least One Team Member Creative Thinking Trained (1&2)
Shaded Sections: Not Applicable

154

4.7 Methodology Summary

The purpose was to design a methodology to test the hypothesis, including selecting a
technique for implementation and developing a means of assessing safety design ability as
the result of training in creative thinking.

The main intervention was a creative thinking training program; the six thinking hats
program. Training in hazard management was also evaluated in one part of the research
as the opportunity was available to compare this training with the same group of subjects
who were involved in the creative thinking training.

The method of assessment was like past studies of creative thinking but adapted to the
special outcomes sought in safe design. The following varia bles were considered.

1. The generation of alternative safety solutions.

2. The generation of effective safety solutions.
3. The prioritization of safety solutions.

The subjects chosen for involvement consisted of fourth-year undergraduate engineering

students, first-year undergraduate technology students, practicing industry safety advisers,
and government safety advisers. The selection of a wider group than engineers was due
to the recognition that many groups contribute to safe design. The inclusion of this range
of subjects also allowed a comparison of the abilities of subjects with varying safety
expertise. All groups were involved in the training of central interest (creative thinking)
while the training in hazard management was with the government advisers only.

155

Engineering
Students

Bachelor of Engineering,
Fourth-Year Students
(42)

Random
Allocation
Untrained
Group
(21)

Trained
Group
(21)

Tests

Creative
Thinking
Training

Creative
Thinking
Training

Tests

Figure 4-1 Procedure Outline: Engineering Students

156

Technology
Students

First-Year Bachelor of
Technology Students
(18)

Untrained
Pre-Test 1
(18)

One Week Delay

Untrained
Pre-Test 2
(15)

Creative Thinking
Training
(Over five weeks)

Trained
Post-Test
(12)

Figure 4-2 Procedure Outline: Technology Students

157

Industry Advisers

Graduate Diploma in
Occupational Hazard
Management Students
(48)

Random
Allocation

Untrained Group
(24)

Trained Group
(24)

Tests

Creative Thinking
Training

Creative Thinking
Training

Tests

Figure 4-3 Procedure Outline: Industry Advisers

158

Government Advisers

Government Employed Industrial

Advisers in Occupational Health
and Safety
(146)

Random
Allocation

Creative Thinking
Group
(34)

Hazard Management
Group
(112)

Random
Allocation

Untrained Group
(15)

Trained Group
(19)

Tests
(Untrained)

Creative Thinking
Training

Creative Thinking
Training

Tests
(CT Trained)

Hazard Management
Training

Tests
(CT+HM
Trained)

Hazard Management
Training

Tests
(HM Trained)

Figure 4-4 Procedure Outline: Government Advisers

159

160

Chapter Five

Results

162

5. Results
This study involved four groups of subjects (engineering students, technology students, industry
advisers, and government advisers) and two training interventions (creative thinking training and
hazard management training). The data in the raw form are tabulated in Appendix D. Out of these
data come a number of comparisons of interest; the main being the effect of creative thinking
training, across all groups of subjects, in terms of the three main variables; generating alternative
solutions, generating effective (safe place) solutions, and prioritizing effective solutions. The
effects of the hazard management training with the government advisers is included. The last
section shows the comparison of the different groups of subjects that participated in the study
(novice/expert effects). Given that the education of engineers has been a priority issue it is of
interest to know how undergraduate students compare with groups of people who are experienced
and educated in safety. This might give an indication of the type of improvement that may be
achieved should engineers have considerable safety education. Some abbreviations used in this
chapter are noted in Table 5-1.

Abbreviation

Meaning

Ind

Industry Advisers

Gov

Government Advisers

Eng

Engineering Students

Tech

Technology Students

CT

Creative Thinking

HM

Hazard Management

Table 5-1 Abbreviations

163

5.1

Generating Alternative Solutions (Number of Alternative

Solutions)
One of the key variables measured was the generation of alternative solutions to the case study
problems. Subjects worked individually on cases one, two and three and they worked in teams on
cases four, five and six. The data that follows are organised according to the four subject groups.
A summary of the results then follows.

5.1.1 Engineering Students Generating Alternative Solutions

Case

Mode

One
Two
Three

Individual
Individual
Individual

Untrained
N
Mea
n
21
4.9
21
4.9
21
4.4

SD
1.8
2.2
1.7

Trained
N
Mea
n
21
9.0
21
11.9
21
11.3

SD

t-test
t

2.9
3.8
4.4

t(40)=5.45
t(32)=7.44u
t(40)=6.54u

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

20

Alternative Solutions

Alternative Solutions

Four
Team
7
7.3
2.7
7
15.4 3.9
t(12)=4.54
<0.001
Five
Team
7
7.9
2.6
7
17.3 3.1
t(12)=6.16
<0.001
Six
Team
7
7.6
3.0
7
19.1 6.5
t(8.5)=4.24u 0.001
Table 5-2 Number of Alternative Solutions to Safety Problems Generated by Engineering Students: Untrained
and Trained
(u) Unequal-variance t-test due to significant Levenes test for Equal Variance

15
10
5
0
Case One

Case Two

Untrained

Case Three

20
15
10
5
0
Case Four

Trained

Case Five

Untrained

Figure 5-1 Number of Alternative Solutions to

Safety Problems Generated by Engineering
Students Individually: Untrained and Trained

Case Six

Trained

Figure 5-2 Number of Alternative Solutions to

Safety Problems Generated by Engineering
Students in Teams: Untrained and Trained

164

5.1.2 Technology Students Generating Alternative Solutions

Individually
Case

Condition

Mean

SD

SD

One

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained
Pretest1 / Pretest2

18
15
13
15

4.9
6.7
11.9
4.9 / 6.7

1.8
2.3
4.4
1.7 / 2.3

+1.9

1.1

6.82

Pretest2 / Trained

12

7.1 / 11.8

2.4 / 4.5

+4.7

3.7

4.40

<0.00
1
<0.00
1

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained
Trained (3 Months)
Pretest1 / Pretest2

18
15
13
13
15

4.8
5.6
11.7
13.1
4.6 / 5.6

2.3
2.2
4.8
5.3
2.4 / 2.2

+1.0

1.7

2.24

0.021

Pretest2 / Trained

12

6.0 / 11.8

3.2 / 5.3

+5.8

4.7

4.28

Trained / Trained
(3M)

11

12.9 / 14.4

4.4 / 4.6

+1.5

3.1

1.54

<0.00
1
0.078

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained
Pretest1 / Pretest2

18
15
13
15

5.1
5.7
11.7
5.1 / 5.7

1.9
2.0
4.8
2.1 / 2.0

Paired ttest
Paired ttest
Two

Paired ttest
Paired ttest
Paired ttest
Three

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Alternative Solutions

Alternative Solutions

Paired t+0.5
2.0
1.02
0.163
test
Paired t- Pretest2 / Trained
12
5.9 / 11.4
1.9 / 4.9
+5.5
4.2
4.55
<0.00
test
1
Table 5-3 Number of Alternative Solutions to Safety Problems Generated by Technology Students Individually:
Untrained (Pretest1 and Pretest2) and Trained

Case One

Case Two

Untrained (P1)

Case Three

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Case One

Untrained (P2)

Case Two

Untrained (P2)

Figure 5-3 Number of Alternative Solutions to

Safety Problems Generated by Technology
Students Individually: Untrained (Pretest1 and
Pretest2)

Case Three

Trained

Figure 5-4 Number of Alternative Solutions to

Safety Problems Generated by Technology
Students Individually: Untrained (Pretest2) and
Trained

165

5.1.3 Technology Students Generating Alternative Solutions in Teams

Case

Mode

Condition

Mean

SD

Four

Team

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained

5
5
5

8.2
9.2
18.4

2.59
2.86
3.78

Five

Team

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained

5
5
5

7.6
8.4
17.4

3.78
2.70
3.29

Six

Team

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained

5
5
5

7.4
8.4
16.8

3.51
2.07
3.35

Trained (3-Month)

22.2

2.36

20

Alternative Solutions

Alternative Solutions

Table 5-4 Number of Alternative Solutions to Safety Problems Generated by Technology Students in Teams:
Untrained (Pretest1 and Pretest2) and Trained
Note: No statistical test performed as data is dependent and not-paired

15
10
5
0
Case Four

Case Five

Untrained (P1)

Case Six

20
15
10
5
0
Case Four

Untrained (P2)

Case Five

Untrained (P2)

Figure 5-5 Number of Alternative Solutions to

Safety Problems Generated by Technology
Students in Teams: Untrained (Pretest1 and
Pretest2)

Case Six

Trained

Figure 5-6 Number of Alternative Solutions to

Safety Problems Generated by Technology
Students in Teams: Untrained (Pretest2) and
Trained

166

5.1.4 Industry Advisers Generating Alternative Solutions

Case

Mode

One
Two
Three

Individual
Individual
Individual

Untrained
N
Mea
n
24
4.9
24
5.3
24
5.6

SD
1.7
2.6
2.0

Trained
N
Mea
n
24
6.3
24
7.3
24
7.0

SD

t-test
t

2.6
2.8
2.5

t(46)=2.12
t(46)=2.67
t(46)=2.03

0.020
0.005
0.024

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Alternative Solutions

Alternative Solutions

Four
Team
8
6.6
1.6
8
9.8
2.7
t(14)=2.85
0.007
Five
Team
8
9.0
2.7
8
11.3 2.5
t(14)=1.72
0.054
Six
Team
8
8.0
3.4
8
12.1 3.3
t(14)=2.48
0.013
Table 5-5 Number of Alternative Solutions to Safety Problems Generated by Industry Advisers: Untrained and
Trained

Case One

Case Two

Untrained

Case Three

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Case Four

Trained

Case Five

Untrained

Figure 5-7 Number of Alternative Solutions to

Safety Problems Generated by Industry Advisers
Individually: Untrained and Trained

Case Six

Trained

Figure 5-8 Number of Alternative Solutions to

Safety Problems Generated by Industry Advisers
in Teams: Untrained and Trained

167

5.1.5 Government Advisers Generating Alternative Solutions

Case

Mode

Condition

Mean

SD

'p'

Three

Individual

Untrained
Trained (CT)
Trained (HM)
Trained (CT+HM)

15
19
112
33

6.4
7.6
7.6
9.3

1.7
2.0
3.8
3.5

t(32)=1.81
t(36)=2.06u
t(143)=2.32

0.040a
0.024a
0.011b

Untrained
5
8.8
2.6
Trained (CT)
7
10.3
2.0
t(10)=1.13
0.142a
Trained (HM)
31
8.7
3.4
t(34)=0.08
0.470a
Trained
9
14.2
6.7
t(9.2)=3.40u 0.020b
(CT+HM)c
Trained
6
10.3
4.6
t(35)=1.04
0.154b
(CT+HM)d
Trained
15
12.6
6.1
t(18)=2.37u
0.015b
(CT+HM)e
Table 5-6 Number of Alternative Solutions to Safety Problems Generated by Government Advisers: Untrained
and Trained (Creative Thinking, Hazard Management, Combined Training)
(a) Compared to Untrained Group,
(b) Compared to Hazard Management Trained Group
(c) Whole team Creative Thinking Trained
(d) One person in team Creative Thinking Trained
(e) At least one person in team Creative Thinking Trained (1&2)
(u) Unequal-variance t-test due to significant Levenes test for Equal Variance

Team

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Alternative Solutions

Alternative Solutions

Five

Untrained

Trained
(HM)

Trained (CT)

Trained
(CT+HM)

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Untrained

Figure 5-9 Number of Alternative Solutions to

Safety Problems Generated by Government
Advisers Individually: Untrained and Trained
(Hazard Management, Creative Thinking &
Combined Training)

Trained
(HM)

Trained (CT)

Trained
(CT+HM)

Figure 5-10 Number of Alternative Solutions to

Safety Problems Generated by Government
Advisers in Teams: Untrained and Trained
(Hazard Management, Creative Thinking &
Combined Training)

168

5.1.6 Generating Alternative Solutions (Number of Alternative

Solutions): Summary
Table 5-7 shows the summary of the increases in the number of alternative solutions generated by
subjects trained in creative thinking compared with those untrained. The summary table also notes
the effect of practice for the technology students (between pretest1 and pretest2) and the effect of
the hazard management training for the government advisers (who worked only on cases three and
five).

Case
One
Two
Three

Mode
Individual
Individual
Individual

Tech. (a)

Tech. (b)

Eng.

Ind.

Gov.

Gov.

Gov. (c)

Practice

CT

CT

CT

CT

HM

CT+HM

+38%***
+22%*
+10%

+66% ***
+96% ***
+93% ***

+84% ***
+145%***
+155% ***

+27%*
+40%**
+24%*

+18%*

+19%*

+24%*

Four
Team
+12%(d)
+100%(d) +112%*** +47%**
Five
Team
+11%(d)
+107%(d) +120%*** +25%
+17%
-1%
+63%*
Six
Team
+14%(d)
+100%(d) +153%**
+52%*
Table 5-7 Summary of the Increase in the Number of Solutions following Creative Thinking Training
Notes:
(*/**/***) Statistically significant at 0.05/0.01/0.001 level (one tail)
(a) Technology Students Practice Effect is Pretest2 compared with Pretest1
(b) Technology Students CT Effect is Creative Thinking Training compared with Pretest2
(c) Government Advisers CT+HM effect is Creative Thinking (in teams where all the Team CT Trained) +
Hazard Management Training compared with those with Hazard Management Training Only
(d) Statistical test not possible

5.1.6.1 Effect of Creative Thinking Training

The figures show that creative thinking training lead to an improvement of around 100% for the

Alternative Solutions

20
15
10
5
0
Case Four

Case Five

Untrained

Case Six

Trained

engineering (Table 5-2, Figure 5-1 &

Figure 5-2) and technology students (in addition to the small gains due to practice) (Table 5-3,
Figure 5-3 & Figure 5-4). No statistical test was performed on the team results from the technology
students as the groups became mixed. Given the dependant nature of the data a comparison was
not possible. However the changes are of the same order as the engineering students.

169

The industry advisers (Table 5-4, Figure 5-7 & Figure 5-8) following the creative thinking training
generated about 30 to 40% more solutions that their untrained colleagues.

The government

advisers (Table 5-6, Figure 5-9 & Figure 5-10) seemed to exhibit a similar effect size and this
effect was significant for individuals but not for teams.

Over the four groups of subjects the effect of the training was to increase the number of solutions
generated by between 30% and 150%. The effect of creative thinking training was similar for
teams and for individuals. These effects seemed greatest for the undergraduate students.

5.1.6.2 Effect Hazard Management Training

The hazard management training was tested only with the government advisers. Those subjects
who took the training seemed to generate more solutions than their untrained colleagues when
working individually but not when in teams (Figure 5-9 & Figure 5-10).

5.1.6.3 Effect of Combined Training

Those government advisers who took the hazard management training following the creative
thinking training generated significantly more ideas than those who took the hazard management
training only (Figure 5-9 & Figure 5-10). As mentioned above, on its own the hazard management
training appeared to have little impact on the ability of the government advisers to generate
solutions. The creative thinking training produced a better increase but not substantial. The
substantial gains came when these two methods were combined. This outcome needs to be
moderated given the effect of practice. The government advisers who took both forms of training
completed the test twice and were compared with subjects who took the test only once. The results
with the technology students showed a significant practice effect in generating alternatives in the
order of 10 to 20%.

In comparison, those government advisers who undertook the hazard

management training after the creative thinking training produced solutions (24% more
individually and 63% more in teams) than those who only attended the hazard management
training. These results show the potential of adding general creative thinking training to specific
training such as hazard management training.

170

5.2

Generating Effective Solutions (Proportion of Safe Place

Solutions)
The effectiveness of the solutions was assessed by categorising them as either safe-place or safeperson according to a standard list of potential solutions (Appendix C). From this categorisation
the number of safe place solutions can be separately analysed. The data that follows are organised
according to the four subject groups. A summary of the results then follows.

5.2.1 Engineering Students Generating Effective Solutions

Case

Mode

One
Two
Three

Individual
Individual
Individual

Untrained
N
Mea
n
21
72
21
58
21
53

SD
22
22
28

Trained
N
Mea
n
21
63
21
67
20
58

SD

t-test
t

25
13
20

t(40)=1.23
t(33)=1.61u
t(39)=0.55

0.113
0.058
0.294

100

100

80

80

Safe Place %

Safe Place %

Four
Team
7
54
15
7
60
8
t(12)=0.91
0.190
Five
Team
7
37
10
7
49
16
t(12)=1.74
0.054
Six
Team
7
56
11
7
64
9
t(12)=1.49
0.080
Table 5-8 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions Generated by Engineering Students: Untrained and Trained
(u) Unequal-variance t-test due to significant Levenes test for Equal Variance

60
40
20
0

60
40
20
0

Case One

Case Two

Untrained

Case Three

Case Four

Trained

Case Five

Untrained

Figure 5-11 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions

Generated by Engineering Students Individually:
Untrained and Trained

Case Six

Trained

Figure 5-12 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions

Generated by Engineering Students in Teams:
Untrained and Trained

171

5.2.2 Technology Students Generating Effective Solutions

Individually
Case

Condition

Mean

SD

SD

One

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained
Pretest1 / Pretest2

18
15
13
15

53
41
60
53 / 41

23
19
16
26 / 19

-12

23

-2.05

0.030

Pretest2 / Trained

12

46 / 58

15 / 16

+12

20

1.99

0.036

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained
Trained (3 Months)
Pretest1 / Pretest2

18
15
13
13
15

43
45
62
61
41 / 45

24
27
14
17
26 / 27

+4

17

0.80

0.220

Pretest2 / Trained

12

48 / 61

29 / 13

+13

30

1.48

0.084

Trained / Trained
(3M)

11

61 / 63

15 / 14

-2

14

-0.46

0.328

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained
Pretest1 / Pretest2

18
15
13
15

34
37
47
31 / 37

22
23
19
23 / 23

+6

15

1.44

0.087

Pretest2 / Trained

12

40 / 46

25 / 19

+6

20

0.98

0.174

Paired ttest
Paired ttest
Two

Paired ttest
Paired ttest
Paired ttest
Three

Paired ttest
Paired ttest

Table 5-9 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions Generated by Technology Students Individually:

100

100

80

80

Safe Place %

Safe Place %

Untrained (Pretest1 and Pretest2) and Trained

60
40
20
0

60
40
20
0

Case One

Case Two

Untrained (P1)

Case Three

Case One

Untrained (P2)

Case Two

Untrained (P2)

Figure 5-13 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions

Generated by Technology Students Individually:
Untrained (Pretest1 and Pretest2) (Paired Data)

Case Three

Trained

Figure 5-14 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions

Generated by Technology Students Individually:
Untrained (Pretest2) and Trained (Paired Data)

172

5.2.3 Technology Students Generating Effective Solutions in Teams

Case

Mode

Condition

Mean

SD

Four

Team

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained

5
5
5

36
47
59

26
11
5.7

Five

Team

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained

5
5
5

29
34
47

23
24
13

Six

Team

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained

5
5
5
5

50
43
59
62

17
16
3.8
7.4

Trained (3-Month)

Table 5-10 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions Generated by Technology Students in Teams:

Untrained (Pretest1 and Pretest2) and Trained

100

100

80

80

Safe Place %

Safe Place %

Note: Statistical test not possible

60
40
20
0

60
40
20
0

Case Four

Case Five

Untrained (P1)

Case Six

Case Four

Untrained (P2)

Case Five

Untrained (P2)

Figure 5-15 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions

Generated by Technology Students in Teams:
Untrained (Pretest1 and Pretest2)

Case Six

Trained

Figure 5-16 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions

Generated by Technology Students in Teams:
Untrained (Pretest2) and Trained

173

5.2.4 Industry Advisers Generating Effective Solutions

Case

Mode

One
Two
Three

Individual
Individual
Individual

Untrained
N
Mea
n
24
71
24
57
24
40

Four
Five
Six

Team
Team
Team

8
8
8

59
44
61

24
19
22

Trained
N
Mea
n
24
70
24
69
24
55

17
17
13

8
8
8

SD

68
50
70

SD

t-test
t

22
20
20

t(46)=0.21
t(46)=2.21
t(46)=2.42

0.416
0.016
0.010

14
19
12

t(14)=1.13
t(14)=0.67
t(14)=1.43

0.139
0.257
0.088

Table 5-11 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions Generated by Industry Advisers: Untrained and

100

100

80

80

Safe Place %

Safe Place %

Trained

60
40
20
0

60
40
20
0

Case One

Case Two

Untrained

Case Three

Case Four

Trained

Case Five

Untrained

Figure 5-17 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions

Generated by Industry Advisers Individually:
Untrained and Trained

Case Six

Trained

Figure 5-18 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions

Generated by Industry Advisers in Teams:
Untrained and Trained

174

5.2.5 Government Advisers Generating Effective Solutions

Case

Mode

Condition

Mean

SD

'p'

Three

Individual

Untrained
Trained (CT)
Trained (HM)
Trained (CT+HM)

15
19
112
33

42
45
40
58

21
26
24
20

t(32)=0.42
t(125)=0.20
t(60)=3.91u

0.340a
0.421a
<0.001b

Untrained
Trained (CT)
Trained (HM)
Trained
(CT+HM)c
Trained
(CT+HM)d
Trained
(CT+HM)e

5
7
31
9

49
45
36
53

18
19
15
9

t(10)=0.31
t(34)=1.82
t(38)=3.24

0.380a
0.039a
0.001b

45

14

t(35)=1.39

0.086b

15

49

11

t(44)=3.17

0.002b

Five

Team

Table 5-12 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions Generated by Government Advisers: Untrained and
Trained (Creative Thinking, Hazard Management & Combined Training)
(a) Compared to Untrained Group
(b) Compared to Hazard Management Trained Group
(c) Whole team Creative Thinking Trained
(d) One person in team Creative Thinking Trained
(e) At least one person in team Creative Thinking Trained (1&2)

100

100

80

80

Alternative Solutions

Alternative Solutions

(u) Unequal-variance t-test due to significant Levenes test for Equal Variance

60
40
20
0

60
40
20
0

Untrained

Trained
(HM)

Trained
(CT)

Trained
(CT+HM)

Untrained

Figure 5-19 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions

Generated by Government Advisers Individually:
Untrained and Trained (Hazard Management,
Creative Thinking & Combined Training): Case
Three

Trained
(HM)

Trained
(CT)

Trained
(CT+HM)

Figure 5-20 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions

Generated by Government Advisers in Teams:
Untrained and Trained (Hazard Management,
Creative Thinking & Combined Training): Case
Five

175

5.2.6 Generating Effective Solutions (Proportion (%) of Safe-Place

Solutions): Summary
As mentioned above the effectiveness of these solutions was assessed by categorising them as
either safe-place or safe-person according to a standard list of potential solutions (Appendix C).
The variable was the proportion (%) of safe-place solutions.

The results here are grouped

according to the subject groups. Table 5-13 summarises the difference in the proportion of safeplace solutions of the trained subjects compared to the untrained subjects.

Case
One
Two
Three

Mode
Individual
Individual
Individual

Tech. (a)

Tech. (b)

Eng.

Ind.

Gov.

Gov.

Gov. (c)

Practice

CT

CT

CT

CT

HM

CT+HM

-23%*
+10%
+19%

+26%*
+27%
+15%

-12%
+16%
+8%

-2%
+22%*
+36%*

+8%

-3%

+45%***

Four
Team
+30%(d)
+26%(d)
+11%
+15%
Five
Team
+18%(d)
+39%(d)
+33%
+17%
-7%
-27%*
+47%**
Six
Team
-14%(d)
+35%(d)
+14%
+14%
Table 5-13 Summary of the Changes in Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions with Training
Notes:
(*/**/***) Statistically significant at 0.05/0.01/0.001 level (one tail)
(a) Technology Students CT Effect is Creative Thinking Training compared with Pretest2
(b) Technology Students Creative Thinking Training compared with Pretest2
(c) Government Advisers CT+HM effect is Creative Thinking (in teams where all the Team CT Trained) +
Hazard Management Training compared with those with Hazard Management Training Only
(d) Statistical test not possible

5.2.6.1 Effect of Creative Thinking Training

The trained subjects appeared to generate higher quality solutions, with 17 of the cells in Table 513 showing an increase and only three showing a decrease, however most of the changes in the
table are not significant. Some indication of possible improvement due to practice was indicated
by the technology student data where there were four gains (two non-significant and two nontested), and two decreases (one significant and one non-tested). It seems reasonable to suggest that
the proportion of safe place solutions that subjects generated remained at least steady, and showed
signs of an increase, following training in creative thinking.

176

5.2.6.2 Effect of Hazard Management Training

The hazard management training (Table 5-12, Figure 5-19 & Figure 5-20) showed little change in
the quality of the ideas for individuals and a lower quality for teams.

5.2.6.3 Effect of the Combined Training

While the effects of the hazard management training alone were disappointing, the effect of the
hazard management training for those who had also completed the creative thinking training were
positive (Figure 5-19 & Figure 5-20). In comparison to the hazard management training group,
the combined group generated a significantly higher proportion of safe-place solutions, both
individually and in teams.

5.2.6.4 Summary Effects for Generating Effective Solutions

In summary it seems that;

Following creative thinking training the average proportion of safe place solutions was at least
maintained and there were some indications of an improvement.

Hazard management training did not affect the proportion of safe place solutions.

Adding creative thinking training to the hazard management training lead to an improvement
in the proportion of safe place solutions

177

5.2.7 Generating Effective Solutions (Number of Safe-Place

Solutions): Summary
The combination of the raw number of ideas and the average idea quality represents the number of
good ideas. Table 5-13 summarises the difference in the number of good, safe place, solutions
generated by the trained subjects compared to the untrained subjects.

Case

Mode

Tech. (a)

Tech. (b)

Eng.

IND.

GOV.

GOV.

GOV. (c)

Practice

CT

CT

CT

CT

HM

CT+HM

+102%**
*
+118%**
*
+125%**

+71%**

+29%

+185%**
*
+200%**
*

+73%**
+22%

+17%

+65%***

One

Individual

+10%

Two

Individual

+44%*

Three

Individual

+15%

Four

Team

+29%(d)

+63%**

+145%(d +141%** +71%**

)
Five
Team
+33%(d)
+156%(d +200%** +50%*
+14%
-22%
+127%**
)
*
*
Six
Team
0%(d)
+158%(d +200%** +72%**
)
Table 5-14 Summary of the Changes in Number of Safe-Place Solutions with Training
(*/**/***) Statistically significant at 0.05/0.01/0.001 level (one tail)
(a) Technology Students Practice Effect is based on Pretest2 compared with Pretest1
(b) Technology Students CT Effect is Creative Thinking Training compared with Pretest2
(c) Government Advisers CT+HM effect is Creative Thinking (in teams where all the Team CT Trained) +
Hazard Management Training compared with those with Hazard Management Training Only
(d) Statistical test not possible

The results show that the training yielded large (up to 200%), statistically significant,
improvements in the number of good solutions for the technology students, engineering students
and the industry advisers. The training seemed to have only a modest effect with the government
advisers. Similarly the hazard management training resulted in no statistically significant effect.
Of note though, is the substantial, and statistically significant, differences between those
government advisers who attended both forms and those who attended the hazard management
training only.

178

5.3

Prioritizing Effective Solutions (Correlation with Optimum Rank)

One of the key variables measured was the prioritization of potential solutions. Subjects worked
individually on cases seven, eight and nine and they worked in teams on cases ten, eleven and
twelve. The data following is organised according to the four subject groups. A summary of the
results then follows.

5.3.1 Engineering Students Prioritizing Effective Solutions

Case
Seven
Eight
Nine

Mode

Untrained
N
Mean
21
-0.29
21
-0.08
21
0.34

Individual
Individual
Individual

SD
0.45
0.50
0.51

Trained
N
Mean
21
0.09
21
0.14
21
0.61

Mann-Whitney Test
U
p
137
0.018
162
0.068
160
0.062

SD
0.58
0.53
0.41

Ten
Team
7
0.00
0.33
7
0.45
0.56
14.5
0.099
Eleve
Team
7
0.38
0.24
7
0.76
0.25
6.5
0.010
n
Twelv Team
7
0.83
0.19
7
0.86
0.13
24.5
0.500
e
Table 5-15 Correlation with Optimum Ranking of a Set of Safety Solutions by Engineering Students: Untrained
and Trained

Case
Twelve

Case Nine
Trained
Untrained

Trained
Untrained

Case Eight

Case Eleven

Case Seven

Case Ten

-1

-0.5

0.5

-1

Figure 5-21 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Engineering
Students Individually: Untrained and Trained

-0.5

0.5

Figure 5-22 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Engineering
Students in Teams: Untrained and Trained

179

5.3.2

Technology Students Prioritizing Effective Solutions

Individually
Case

Condition

SD

Seven

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained
Trained (3 Months)

18
15
13
13

-0.33
-0.17
-0.19
-0.02

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained

18
15
13

-0.40
-0.13
-0.18

Eight

Paired Wilcoxon Test

Pairs
T

0.54
0.56
0.58
0.54

15
12
11

10+, 46+, 46+, 3-

1.16
0.45
1.31

0.122a
0.323b
0.096c

0.55
0.64
0.55

15
12

9+, 55+, 5-

2.04
0.61

0.021a
0.270b

Nine

Pretest1
18
-0.05
0.56
Pretest2
15
0.11
0.64
15
11+, 22.06
0.019a
Trained
13
0.15
0.62
12
6+, 60.00
0.500b
Table 5-16 Correlation with Optimum Rank by Technology Students Working Individually: Pretest1, Pretest2 &
Creative Thinking Trained
(a) Compared to Pretest1
(b) Compared to Pestest2
(c) Compared to Trained

Case Nine

Case
Nine

Case Eight

Case
Eight

Untrained (P2)
Untrained (P1)

Untrained (P2)
Untrained (P1)

Case
Seven

Case Seven

-1

-0.5

0.5

-1

Figure 5-23 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Technology
Students Individually: Untrained (Pretest1 and
Pretest2) (Paired Data)

-0.5

0.5

Figure 5-24 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Technology
Students Individually: Untrained (Pretest2) and
Trained (Paired Data)

180

5.3.3

Technology Students Prioritizing Effective Solutions in Teams

Case

Mode

Group

SD

Ten

Teams

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained
Trained (3Month)

5
5
5
5

-0.08
-0.16
0.14
0.44

0.49
0.73
0.54
0.27

Eleven

Teams

Pretest1
Pretest2
Trained

5
5
5

0.08
0.13
0.38

0.40
0.25
0.49

Teams

Pretest1
5
0.26
0.70
Pretest2
5
0.33
0.65
Trained
5
0.29
0.87
Table 5-17 Mean Correlation with Optimum Rank by Technology Students Working in Teams: Pretest1, Pretest2
& Creative Thinking Trained
Note: Statistical test not possible as data is dependant and pairs are mixed

Twelve

Case
Twelve

Case
Twelve
Untrained (P2)
Untrained (P1)

Case
Eleven

Trained
Untrained (P2)

Case
Eleven

Case
Ten

Case
Ten
-1

-0.5

0.5

-1

Figure 5-25 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Technology
Students in Teams: Untrained (Pretest1 and
Pretest2)

-0.5

0.5

Figure 5-26 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Technology
Students in Teams: Untrained (Pretest2) and
Trained

181

5.3.4
Case
Seven
Eight
Nine

Industry Advisers Prioritizing Effective Solutions

Mode

Untrained
N
Mean
24
0.11
24
0.28
24
0.59

Individual
Individual
Individual

SD
0.62
0.61
0.40

Trained
N
Mean
24
0.34
24
0.34
24
0.64

Mann-Whitney Test
U
p
207
0.047
272
0.340
248
0.200

SD
0.58
0.56
0.52

Ten
Team
8
0.84
0.31
8
0.81
0.34
24.0
0.177
Eleve
Team
8
0.84
0.16
8
0.79
0.38
28.0
0.334
n
Twelv Team
8
0.84
0.18
8
0.89
0.16
25.5
0.241
e
Table 5-18 Mean Correlation with Optimum Rank by Industry Advisers: No Training versus Creative Thinking
Trained

Case
Twelve

Case Nine

Trained
Untrained

Case Eight

Trained
Untrained

Case
Eleven

Case
Seven

Case
Ten
-1

-0.5

0.5

-1

Figure 5-27 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Industry Advisers
Individually: Untrained and Trained

-0.5

0.5

Figure 5-28 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Industry Advisers
in Teams: Untrained and Trained

182

5.3.5

Government Advisers Prioritizing Effective Solutions

Individually
Case

Mode

Condition

Mean

SD

Seven

Individual

Untrained
Trained (CT)
Trained (HM)
Trained (CT+HM)

15
19
110
33

0.09
0.25
0.13
0.46

0.40
0.54
0.52
0.52

115
805
1150

0.170a
0.438a
<0.001b

Untrained
Trained (CT)
Trained (HM)
Trained (CT+HM)

15
19
111
33

0.14
0.12
0.30
0.39

0.46
0.73
0.59
0.55

137
634
1670

0.424a
0.067a
0.227b

Eight

Nine

Individual

Individual

Mann-Whitney Test
U
p

Untrained
15
0.29
0.62
Trained (CT)
19
0.10
0.68
117
0.188a
Trained (HM)
111
0.24
0.57
765
0.304a
Trained (CT+HM)
33
0.57
0.45
1170
<0.001b
Table 5-19 Mean Correlation with Optimum Rank by Government Advisers Working Individually: No Training,
Creative Thinking Trained, Hazard Management Trained & Combined Training
(a) Compared to Untrained Group
(b) Compared to Hazard Management Trained Group

183

5.3.6 Government Advisers Prioritizing Effective Solutions in Teams

Case

Mode

Condition

Mean

SD

Ten

Team

Untrained
Trained (CT)
Trained (HM)
Trained (CT+HM) c
Trained (CT+HM) d
Trained (CT+HM) e

5
7
33
9
6
15

0.64
0.79
0.51
0.76
0.91
0.82

0.37
0.22
0.57
0.45
0.12
0.36

12.5
82.0
93.5
50.5
144

0.205a
0.491a
0.044b
0.028b
<0.001b

Untrained
Trained (CT)
Trained (HM)
Trained (CT+HM) c
Trained (CT+HM) d
Trained (CT+HM) e

5
7
33
9
6
15

0.54
0.63
0.53
0.81
0.68
0.76

0.40
0.23
0.44
0.28
0.33
0.30

16.5
79.5
60.5
79.5
140

0.435a
0.449a
0.003b
0.223b
0.008b

Eleven

Twelve

Team

Team

Mann-Whitney Test
U
p

Untrained
5
0.85
0.15
Trained (CT)
7
0.74
0.34
16.5
0.434a
Trained (HM)
31
0.77
0.26
76.5
0.395a
Trained (CT+HM) c
9
0.79
0.34
128
0.253b
Trained (CT+HM) d
6
0.83
0.21
87.0
0.316b
Trained (CT+HM) e
15
0.81
0.29
215
0.224b
Table 5-20 Mean Correlation with Optimum Rank by Government Advisers Working in Teams: No Training ,
Creative Thinking Trained, Hazard Management Trained & Combined Training
(a) Compared to Untrained Group
(b) Compared to Hazard Management Trained Group
(c) Whole team Creative Thinking Trained
(d) One person in team Creative Thinking Trained
(e) At least one person in team Creative Thinking Trained (c&d)

184

Case Nine

Case
Twelve

Trained (CT)
Case Eight Untrained

Case
Eleven

Case
Seven

Trained (CT)
Untrained

Case
Ten
-1

-0.5

0.5

-1

Figure 5-29 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Government
Advisers Individually: Untrained and Trained
(CT)

-0.5

0.5

Figure 5-30 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Government
Advisers in Teams: Untrained and Trained (CT)

Case Nine

Case
Twelve

Trained (HM)
Case Eight Untrained

Case
Eleven

Case
Seven

Trained (HM)
Untrained

Case
Ten
-1

-0.5

0.5

-1

Figure 5-31 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Government
Advisers Individually: Untrained and Trained
(HM)

-0.5

0.5

Figure 5-32 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Government
Advisers in Teams: Untrained and Trained (HM)

Trained (CT+HM)
Trained (HM)
Case Nine

Trained (CT+HM)
Trained (HM)

Case
Twelve
Case
Eleven

Case Eight

Case
Seven

Case
Ten
-1

-0.5

0.5

-1

Figure 5-33 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Government
Advisers Individually: Trained (HM Only) and
Trained (CT+HM)

-0.5

0.5

Figure 5-34 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Government
Advisers in Teams: Trained (HM Only) and
Trained (CT+HM)

185

5.3.7 Prioritizing Effective Solutions (Correlation with Optimum

Rank): Summary
Table 5-21 shows the gain or loss of trained subjects over untrained on the mean correlation of
subjects ranking of safety solutions with the optimum rank.

Case

Mode

Tech.
(a)

Tech.
(b)

Eng.

Ind.

Gov.

Gov.

Gov. (c)

Seven

Individual

Practice

CT

CT

CT

CT

HM

CT+HM

+0.11

-0.09

+0.38*

+0.29*

+0.17

+0.05

Individual
Individual

+0.31*
+0.18*

-0.10
0.00

+0.22
+0.36

+0.06
+0.05

-0.02
-0.19

+0.17
-0.06

+0.32**
*
+0.09
+0.33**
*

Eight
Nine

Ten
Eleven
Twelve

Team
Team
Team

-0.08(d)
+0.05(d)
+0.07(d)

+0.31(d)
+0.25(d)
-0.03(d)

+0.45
+0.38*
+0.03

-0.03
-0.05
+0.05

+0.15
+0.09
-0.11

-0.13
-0.02
-0.08

+0.25*
+0.28**
+0.02

Table 5-21 Summary of the Mean Correlation with Optimum Rank of the Trained Subjects
compared to the Untrained Subjects
(*/**/***) Statistically significant at 0.05/0.01/0.001 level
(a) Technology Students Practice Effect compared with Pretest1
(b) Technology Students CT Effect is Creative Thinking Training compared with Pretest2
(c) Government Advisers CT+HM effect is Creative Thinking (in teams where all the Team CT
Trained) + Hazard Management Training compared with those with Hazard Management Training
Only
(d) Statistical test not possible

5.3.7.1 The

Effect

of

Creative

Thinking Training

The results tend to indicate that creative thinking training improved the prioritization of solutions
by the engineers (Table 5-15, Figure 5-21, Figure 5-22). On two of the six cases (one individually
and one in teams) the trained engineering students scored significantly higher than the untrained
engineering students. Furthermore in case twelve both untrained and trained scored near to the
maximum and so no improvement could be evident.

Therefore there were significant

improvements on two of a possible five cases and changes of similar magnitude on the other three
cases.

The technology students (Table 5-16) demonstrated a significant improvement as individuals with
practice on the test (Figure 5-23). They exhibited no practice improvement in teams (Figure 5-25),
although a statistical test was not performed on the team data as the data is dependant and not able
to be paired. Following creative thinking training, individuals showed no further improvement
(Figure 5-24) while teams seemed to improve (Figure 5-26). Overall there seemed to be no

186

evidence to show clearly that creative thinking training improved prioritization by the technology
students.

The industry advisers (Table 5-18) and government advisers (Table 5-19 & Table 5-20) seemed to
show little or no improvement as individuals following creative thinking training (Figure 5-27 &
Figure 5-29). In teams also no improvement was evident but as shown by Figure 5-28 and Figure
5-30 the untrained teams of the industry advisers and government advisers performed near to the
maximum. Therefore there was little room for the creative thinking trained subjects to improve, so
the test is inconclusive except to note that the training showed no apparent disadvantage.

In general the creative thinking training had a positive effect on the way that engineering students
prioritized solutions but this effect was not evident for other groups.

5.3.7.2 The Effect of Hazard Management and Combined Training

The hazard management training produced no effect on the ability of government advisers to
prioritize solutions (Figure 5-31 & Figure 5-32). However those who completed the creative
thinking training prior to the hazard management training showed improvement on this task when
compared with those who undertook hazard management training only (Figure 5-33 & Figure 534). This is moderated by the effect of practice demonstrated with the technology students (Figure
5-23 & Figure 5-25). The combined training group had completed the test once before and so
some improvement due to practice might be expected. The effects appear larger than the practice
effects noted with the technology students however the results remain somewhat uncertain.

187

5.4

Novice/Expert Effects

The study involved groups of widely varying expertise. The following are comparisons of the four
groups of subjects on the three variables (generating alternative solutions, generating effective
solutions, and prioritizing effective solutions).

5.4.1 Novice/Expert Effects: Generating Alternative Solutions

Case

Mode
Individual
Individual
Individual

Mean Number of Solutions Untrained

Tech
Eng.
Ind.
Gov. (a)
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.9
5.3
5.1
4.4
5.6
6.4

ANOVA
F
F(2, 62)=0.001
F(2, 62)=0.246
F(3, 77)=3.553

One
Two
Three

p
0.999
0.783
0.018

Four
Five
Six

Team
Team
Team

8.2
7.6
7.4

F(2, 19)=0.738
F(3, 24)=0.352
F(2, 19)=0.059

0.493
0.788
0.943

7.3
7.9
7.6

6.6
9.0
8.0

8.8

Table 5-22 Number of Alternative Solutions by Untrained Engineering Students, Technology

Students, Industry Advisers, and Government Advisers: Comparison by Analysis of Variance

10

Alternative Solutions

Alternative Solutions

(a) Government Advisers completed cases three and five only

8
6
4
2
0
Case One

Tech

Case Two

Eng

Ind

Case Three

10
8
6
4
2
0
Case Four

Gov

Tech

Figure 5-35 Number of Alternative Solutions by

Untrained Engineering Students, Technology
Students, Industry Advisers, and Government
Advisers Individually

Case Five

Case Six

Eng

Gov

Ind

Figure 5-36 Number of Alternative Solutions by

Untrained Engineering Students, Technology
Students, Industry Advisers, and Government
Advisers in Teams

188

5.4.2 Novice/Expert Effects: Generating Effective Solutions

Case

Mode
Individual
Individual
Individual

% Safe-Place Solutions Untrained

Tech
Eng.
Ind.
Gov. (a)
53
72
71
43
58
57
34
53
40
42

ANOVA
F
F(2, 62)=4.355
F(2, 62)=2.810
F(3, 77)=2.332

One
Two
Three

p
0.017
0.068
0.081

Four
Five
Six

Team
Team
Team

36
29
50

F(2, 19)=2.251
F(3, 24)=1.416
F(2, 19)=0.976

0.136
0.269
0.397

54
37
56

59
44
61

49

Table 5-23 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions by Untrained Engineering Students, Technology

Students, Industry Advisers, and Government Advisers: Comparison by Analysis of Variance

100

100

80

80

Safe Place %

Safe Place %

(a) Government Advisers completed cases three and five Only

60
40
20
0

60
40
20
0

Case One

Tech

Case Two

Eng

Ind

Case Three

Case Four

Gov

Tech

Figure 5-37 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions

by Untrained Engineering Students, Technology
Students, Industry Advisers, and Government
Advisers Individually

Case Five

Case Six

Eng

Gov

Ind

Figure 5-38 Proportion of Safe-Place Solutions

by Untrained Engineering Students, Technology
Students, Industry Advisers, and Government
Advisers in Teams

189

5.4.3 Novice/Expert Effects: Prioritizing Effective Solutions

Case

Mode
Individual
Individual
Individual

Correlation with Optimum Rank Untrained

Tech
Eng.
Ind.
Gov. (a)
-0.33
-0.288
0.109
0.087
-0.40
-0.081
0.279
0.135
-0.05
0.342
0.590
0.292

Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA
KW
p
KW(3)=12.74
0.005
KW(3)=15.38
0.002
KW(3)=13.32
0.004

Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
Eleve
n
Twelv
e

Team
Team

-0.084
-0.076

-0.004
0.379

0.835
0.841

0.636
0.544

KW(3)=16.53
KW(3)=13.65

<0.001
0.003

Team

0.256

0.830

0.836

0.850

KW(3)=4.787

0.188

Table 5-24 Correlation with Optimum Ranking of a Set of Safety Solutions by Untrained
Engineering Students, Technology Students, Industry Advisers, and Government Advisers:
Comparison by Analysis of Variance

Case Nine

Ind
Gov
Eng
Tech

Ind
Gov
Eng
Tech

Case
Twelve
Case
Eleven

Case Eight

Case
Seven

Case
Ten
-1

-0.5

0.5

-1

Figure 5-39 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Untrained
Engineering Students, Technology Students,
Industry Advisers, and Government Advisers
Individually

-0.5

0.5

Figure 5-40 Correlation with Optimum Ranking

of a Set of Safety Solutions by Untrained
Engineering Students, Technology Students,
Industry Advisers, and Government Advisers in
Teams

190

5.4.4 Novice/Expert Effects: Summary

5.4.4.1 Generating Alternative Solutions
The comparisons (Table 5-22) show that there were no apparent differences along the novice to
expert continuum in terms of the number of solutions produced to a given problem (Figure 5-35 &
Figure 5-36). There was no evidence to suggest that those experienced in handling safety problems
(industry and government advisers) were any more able to generate alternative solutions than those
with no experience (engineering and technology students).

This seemed equally true for

individuals and for teams.

5.4.4.2 Generating Effective Solutions

Table 5-23 shows that when in working in teams there was no difference between novices and
experts in the proportion of safe-place solutions (solution quality) that they generated (Figure 538). On one case out of three (case one) shows that there appeared to be differences between the
groups when working as individuals. Figure 5-37 shows that the difference one this one case
seemed to be due to the poorer performance of the technology students; the other groups are
closely grouped.

5.4.4.3 Prioritizing Effective Solutions

The task of prioritizing solutions showed the value of expert opinion. For every case, whether
working as individuals or as teams, the results showed that the four groups (technology and
engineering students, and industry and government advisers) were significantly different (Table 524). A visual examination (Figure 5-39 and Figure 5-40) shows that the groups are separated in
the following order, from the most well-aligned to the optimum (industry advisers) to the least
well-aligned (first-year technology students).

1. Industry Advisers
2. Government Advisers
3. Engineering Students
4. Technology Students

191

5.5

Results Summary

The main intervention in this research was a training program in creative thinking. A second
intervention was a training program in hazard management. The subjects for the research were
undergraduate engineering and technology students, industry-based safety advisers and
government-based safety advisers. The dependent variables were based on responses to safety case
studies. Subjects were required to generate solutions to problems and to prioritize given solutions
to other problems. Two variables were drawn from the first task; the number of alternative
solutions; and the potential effectiveness of those solutions (proportion safe place solutions). The
third variable was the correlation of each subjects prioritization of potential solutions with an
optimum ranking of those solutions.

The results show that the creative thinking training lead to large increases in the number of
solutions generated by the undergraduate students and moderate increases by the industry and
government advisers. The quality of those solutions, being the proportion of safe place solutions
tended to either increase (about half the cases in total) or remain unchanged. The net result was
substantial increases in the output of potentially good solutions.

The creative thinking training did not seem to have a substantial impact on the ability to prioritize
solutions. In the case of the engineering students an improvement was noted but this was not
evident with any other subjects.

The hazard management training (government advisers only) did not lead to any increase in the
generation of solutions either in terms of number of solutions or the proportion of safe place
solutions among those alternatives.

In comparing novices and experts, there seemed to be no difference in the generation of alternative
solutions in terms of the number of solutions and some minor effects on the quality of those
solutions (the most novice subjects lower on one case as individuals). The prioritization of
solutions, however showed substantial differences between experts and novices. Experts clearly
tended to favour the safe place solutions.

192

Chapter Six

Discussion

194

6. Discussion
The key variables measured were;
1.

The generation of alternative safety solutions.

2.

The generation of effective safety solutions.

3.

The prioritization of safety solutions.

6.1

Generating Solutions to Safety Problems

The issues surrounding the first two variables, the number and potential effectiveness solutions
generated, are discussed together, under this heading of Generation of Solutions to Safety
Problems.

6.1.1 Creative Thinking Training and the Generation of Solutions

Training in creative thinking for subjects with a variety of health and safety expertise lead to large
improvements in the generation of safety solutions. This effect was shown with each group of
subjects who took part in the research. The effect of the training in creative thinking was of the
order of 100% with the undergraduate students and a little more modest with the other subjects
(around 30 to 40%). The improvements found when subjects worked individually and when they
worked in teams of three were of similar magnitude.

The effects found here are similar to those found in studies of the brainstorming methods. While
most research on brainstorming has studied components of brainstorming, such as the impact of
teamwork, or the effect of criticism, some studies have shown the positive effect of actual training
in brainstorming on the ability to generate ideas (Meadow & Parnes 1959; Parnes & Meadow
1959; Parnes 1961; Reese and Parnes 1970; Baer 1988). The effect sizes, where reported, were
similar to the findings found in this research; for instance Parnes and Meadow (1959) reported a
100% improvement. Sometimes studies of brainstorming have not included any training but
instead have examined the effect of encouraging subjects to make use of the brainstorming
instructions as they work on the problems. Like the studies of training in the brainstorming
methods, these studies have shown that using the brainstorming instructions leads to increased idea

195

output (Parnes & Meadow 1959; Meadow, Parnes & Reese 1959; Weisskopf-Joelson & Eliseo
1961; Parloff & Hanson 1964; Sappington & Farrar 1982; Szymanski & Harkins 1992). The size
of the effect, has been between 70% and 450% increase in total ideas (Parnes and Meadow 1959;
Weisskopf-Joelson & Eliseo 1961; Parloff and Hanson 1964; Szymanski & Harkins 1992) and
between 50% and 100% increase in good ideas (Meadow, Parnes & Reese 1959; Parloff and
Hanson 1964; Sappington and Farrar 1982).

While a few studies have failed to find an effect for brainstorming training (Cohen, Whitmyre &
Funk 1960; Kabanoff & Bottger 1991) the consensus seems to be that emphasising the
brainstorming instructions can be effective and training in the brainstorming techniques is also
effective. The results here show a similar effect for training in creative thinking training that was
based on de Bonos six hats method. The results here demonstrated an effect for training in
creative thinking of between 20% and 150% increase in total ideas and 20% to 200% increase in
good (safe place) ideas.

6.1.2 Mechanisms that Facilitated the Generation of Solutions

The training emphasised focussed thinking. During the training subjects were required to direct
their attention toward a particular type of thinking. For instance when creative thinking was called
for, trainees were encouraged to do green hat thinking for a short period of time. During green hat
thinking, other types of thinking were excluded. The same was true for using any hat; other types
of thinking should be excluded. The intense focus on one type of thinking contrasts with every-day
thinking that is often not directed toward any particular objective.

In the same vein as encouraging more focussed thinking, the training emphasised that the subjects
should take specific control over their own thinking and choose what type of thinking was
appropriate at a certain time. They were encouraged to make an effort to take a helicopter view of
problems rather than take a narrow reactive approach. This was best emphasised by the use of the
blue hat in allocating time to the planning of the kind of thinking needed, rather than actually
thinking about the situation itself. One would imagine that encouraging helicopter thinking would

196

be worthwhile in improving the outcomes of creative thinking as it encourages a broad view and an
openness to the possibility of multiple solutions, and from this a less immediate evaluation of ideas.

For good application of the six thinking hats, there needs to be an appreciation of the overall
thinking process. For instance, being able to focus on one type of thinking to the exclusion of
another, is predicated on knowing how that piece of focussed thinking fits into a larger process.
The over-viewing of thinking could be described as metacognition. Metacognition has been
defined as; knowledge concerning ones own cognitive processes and products ... (and) the active
monitoring and consequential regulation of these processes in relation to the cognitive objects or
data on which they bear (Flavell 1976 in Biggs 1987, p. 10), or thinking about ones own
thinking (Smith 1992, p. 25). Sternberg (1990a) and Arlin (1990) drew parallels between wisdom
and metacognition. The encouragement of a metacognitive approach should assist the application
of creative thinking by generating an appreciation of its place in a wider context.

The training involved short periods of intense thinking. This may have created a belief among the
subjects that they are capable of productive thinking in a short time. If subjects gained an enhanced
expectation of their own ability then this may have translated into improved performance. While
there is little research directly into the effect of perception of ability on idea production, a few
research studies have assessed the effect of setting goals, which may be related. For instance
Latham and Saari (1979) and Locke (1982) found that goal setting had a positive effect. However
later, after improving on some methodology problems in Lockes study, Lorenzi (1988) failed to
show that goal-setting made any difference. The effect of goal-setting would not necessarily be the
same though as the effect of a higher perception of ability. Therefore, it still seems reasonable that
enhancing subjects perception of their own ability potentially had a positive effect on performance.

Osborn (1953) described criticism as cold water on ideas while cooperation and improvement of
other peoples ideas were the hallmarks of successful creative teamwork. Within the training there
was discussion and exercises that emphasised how the dominance of criticism in our thinking and
the seemingly natural tendency toward argument in our culture form blockages to creative thinking.
Some research has shown that being critical offers a prestige advantage (Amabile 1983). Amabile
showed that those who are critical are perceived as more intelligent by peers than those who are more

197

supportive. Given this finding there is a good reason for people to be critical; they appear smarter.
However the presence of criticism is not seen as a useful feature of creative efforts. The early selfevaluation of ideas (Sappington & Farrar 1982) and the injection of external criticism (Smith
1993) have been shown by research studies to impede creative performance. Even apprehension
about the prospect of being evaluated by others has been shown to reduce the output of idea
generation (Diehl & Stroebe 1987). Once convinced of the negative effect of criticism on creative
performance, subjects may have been motivated to take some action to minimise criticism.
Obviously this has particular application to team thinking, but it is also plausible that individual
thinking could have been aided by addressing a typical critical approach.

The accomplishment of a less critical approach may have been enhanced by the six hats model.
The training encouraged a separation of thinking tasks into bite-size activities. This model has the
potential to give freedom for those who feel the need to be critical, but who know of its deleterious
effect on creative performance, to be helpful and creative when generating ideas, with the
knowledge that criticism will be allowed at a certain time. The points above about the focus
created by the six hats model are relevant here. While an explanation and demonstration of the
negative influence of criticism may have encouraged a change of approach, this would have be
enhanced by the use of the six hats tool that provided a simple method to allocate thinking time to
creative thinking.

Some research has shown that the difference in the performance of brainstorming groups and nonbrainstorming groups was due to the large amount of ideas that the group actually enunciated but
failed to recognise as worthwhile ideas (Parloff & Hanson 1964). It would seem then that
encouraging participants to recognise the value in ideas would be worthwhile in improving creative
performance. Judgement of the ideas should be delayed and in addition some specific effort should
be made to find value in the ideas and develop them into something useful. Often during the
training it was emphasised and demonstrated that some value can often be found in ideas that
initially appeared useless. This demonstration may have created an openness to the exploration of
possibilities and a reduction of critical thinking.

198

As mentioned above, the minimisation of criticism and the enhancement of cooperation is seen as
essential to teamwork. In groups the six hats model provides a structure to facilitate a cooperative
approach to thinking. The emphasis in the training was on each person in a group thinking with the
same hat. For instance, if a group was working on green hat, then the whole group were working
on green hat. The method has the capacity to free those who perhaps feel as though they need to
provide a balancing or cautioning role, to be able to go along with idea generation, knowing that a
time would come when all would make an effort in the cautious role. An effort to balance ideas
seems to be a normal feature of everyday conversations. The six hats method provided a simple
structure to allow all people to avoid this tendency and work on one line of thinking at a time. This
seems like a more productive strategy than the balancing of ideas that seems normal.

Finally, the training emphasised that it is possible to use techniques to generate ideas. Participants
learnt and practiced using techniques to enhance active divergent thinking and thus improve the
generation of alternative solutions. While this processes is linked to other elements such as the
reduction of criticism, cooperation, and an openness to ideas, it is not just these factors.
Participants hopefully completed the training with some understanding of how to employ simple
techniques of divergent thinking to get ideas moving quickly. There is little background research
about the effectiveness of such methods. Bouchard (1972) compared brainstorming groups using
the analogy technique with those not using the technique. The results however were not clear, in
one instance those using analogy generated 100% more ideas, however this did not occur for all
problems in the research. While research in this area is minimal, the techniques of active divergent
thinking are widely cited as important features in creative thinking and so one would expect that
developing a skill in the methods could lead to improved performance.

In summary the mechanisms within the training in the research here that would seem to have
facilitated improvement in creative output are;

encouraging more focussed thinking

encouraging metacognitive control, or helicopter vision
creating a belief in the ability to perform at a high level

199

 encouraging the minimisation of criticism

providing a structure for thinking that facilitates a reduction in criticism
encouraging an openness to the possibility of alternatives and the value in other ideas
encouraging and providing a structure for cooperation in teams
developing a skill in the techniques of active divergent thinking.

6.1.3 Group versus Individual Effects

The level of research that has focussed on the brainstorming model or its components is indicative
of the influence of brainstorming on the understanding of creative processes. While Osborn (1948)
wrote about techniques of active divergent thinking, the model that seemed to catch attention was
group brainstorming and the few simple rules that it involved. Osborn cautioned that group work
was not always likely to be an effective way to generate ideas. These words have been vindicated
many times since, and a few times prior to Osborn, in studies that examined the performance of
groups compared with the performance of individuals. Typically these research programs have
compared an interacting group with a nominal group. A nominal group was usually taken to mean
the combination of the efforts of a number of individuals who worked alone. These studies have
found that nominal groups, that is individuals, are capable of greater idea output alone than if they
worked together in a group. This finding has been mainly shown for groups of four (for example;
Taylor, Berry & Block 1958; Bouchard, Barsaloux & Drauden 1974; Harari & Graham 1975; Graham
1977; Maginn & Harris 1980; Jablin 1981; Diehl & Stroebe 1987; Diehl & Stroebe 1991; Thornburg
1991; Stroebe, Diehl & Abakoumkin 1992; Camacho & Paulus 1995; Furnham & Yazdanpanahi 1995;
Paulus, Larey & Ortega 1995) but also for larger groups (Bouchard & Hare 1970; Bouchard, Barsaloux
& Drauden 1974).

Given the failure of groups to perform to expectations one might wonder why they were included
in this study. Some of the research studies showing the negative influence of interacting groups
also surveyed the participants and found that while the interacting groups were less effective, the
participants perceived the opposite. People involved in groups perceived them to be more
effective than individual work. Furthermore there are strong organisational trends toward the use
of teams. It seems that team thinking is a part of organisational life and so it was clear that the

200

research here must be done with the improvement of team performance in mind as well as the
improvement of individual performance. The research here did not aim to repeat the examinations
of the relative performance of individuals and teams, but rather to test the effect of training in both
ways of working because they are both important in an organisational context.

Virtually all the results found here were of similar magnitude for individuals and teams. Given the
similarity of the effects for individual and team work the results are not discussed in the these terms
any further. Whether problems are solved in teams or individually, the output of either way of
working can be enhanced by about the same amount via the use of creative thinking skills.

6.1.4 The Effectiveness of the Solutions

The most immediately apparent question following a claim about the production of more
alternatives to a problem concerns the potential usefulness of those ideas. An evaluation of the
quality of solutions along with the quantity of the solutions has thus been a common model in many
studies of creative thinking following the well-accepted model put forward by Guilford (1950).
The research here did not differ and made an evaluation of the quality of solutions in terms of their
potential effectiveness by determining the proportion of safe place solutions among the list of
alternatives.

The total output of ideas by either novices or experts was improved following training in creative
thinking. With this improvement there seemed to be no change in the proportion of safe place
solutions (although not significant changes there were many more instances of improvements that
reductions).

Given the proportion of safe place ideas was maintained the increase in total ideas was
accompanied by large increases in the number of safe place solutions. The success of problem
solving is predicated by the ability to generate potential courses of action. The ability to recognise
good solutions from poor is important, however this ability is of no value if there is nothing from
which to choose. The research here showed that creative thinking training was an effective way to

201

enhance the generation of solutions for safety problems. The increases in safe place solutions of up
to 200% generated by the engineers following training was especially encouraging.

6.1.5 Transfer of Creative Thinking Skills

Most of the evaluations in studies of brainstorming have required participants to work on similar
problems as they encountered within the training. Often these problems were novel problems of
the type used as examples within the training (Parnes & Meadow 1959; Parnes 1961; Reese and
Parnes 1970; Baer 1988). There are some studies that avoided the type of problems in the
subsequent testing (Meadow & Parnes 1959), however they are in the minority as there seems to be
little report of studies that emphasise the use of evaluation problems that are of a type distinct from
those already used in the training. The research here thus represents a variation from many studies.
The tests here used a specific type of problem; safety problems. This topic was deliberately
avoided during the training. The creative thinking training included no information about accident
prevention; no safety examples of any kind were used in the training. The enhanced performance
on problems outside the sphere of the examples emphasised during the training shows a skill
transfer from the training to other problem types. Guilford (1987) commented that transfer of
skills to real problem situations may be problematic unless specific analogies or demonstrations are
used that show participants the link. In this study no effort was made to show a link between the
training and the safety problems and so the size of the effect that was measured is even more
significant. Clearly subjects have transferred the skills in the training and applied these to the
safety problems in the test.

6.1.6 Creative Thinking Training as a Priming Exercise

The government advisers who took the hazard management training without any prior training in
creative thinking made little progress as a result of the hazard management training. As standalone program, the training in hazard management seemed to have only a small impact on the
ability to generate alternative solutions to safety problems. In contrast, following the hazard
management training, subjects who previously trained in creative thinking, generated many more
ideas (especially in teams) than those subjects who had only completed the hazard management
training. The confounding factor was that the subjects completing both forms of training had taken

202

the test twice and were thus compared to subjects who had completed the test only once. Possibly
those completing the test the second time may have improved with practice alone. Past research in
creative thinking has shown that there can be an improvement on a test like this with practice alone
(Kabanoff and Bottger 1991; 30% improvement), however its been more common to find that no
improvement resulted from practice alone (Campbell 1968; de Snchez, Astorga, de Blanco & de
Griffin 1983 in Nickerson, Perkins & Smith 1985; Baer 1988; Goff 1992).

The study with the technology students showed that the improvement on the test with practice
alone was about 25% for individuals and about 10% when working in teams. In comparison, the
improvement in the effectiveness of hazard management training by the addition of creative
thinking training as a priming exercise was about 25% for individuals and about 60% in teams.
The size of practice effect noted with the technology students is therefore about equal to the
improvement noted for individuals but substantially less that that noted for teams. Therefore, for
teams at least, it seems that the improvement noted for the government advisers after they
completed the hazard management training, and having first completed the creative thinking
training, was probably due to this combination of training and not practice. Furthermore the effect
size of about 60% is reasonably large. Interestingly, when only one of the team of three had been
to the creative thinking training, the teams generated 20% more than those where there were no
creative thinking trained members, however this effect was not significant and also should be
considered in light of the possible impact of a practice effect.

As single interventions the creative thinking and hazard management training had little impact on
the generation of solutions among the government advisers. However, it seems that the training in
creative thinking was a useful primer for the hazard management training. Furthermore, the
effectiveness of the hazard management training in terms of the ideas generated following training
was greatest among those participants who had been pre-trained in creative thinking.

6.1.7 Generalising the Effects to other Creative Thinking Techniques

As discussed earlier, the following features of the training modelled on the six thinking hats
technique would seem likely to have influenced the enhanced production of ideas: focussed

203

thinking; helicopter vision; belief in ability; minimisation of criticism; openness to ideas;

encouraging cooperation; and the techniques of active divergent thinking. The presence of these
factors would seem to represent the basis of a good model for creative thinking. They build on the
psychological theory that the mind is most adept at the repetition of ideas and this function forms
something of a barrier to the generation of new ideas; a theory widely discussed from early this
century (example; Spearman 1930; Khler 1930). Also the range of factors present in the six
thinking hats model would seem to be common to techniques promoted by many writers on
creative thinking (for example Osborn 1948; Gordon 1961; Adams 1987; Rickards 1988; Dacey
1989; Barry & Rudinow 1989). Given that the six thinking hats seems to share this relationship
with creative thinking in general, one might expect that other models embodying these principles
would yield a similar result.

204

6.1.8 Novices and Experts Generating Solutions

Among the research subjects were groups of varying health and safety expertise. For instance the
technology students had no specialist safety education or experience, and while aligned toward a
technical career by their choice of course, their knowledge about safety should be akin to that of
the general community. Therefore the technology students could be described as novices in the
area of safety. The other extreme was the industry adviser group who would be among the most
safety knowledgable people in the community; they were involved in a post-graduate course in
safety and most worked in specialist safety roles. The industry advisers could be referred to as
experts. Between these two extremes were the engineering students who had the benefit of
undergraduate safety education and the government safety advisers, who had extensive experience
in the field, and some exposure to education via short training courses.

It would seem logical to assume that health and safety expertise gained through study and
experience (expert level) would be useful when proposing alternative solutions to a safety
problem. However this contention was not supported by the results. When generating solutions to
safety problems, the technology students, engineering students, government advisers, and industry
advisers all performed at the same level.

One might expect that the quality of the solutions produced by novices would be lower. On this
topic, Perkins (1981), writing on creative thinking in general, argued that in terms of the
effectiveness of solutions, information and knowledge are an important precursor to creative tasks
to direct efforts in an ultimately useful way. In this area, Stavy, Meidav, Asa and Kirsch (1991)
found that physics experts took conceptually difficult but expedient abstract approaches to solving
physics problems while students preferred conceptually easier but more laborious approaches.
Similarly, Tudor (1992) found that experts in environmental management were superior to novices
in developing solutions both in terms of number and potential effectiveness, and Grosswald (1992)
showed that experienced medical practitioners considered more possibilities in medical problem
solving than undergraduate medical students. This line of thinking would suggest that experts in
safety would generate a greater proportion of good ideas; that their idea-producing efforts would be
focussed in a more efficient manner.

205

The research here found little support for a hypothesis that experts would generate a greater
proportion of safe place solutions. The only indication that specialist knowledge may lead to a greater
production of good ideas was the relatively poorer proportion of safe place solutions generated by the
technology students (safety novices) on one case (out of three) when working individually. However, in
contrast the engineering students performed at a similar level to the subjects with more expertise.
Furthermore when subjects worked in teams the effect was not apparent at all; that is, even the
technology students performed at a similar level. In addition, the proportion of safe place solutions
by the technology students increased nearer to the level of the other groups following their training
in creative thinking.

Similarly, if knowledge about prevention was relevant to the generation of a greater proportion of
safe place solutions then one would imagine that training in hazard management would enhance
this ability. However the hazard management training with the government advisers did not
improve the proportion of safe place solutions. The training lead to no detectable change in the
performance of individuals and a significant drop in the performance of teams. Untrained teams
generated about 50% safe place solutions while those teams working with the benefit of the hazard
management training generated about 35% safe place solutions. This result was peculiar as one
would expect that the training would focus attention on safe place solutions, and the results on the
prioritization task did not indicate any tendency away from the safe place paradigm after the hazard
management training. For the generation of solutions, it must be noted that all other subjects
completed three case studies individually and three in teams, whereas the government advisers
completed only one case study individually and one in teams. Thus, attempting to explain the
apparently negative effect may be futile. While statistically significant it would seem to be unwise
to make strong claims based on this result, given its counter-intuitive nature, and that the hazard
management training was only tested on only one group and the testing was only one third as
extensive.

Taking all the outcomes into account it seems that the level of safety expertise has little bearing on
either the number of solutions or the proportion of safe place solutions.

206

6.1.9 The Relative Success of Novices

6.1.9.1 The Irrelevance of Specialist Information in Idea Generation
The level of safety expertise did not seem to have any bearing on the ability to generate alternative
solutions to safety problems. Historically, in the study of problem-solving methodology,
information has been seen as the vital beginning point (for example; Ribot 1906; Wallas 1926;
Harrisberger 1966; Gordon 1969; Bransford & Stein 1984; Zechmeister & Johnson 1992). From
the base of information the remainder of the process was thought to follow (first gather
information, then incubate, and so on). While this model remains popular, many authors on
creative thinking have moved away from relying on the mere presence of sufficient information to
provide the creative jolt. For some time these authors have stressed the importance of divergent
thinking techniques to provoke the mind toward new ideas (for example; Osborn 1948; Gordon
1961; Allen 1962; Koestler 1969; de Bono 1971; Koberg 1981; Adams 1986; Rickards 1988;
Barry and Rudinow 1989). These writers have generally suggested that, while information is a
component of successful problem solving, its presence alone will often fail to produce high
creativity. Theyve stressed that the generation of ideas is more dependent on skills of active
divergent thinking. Thus it is arguable that the lack of difference between novices and experts on
the generation of solutions to safety problems is no surprise.

6.1.9.2 Knowledge and its Role in Encouraging Evaluation

Since Osborn (1948) popularised the brainstorming model, many research studies have showed the
value of employing the non-evaluative brainstorming instructions when generating ideas (Meadow
& Parnes 1959; Parnes 1959; Parnes & Meadow 1959; Meadow, Parnes & Reese 1959; Parnes
1961; Weisskopf-Joelson & Eliseo 1961; Parloff & Hanson 1964; Reese and Parnes 1970;
Sappington & Farrar 1982; Baer 1988; Szymanski & Harkins 1992). Removing evaluation from
the idea generating phase of problem solving is a key part of strategies designed to facilitate the
generation of ideas.

One would assume that those most able to evaluate ideas would be those with specialist
knowledge. For instance, in this research, the experts were shown to better discriminate good ideas

207

from poor ideas. In contrast, novices do not have the knowledge to properly evaluate the ideas and
thus performed poorly when called upon to prioritize solutions. Possibly the presence of sufficient
knowledge to make evaluations, encourages the making of evaluations. If so, then the presence of
knowledge would impede the generation of ideas. However, if this argument is sound, then it
suggests that novices would be more productive than experts. Unfortunately this effect was not
observed; there seemed to be no difference between novices and experts. This conundrum aside,
the link between the presence of knowledge and the ability to evaluate that naturally follows,
combined with the established relationship between evaluation and poor performance, may go
some way toward explaining the poorer than intuitively expected performance of the experts on the
task of generating solutions.

6.1.9.3 Problem Relevance and Dominant Paradigms

There have been a few studies of training in brainstorming that tested idea-output in relation to the
type of problem. These studies examined problem types such as relevant versus irrelevant
problems, and real versus unreal problems (Parloff & Hanson 1964; Harari & Graham 1975; Diehl
& Stroebe 1987). The main idea of these studies seemed to be to examine the change in
performance between working on problems close to ones own experience and working on
problems removed from ones own experience. While Parloff & Hanson (1964) failed to show an
effect for varying the problem type in this way, later studies showed that idea output was depressed
by problems that were highly relevant to the subjects (Harari & Graham 1975) or highly
controversial to the subjects (Diehl & Stroebe 1987). Some studies have examined the link
between the potential end uses of the ideas and the productive output. Sessions that seemed to lead
to direct consequences lead to less ideas that when the session seemed to be a training exercise
only (Maginn & Harris 1980). Generally there seems to be some evidence that problems that are
relevant, real, or maybe, serious, would be likely to result in lower output than novel, unreal,
playful, problems.

Within the research here all the problems were based on descriptions of accidents. In the past most
research has been based on playful problems such as; find uses for a coat hanger. Thus the
problems in the research here were of a serious nature when compared to the typical problems used

208

in brainstorming research. While all subjects would probably regard the problems as serious, the
relevance of the problems would have been highest among the government and industry advisers,
due to their professional interest in safety. With these two points in mind, the problems used in the
research here would be expected to yield a lower amount of ideas than typical brainstorming
research problems, and that this effect might be pronounced for those subjects of greatest expertise.
Providing this effect had an equal impact on both the untrained and trained groups then the
comparison of trained and untrained subjects would be unaffected. Unfortunately this may not
have been the case. The enhanced performance in the trained groups was hypothesised to be due
to the creative thinking training. One of the main mechanisms of successful operation of creative
thinking techniques is to assist subjects to break from dominant ideas. These ideas have become
dominant through familiarity and repetition. Overcoming this dominance may be more difficult
with highly relevant problems. For experts, these problems have the potential to evoke a strong
link to an established means of dealing with this type of problem. Strong linkages of this kind
would seem to be potential barriers to the development of many alternatives to a problem. This
would indicate that finding a training effect is probably more difficult using highly relevant
problems, and therefore a reduced effect among experts is understandable.

In some sense the problem-relevance effect is consistent with some of the findings here. Untrained
subjects perform at a similar level, whether they had a strong professional involvement with safety
problems (health and safety practitioners) or had no particular past experience with safety
(undergraduate students). However once trained in creative thinking methods, there were large
differences between these two types of subjects. The undergraduate students, who were less
involved with safety issues clearly outperformed those subjects with careers in safety. This does
not show that the relevance of the problems was the reason for this effect, as there were other
obvious differences between the groups, such as age for instance. While the effect is not proven as
such, the effect problem-relevance was visibly apparent during the training with the government
safety advisers. During the training the subjects seemed to be responding very well to the
techniques and the exercises seemed vigorous, enjoyable and productive. At this stage the
exercises were non-safety exercises and so had no particular relevance to the subjects. When the
training was over, the assessment involved safety problems; problems that were of direct relevance

209

to the subjects. The change in performance was visible; they seemed much more restricted and less
fluent. There could be a number of potential explanations. For instance, tests that people are
accustomed to are usually assessed based on rightness rather than the number of alternatives.
While the instructions in this test emphasised developing options, its probably reasonable to suggest that
a focus on rightness in a testing situation is somewhat inbred in our culture. However, one would think
this would apply equally to the other subjects, such as the undergraduate students, in fact, one could
imagine that this effect would be stronger with the undergraduates who are accustomed to completing
tests. An alternative explanation may be that this type of effect combines with the problemrelevance effect. These subjects have substantial experience in the field of safety and are
accustomed to there being a right answer for these particular problem situations. With experience
possibly comes a learnt paradigm that is difficult to move away from and then this effect is
compounded by the pressure of a test. While similarly subjected to the pressure of a test, the
novices may be less bound by preconceptions about what would be an appropriate set of solutions.

It would seem that how the subjects relate to the problems would have affected the relative
outcomes of the training. This leads to something of a paradox. Experts have more knowledge
about potential solutions, however this knowledge may be an impediment to thinking of a range of
solutions.

210

6.1.10 Summary of the Issue of Generating Solutions

Increasing creative performance in the area of generating solutions to safety problems seemed to be
mainly influenced by creative thinking tools rather than knowledge or information about safety.
Evidence of this was in form of data that showed how groups with safety education and experience
performed no better in terms of generating alternatives than those without this type of experience.

In contrast to the lack of influence of specialised knowledge, training in creative thinking

techniques lead to substantial improvements on the task of generating safety solutions. The
increase in generation of alternative solutions was accompanied by either, a maintenance, or
possible improvement, in the proportion of safe place solutions. This indication of a positive
relationship between quantity and quality is in keeping with Osborns (1957) suggestion that the
relationship should be a positive. While some studies have confirmed this theory (Parnes 1961),
others have found no relationship (Parnes 1959) but more commonly noted has been an inverse
relationship (Weisskopf-Joelson & Eliseo 1961; Parloff and Hanson 1964; Szymanski and Harkins
1992).

There were wide differences between the safety expertise of the groups. However expertise did not
seem to lead to better generation of alternative solutions to safety problems. The apparently benign
effect of greater expertise when generating solutions was not so clear when the effectiveness
(proportion of safe place solutions) of those ideas was examined. There was some evidence from
the study that those with no safety education or experience generated less effective solutions when
analysed against the preferred hierarchy of control. This difference was only significant for one of
the individual cases and not for any of the cases where people worked in teams. Overall, the
evidence is not as clear as for the basic generation of alternatives, but there was no strong evidence
to say that safety education and experience had a bearing on the generation of a greater proportion
of safe place solutions.

Knowledge about safety theory has been well promoted in the quest for improved injury prevention
abilities, however little attention has been paid to creative thinking skills. The research showed
that creative thinking tools were an effective way to improve the generation of solutions to safety

211

problems. The training led to large increases in the number of solutions with no reduction in the
proportion of safe place solutions. The net result being large increases in the number of safe place
solutions.

6.2

Prioritizing Effective Solutions to Safety Problems

The prioritization of potential solutions was the third key variable. From the examination of this
issue there are a number of points for discussion.

6.2.1 The Effect of Creative Thinking Training on the Prioritization of

Solutions: Why Effective only for the Engineers?
The creative thinking training seemed to benefit the engineers (both individually and in teams) in
terms of the prioritization of solutions. However the same training seemed to have little effect on
the technology students, industry advisers, or government advisers.

While there was an age and work specialisation difference between the engineers and the two
groups of advisers, these factors were not a point of difference between the engineering and
technology students. Yet, the training appeared to have a more substantial effect on the
engineering students than on the technology students. Engineering students were in fourth-year
and the technology students were in first-year. The most obvious difference is the education level;
either the engineering education itself, or perhaps more likely, the health and safety component of
the engineering education. Experiments in this research showed that those of greater expertise in
safety performed better at the prioritization task. Given this result it seems as though the health
and safety education within the engineering course would be an influential factor in the difference
between the engineering and technology students. Therefore the possible explanation for their
better response is that the creative thinking training can be effective in improving prioritization
provided there is some basis for understanding the prevention methodologies. The training
facilitated better decision making given a basic level of understanding of prevention theory.

Even with a basic level of understanding why would the creative thinking training improve the
prioritization of safety solutions? It seems as though the creative thinking skills improved the

212

handling of information in decision making tasks. The training emphasised the consideration of
possibilities. The training emphasised that options that immediately appear silly or unwise may
hold some value and perhaps should be considered. The highest ranking options in the
prioritization task generally attack the source of the hazard by proposing an alternative way of
achieving the job at hand. For many, perhaps these ideas are easily rejected. But the longer these
options can be held within the realm of possibilities then the greater their chances of ultimate
selection. The emphasis in the training of delaying judgement and considering seemingly weird
possibilities can help keep the system-changing style options alive until their benefit becomes
obvious. In this manner, it could be predictable that creative thinking training would enhance the
prioritization of solutions.

The question remains as to why the creative thinking training would not have this effect with the
industry advisers and the government advisers. Both these groups have the expertise to recognise
the value of the system-change options. One reason, was that when working in teams both the
industry and government advisers prioritized the options with reasonably good correlations with
the optimum prioritization and so an improvement following the training could not seen. As
individuals this reason did not apply to the same extent; untrained their scores were low enough to
allow an improvement following training to be evident. However as mentioned, there was no
improvement in prioritization for these groups following the training in creative thinking. While
with the engineers, creative thinking seemed to facilitate better prioritization based on their basic
understanding of safety, the same training provided no assistance to the industry and government
advisers on the same task. Potentially given their extensive experience in the area, the advisers
were less apt to accept an alternative approach to the selection of solutions. While creative
thinking improved the generation of ideas for all subjects, maybe this aspect of thinking is far less
bound by preconceptions. Perhaps years of experience provide greater restriction to the
prioritization of good ideas than it does for the generation of ideas. Conceptually, prioritization of
solutions, is much closer to actual implementation than is the generation of alternatives. Therefore,
the learnt paradigms about what is successful, and even practical, are brought to bear to a greater
extent and stifle the consideration of the potential effectiveness of ideas that involve changes to the
system.

213

6.2.2 Novices and Experts Prioritizing Solutions

In decision making, expertise in accident prevention was shown to be important. There were
significant differences in prioritization of solutions depending on their level of safety expertise.
Given a list of options that had already been created, the results showed that those with greater
specialist understanding of safety tended to adopt solutions nearer to the preferred, safe place, end
of the hierarchy of controls.

However training in hazard management did not improve this measure for the government safety
advisers. No significant improvement in performance was measured after two days of training
designed to improve the ability. As mentioned, it was difficult to measure an effect for the training
in the team work here as the teams in the untrained group were already reasonably good at the
prioritization task. However there was some scope for improvement in teams, and ample for
individuals where no change was also noted. Possibly the test was not sufficiently sensitive to
measure such a change or that training to improve abilities like this needs to be more substantial.
Two days of training does not necessarily form a substantial change in the concept of
understanding safety compared to years of experience. While the training may have enhanced the
subjects skills in some particular areas, the general philosophy of safety would hardly likely to be
altered by such a small exposure to training. Interestingly it has since been shown that a five-day
health and safety representatives course (of similar content) can achieve this type of change among
health and safety representatives (Culvenor, Cowley & Else 1996). However, health and safety
representatives are part-time in an OHS role and have had much less experience in the field than
the government advisers studied in this project.

6.2.3 Summary of the Issue of Prioritization of Solutions

The results indicated that the ability to prioritize potential solutions to safety problems was related
to the level of expertise in the area of safety. However, no improvement was noted in the ability to
prioritize following a short hazard management training program. To put this in perspective
though, the training program was applied to a group of subjects with an extensive experience in the
area, and thus represented a small addition to their body of knowledge. It may be true that the

214

same training program applied to another group would result in a more positive effect on this test
(as has now actually been shown elsewhere; Culvenor, Cowley & Else 1996).

Training in creative thinking seemed to have a positive impact on the ability of the undergraduate
engineers to prioritize safety solutions. However no such effect was noted for the industry
advisers, or government advisers. Creative thinking training was a useful intervention for
improving prioritization where there was a basis for understanding the mechanisms of safety via
the safe place approach. The engineers had the benefit of education in this area but the technology
students had not had this type of education. While their untrained performance was already high
in teams, and thus the results are somewhat inconclusive, the industry and government advisers
obviously were armed with contemporary knowledge of prevention methodologies and yet the
training failed to assist them to better prioritize solutions. It seems possible that to make use of the
creative thinking skills for prioritization, a basic understanding of prevention methodology was
necessary. Conversely those with high level of expertise did not benefit from the creative thinking
training in terms of their ability to prioritize solutions. For these experts, the widening of
perspective generated by the creative thinking training may be limited somewhat by an intimate
knowledge of what is practical.

215

6.3

Implications for the Training Assessment: Measuring Paradigms

Evaluation of hazard management training, if undertaken, seems often to evaluate the effect of the
training by measuring what the participants perceive as the value of the training. For example
training participants might be asked whether the training fulfilled their expectations, or they may
be asked to estimate there own learning achievement. These evaluations measure the effect of the
training based on the perception of the those attending. Objective evaluation usually takes longer
than self evaluation and so is uncommon in short training sessions. Methods for assessing such
courses in health and safety appear to be unavailable

For this project the intention was to evaluate the effect on performance effect rather than the
perceived effect. The tools used in this project relied on measuring performance on various tasks
rather than a self-reported perception of the value of the training.

The first part of the evaluation tool tested the generation of solutions to safety problems. From
this test, two variables were drawn. Firstly, the number of alternatives generated in the given time
and secondly a subjective evaluation of the effectiveness of those alternatives was make by
classifying as either safe place or safe person in nature. These measures were applied to
individuals and to teams. This type of test is similar in style to the general model of creative
outcome testing, as suggested by Guilford (1950). The tests here exposed the subject to a situation
and required creative effort to solve a problem, given certain instructions and a time limit. The test
requires creative thinking, and seemed to show up some weaknesses with relying on expertise as
precursors of effective problem solving. The tests showed that those who might have appeared to
be in a much better position to generate solutions to safety problems were no better than
comparative novices. While Tudor (1992) found that experts were superior in developing
solutions and the potential effectiveness of those solutions, few other studies seemed to have
compared experts and novices on the generation of alternatives.

The second part of the test measured the prioritization of safety solutions from a given list of
options. The purpose of the test was to evaluate the subjects tendency to recognise the potential of

216

solutions nearer the preferred safe place end of the hierarchy of controls in preference to safe
person controls.

The prioritization tool proved to be an effective tool to provide a simple and fast measure of
conceptual knowledge of preferred controls. The test provided a measure of the extent that
subjects adopted the safe place paradigm.

The assessment tools provided a way to undertake objective assessment of training without
imposing too great time constraints. The prioritization tool especially, took a short time to
administer and discriminated between various levels of safety expertise levels. In this way the tool
could be applied to training either prior to training as a needs analysis or following training as an
evaluation of the effect of the training on the actual performance of subjects. Given that the test
seems to be able to make an assessment of the strength of the safe place paradigm then it seems
reasonable that tests of similar style but different content could be used to assess other types of
culture changes.

6.4

Messages for Risk Control in the Workplace

The results support the philosophy of consultation as a mechanism for workplace health and safety
problem solving. Consultative processes imply that those at risk may be well positioned to
develop risk control solutions. The reasons for this are probably more based in issues such as
ownership and information, however the research here indicated that those without particular safety
expertise can play a useful role in solution development. Specialists would seem to offer no
advantage over novices when the task is to generate alternative solutions to a safety problem.
While it may seem intuitively logical to involve specialists, or to attempt to improve the skills of
those involved to be closer to the specialist level, it may be more profitable to concentrate on the
enhancement of creative thinking skills. Creative thinking training was shown to substantially
improve the ability to generate solutions to safety problems. Once solutions were developed and
there were decisions to be made then expertise came to the fore. At this point novices appeared not
to have the ability to prioritize solutions as well as those with safety expertise. These findings

217

suggest that in an organisational setting, the support and coaching of safety experts would be
worthwhile to maximise the effectiveness of solutions adopted and implemented.

Despite teams having a strong popular connection to creative efforts, research studies have
persistently shown them to be less effective than individual work. Some of these studies evaluated
the perception of effectiveness of the subjects who took part. These evaluations show that
teamwork is perceived to be effective. It seems that, at least for the moment, teams are here to
stay; they remain popular among those involved and are a growing feature of organisational
structures. With the great body of evidence showing their ineffectiveness in creative tasks theres
obviously a great need for creative methods that support the team way of working and improve its
effectiveness. The research here was undertaken with this in mind and evaluated the effect of the
creative thinking training in both individual and team mode. The creative thinking training was
shown to improve the creative performance of both individuals and teams.

6.5

Discussion Summary

Knowledge about accident prevention appeared to have no statistically significant apparent effect
on the ability to generate alternative ways to handle safety problems. There is some evidence to
suggest that knowledge may play a role in focussing the alternatives toward safe place solutions.
However the trend for higher knowledge to focus alternatives toward safe place solutions was
isolated. The effects with regard to creative tasks and decision making tasks seem to be generally
the same for individuals and teams.

In the strategy for the prevention of mechanical equipment injures, the National Commission
highlighted the need for .. new approaches to engineering/technology safety measures and their
incorporation into the design of equipment (NOHSC 1990c, p. 14). For the development of new
approaches to safety problems, creative thinking training seems to hold great promise. A short
training program in creative thinking lead to a substantial increase in the generation of solutions to
safety problems. This effect was equally apparent for individuals and teams and was demonstrated
with a range of subjects.

218

The logical step following solution development is prioritization and application. The National
Commission commented on the need for ... greater application of known engineering/technology
safety measures ... and measures already in the workplace (NOHSC 1990c, p. 14).

The application, or prioritization, of safety measures seemed to be a skill of a differing domain to

that of the generation of solutions. Safety expertise was an important factor in determining how
well subjects were able to prioritize given sets of solutions for a set of safety problems. This also
was equally true for individuals and for teams. The creative thinking training had a worthwhile
impact on the prioritization of solutions for the engineers, but for all other groups there seemed to
be little effect. Creative thinking training would seem to have the potential to improve
prioritization by expanding the range of possible solutions that subjects considered for a given
problem. This may lead subjects to consider options normally rejected. For this process to operate
with any success though there needed to be a basic understanding of prevention methodology, and
yet paradoxically when experts were trained in creative thinking there was no effect perhaps due to
solidly embedded paradigms about the typically successful ways to manage safety problems.

In summary, the generation of solutions and the subsequent prioritization of those solutions
according to their potential effectiveness seemed to be relatively distinct activities relying on
different sets of abilities. Generating solutions seemed to be best improved via the enhancement of
creative thinking skills. Creative thinking also had some impact on the prioritization of solutions,
however the prioritization of solutions seemed to be a function of the level of safety expertise.

219

220

Chapter Seven

Conclusion

222

7. Conclusion
Each year in Australia many people are affected by workplace injury and disease. In addition to
the burden of pain and suffering, there are substantial economic consequences. The Industry
Commission (1995) estimated that the total cost of occupational health and safety failure was
$20,000M per annum. This places the cost of workplace injury and disease at a figure
approximating 5% of GDP and a magnitude greater than the Gross Farm Product. The imperative
for change and the opportunities to be realised are clear.

The initial focus for this work was the prevention of mechanical equipment injury. Mechanical
equipment injury is involved in around 28% of workplace injures and most workplace fatalities
(80%). With respect to engineering as a means to prevention of mechanical equipment injury, the
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (1990c, p. 14) pointed to the need for new
approaches and to better application of existing technologies. The research here focussed on these
two themes; generating new solutions; and the application of known solutions.

As noted by the National Commission, the prevention of mechanical equipment injuries shares a
common conceptual framework with prevention in general. Therefore the study was broadened to
examine the themes above in a wider context. This research took the challenge of how to better
facilitate safe place design. Education in hazard management is a logical way of improving design
and engineers are a worthy target of these suggestions. However, this education for engineers has
been problematic and so the aim of this study was to investigate a supplemental, innovative way of
improving safety design.

The hypothesis was that training in creative thinking would be effective in improving the ability to
design for safety. There seemed to be a natural link between creative thinking and safe design.
Contemporary models for prevention have as their priority the elimination of hazards. This
demands an examination of assumptions about the hazardous system which implies a logical role
for creative thinking in facilitating this change of paradigm.

223

The creative thinking technique chosen was the six thinking hats model (de Bono 1985) that
embodies many accepted principles of creative thinking. Subjects were undergraduate engineering
and technology students, postgraduate hazard management students and a group of government
employed safety advisers. The assessment of the training effectiveness was in accordance with
established principles in the assessment of creativity, but adapted to safety theory drawing on the
two themes mentioned above; development and application, of safety solutions. The assessment
employed a set of fictitious safety case study problems. Subjects were required to suggest
solutions to some problems, and for other problems were required to prioritize given solutions
according to their potential effectiveness. Subjects worked on both tasks as individuals and in
teams of three. The variables drawn from these tasks were threefold.

1. Generation of alternative solutions (number of solutions, idea fluency).

2. Generation of effective solutions (proportion of safe place solutions, idea quality).
3. Prioritization of effective solutions (correlation with standard rank).

7.1

Generation of Alternative Solutions

The training in creative thinking lead to substantial improvements in the generation of alternative
solutions to the safety problems presented in the case studies. This enhancement was noted for
subjects of varying education and experience, however the effects were largest with the
undergraduate engineering and technology students. The improvement in the generation of
alternatives following training in creative thinking is consistent with the view in literature that
creative thinking is a learnable skill.

Improving education in safety seems to be an obvious way to accelerate the development of new
approaches to safety problems. However the research here indicated that expertise in safety had
little impact on the generation of alternative solutions to safety problems.

224

7.2

Generation of Effective Solutions

The study showed that training in creative thinking produced very few significant changes in the
proportion of safe place solutions. In terms of the number of safe place solutions though, the
impact was substantial. The maintenance of the proportion of safe place solutions combined with
large improvements in the number of alternatives lead to a substantially increased set of potentially
effective solutions. For instance the engineering students with the benefit of the training generated
between 150-200% more safe place solutions than their untrained colleagues.

The research gave some indication that specialist safety knowledge may be important in improving
the quality of solutions. For one case working individually there was a significant difference
between the study groups on the proportion of safe place solutions. This was due to lower
proportion of safe place solutions generated by the most novice subjects; the technology students.
However there are a number of factors that mitigate the generalisation of this result. Firstly, this
effect was only noted on one case out of three. Secondly, the other groups, while having varying
expertise, generated similar proportions of safe place solutions. Thirdly, the effect was not apparant
at all when working in teams. Furthermore the proportion of safe place solutions generated by
individual technology students increased following the creative thinking training taking their
quality of solutions nearer that of the other groups. Therefore the evidence of any effect of
expertise on the proportion of safe place solutions was not substantial.

225

7.3

Prioritization of Solutions

For the engineers, the creative thinking training proved to be effective in enhancing the
prioritization of solutions. However, this was not apparent for the other groups of subjects. It
seems that there is some potential for creative thinking to impact on prioritization of solutions, but
this may be less likely to occur where there is little understanding of prevention methodologies and
where paradigms about practical solutions tend to be strong.

The research indicated that specialist safety knowledge had a positive impact on the prioritization
of safety solutions. Those with higher levels of safety expertise were more likely to select
solutions from the safe place end of the hierarchy of control. They favoured solutions relying on
system changes rather than solutions relying on human behaviour. Consequently it seems that
safety expertise plays an important role in hazard management at the decision making and control
implementation stage.

7.4

Combining Creative Thinking with Hazard Management Training

In the study with the government safety advisers, the research showed that training in creative
methods were an effective precursor to training in hazard management. The evaluation showed
that alone, neither the hazard management training nor the creative thinking training had a
substantial impact on subsequent test performance. However when creative thinking training was a
precursor to the hazard management training, the generation of solutions by teams following both
forms of training was substantially enhanced. The effect of the hazard management training
seemed to be improved by the presence of the creative thinking training as a preliminary exercise.

226

7.5

Summary

The aim was to investigate an innovative way of improving the ability of engineers to design for
safety. The research centred on the hypothesis that training in creative thinking methods would be
an effective way to improve the ability of engineers to design for safety.

The key conclusion is that improving the generation of alternatives to safety problems can be
achieved with creative thinking training. This training significantly enhanced the generation of
alternatives with no loss in quality. Consequently the training lead to large increases in the output
of solutions aligned with the safe place approach.

Making use of safety options requires an ability to distinguish between good and poor solutions.
For the undergraduate engineers creative thinking training was an effective method to shift their
paradigms about prevention toward the safe place approach. This effect was not noted for other
groups. For the most part, the good prioritization of solutions depended on expert knowledge.

The findings support a model of empowerment in workplace risk control at the stage of generating
potential solutions. Expertise in safety was not shown to be a prerequisite for this activity.
However the process will require support from those expert in hazard management at the stage of
selecting and implementing the most effective solutions.

The recommendations based on the findings of this research are that creative thinking methods be
given greater primacy in education for those involved in the process of hazard management. These
people may be engineers, where the enhancement of these skills might be best implemented via
undergraduate education, or workplace-based hazard management teams who would benefit from
this type of training in the workplace. The case of the engineers is especially interesting and
indicates the potentially useful combination of the creative thinking training with their existing
education in safety and health. The encouragement of creative thinking should be greeted by a
receptive industrial climate given the growing need for innovation as a competitive priority.
In summary;

227

 Creative thinking training lead to an increase in the generation of alterative safety solutions.
For example, the increase was approximately 100-150% for the engineers.
The improvement in the number of alternatives was accompanied by no reduction in the
proportion of safe place solutions.
The set of solutions generated by those equipped with the creative thinking skills therefore
contained a substantial increase in good solutions. For example; the increase in safe place
solutions was approximately 150-200% for the engineers.
Novices and experts seemed equally able to generate alternative safety solutions.
Creative thinking training as a precursor to hazard management training proved to be an
effective way to maximise the effectiveness of the hazard management training.
When prioritizing solutions, subjects with the greatest safety expertise favoured solutions
nearest to the safe place ideal.
Creative thinking training had a positive effect on the engineering students prioritization of
solutions.
Creative thinking training was an effective way to enhance the generation and
prioritization of safe place solutions by safety-educated undergraduate engineers.

Tackling workplace injury and disease should be a social and economic priority. The opportunities
for improvement are substantial and will be best realised with competent application of the safe
place approach to prevention. It is vital for safety paradigms to move away from the distraction of
behaviour-based concepts and toward the models of control at source and ergonomics. Creative
thinking about safety can potentially facilitate this paradigm shift; potentially encourage outsidethe-square thinking, which is after all the creative challenge presented by the hierarchy of control.

228

Chapter Eight

Further Research

230

8. Further Research
8.1

Engineering and Creative Thinking

The research here showed that a program in creative thinking training was effective in improving
the solution generation by engineers. As mentioned in the introduction, the recent review of
engineering education, Changing the Culture: Engineering education into the future, emphasised
the importance of creative thinking skills.

There is a need for the introduction into courses at an early stage of greater attention to
problem solving and the encouragement of creativity and innovation - knowing when analysis
stops and synthesis starts. (IEAust, ATSE & EACED 1996, p. 7)

Given the potential demonstrated here, research is indicated to determine the extent that
engineering schools are including independent studies on creative thinking. Research is indicated
to determine how these skills are integrated with other subjects. Research is indicated to compare
the effects of the programs with the effects measured in this research.

8.2

Creative Thinking Application

Creative thinking training proved to have a positive effect on a test of safety design. The research
showed a wider transfer of skills than has been shown in many other studies. However taking the
transfer of skills to the logical next step, research is indicated to determine the effect of such
training in an applied setting. Furthermore, given that the training proved useful on safety tasks
then one would imagine that there would be improvement in problem solving in other applied
areas. Therefore research is indicated to determine the broad effects of such training.

8.3

Safety Paradigms versus Actual Safety Recommendations

On the prioritization test, experts tended to favour the safe place solutions as an ideal. However,
the test here was undertaken in an environment where subjects could put aside the constraints of
practicalities and focus on what solutions would be most effective in an ideal sense. It would be
interesting to know what relationship there is between the scores on this instrument and the type of
solutions that would be recommended in a real work situation. Research is indicated to determine

231

the relationships between safety paradigms and the types of approaches that would be
recommended given a real problem.

8.4

The Poor Creativity of Experts

Training in creative thinking, without any reference or link to safety, lead to substantial
improvements in the generation of solutions (up to a 200% increase in the number of safe place
solutions for the engineers). While novices and experts alike benefited from the training, there
seemed to be indications that experts may respond less well. Further research is indicated to test
the hypothesis that creative thinking is more difficult in ones own field. If so it is indeed a
conundrum worth solving. Some reasons that it seems likely to occur are discussed in this paper. If
it becomes established that experts respond less well to creative thinking training then research is
indicated to determine the barriers and to investigate the ways that these can be overcome.

8.5

Teaming-up Novices and Experts

The results showed that novices were equally able as experts to generate solutions to safety
problems. It seemed then that training to enhance safety knowledge would be unlikely to lead to an
improvement in this area. Training workplace teams in creative thinking would seem to hold more
promise if the desired outcome is a greater ability to develop new ways to solve problems.
However creative thinking training had only minor impact on the prioritization of solutions. This
task was best accomplished by those with expertise in safety. This would suggest that expert
knowledge is needed, whether via experts or input by training programs to enhance the expertise of
workplace teams. Research is indicated to determine how the skills of novice and expert problem
solvers can be best integrated.

232

Bibliography

234

Bibliography
Adams, J.L. 1986, The Care and Feeding of Ideas, Penguin, London.
Adams, J.L. 1987, Conceptual Blockbusting: A guide to better ideas, 3rd edn, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Adams, M.J. 1989, Thinking Skills Curricula: Their promise and progress, Educational Psychologist, vol. 24,
no. 1, pp. 25-27.
Aitken, R.F. 1973, Industrial Accidents: A symptom of an environmental problem, in Widner, J. T. (ed.),
Selected Readings in Safety, Academy, Macon, Georgia.
Albert, R.S (ed.) 1990, Genius and Eminence, 2nd edn, Pergamon, Oxford.
Allen, M.S. 1962, Morphological Creativity: The miracle of your hidden brain power, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Amabile, T.M. 1979, Effects of External Evaluation on Artistic Creativity, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 221-233.
Amabile, T.M. 1982, Social Psychology of Creativity: A consensual assessment technique, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 997-1013.
Amabile, T.M. 1983, Brilliant But Cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 146-156.
Amabile, T.M., DeJong, W. & Lepper, M.R. 1976, Effects of Externally Imposed Deadlines on Subsequent
Intrinsic Motivation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 92-98.
Amabile, T.M., Hennessey, B.A. & Grossman, B.S. 1986, Social Influences on Creativity: The effects of
contracted-for reward, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 14-23.
American Engineering Council 1928, Safety and Production: An engineering and statistical study of the
relationship between industrial safety and production, Harper & Brothers, New York.
Anderson, A. 1984, Strategy for Next Decade aims at More Creativity, Nature, vol. 312, p. 485.
Anderson, A. 1985, More Creativity Wanted, Nature, vol. 313, p. 173.
ANOP Research Services Pty Ltd 1995, Community Awareness of, and Attitudes to, Occupational Health
and Safety, Detailed Report of ANOP National Benchmark Study Presented to Worksafe Australia,
December 1995.
ANOP Research Services Pty Ltd 1996, Occupational Health and Safety Post-Campaign Evaluation, Report
on March 1996 ANOP Re-interview Survey Presented to Worksafe Australia, May 1996.
Antoszkiewicz, J.D. 1992, Brainstorming: Experiences from Two Thousand Teams, Organization
Development Journal, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 33-38.

235

Arlin, P.K. 1990, Wisdom: The art of problem finding, in Sternberg, R.J. (ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins,
and development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Armbruster, B.B. 1989, Metacognition in Creativity, in Glover, J.A., Ronning, R.R. & Reynolds, C.R. (eds),
Handbook of Creativity, Plenum, London.
Atherley, G.R.C. 1975, Strategies in Health and Safety at Work, The Production Engineer, vol. 54, pp. 5055.
Atherley, G.R.C. 1978, Occupational Health and Safety Concepts, Applied Science, London.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 1995, Labour Force Australia, November 1995, Cat. no. 6203.0, ABS,
Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 1996, National Income, Expenditure and Product: September Quarter 1996,
Cat. no. 5206.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Manufacturing Council Secretariat 1994, The Wealth of Ideas, AMC.
Baer, J. 1993, Creativity and Divergent Thinking: A task specific approach, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Baer, J.M.Jr. 1988, Long-Term Effects of Creativity Training with Middle School Students, Journal of
Early Adolescence, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 183-193.
Baker,

M.

1995,

14

July,

'Weird

Creativity',

CREA-CPS

[Online],

E-mail:

CREA-

[email protected]
Bailey, C. 1993, Improving Safety Program Effectiveness with Perception Surveys, Professional Safety, vol.
38, no. 10, pp. 28-32.
Bamber, L. 1994a, Principles of the Management of Risk, in Ridley, J. (ed.), Safety at Work, 4th edn,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Bamber, L. 1994b, Risk Management: Techniques and practices, in Ridley, J. (ed.), Safety at Work, 4th edn,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Barry, V.E. & Rudinow, J. 1990, Invitation to Critical Thinking, 2nd edn, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Fort
Worth.
Basadur, M., Graen, G.B. & Scandura, T.A. 1986, Training Effects on Attitudes Toward Divergent Thinking
Among Manufacturing Engineers, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 612-617.
Behavioural Approaches to Accident Research, 1961, New York Association for the Aid of Crippled Children.
Benack, S., Basseches, M. & Swan, T. 1989, Dialectical Thinking and Adult Creativity, in Glover, J.A.,
Ronning, R.R. & Reynolds, C.R. (eds), Handbook of Creativity, Plenum, London.
Bensiali, A.K., Booth, R.T. & Glendon, A.I. 1992, Models for Problem-Solving in Health and Safety, Safety
Science, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 183-205.

236

Benson, D.F. & Zaidel, E. (eds) 1985, The Dual Brain, Guilford, New York.
Berman, H.H. & McCrone, H.W. 1943, Applied Safety Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Berger, R.W. & Shores, D.L. (eds) 1986, Quality Circles: Selected readings, Dekker, New York.
Bieber, R.M., 1989, Safety Management and Innovative Thinking go Hand in Hand, Professional Safety, vol.
34, no. 9, pp. 21-23.
Biggins, D. & Phillips, M. 1991, A Survey of Health and Safety Representatives in Queensland: Part 2:
Beliefs about accident; comparisons of representatives and shop stewards, Journal of Occupational Health
and Safety-Australia NZ, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 281-286.
Biggins, D., Phillips, M. & OSullivan, P. 1988, A Survey of Health and Safety Representatives in Western
Australia, Journal of Occupational Health and Safety-Australia NZ, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 527-532.
Binet, A. 1975, The Education of Intelligence, in Torrance, E.P. & White, W.F. (eds), Issues and Advances
in Educational Psychology, 2nd edn, Peacock, Itasca, Ill.
Birch, H.G. 1945, The Relation of Previous Experience to Insightful Problem-Solving, Journal of
Comparative Psychology, vol. 38, pp. 367-383.
Birch, H.G. & Rabinowitz, H.S. 1951, The Negative Effect of Previous Experience on Productive Thinking,
Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 41, pp. 121-125.
Bird, F.E. & Germain, G.L. 1966, Damage Control: A new horizon in accident prevention and cost
improvement, American Management Association, New York.
Bird, F.E. & Loftus, R.G. (eds) 1976a, Loss Control Management, Institute Press, Loganville, Georgia.
Bird, F.E. & Loftus, R.G. 1976b, The Causes and Effects of Loss Producing Events, in Bird, F.E. & Loftus,
R.G. (eds), Loss Control Management, Institute Press, Loganville, Georgia.
Birmingham, H.P. & Taylor, F.V. 1961, A Design Philosophy for Man-Machine Control Systems, in
Sinaiko, H.W. (ed.), Selected Papers on Human Factors in the Design and Use of Control Systems, Dover,
New York.
Blake, R.P. (ed) 1963, Industrial Safety, 3rd edn, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Blakemore, C. 1990, The Mind Machine, BBC Books, London.
Blakemore, J. 1989, The Quality Solution, MASC, Sydney.
Block, C.C. 1993, Strategy Instruction in a Literature-based Reading Program, Elementary School Journal,
vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 139-151.
Bloomfield, J.J. 1936, Engineering Control of Occupational Diseases, Public Health Reports, vol. 51, May,
pp. 655-667.

237

Bookman, J. 1993, An Expert Novice Study of Metacognitive Behavior in Four Types of Mathematics
Problems, Primus, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 284-314.
Booth, R.T. 1975, New Health and Safety Law calls Designers to Account, Engineering, vol. 215, no. 8, pp.
645-648.
Booth, R.T. 1980, Safety: Too important a matter to be left to the engineers?, Professional Safety, vol. 25,
no. 11, pp. 35-40.
Boris, B. 1986, Thinking Skills and Intelligence, Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC ED 286
830), microfiche.
Bouchard, T.J. 1969, Personality, Problem-Solving Procedure, and Performance in Small Groups, Journal of
Applied Psychology Monograph, vol. 53, no. 1, part 2, pp. 1-29.
Bouchard, T.J. 1971, What Happened to Brainstorming, Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 5, no. 3, pp.
182-189.
Bouchard, T.J. 1972, A Comparison of Two Brainstorming Procedures, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.
59, no. 5, pp. 418-421.
Bouchard, T.J., Barsaloux, J. & Drauden, G. 1974, Brainstorming Procedure, Group Size, and Sex as
Determinants of the Problem-Solving Effectiveness of Groups and Individuals, Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 135-138.
Bouchard, T.J., Drauden, G. & Barsaloux, J. 1974, A Comparison of Individual, Subgroup, and Total Group
Methods of Problem Solving, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 226-227.
Bowers, K.S., Farvolden, P. & Mermigis, L 1995, Intuitive Antecedents of Insight, in Smith, S.M., Ward,
T.B. & Finke, R.A. (eds), The Creative Cognition Approach, MIT, Cambridge.
Boylston, R. Jnr. 1990, Managing Safety and Health Programs, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Braham, J. 1992, Eureka!, Machine Design, vol. 64, pp. 32-36.
Brandt, A.D. 1947, Industrial Health Engineering, Wiley, New York, Chapman & Hall, London.
Brann, E.T.H. 1991, The World of Imagination: Sum and substance, Rowman & Littlefield, Savage,
Maryland.
Bransford, J.D. & Stein, B.S. 1984, The Ideal Problem Solver, Freeman, New York.
Branthwaite, A. 1986, Creativity and Cognitive Skills, in Gellatly, A. (ed.), The Skilful Mind: An
introduction to cognitive psychology, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Phil.
Brauer, R.L. 1990, Safety and Health for Engineers, VNR, New York.
Brauer, M., Judd, C.M. & Gliner, M.D. 1995, The Effects of Repeated Expressions on Attitude Polarization
During Group Discussions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 1014-1029.

238

Brilhart, J.K. & Jochem, L.M. 1964, Effects of Different Patterns on Outcomes of Problem-Solving
Discussion, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 48, no. 3, 175-179.
Brookfield, S.D. 1987, Developing Critical Thinkers, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Burnham, C.A. & Davis, K.G. 1969, The Nine-Dot Problem: Beyond Perceptual organization, Psychonomic
Science, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 321-323.
Buyer, L.S. 1988, Creative Problem Solving: A comparison of performance under different instructions,
Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 55-61.
Buzan, T. 1974, Use Your Head, BBC, London.
Buzan, T. & Buzan B. 1993, The Mind Map Book, BBC, London.
Bylinski, G. & Moore, A.H. 1987, Japans Troubled Future: Trying to transcend the copycat science,
Fortune, vol. 115, no. 7, p. 42-47.
Camacho, L.M. & Paulus, P.B. 1995, The Role of Social Anxiousness in Group Brainstorming, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 1071-1080.
Campbell, J.P. 1968, Individual Versus Group Problem Solving in an Industrial Sample, Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 205-210.
Carbonell, J.L. 1985, Review of the Supervisory Inventory on Safety, in Mitchell, J.V.Jr. (ed.), The Ninth
Mental Measurements Yearbook, vol. II, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Cass, J. 1991, A New Lease on Life, Accident Prevention, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 8-10.
Castillo, J.E. 1995, Safety Management: The winds of change, Professional Safety, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 34-36.
Chance, P. 1986, Teaching Thinking, Curriculum Report, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1-8.
Chapanis, A. 1951, Theory and Methods for Analyzing Errors in Man-Machine Systems, Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 51, Art. 7, pp. 1179-1203.
Chapanis, A. 1965, Man-Machine Engineering, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, Cal.
Chapanis, A., Garner, W.R. & Morgan, C.T. 1949, Applied Experimental Psychology: Human factors in
engineering design, Wiley, New York.
Chapanis, A., Oschman, R.B., Parrish, R.N. & Weeks, G.D. 1972, Studies in Interactive Communication: I.
The Effects of Four Communication Modes on the Behavior of Teams During Cooperative Problem-Solving,
Human Factors, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 487-509.
Chapanis, A., Oschman, R.B., Parrish, R.N. & Weeks, G.D. 1977, Studies in Interactive Communication: II.
The Effects of Four Communication Modes on the Linguistic Performance of Teams during Problem Solving,
Human Factors, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 101-126.
Chatterjea, R.G. & Mitra, A. 1976, A study of brainstorming, Manas, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 23-28.

239

Clapham, M.M. & Schuster, D.H. 1992, Can Engineering Students be Trained to Think More Creatively?,
The Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 156-162.
Cohen, D., Whitmyre, J.W. & Funk, W.H. 1960, Effect of Group Cohesiveness and Training upon Creative
Thinking, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 319-322.
Cohen, H.H. & Cohen, D.M., 1991, Human Error: Myths about mistakes, Professional Safety, vol. 36, no.
10, pp. 32-36.
Committee on Safety and Health at Work, 1972, Safety and Health at Work: Report of the committee 19701972, Her Majestys Stationery Office, London.
Connolly, T., Routhieaux, R.L. & Schneider, S.K. 1993, On the Effectiveness of Group Brainstorming: Test
of one underlying cognitive mechanism, Small Group Research, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 490-503.
Conwell, J.C., Catalano, G.D. & Beard, J.E. 1993, A Case Study in Creative Problem Solving in Engineering
Design, Journal of Engineering Education, October, pp. 227-231.
Cooper, E. 1991, A Critique of Six Measures for Assessing Creativity, Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol.
25, no. 3, pp. 194-204.
Costa, A., Bellanca, J. & Fogarty, R. (eds) 1992, If Minds Matter: A foreword to the future, Hawker
Brownlow, Australia.
Cowley, S. & Else, D. 1987, Trade Union Health and Safety Representative Training Evaluation Report,
unpublished, Ballarat College of Advanced Education, Ballarat
Creber, F.L. 1967, Safety for Industry: A manual for training and practice, RoSPA-Queen Anne, London.
Cronin, J.B. 1971, Cause and Effect?, International Labour Review, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 99-115.
Crosby, P. 1988, Manufacturing Quality for the Creative Manager, in Kuhn, R. L. (ed.), Handbook for
Creative and Innovative Managers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Csikszentmihalyi, M.C. 1992, Motivation and Creativity, in Albert, R.S (ed.), Genius and Eminence, 2nd
edn, Pergamon, Oxford.
Culvenor, J. 1996, Lateral Thinking and Performance-Based Risk Control, Ergonomics Society of Australia,
Regional Seminar Series, Ballarat, 1 May 1996.
Culvenor, J. 1996, Safe Places versus Safe People, Stamp Out Risky Business Seminar, Ballarat, Tuesday
15 October 1996.
Culvenor, J. 1997, The Tyranny of Tradition, Complete Safety Australia, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 33.
Culvenor, J. 1997, More Cash and Less Flashy Ads, Complete Safety Australia, vol. 1, no. 5, p. 34.
Culvenor, J. 1997, The Use of Creativity Techniques in OHS Risk Management, Creativity and Innovation
Management, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 99-105.

240

Culvenor, J. 1997, Unsafe Decision-Makers, Complete Safety Australia, vol. 1, no. 8, p. 32.
Culvenor, J. 1997, Driving the Science of Prevention into Reverse, Safety Science, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 77-83.
Culvenor, J. 1997, Kaizen: The Fourth Reason, Complete Safety Australia, vol. 1, no. 9, in press.
Culvenor, J.F., Cowley, S. & Else, D. 1996, Evaluation of Health and Safety Representative Training in South
Australia, Report & Appendices, WorkCover Corporation of South Australia, Adelaide.
Culvenor, J., Cowley, S., Freeman, R., Harvey, J., Lawrance, M., McElroy, K., Payne, W., Pryor, J., Stuart,
D., & Williams, R. 1997, The Ergonomics of Sheep Shearing, Productivity Ergonomics and Safety: The Total
Package, International Workplace Health & Safety Forum and 33rd Ergonomics Society of Australia
Conference, Gold Coast, November 1997, CD ROM.
Culvenor, J. & Else, D. 1994, 'Engineering Creative Design', Belts to Bytes Factories Act Centenary Conference,
Adelaide, 17-18 November 1994, WorkCover Corporation, Adelaide, pp. 57-67.
Culvenor, J. & Else, D. 1995, 'Parallel Thinking for Creative Teams', Towards Health and Safety at Work:
Technical Papers of the Asia Pacific Conference on Occupational Health and Safety, Brisbane, September
1995, ICOH, pp. 178-182.
Culvenor, J. & Else, D. 1996, 'Finding Occupational Injury Solutions: Creativity and Teamwork', Worksafe
Australia, 1996 Occupational Injury Symposium, Sydney, 24-27 February 1996.
Culvenor, J. & Else, D. 1997, Finding Occupational Injury Solutions: The Impact of Training in Creative
Thinking, Safety Science, vol. 25, nos. 1-3, pp. 187-205.
Culver, G. 1989, Educating the Engineer: Tomorrows challenge today, Proceedings of the Institution of
Engineers, Australia National Conference, IEAust, Barton, ACT, pp. 468-478.
Cuming, M.W. 1989, The Theory and Practice of Personnel Management, 6th edn, Heinemann, Oxford.
Curnow, K.E. 1992, The Effect of Exercise and Music on the Creativity of College Students, Journal of
Creative Behaviour, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 50-52.
Dacey, J.S. 1989, Fundamentals of Creative Thinking, Lexington, Lexington.
Darwin, C. 1952 (orig. 1871), The Descent of Man, in Hutchins, R.M. (ed.), Great Books of the Western
World: Darwin, Benton, Chicago.
Dawson, P. & Palmer, G. 1995, Quality Management: The theory and practice of implementing change,
Longman, Melbourne.
de Bono, E. 1969, The Mechanism of Mind, Jonathon Cape, London.
de Bono, E. 1971, The Use of Lateral Thinking, Penguin: Harmondsworth.
de Bono, E. 1973, PO: Beyond Yes and No, (rev edn), Penguin, Harmondsworth.
de Bono, E. 1977, Lateral Thinking, Penguin, London.

241

de Bono, E. 1978, Opportunities: A handbook of business opportunity search, Associated Business Programs,
London.
de Bono, E. 1982, The Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) Thinking Program, in Maxwell, W. (ed) Thinking:
The Expanding Frontier, Franklin, Philadelphia.
de Bono, E. 1985, Six Thinking Hats, Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
de Bono, E. 1991a, CoRT Program Guide, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
de Bono, E. 1991b, The Direct Teaching of Thinking in Education, in Maclure, S. & Davies, P., Learning to
Think: Thinking to Learn, Pergamon, Oxford.
de Bono, E. 1992a, Serious Creativity: Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas, Harper, New
York.
de Bono, E. 1992b, Six Thinking Hats Application Methods, APT/T, Des Moines, Iowa.
de Snchez, M. 1987, Teaching Thinking Processes, in Perkins, D. N., Lockhead, J. & Bishop, J. (eds),
Thinking: The second international conference, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
de Snchez, M. 1995, Using Critical-Thinking Principles as a Guide to College-Level Instruction, Teaching
of Psychology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 72-74.
Deming, W.E. 1982, Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position, MIT, Cambridge.
Deming, W.E. 1986, Out of the Crisis, MIT, Cambridge.
Deming, W.E. 1993, The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, MIT -CAES, Cambridge.
Dennis, A.R. & Valacich, J.S. 1993, Computer Brainstorms: More heads are better than one, Journal of
Applied Psychology, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 531-537.
Denton, D.K. 1982, Safety Management: Improving performance, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Dertouzos, M.L., Lester, R.K., Solow, R.M. & The MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity 1989, Made
in America: Regaining the productive edge, MIT, Cambridge.
Dessler, G. 1991, Personnel/Human Resource Management, 5th edn, Prentice-Hall, London.
Dewey, J. 1910, How We Think, Heath, Boston.
Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. 1987, Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the solution of a riddle,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 497-509.
Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. 1991, Productivity Loss in Idea-Generating Groups: Tracking down the blocking
effect, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 392-403.
Dobbs, S. 1989, Some Second Thoughts on the Application of Left Brain/Right Brain Research, Roeper
Review, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 119-121.

242

Dunnette, M.D., Campbell, J. & Jaastad, K. 1963, The Effect of Group Participation on Brainstorming
Effectiveness for Two Industrial Samples, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 30-37.
Drucker, P.F. 1992, Managing for the Future: The 1990s and beyond, Truman Tally, New York.
Dunning, D., Griffin, D.W., Milojkovic, J.D. & Ross, L. 1990, The Overconfidence Effect in Social
Prediction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 568-581.
Eastman, C. 1910, Work Accidents and the Law, New York Charities Publication Committee, New York.,
Reprinted in 1969 as American Labor: From conspiracy to collective bargaining: Work Accidents and the
Law, Arno, New York.
Ebert, E.S. 1994, The Cognitive Spiral: Creative thinking and cognitive processing, Journal of Creative
Behaviour, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 275-290.
Edwards, J. 1991, Research Work on the CoRT Method, in Maclure, S. & Davies, P., Learning to Think:
Thinking to Learn, Pergamon, Oxford.
Edwards, J & Baldauf, R.B.Jr. 1982, Teaching Thinking in Secondary Science, in Maxwell, W. (eds)
Thinking: The Expanding Frontier, Franklin, Philadelphia.
Edwards, J. & Baldauf, R.B.Jr. 1987, The Effects of the CoRT-1 Thinking Skills Program on Students, in
Perkins, D. N., Lockhead, J. & Bishop, J. (eds), Thinking: The second international conference, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Einstein, A. 1952, Letter to Jacques Hadamard, in Ghiselin, B. (ed.), The Creative Process, New American
Library, New York.
Else, D. 1992, Enhanced Cohesion and Co-ordination of Occupational Health and Safety Training in
Australia: Report to the minister for industrial relations, Ballarat University College, Ballarat.
Emerson, B. 1985, The Accident Phenomenon, Professional Safety, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 20-26.
Energy Research and Development Administration 1977, Risk Management Guide, by Briscoe, G.J., ERDA,
Idaho Falls.
Eriksson, G.I. 1990, Choice and Perception of Control: The effect of a thinking skills program on the locus of
control, self-concept and creativity of gifted students, Gifted Education International, vol. 6, pp. 135-142.
Ernst & Young LLP, Centre for Business Innovation 1995, The Financial and Non-financial Returns to
Innovative Work Practices, by Mavrinac, S.C., Jones, N.R. & Marshall, W.M, Ernst & Young
Fawcett, H.H. 1965, Why Safety?, in Fawcett, H.H. & Wood, W.S. (eds), Safety and Accident Prevention in
Chemical Operations, Wiley, New York.
Fawcett, H.H. & Wood, W.S. (eds) 1965, Safety and Accident Prevention in Chemical Operations, Wiley,
New York.
Fernald, L.W.Jr. & Nickolenko, P. 1993, Creative Process: Its use and extent of formalization by
corporations, Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 214-220.

243

Ferry, T. 1988, Modern Accident Investigation and Analysis, 2nd edn, Wiley, New York.
Ferry, T. 1990, Safety and Health Management Planning, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
First, M.W. 1983, Engineering Control of Occupational Health Hazards, American Industrial Hygiene
Association Journal, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 621-626.
Fitts, P.M. 1947, Psychological Research on Equipment Design in the AAF, The American Psychologist,
vol. 2, pp. 93-98.
Fitts, P.M. & Jones, R.E. 1961a, Analysis of Factors Contributing to 460 Pilot-Error Experiences in
Operating Aircraft Controls, in Sinaiko, H.W. (ed.), Selected Papers on Human Factors in the Design and
Use of Control Systems, Dover, New York.
Fitts, P.M. & Jones, R.E. 1961b, Psychological Aspects of Instrument Display. 1:-Analysis of 270 Pilot
Error Experiences in Reading and Interpreting Aircraft Instruments, in Sinaiko, H.W. (ed.), Selected Papers
on Human Factors in the Design and Use of Control Systems, Dover, New York.
Flaherty, M.A. 1992, The Effects of a Holistic Creativity Program on the Self-Concept and Creativity of
Third Graders, Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 165-171.
Forscher, F. 1986, Understanding Risks, Hazard Prevention, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 26-28.
Fortner, V.L. 1986, Generalization of Creative Productive-Thinking Training to LD students Written
Expression, Learning Disability Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 274-284.
Fulgosi, A. & Guilford, J.P. 1970, Short-Term Incubation in Divergent Production, Journal of Creative
Behaviour, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 131-132.
Furnham, A. & Yazdanpanahi, T. 1995, Personality Differences and Group Versus Individual
Brainstorming, Personality & Individual Differences, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 73-80.
Gaines, J. & Biggins, D. 1992, A Survey of Health and Safety Representatives in the Northern Territory,
Journal of Occupational Health and Safety-Australia NZ, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 421-428.
Gallagher, V.A. 1991, Unsafe Design: Fall and Machine Hazards, Professional Safety, vol. 36, no. 12, pp.
22-26.
Gallupe, R.B., Bastianutti, L.M. & Cooper, W.H. 1991, Unblocking Brainstorms, Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 137-142.
Gallupe, R.B., Cooper, W.H., Gris, M.L. & Bastianutti, L.M. 1994, Blocking Electronic Brainstorms,
Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 77-86.
Gallupe, R.B., Dennis, A.R., Cooper, W.H., Valacich, J.S, Bastianutti, L.M. & Nunamaker, J.F, 1992,
Electronic Brainstorming and Group Size, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 350-369.
Galton, F. 1889, Natural Inheritance, Macmillan, London., Republished in 1973 by AMS Press, New York.

244

Gardner, A.W. 1965, The Principles of Causation: The basis for preventative action in industry, in Hunt,
J.H. (ed.), Accident Prevention and Life Saving: Papers given at a convention held at the Royal College of
Surgeons of England, May 1963, Livingstone, Edinburgh.
Gardner, H. 1985, Frames of Mind, Basic Books.
Gardner, H. 1995a, Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and messages, Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 77,
no. 3, pp. 200-209.
Gardner, H. 1995b, Why Would Anyone Become an Expert?, American Psychologist, vol. 50, no. 9, pp.
802-803.
Geber, B. 1990, How to Manage Wild Ducks, Training, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 29-36.
Gelade, G. 1995, Creative style and divergent production, Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 29, no. 1, pp.
36-53.
Gellatly, A. (ed.) 1986a, The Skilful Mind: An introduction to cognitive psychology, Open University Press,
Milton Keynes, Phil.
Gellatly, A. 1986b, Cognition and Psychology, in Gellatly, A. (ed.), The Skilful Mind: An introduction to
cognitive psychology, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Phil.
Gellatly, A. 1986c, Acquiring Memory Skills, in Gellatly, A. (ed.), The Skilful Mind: An introduction to
cognitive psychology, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Phil.
Geller, E.S. 1994, Ten Principles for Achieving a Total Safety Culture, Professional Safety, vol. 39, no. 9,
pp. 18-24.
Geller, E.S. 1995, Safety Coaching, Professional Safety, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 16-22.
Gerard, R.W. 1952, The Biological Basis of Imagination, in Ghiselin, B. (ed.), The Creative Process, New
American Library, New York.
Ghiselin, B. (ed.) 1952, The Creative Process, New American Library, New York.
Gibson, A.B. & Phillips, A.A. 1958, Thinkers at Work, 3rd edn, Longmans, London.
Gibson, J.J 1961, The Contribution of Experimental Psychology to the Formulation of the Problem of
Safety: A Brief for Basic Research, in Behavioural Approaches to Accident Research, New York Association
for the Aid of Crippled Children.
Gilbreth, F.B. 1911, Motion Study: A method for increasing the efficiency of the workman, Van Nostrand, New
York.
Glendon, A.I. & McKenna, E.F. 1995, Human Safety and Risk Management, Chapman & Hall, London.
Glenn, J. 1973, Futuring: A look at tomorrow today, Instructor, vol 82, no. 5, pp. 78-82.

245

Glenn, J. 1975, Futuring: A look at tomorrow today, in Torrance, E.P. & White, W.F. (eds), Issues and
Advances in Educational Psychology, 2nd edn, Peacock, Itasca, Ill.
Glover, J.A., Ronning, R.R. & Reynolds, C.R. (eds) 1989, Handbook of Creativity, Plenum, London.
Gluck, F.W. 1988, Radical Innovation through Creative Leadership, in Kuhn, R. L. (ed.), Handbook for
Creative and Innovative Managers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Golovin, R.W. 1993, Creativity Enhancement as a Function of Classroom Structure: Cooperative learning vs.
the traditional classroom, Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA, November 10-12, 1993, US Department of Education ED366583.
Gondola, J.C. 1986, The Enhancement of Creativity Through Long and Short Term Exercise Programs,
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 77-82.
Gordon, J.E. 1949, The Epidemiology of Accidents, American Journal of Public Health, vol. 9, pp. 504-515.
Gordon, W.J.J. 1961, Synectics: The development of creative capacity, Harper & Row, New York.
Graham, W.K. 1977, Acceptance of Ideas Generated Through Individual and Group Brainstorming, Journal
of Social Psychology, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 231-234.
Graham, W.K & Dillon, P.C. 1974, Creative Supergroups: Group performance as a function of individual
performance on brainstorming tasks, Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 101-105.
Grandjean, E. 1982, Fitting the Task to the Man, 3rd edn, Taylor & Francis, London.
Grosswald, S.J. 1992, Problem Solving Strategies of Experienced and Novice Physicians, Journal of
Continuing Education in the Health Professions, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 205-213.
Gruber, E.J., McNinch, G.W. & Cone, A. 1991, The Effects of a Graduate Course in Creative Arts on the
Creative Test Behaviour of Early Childhood Teachers, College Student Journal, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 377-381.
Grummon, P.T.H. & Stilwell, 1984, Unlocking the Door to Safety: Attitudinal aspects of safe behaviour at
work, Professional Safety, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 13-18.
Guarnieri, M. 1992, Landmarks in the History of Safety, Journal of Safety Research, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 151158.
Guastello, S.J., Bzdawka, A., Guastello, D.D. & Rieke, M.L., 1992, Cognitive abilities and creative
behaviors: CAB-5 and consequences, Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 260-267.
Guilford, J.P. 1950, Creativity, The American Psychologist, vol. 5, pp. 444-454.
Guilford, J.P. 1967, The Nature of Human Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Guilford, J.P. 1970, Creativity: Retrospect and prospect, Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 4, no. 3, pp.
149-168.

246

Guilford, J.P. 1971a, Varieties of Memory and Their Implications, Journal of General Psychology, vol. 85,
pp. 207-228.
Guilford, J.P. 1971b, Some Misconceptions Regarding Measurement of Creative Talents, Journal of
Creative Behavior, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 77-87.
Guilford, J.P. 1972, Intellect and the Gifted, Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 175-184, 239-243.
Guilford, J.P. 1973, Characteristics of Creativity, Illinios State Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, Springfield, Gifted Children Section.
Guilford, J.P. 1975, Varieties of Creative Giftedness: Their measurement and development, Gifted Child
Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 107-121.
Guilford, J.P. 1976, Aptitude for Creative Thinking: One or many?, Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 10,
no. 3, pp. 165-169.
Guilford, J.P. 1979a, Intelligence Isnt What It Used to Be: What to do about it, Journal of Research and
Development in Education, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 33-46.
Guilford, J.P. 1979b, Some Incubated Thoughts on Incubation, Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 13, no.
1, pp. 1-9.
Guilford, J.P. 1981, Higher-Order Structure-of-Intellect Abilities, Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 16,
no. 4, pp. 411-435.
Guilford, J.P. 1984, Varieties of Divergent Production, Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 110.
Guilford, J.P. 1987, Creativity Research: Past, present and future, in Isaksen, S.G. (ed.), Frontiers of
Creativity Research: Beyond the basics, Bearly, Buffalo.
Guilford, J.P. 1988, Some Changes in the Structure-of-Intellect Model, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 1-4.
Guilford, J.P. & Christensen, P.R. 1973, The One-Way Relation Between Creative Potential and IQ,
Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 247-252.
Guthrie, W.K.C. 1967, The Greek Philosophers: from Thales to Aristotle, Routledge, London.
Guyot, A. & Cole, R. A. 1968, An Introduction to Industrial Safety, West, Sydney.
Haddon, W.Jr. 1963, A Note Concerning Accident Theory and Research with Special Reference to Motor
Vehicle Accidents, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, pp. 635-646.
Haddon, W.Jr. 1973a, Energy Damage and the Ten Countermeasure Strategies, Journal of Trauma, vol. 13,
no. 4, pp. 321-331.
Haddon, W.Jr. 1973b, On the Escape of Tigers: An ecologic note, in Widner, J.T. (ed.), Selected Readings in
Safety, Academy, Macon, Georgia.

247

Haddon, W.Jr. 1980, The Basic Strategies for Reducing Damage from Hazards of all Kinds, Hazard
Prevention, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 8-12.
Haddon, W.Jr., Suchman, E.A. & Klein, D. 1964, Accident Research: Methods and Approaches, Harper &
Row, New York.
Haight, F.A. 1973, A Traffic Safety Fable, Journal of Safety Research, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 226-228.
Hale, A.R. 1984, Is Safety Training Worthwhile?, Journal of Occupational Accidents, vol. 6, no. 1-3, pp. 1733.
Hale, A.R. 1990a, Safety Rules O.K.?: Possibilities and limitations in behavioural safety strategies, Journal
of Occupational Accidents, vol. 12, special issue, pp. 3-20.
Hale, A.R. 1990b, How People Learn to Live with Risk: Prediction and control, Journal of Occupational
Accidents, vol. 13, nos. 1-2, pp. 33-45.
Hale, A.R. 1994, Quis custodet? Implications of certification and regulatory systems for expert manpower
and training, in Larsson, T. J. & Clayton, A. (eds), Insurance and Prevention: Some thoughts on social
engineering in relation to externally caused injury and disease, IPSO, Stockholm.
Hale, A.R., de Loor, M., van Drimmelen, D. & Huppes, G. 1990, Safety Standards, Risk Analysis and
Decision Making on Prevention Measures: Implications of some recent European legislation and standards,
Journal of Occupational Accidents, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 213-231.
Halpern, D.F. 1989, Thought and Knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking, 2nd edn, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Halpern, D.F. 1993, Teaching Thinking: An anecdotal, atheoretical, antiempirical approach, Contemporary
Psychology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 380-381.
Hamilton, A. 1929, Industrial Poisons in the United States, Macmillan, New York.
Hammer, W. 1976, Occupational Safety Management and Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Hammond, J. 1978, Understanding Human Engineering, David & Charles, Newton Abbot.
Harari, O. & Graham, W.K. 1975, Tasks and Task Consequences as Factors in Individual and Group
Brainstorming, Journal of Social Psychology, vol 95, no. 1, pp. 61-65.
Hare, A.P. 1962, Handbook of Small Group Research, Free Press, New York.
Harkins, J.D. & Macrosson, W.D.K. 1990, Creativity Training: An assessment of a novel approach, Journal
of Business and Technology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 659-666.
Harkins, S.G. & Jackson, J.M. 1985, The role of evaluation in eliminating social loafing, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 457-465.
Harms-Ringdahl, L. 1993, Safety Analysis: Principles and practice in occupational safety, Elsevier Applied
Science, London.

248

Harrisberger, L. 1966, Engineermanship: a philosophy of design, Brooks/Cole, Belmont, Cal.

Hatch, T. & Gardner, H. 1990, If Binet had Looked Beyond the Classroom: The assessment of multiple
intelligences, International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 415-429.
Health & Safety Executive 1993, Successful Health & Safety Management, rev. edn, HSE Books, Sudbury.
Hebb, D.O. 1949, Organization of Behaviour: A neuropsychological theory, Wiley, New York.
Heinrich, H.W. 1927, Incidental Cost of Accidents to the Employer, Monthly Labor Review, vol. 25, pp.
270-274.
Heinrich, H.W. 1941, Industrial Accident Prevention: A scientific approach, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Heinrich, H.W. 1959, Industrial Accident Prevention, 4th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hequet, M. 1992, Creativity Training Gets Creative, Training, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 41-46
Hernberg, S. 1995, Research, Prevention and Impact, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and
Health, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 161-163.
Hidley, J.H. & Krause, T.R. 1994, Behaviour Based Safety: Paradigm shift beyond the failures of attitudebased programs, Professional Safety, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 28-32.
Hinkle, J.S., Tuckman, B.W. & Sampson, J.P. 1993, The Psychology, Physiology, and Creativity of Middle
School Aerobic Exercisers, Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 133-145.
Hoffman, L.R. 1959, Homogeneity of Member Personality and its Effect on Group Problem-Solving,
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 58, pp. 27-32.
Homma, M., Tajima, K. & Hayashi, M. 1995, The effects of Misperception of Performance in
Brainstorming Groups, Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 221-231.
Howard, R.H. 1987, Concepts and Schemata, Cassell, London.
Howell, W.C. & Goldstein, I.L. (eds) 1971, Engineering Psychology: Current perspectives in research,
Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
Hoyos, C.G. & Zimolong, B. 1988, Occupational Safety and Accident Prevention: Behavioural strategies and
methods, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Hume, D. 1910, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in Eliot, W. (ed.), English Philosophers of
the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: Locke, Berkeley, Hume, vol 37, Collier, New York
Hunt, J.H. (ed.) 1965, Accident Prevention and Life Saving: Papers given at a convention held at the Royal
College of Surgeons of England, May 1963, Livingstone, Edinburgh.
Industry Commission 1995, Work, Health and Safety: Inquiry into occupational health and safety, vols I&II,
Industry Commission, Melbourne.

249

International Labour Office 1949, The Law and Practice Relating to Safety in Factories, ILO, Montreal.
International Labour Office 1961, Accident Prevention: A workers education manual, ILO, Geneva.
International Labour Office 1971, Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, vols I&II, ILO, Geneva.
International Labour Office 1993, Year Book of Labour Statistics, ILO, Geneva.
International Labour Organisation 1983, Accident Prevention: A workers education manual, ILO, Geneva.
International Labour Organisation 1988, Major Hazard Control: A practical manual, ILO, Geneva.
Isaksen, S.G. (ed.) 1987a, Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the basics, Bearly, Buffalo.
Isaksen, S.G. 1987b, Introduction: An orientation to the frontiers of creativity research, in Isaksen, S.G.
(ed.), Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the basics, Bearly, Buffalo.
Ishikawa, K. & Lu, D.J. 1985, What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs.
Jablin, F.M. 1981, Cultivating Imagination: Factors that enhance and inhibit creativity in brainstorming
groups, Human Communication Research, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 245-258.
James, D.W.B. 1983, A Safe Place of Work, Butterworths, London.
Jay, D. 1991, Effect of a Dance Program on the Creativity of Preschool Handicapped Children, Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 305-316.
Johnson, W.G. 1973, The Management Oversight & Risk Tree - MORT, The Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington
Johnson, W.G. 1980, MORT Safety Assurance Systems, Dekker, New York.
Joliet, P.V. & Lehr, E.L. 1961, Home Safety, in The American Public Health Association, Accident
Prevention: The role of physicians and public health workers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kabanoff, B. & Bottger, P. 1991, Effectiveness of Creativity Training and its Relation to Selected Personality
Factors, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 12, pp. 235-248.
Kaiser, S.M. & Woodman, R.W. 1985, Multidisciplinary Teams and Group Decision-Making Techniques:
Possible solutions to decision-making problems, School Psychology Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 457-470.
Kalin, S.R. 1994, Safety Starts on the Drawing Board, Professional Safety, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 24-26.
Kanis, H. & Weegels, M.F. 1990, Research into Accidents as a Design Tool, Ergonomics, vol. 33, no. 4, pp.
439-435.
Kasperson, R.E., Kasperson, J.X., Hohenemser, C. & Kates, R.W. 1988, Corporate Management of Health &
Safety Hazards: A comparison of current practice, Westview, Boulder.

250

Kappauf, W.E. 1947, History of Psychological Studies of the Design and Operation of Equipment, The
American Psychologist, vol. 2, pp. 83-86.
Katz, A.N. 1979, Creativity and the Cerebral Hemispheres, American Psychologist, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 279280.
Kavianian, H.R. 1989, Safety Management in Engineering Laboratories, Professional Safety, vol. 34, no. 7,
pp. 27-30.
Kearns, D. 1988, Changing a Corporate Culture: Leadership through quality, in Kuhn, R. L. (ed.), Handbook
for Creative and Innovative Managers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Keller, D.B. 1992, Putting Risk Assessment in Perspective, Professional Safety, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 35-38.
Kendall, M. & Stuart, A. 1979, The Advanced Theory of Statistics, vol. 2 Inference and Relationship, 4th edn,
Charles Griffin, London.
Kendall, M., Stuart, A. & Ord, J.K. 1987, Kendalls Advanced Theory of Statistics, vol. 1 Distribution
Theory, 5th edn, Charles Griffin, London.
King, R.W. & Magid, J. 1982, Industrial Hazard and Safety Handbook, (rev. imp.) Butterworth, London.
Kinnersly, P. 1973, The Hazards of Work: How to fight them, Pluto, London.
Kjelln, U. 1984a, The Deviation Concept in Occupational Accident ControlI: Definition and
classification, Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 289-306.
Kjelln, U. 1984b, The Deviation Concept in Occupational Accident ControlII: Data collection and
assessment of significance, Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 307-323.
Kjelln, U. (ed.) 1984c, Occupational Accident Research: Proceedings of the international seminar on
occupational accident research, Saltsjbaden, Sweden, 5-9 September 1983, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Kjelln, U. & Hovden, J. 1993, Reducing Risks by Deviation ControlA Retrospection into a Research
Strategy, Safety Science, vol. 16, no. 3-4, pp. 417-438.
Kjelln, U. & Larsson, T.J. 1981, Investigating Accidents and Reducing RisksA Dynamic Approach,
Journal of Occupational Accidents, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 129-140.
Kjelln, U. & Sklet, S. 1995, Integrating Analysis of the Risk of Occupational Accidents into the Design
Process: Part I: A review of the types of acceptance criteria and risk analysis methods, Safety Science, vol.
18, no. 3, pp. 215-227.
Klein, D. & Waller, J.A. 1970, Causation, Culpability and Deterrence in Highway Crashes, US Department of
Transportation.
Kletz, T. 1985a, An Atlas of Safety Thinking, The Chemical Engineer, May, pp. 47-48
Kletz, T. 1985b, An Engineers View of Human Error, Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby,
Warwickshire.

251

Kletz, T. 1988, Hazards that can Arise from Rigid Thinking about Safety, Health and Safety at Work, vol.
10, no. 6, pp. 16.
Kletz, T.A. 1990a, Critical Aspects of Safety and Loss Prevention, Butterworths, London.
Kletz, T.A. 1990b, Consequences and Visions, Journal of Occupational Accidents, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp. 9399.
Kletz, T.A. 1990c, The Need for Friendly Plants, Journal of Occupational Accidents, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp. 313.
Kletz, T. 1991, An Engineers View of Human Error, 2nd edn, Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby,
Warwickshire.
Kletz, T. 1993, Lessons from Disaster: How organizations have no memory and accidents recur, Institution
of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, Warwickshire.
Kletz, T. 1994, Learning from Accidents, 2nd edn, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Koberg, D. & Bagnall, J. 1981, The Revised All New Universal Traveler, Kaufmann, Los Altos.
Koestler, A. 1969, The Act of Creation, Hutchinson, London.
Khler, W. 1930, Gestalt Psychology, Bell, London.
Kornhaber, M. L. & Gardner, H. 1991, Critical Thinking Across Multiple Intelligences, in Maclure, S. &
Davies, P. (eds), Learning to Think: Thinking to Learn: Proceedings of the 1989 OECD conference organised
by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Pergamon, Oxford.
Kosko, B. 1993, Fuzzy Thinking: The new science of fuzzy logic, Hyperion, New York.
Kramer, J.J. & Conoley, J.C. (eds) 1992, The Eleventh Mental Measurements Yearbook, University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Kubie, L.S. 1961, Neurotic Distortion of the Creative Process, Noonday, New York.
Kuhlmann, A. 1986, Introduction to Safety Science, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Kuhn, R. L. (ed.) 1988, Handbook for Creative and Innovative Managers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kuhn, R.L. & Kuhn, L. 1988, Decision Making and Deal Making: How creativity helps, in Kuhn, R.L. (ed.),
Handbook for Creative and Innovative Managers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Laflamme, L. 1990, A Better Understanding of Occupational Accident Genesis to Improve Safety in the
Workplace, Journal of Occupational Accidents, vol. 12, no. 1-3, pp. 155-165.
Lamm, H. & Trommsdorff, G. 1973, Group Versus Individual Performance on Tasks Requiring Ideational
Proficiency (Brainstorming): A review, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 361-388.

252

Langley, J.D. 1988, The Need to Discontinue the use of the Term "Accident" when Referring to
Unintentional Injury Events, Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1-8.
Lark, J. 1991, Risk Taking: Perspectives and intervention, Professional Safety, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 36-39.
Larson, G. 1992, The Far Side 1994 Off-The-Wall Calendar, The Ink Group, Waterloo, Australia.
Larsson, T.J. & Clayton, A. (eds) 1994, Insurance and Prevention: Some thoughts on social engineering in
relation to externally caused injury and disease, IPSO, Stockholm.
Latham, G.P. & Saari, L.M. 1979, The Effects of Holding Goal Difficulty Constant on Assigned and
Participatively Set Goals, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 163-168.
Laughton, J. 1988, Strategies for Developing Creative Abilities of Hearing-Impaired Children, American
Annals of the Deaf, vol. 133, no. 4, pp. 258-263.
Lazear, D.G. 1990, Seven Ways of Knowing, Hawker Brownlow, Cheltenham, Australia.
Leigh, J.P. 1986, Individual and Job Characteristics as Predictors of Industrial Accidents, Accident Analysis
and Prevention, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 209-216.
Lemkowitz, S.M. 1992, A Unique Program for Integrating Health, Safety, Environment and Social Aspects
into Undergraduate Chemical Engineering Education, Plant/Operations Progress, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 140-150.
Lewycky, P. 1987, Notes Toward and Understanding of Accident Causes, Hazard Prevention, vol. 23, no.
2, pp. 6-8.
Li, C. & Shallcross, D.J. 1992, The Effect of the Assumed Boundary in Solving the Nine-Dot Problem on a
Sample of Chinese and American Students 6-18 Years Old, Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 26, no. 1, pp.
53-64.
Locke, E.A. 1982, Relation of Goal Level to Performance with a Short Work Period and Multiple Goal
Levels, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 512-514.
Locke, J. 1882, Conduct of Understanding, 2nd edn, Burt Franklin, New York.
Locke, J. 1910, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, in Eliot, C.W. (ed.), English Philosophers of the
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: Locke, Berkeley, Hume, vol 37, Collier, New York
Lorenzi, P. 1988, Underestimated Effects of Goals and Rewards: A systematic replication, Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 59-71.
Lorge, I., Tuckman, J., Aikman, L., Spiegel, J & Moss, G. 1955, Problem-Solving by Teams and by
Individuals in a Field Setting, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 55, pp. 160-166.
Luchins, A.S. 1942, Mechanization in Problem Solving: The effect of einstellung, Psychological
Monographs, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1-95.

253

Luntz, H. 1994, Some Aspects of the Relation Between Insurance and Prevention in the Area of Transport,
in Larsson, T.J. & Clayton, A. (eds), Insurance and Prevention: Some thoughts on social engineering in
relation to externally caused injury and disease, IPSO, Stockholm.
M acCollum, D.V. 1994, System Safety Analysis of Workplace Equipment and Fatalities, Hazard
Prevention, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 26-29.
MacIver, J. 1961, Human Factors in Accidents, in Behavioural Approaches to Accident Research, New York
Association for the Aid of Crippled Children.
MacLeod, D. 1995, The Ergonomics Edge: Improving Safety, Quality, and Productivity, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Madsen, D.B. & Finger, J.R. 1978, Comparison of a written feedback procedure, group brainstorming, and
individual brainstorming, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 120-123.
Maginn, B.K. & Harris, R.J. 1980, Effects of anticipated evaluation on individual brainstorming
performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 219-225.
Maslow, A.H. 1965, Eupsychian Management, Irwin/Dorsey, Homewood, Ill.
Mason, 1989, Its in our CoRT Now, Curriculum Development, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 175-180.
Mathews, J. 1986, The Myth of the Careless Worker, Safety in Australia, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 17-21.
Mat hews, J. 1993, Health and Safety at Work: A trade union representatives handbook, 2nd edn, Pluto,
Leichhardt, NSW.
Maxwell, W. (ed) 1982, Thinking: The Expanding Frontier, Franklin, Philadelphia.
Mays, W. 1985, Thinking Skills Programmes: An analysis, New Ideas in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 149163.
McCormick, E.J. & Sanders, M.S. (eds) 1982, Human Factors Engineering and Design, 5th edn, McGraw
Hill, New York.
McFarland, R.A. 1953, Human Factors in Air Transportation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
McFarland, R.A. 1973, Application of Human Factors Engineering to Safety Engineering Problems, in
Widner, J. T. (ed.), Selected Readings in Safety, Academy, Macon, Georgia.
McFarland, R.A. & Moore, R.C. 1961, The Epidemiology of Accidents, in The American Public Health
Association, Accident Prevention: The role of physicians and public health workers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
McGrath, J.E. 1984, Groups: Interaction and performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
McKeachie, W.J. 1987 The New Look in Instructional Psychology: Teaching strategies for learning and
thinking, in De Corte, E., Lodewijks, H., Parmentier, R. & Span, P. (eds), Learning and Instruction,
Pergamon/LUP, Oxford.

254

McPeck, J.E. 1983, A Second Look at de Bonos Heuristics for Thinking, in Maxwell, W. (ed.), Thinking:
The Expanding Frontier, Franklin, Philadelphia.
McTighe, J. & Lyman, F.T. 1992, Mind Tools for Matters of the Mind, in Costa, A., Bellanca, J. &
Fogarty, R. (eds), If Minds Matter: A foreword to the future, Hawker Brownlow, Australia.
Meadow, A. & Parnes, S.J. 1959, Evaluation of Training in Creative Problem Solving, Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 189-194.
Meadow, A., Parnes, S.J. & Reese, H. 1959, Influence of Brainstorming Instructions and Problem Sequence
on a Creative Problem Solving Test, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 413-416.
Mednick, S.A. 1962, The Associative Basis of the Creative Process, Psychology Review, vol. 69, no. 3, pp.
220-232.
Meister, D. 1971, Human Factors: Theory and practice, Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Melchior, T.M., Kaufold, R.E. & Edwards, E. 1988, Using CoRT Thinking in Schools, Educational
Leadership, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 32-33.
Miller, W. C. 1988, Techniques for Stimulating New Ideas: A matter of fluency, in Kuhn, R. L. (ed.),
Handbook for Creative and Innovative Managers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Milner, B. 1954, Intellectual Function of the Temporal Lobes, The Psychological Bulletin, vol. 51, no. 1, pp.
42-62.
Mital, A. 1984, Trends in Ergonomics/Human Factors I, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Mital, A. & Karwowski, W. (eds) 1986, Trends in Ergonomics/Human Factors III: Part B, Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Mitchell, J.V.Jr. (ed.) 1985, The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook, vols I&II, University of Nebraska
Press, Lincoln.
Mohr, D.L. & Clemmer, D.I. 1988, The "Accident Prone" Worker: An example from heavy industry,
Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 123-127.
Mongeau, P.A. 1993, The Brainstorming Myth, Paper Presented a the Annual Meeting of the Western States
Communication Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 15 February 1993, US Department of Education
ED357399.
Mozart, W.A. 1952, A Letter, in Ghiselin, B. (ed.), The Creative Process, New American Library, New
York.
Mullen, B., Johnson, C. & Anthony, T. 1994, Relative Group Size and Cognitive Representations of Ingroup
and Outgroup: The phenomenology of being in a group, Small Group Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 250-266.
Mullen, B., Johnson, C. & Salas, E. 1991, Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: A meta-analytic
integration, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 3-23.

255

Munitz, B. 1988, Creative Management Demands Creative Leadership, in Kuhn, R. L. (ed.), Handbook for
Creative and Innovative Managers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nader, R. 1965, Unsafe at any Speed, Grossman, New York.
Nagasundaram, M. & Dennis, A.R. 1993, When a Group is not a Group: The cognitive foundation of group
idea generation, Small Group Research, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 463-489.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 1988, Management of the Work Environment:
Candidate safety and health research topics, NIOSH.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 1973, The Industrial Environment - its Evaluation and
Control, NIOSH.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 1984, Engineering Control of Occupational Safety and
Health Hazards: Recommendations for improving engineering practice, education, and research, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 84-102.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 1990, Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion
and Disease Prevention Objectives: Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1990a, National Code of Practice for Manual Handling,
AGPS, Canberra.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1990b, National Standard for Manual Handling,
AGPS, Canberra.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1990c, National Strategy for the Prevention of
Mechanical Equipment Injury, AGPS, Canberra.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1990d, Occupational Health and Safety for Engineers:
A resource for engineering education, AGPS, Canberra.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1993a, National Code of Practice for Noise
Management and Protection of Hearing at Work [(NOHSC:2009(1993)], AGPS, Canberra.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1993b, National Education and Training Strategy for
Occupational Health and Safety, AGPS, Canberra.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1993c, National Standard for Occupational Noise
[NOHSC:1007(1993)], AGPS, Canberra.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 1994a, National Code of Practice for the Prevention of
Occupational Overuse Syndrome [NOHSC:2013(1994)], AGPS, Canberra.
National

Occupational

Health

and

Safety

Commission

1994b,

National Standard for Plant

[NOHSC:1010(1994)], AGPS, Canberra.

National Safety Council 1959, Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, 4th edn, NSC, Chicago.

256

National Safety Council 1971, Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene, edited by Olishifski, J.B. & McElroy,
F.E., National Safety Council, Chicago.
National Safety Council 1988, Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations, vol. 1, Administration
and Programs, 9th edn, NSC, Chicago.
Neimark, E.D. 1987, Adventures in Thinking, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, San Diego.
Neter, J., Kutner, M., Nachtsheim, C. & Wasserman, W. 1996, Applied Linear Statistical Models, 4th edn,
Irwin, Chicago.
Nickerson, R.S., Perkins, D.N. & Smith, E.E., 1985, The Teaching of Thinking, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
New Jersey.
Nohl, J. 1926, The Black Death: A chronicle of the plague, trans. Clarke, C.H., George Allen & Unwin,
London.
Norman, D. 1988, The Psychology of Everyday Things, Basic Books, New York.
Noruis, M.J. 1995, SPSS: SPSS 6.1 guide to data analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Novak, J.D. & Gowin, D.B., 1984, Learning how to Learn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
OConnor, J. & Seymour, J. 1993, Introducing NLP: Neuro-Linguistic Programming, rev. edn, Aquarian,
London.
ONeil, H.F., Allred, K. & Dennis, R. 1993, Report on Preliminary Study to Test Prototype Workforce
Readiness Group Problem-solving Task and Scoring System.

Assessment Issues in the Validation of a

Computer Simulation of Negotiation Skills. Project 2.1 Deigns for Assessing Individual and Group Problem
Solving, US Department of Education ED367673.
OShea, S.S. 1986, The Eight Keys to Safety Management, Accident Prevention, vol.33, no.1, pp. 4-7.
Oborne, D.J. 1987, Ergonomics at Work, 2nd edn, Wiley, Chichester.
Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 (Vic.).
Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 (S.A.).
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (W.A.).
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (USA).
Ochse, R. 1990, Before the Gates of Excellence: The determinants of creative genius, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA, United States Congress) 1985, Preventing Illness and Injury in the
Workplace, OTA-H-256, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.

257

Offner, D.H. 1967, Energizing the Creative Potential in Future Engineers, Journal of Creative Behaviour,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 15-21.
Olishifski, J.B. 1971, General Methods of Control, in National Safety Council, Fundamentals of Industrial
Hygiene, edited by Olishifski, J.B. & McElroy, F.E., National Safety Council, Chicago.
Olson, C.B. 1992, Interactive Strategies for Enhancing Thinking and Writing, in Costa, A., Bellanca, J. &
Fogarty, R. (eds), If Minds Matter: A foreword to the future, Hawker Brownlow, Australia.
Onda, A. 1986, Trends in creativity research in Japan: History and present status, Journal of Creative
Behavior, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 134-140.
Organizational Tests Limited 1970, Supervisory Job Safety: A test in, Organizational Tests Limited, PO Box
324, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
Orsburn, J.D., Moran, L., Musselwhite, E. & Zenger, J.H. 1990, Self-Directed Work Teams: The new
American challenge, Business One Irwin, Homewood, Ill.
Osborn, A.F. 1948, Your Creative Power: How to use imagination, Charles Scribners Sons, New York.
Osborn, A.F. 1953, Applied Imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking, Charles Scribners
Sons, New York.
Osborn, A.F. 1979, Applied Imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking, 3rd. rev. edn,
Charles Scribners Sons, New York.
Ouchi, W.G. 1981, Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge, Addison Wesley,
Reading.
Page, J.A. & OBrien, M. 1973, Bitter Wages: Ralph Naders Study Group Report on Disease and Injury on
the Job, Grossman, New York.
Page, N.W. & Murthy, D.N.P. 1982, Problem Solving - Are Engineers Adequately Trained?, Conference on
Engineering Education 1982 Whither Engineering Education, IEAust, Barton, ACT, pp. 109-113.
Parker, S.J. 1983, Thinking about Thinking, Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC), microfiche.
Parloff, M.B. & Hanson, J.H. 1964, The Influence of Criticalness on Creative Problem-Solving in Dyads,
Psychiatry, vol. 27, pp. 17-27.
Passmore, J. 1991, Cleverness is not Enough, Quadrant, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 23-30.
Paulus, P.B. & Dzindolet, M.T. 1993, Social Influence Processes in Group Brainstorming, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 575-586.
Paulus, P.B., Dzindolet, M.T., Poletes, G. & Camacho, L.M. 1993, Perception of Performance in Group
Brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 19, no. 1,
pp. 78-89.

258

Paulus, P.B., Larey, T.S. & Ortega, A.H. 1995, Performance and Perceptions of Brainstormers in an
Organizational Setting, Basic & Applied Social Psychology, vol. 17, no. 1-2, pp. 249-265.
Parnes, S.J. 1961, Effects of Extended Effort in Creative Problem Solving, Journal of Educational
Psychology, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 117-122.
Parnes, S.J. 1967, Creative Behaviour Guidebook, Charles Scribners, New York.
Parnes, S.J. 1976, Idea-Stimulation Techniques, Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 126-129.
Parnes, S.J. & Meadow, A. 1959, Effects of "Brainstorming" Instructions on Creative Problem Solving by
Trained and Untrained Subjects, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 171-176.
Parnes, S.J. & Meadow, A. 1960, Evaluation of Persistence of Effects Produced by a Creative ProblemSolving Course, Psychological Reports, vol. 7, pp. 357-361.
Perkins, D. & Swartz, R. 1992, The Nine Basics of Teaching Thinking, in Costa, A., Bellanca, J. & Fogarty,
R. (eds), If Minds Matter: A foreword to the future, Hawker Brownlow, Australia.
Perkins, D.N. 1981, The Minds Best Work, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Perkins, D.N., Lockhead, J. & Bishop, J. (eds) 1987, Thinking: The second international conference,
Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Perrow, C. 1984, Normal Accidents, Basic Books, New York.
Peters, T. 1987, Thriving on Chaos, Macmillan, London.
Peters, T. 1994, The Tom Peters Seminar: Crazy times call for crazy organizations, Macmillan, London.
Peters, T. & Austin, N. 1985, A Passion for Excellence, Random House, New York.
Petersen, D. 1978, Techniques of Safety Management, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Petersen, D. 1980, Analyzing Safety Performance, Garland, New York.
Petersen, D. 1984, Human-Error Reduction and Safety Management, Aloray, Deer Park, NY.
Peterson, J.E. 1973, Principles for Controlling the Occupational Environment, in National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health 1973, The Industrial Environment - its Evaluation and Control, NIOSH.
Planek, T.W. & Fearn, K.T. 1993, Reevaluating Occupational Safety Priorities: 1967 to 1992, Professional
Safety, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 16-21.
Plous, S. 1995, A Comparison of Strategies for Reducing Interval Overconfidence in Group Judgments,
Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 443-454.
Poincar, H. 1952, Mathematical Creation, in Ghiselin, B. (ed.), The Creative Process, New American
Library, New York.

259

Polland, M. 1994, The Evaluation of Creative Behaviours, US Department of Education ED369539.

Porritt, A. 1965, Speech of Welcome at the Opening of the Convention, in Hunt, J.H. (ed.), Accident
Prevention and Life Saving: Papers given at a convention held at the Royal College of Surgeons of England,
May 1963, Livingstone, Edinburgh.
Powell, P., Hale, M., Martin, J. & Simon, M. 1971, 2000 Accidents: A shop floor study of their causes, NIIP,
London.
Prentky, R. 1989, Creativity and Psychopathology: Gamboling at the seat of madness, in Glover, J.A.,
Ronning, R.R. & Reynolds, C.R. (eds), Handbook of Creativity, Plenum, London.
Pribram, K.H. 1969, On the Biology of Learning, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York.
Price, K.H. 1993, Working Hard to get People to Loaf, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, vol. 14, no. 3,
pp. 329-344.
Productivity Promotion Council of Australia 1979, Ergonomics in the Australian Workplace, rev. edn, PDCA,
Melbourne.
Rahami, M. 1986, Systems Safety for Robots: An Energy Barrier Analysis, Journal of Occupational
Accidents, vol. 8, nos 1-2, pp. 127-138.
Rapoport, A. 1961, Some Comments on Accident Research, in Behavioural Approaches to Accident
Research, New York Association for the Aid of Crippled Children.
Reese, H.W. & Parnes, S.J. 1970, Programming Creative Behavior, Child Development, vol. 41, no. 2, pp.
413-423.
Renzulli, J.S., Owen, S.V. & Callahan, C.M. 1974, Fluency, flexibility, and originality as a function of group
size, Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 107-113.
Resnick, L.B. 1987, Instruction and the Cultivation of Thinking, in De Corte, E., Lodewijks, H., Parmentier,
R. & Span, P. (eds), Learning and Instruction, Pergamon/LUP, Oxford.
Revels, O.H. & Gutkin, T.B. 1983, Effects of symbolic modeling procedures and model status on
brainstorming behavior, Journal of School Psychology, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 311-318.
Ribot, T. 1906, Essay on the Creative Imagination, Open Court, Chicago.
Richbart, C.M. & Richbart, L.A. 1995, Professional Development: Promoting problem-solving expertise,
Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 310-316.
Rickards, T. 1975, Brainstorming: An examination of idea production rate and level of speculation in real
managerial situations, R and D Management, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 11-14.
Rickards, T. 1988, Creativity at Work, Gower, Aldershot.
Ridley, J.R. 1994a, Employers Obligations for Safety, in Ridley, J. (ed.), Safety at Work, 4th edn,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

260

Ridley, J.R. (ed.) 1994b, Safety at Work, 4th edn, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Ridyard, D.T., Bobick, T.G. & Starkman, B.S. 1990, Ergonomic Awareness Training for Workplace Design
Engineers, Applied Occupational Environmental Hygiene, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 771-781.
Rinefort, F.C. 1992, The Economics of Safety, Professional Safety, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 42-45.
Robbins, S.P., Low, P.S. & Mourell, M.P. 1986, Managing Human Resources, Prentice-Hall, Sydney.
Rosenthal, D.A., Morrison, S.M. & Perry, L. 1977, Teaching Creativity: A comparison of two techniques,
The Australian Journal of Education, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 226-232.
Ross, L.D., Amabile, T.M. & Steinmetz, J.L. 1977, Social roles, social control, and biases in socialperception processes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 485-494.
Rouse, W.B 1980, Systems Engineering Models of Human-Machine Interaction, North Holland, New York.
Rowe, W.D. 1977, An Anatomy of Risk, Wiley, New York.
Roweton, W.E. 1989, Enhancing Individual Creativity in American Business Education, Journal of Creative
Behaviour, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 249-257.
Royal Society 1992, Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management, Report of a Royal Society Study Group,
Royal Society, London.
Ruback, R.B. Dabbs, J.M. & Hopper, C.H. 1984, The process of brainstorming: An analysis with individual
and group vocal parameters, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol, 47, no. 3, pp. 558-567.
Ruffels, M.J. 1986, A Study of Critical Thinking Skills in Grade 10 Students in a Tasmanian High School,
Masters Dissertation, Tasmanian State Institute of Technology, Tasmania.
Russel, P. 1976, The Brain Book, EP Dutton, New York.
Saiz, M.D. & Breuleux, A. 1992, Planning as a Function of Expertise and Task Difficulty in a Technical
Domain, US Department of Education ED346153.
Salvendy, G. (ed) 1987, Handbook of Human Factors, Wiley, New York.
Sappington, A.A. & Farrar, W.E. 1982, Brainstorming vs. critical judgment in the generation of solutions
which conform to certain reality constraints, Journal of Creative Behavior, vol, 16. no. 1, pp. 68-73.
Schonberger, R.J. 1990, Building a Chain of Customers: Linking business functions to create the world class
company, Free Press, New York.
Schooler, J.W. & Melcher, J. 1995, The Ineffability of Insight, in Smith, S.M., Ward, T.B. & Finke, R.A.
(eds), The Creative Cognition Approach, MIT, Cambridge.
Schoone-Harsmen, M. 1990, A Design Method for Product Safety, Ergonomics, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 431437.

261

Schuler, R.S., Dowling, P.J. & Smart, J.P. 1988, Personnel/Human Resource Management in Australia,
Harper & Row, Sydney.
Schwartz, D.J. 1987, The Magic of Thinking Big, Simon & Schuster, New York.
Schwenk, C.R. & Cosier, R.A. 1993, Effects of Consensus and Devils Advocacy on Strategic DecisionMaking, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 126-139.
Schwenk, C. & Valacich, J.S. 1994, Effects of Devils Advocacy and Dialectical Inquiry on Individuals
Versus Groups, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 210-222.
Scott, T. R. 1953, Accidents: The unsafe attitude, The British Journal of Industrial Safety, vol. 2, no. 24, pp.
213-214.
Seibold, D.R. & Steinfatt, T.M. 1979, The Creative Alternative Game: Exploring interpersonal influence
processes, Simulation and Games, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 429-457.
Semler, R. 1993, Maverick!, Arrow, London.
Senge, P.M. 1992, The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation, Random House,
Milsons Point, Australia.
Senge, P.M., Roberts, C., Ross, B.J., & Kleiner, A. 1994, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and tools
for building a learning organisation, Nicholas Brealey, London.
Shaw, M.E. 1932, A Comparison of Individuals and Small Groups in the Rational Solution of Complex
Problems, American Journal of Psychology, vol. 54, pp. 491-504.
Sharpe, L.W. 1976, The effects of a creative thinking skills program on intermediate grade educationally
handicapped children, Journal of Creative Behavior, vol, 10, no. 2, pp. 138-145.
Shaughnessy, M.F. 1995, On the Theory and Measurement of Creativity, US Department of Education
ED381576.
Shields, J. 1988, Project Minerva Canada, Canadian Occupational Safety, vol. 26, no. 4, p. 2.
Siau, K.L. 1995, Group Creativity and Technology, Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 201216.
Siegel, S. & Castellan, N.J.Jr. 1988, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn, McGrawHill, New York.
Sikula, A.F. 1976, Personnel Administration and Human Resources Management, Wiley, Santa Barbara.
Simon, H.A. 1988, Understanding Creativity and Creative Management, in Kuhn, R. L. (ed.), Handbook for
Creative and Innovative Managers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Sims, V.M. 1928, The Relative Influence of Two Types of Motivation on Improvement, Journal of
Educational Psychology, vol. 19, pp. 480-484.

262

Sinaiko, H.W. (ed.) 1961, Selected Papers on Human Factors in the Design and Use of Control Systems,
Dover, New York.
Singleton, W.T. 1972, Introduction to Ergonomics, World Health Organization, Geneva.
Singleton, W.T. (ed) 1982, The Body at Work, Cambridge, Cambridge.
Skilbeck, M. 1991, Commentary by Malcolm Skilbeck, in Maclure, S. & Davies, P., Learning to Think:
Thinking to Learn, Pergamon, Oxford.
Sloboda, J. 1986, What is Skill?, in Gellatly, A. (ed.), The Skilful Mind: An introduction to cognitive
psychology, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Phil.
Smith, B.L. 1993, Interpersonal Behaviors that Damage the Productivity of Creative Problem Solving
Groups, Journal of Creative Behaviour, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 171-187.
Smith, M.U. 1992, Expertise and the Organization of Knowledge: Unexpected differences among genetic
counselors, faculty, and students on problem categorization tasks, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 179-205.
Smith, S.M., Ward, T.B. & Finke, R.A. (eds) 1995, The Creative Cognition Approach, MIT, Cambridge.
Snedecor, G.W. & Cochran, W.G. 1967, Statistical Methods, 6th edn, Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Sniezek, J.A. 1990, A Comparison of Techniques for Judgmental Forecasting by Groups with Common
Information, Group and Organization Studies, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 5-19.
Sniezek, J.A. 1992, Groups Under Uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 124-155.
Sniezek, J.A. & Henry, R.A. 1990, Revision, Weighting, and Commitment in Consensus Group Judgment,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 66-84.
Spearman, C. 1927, The Abilities of Man: Their nature and measurement, Macmillan, London.
Spearman, C. 1930, Creative Mind, Nisbet, London, & Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sperry, R.W. 1985, Consciousness, Personal Identity, and the Divided Brain, A public lecture presented at
the Smithsonian Institution, December 1977, in Benson, D.F. & Zaidel, E. (eds), The Dual Brain, Guilford,
New York.
Sperry, R.W. 1969, A Modified Concept of Consciousness, Psychological Review, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 532536.
Sperry, R.W. 1983, Science and Moral Priority, Columbia University Press, New York.
Sperry, R.W., Gazzaniga, M.S. & Bogen, J.E. 1969, Interhemispherical Relationships: The neocortical
commissures; syndromes of hemisphere disconnection, in Vinken, P.J. & Bruyn, G.W. (eds), Handbook of
Clinical Neurology: Volume 4, Disorders of Speech, Perception, and Symbolic Behaviour, North Holland,
Amsterdam, Wiley, New York.

263

Standards Association of Australia 1993, Exercise Cycles - Safety Requirements (AS 4092-1993), Standards
Association of Australia, Homebush.
Standards Australia 1996, Australian Standard AS 4024.11996 Safeguarding of Machinery Part 1: General
principles, Standards Australia, Homebush.
Standards Australia & Standards New Zealand 1995, Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4360:1995
Risk Management, Standards Australia, Homebush/Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand 1996, Draft Australian/New Zealand Standard for Comment DR
96311: Occupational Health and Safety Management SystemsGeneral Guidelines on Principles, Systems
and Supporting Techniques, Standards Australia, Homebush/Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
Stavy, R., Meidav, M., Asa, Z. & Kirsch, Y. 1991, Students Problem-Solving in Mechanics: Preference of a
process based model, US Department of Education ED350151.
Stein, M.I. 1974, Stimulating Creativity, Academic Press, New York.
Stephenson, A. 1926, Accidents in Industry, The Journal of the National Institute of Industrial Psychology,
vol. 3, pp. 194-200.
Stephenson, J. 1991, System Safety 2000: A practical guide for planning, managing, and conducting system
safety programs, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Sternberg, R.J. 1990a, Wisdom and its relations to intelligence and creativity, in Sternberg, R.J. (ed.),
Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sternberg, R.J. (ed.) 1990b, Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Sternberg, R.J. & Davidson, J.E. (eds) 1995, The Nature of Insight, MIT, Cambridge.
Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart, T.I. 1995, Defying the Crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity, Free
Press, New York.
Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart, T.I. 1996, Investing in Creativity, American Psychologist, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 677688.
Stevens, S.S. 1946, Machines Cannot Fight Alone, American Scientist, vol. 34, pp. 389-400.
Stranks, J.W. 1994, The Handbook of Health and Safety Practice, Pitman, London.
Street, W.R. 1974, Brainstorming by Individuals, Coacting and Interacting Groups, Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 433-436.
Stroebe, W., Diehl, M. & Abakoumkin, G. 1992, The Illusion of Group Effectivity, Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 643-650.
Strom, R.D. 1965, The Changing School, in Torrance, E.P. & Strom, R.D. (eds), Mental Health Achievement:
Increasing potential and reducing school dropout, Wiley, New York.

264

Suchman, E.A. 1961, A Conceptual Analysis of the Accident Phenomenon, in Behavioural Approaches to
Accident Research, New York Association for the Aid of Crippled Children.
Suchman, E.A. & Scherzer, A.L. 1964, Accident Proneness, in Haddon, W.Jr., Suchman, E.A. & Klein, D.,
Accident Research: Methods and Approaches, Harper & Row, New York.
Surry, J. 1968, Industrial Accident Research: A human engineering appraisal, University of Toronto,
Toronto.
Svantesson, I. 1990, Mind Mapping and Memory, Kogan Page, London.
Szymanski, K. & Harkins, S.G. 1992, Self-evaluation and Creativity, Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 259-265.
Talty, J.T. 1986, Integrating Safety and Health Issues into Engineering School Curricula, Chemical
Engineering Progress, vol. 82, no. 10, pp. 13-16.
Talty, J.T. 1995, Project Shape Integration of Safety and Health into Engineering School Curricula, Paper
presented at Tufts University Workshop.
Talty, J.T. & Walters, J.B. 1987, Integration of Safety and Health into Business and Engineering School
Curricula, Professional Safety, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 26-32.
Tanner, D. 1992, Innovation and Creative Change, Executive Excellence, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 15-16.
Tatsuno, S. 1990, Created in Japan: From imitators to world-class innovators, Harper & Row, New York.
Taylor, D.W. & Faust, W.L. 1952, Twenty Questions: Efficiency in problem solving as a function of size of
group, Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 44, pp. 360-368.
Taylor, F.V. 1947, Psychology at the Naval Research Laboratory, The American Psychologist, vol. 2, pp.
87-92.
Taylor, F.V. 1957, Psychology and the Design of Machines, The American Psychologist, vol. 12, pp. 249258.
Taylor, F.W. 1911, The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper, New York.
Terry, G.J. 1991, Engineering System Safety, Mechanical Engineering Publications, London.
The American Public Health Association 1961, Accident Prevention: The role of physicians and public health
workers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
The Institution of Engineers, Australia 1994, Code of Ethics, IEAust, Barton, ACT.
The Institution of Engineers, Australia, Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering & Australian
Council of Engineering Deans 1996, Changing the Culture: Engineering education into the future, IEAust,
Barton, ACT.
The Macquarie Dictionary, rev. edn, 1985, Macquarie Library, Dee Why, NSW.

265

Thomas, H.G. 1991, Safety, Work, and Life: An international view, American Society of Safety Engineers, Des
Plaines, Ill.
Thompson, J.P. 1988, Applying Innovation in Multiunit Organizations, in Kuhn, R. L. (ed.), Handbook for
Creative and Innovative Managers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Thomson, J.A.K. 1955, The Ethics of Aristotle, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Thorn, D. 1987, Problem Solving for Innovation in Industry, Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 21, no. 2,
pp. 93-107.
Thornburg, T.H. 1991, Group Size & Member Diversity Influence on Creative Performance, Journal of
Creative Behaviour, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 324-333.
Thygerson, A.L. 1992, Safety, 2nd edn, Jones & Bartlett, Boston.
Tichauer, E.R. 1978, The Biomechanical Basis of Ergonomics: Anatomy applied to the design of work
situations, Wiley, New York.
Torell, U. & Bremberg, S. 1995, Unintentional Injuries: Attribution, perceived preventability, and social
norms, Journal of Safety Research, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 63-73.
Torrance, E.P. 1962, Guiding Creative Talent, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Torrance, E.P. 1965, Gifted Children in the Classroom, M acmillan, New York.
Torrance, E.P. 1969, Creativity, Fearon, Belmont, Cal.
Torrance, E.P. 1970, Encouraging Creativity in the Classroom, WMC Brown, Dubuque, Iowa.
Torrance, E.P. 1974, Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Personnel Press, Lexington, Mass.
Torrance, E.P. 1976, Creativity Testing in Education, Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 3, pp.
136-148.
Torrance, E.P. 1992, A National Climate for Creativity and Invention, Gifted Child Today, vol. 15, no. 1,
pp. 10-14.
Torrance, E.P. 1993, Understanding Creativity: Where to start?, Psychological Inquiry, vol. 4, no. 3, pp.
229-232.
Torrance, E.P. 1995, Why Fly?, Ablex, Norwood, N.J.
Torrance, E.P. & Strom, R.D. (eds) 1965, Mental Health Achievement: Increasing potential and reducing
school dropout, Wiley, New York.
Torrance, E.P. & White, W.F. (eds) 1975, Issues and Advances in Educational Psychology, 2nd edn, Peacock,
Itasca, Ill.
Torrington, D. & Chapman, J. 1983, Personnel Management, 2nd edn, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

266

Townsend, P.L. 1990, Commit to Quality, Wiley, New York.

Tripp, D. 1977, An Evaluation of the de Bono Project to Teach Thinking as a School Subject: Unpub. PhD
Thesis, Cambridge.
Tripp, D. 1979, Changes in Childrens Corporate Thinking, in ANZAAS, Language Communication and
Thinking: 49th Congress of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science,
Auckland, 1979.
Tripp, D. 1993, Critical Incidents in Teaching, Routledge, London.
Tudor, M.T. 1992, Expert and Novice Differences in Strategies to Problem Solve an Environmental Issue,
Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 329-339.
University of Ballarat 1994, Handbook 1995, University of Ballarat, Ballarat.
University of Bradford School of Technological Management 1980, Managerial Skills and Expertise used by
Samples of Engineers in Australia, Britain and Western Canada, by Wearne, S.H. and Colleagues, University
of Bradford, Eley, N.G. and Colleagues, Canada and Pugh, D. and Colleagues, Royal Melbourne Institute of
Technology, Report no. TMR16A.
University of Bradford School of Technological Management 1980, Effects of Health & Safety Legislation on
Engineers: Report of Pilot Survey, Report no. TMR16A.
Valacich, J.S. & Schwenk, C. 1995, Devils Advocate and Dialectical Inquiry Effects on Face-to-Face and
Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol.
63, no. 2, pp. 158-173.
Valacich, J.S., Dennis, A.R. & Connolly, T. 1994, Idea Generation in Computer-Based Groups: A new
ending to an old story, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 448-467.
Van de Ven, A. & Delbecq, A.L. 1971, Nominal Versus Interacting Group Processes for Committee
Decision-Making Effectiveness, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 14, pp. 203-212.
van Gogh, V. 1952, Letter to Anton Ridder Van Rappard, in Ghiselin, B. (ed.), The Creative Process, New
American Library, New York.
Vernon, H.M. 1936, Accidents and their Prevention, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Vincoli, J.W. 1993, Basic Guide to System Safety, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Viner, D. 1982, Risk Engineering, Technology Change and Industrial Safety: Proceedings of the Victorian
Industrial Safety Convention, Melbourne, Victoria, 10-12 August 1982, vol. 1, pp. 49-63.
Viner, D. 1991, Accident Analysis and Risk Control, VRJ Delphi, Carlton, Aus.
Viteles, M.S. 1932, Industrial Psychology, Norton, New York.
Wallas, G. 1926, The Art of Thought, Jonathon Cape, London.

267

Waller, J.A. 1987, Injury as Disease, Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 13-20.
Waller, J.A. & Klein, D. 1973, Society, Energy, and Injury -- Inevitable Triad?, Research Directions Toward
the Reduction of Injury in the Young and the Old: Report of a Conference, Silver Spring, Maryland, May12-14,
1971, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institute of Child
and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland.
Walters, C.F. & Heath, E.D. 1989, The Minerva Program: New kid on the occupational safety and health
block, Journal of Occupational Medicine, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 925-928.
Watkins, G.S. & Dodd, P.A. 1940, Labor Problems, 3rd edn, Cowell, New York.
Watson, C.E. 1986, Does Behaviour Based Safety Management Work?, Professional Safety, vol. 31, no. 9,
pp. 20-25.
Watson, G.B. 1928, Do Groups Think more Efficiently than Individuals?, Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology, vol. 28, pp. 328-336.
Watson, G. & Glaser, E.M. 1961, Critical Thinking Appraisal, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York.
Webber, J.O. 1992, Developing a Comprehensive Safety Program, Professional Safety, vol. 37, no. 3, pp.
33-38.
Weisberg, R.W. 1986, Creativity: Genius and other myths, Freeman, New York.
Weisberg, R.W. 1995, Case Studies in Creative Thinking: Reproduction versus Restructuring in the Real
World, in Smith, S.M., Ward, T.B. & Finke, R.A. (eds), The Creative Cognition Approach, MIT, Cambridge.
Weisberg, R.W. & Alba, J.W. 1981, An Examination of the Alleged Role of Fixation in the Solution of
Several Insight Problems, Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 169-192.
Weisskopf-Joelson, E. & Eliseo, T.S. 1961, An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Brainstorming,
Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 45-49.
West, A. 1994, Insurance Cover and Compensation, in Ridley, J. (ed.), Safety at Work, 4th edn,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
West, M.A. & Farr, J.L. 1990, Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and organizational
strategies, Wiley, Chichester.
Wheeler, D. & Jordan, H. 1929, Change of Individual Opinion to Accord with Group Opinion, Journal of
Abnormal Social Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 203-206.
Widner, J. T. (ed.) 1973, Selected Readings in Safety, Academy, Macon, Georgia.
Wigglesworth, E.C. 1970, Accidents in Australia: The need for research, The Medical Journal of Australia,
vol. 1, pp. 1113-1120.
Wigglesworth, E.C. 1972, A Teaching Model of Injury Causation and a Guide for Selecting
Countermeasures, Occupational Psychology, vol. 46, pp. 69-78.

268

Wigglesworth, E.C. 1978, The Fault Doctrine and Injury Control, The Journal of Trauma, vol. 18, no. 12,
pp. 789-794.
Wigglesworth, E.C. 1979, Injury Preventions Second Generation Technique, in Productivity Promotion
Council of Australia, Ergonomics in the Australian Workplace, rev. edn, PDCA, Melbourne.
Wigglesworth, E.C. 1984, Maintaining Educational Standards in Occupational Safety and Health: The
Australian Experience, Transactions of the Menzies Foundation, vol. 6. pp. 151-158.
Williams, R.H., Stockmyer, J. & Williams, S.A. 1984, The Left and Right of Creativity: A cognitive
(hemispheric cooperation) based program for teaching creative thinking, Creative Child and Adult Quarterly,
vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 69-81.
Williamson, A. & Feyer, A. 1990, Behavioural Epidemiology as a Tool for Accident Research, Journal of
Occupational Accidents, vol. 12, no. 1-2, pp. 207-223.
Wilson, J.R. & Corlett, E.N. (eds) 1990, Evaluation of Human Work: A practical ergonomics methodology,
Taylor and Francis, London.
Wokutch, R.E. 1990, Cooperation and Conflict in Occupational Safety and Health: A multinational study of the
automotive industry, Praeger, New York.
Wokutch, R.E. 1992, Worker Protection, Japanese Style: Occupational safety and health in the auto industry,
ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.
Wolsley, A. 1982, Increasing Technical Creativity Through Engineering Education, Conference on
Engineering Education 1982 Whither Engineering Education'', IEAust, Barton, ACT, pp. 104-108.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. & Roos, D. 1990, The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson, New York.
Wood, W.A. 1965 Industrial Safety-The Coal Mining Industry, in Hunt, J.H. (ed.), Accident Prevention and
Life Saving: Papers given at a convention held at the Royal College of Surgeons of England, May 1963,
Livingstone, Edinburgh.
Woolley, D.J. & Viner, D.B.L. 1980, The Role and Contribution of Engineering in Accident Control,
Australian Safety News, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 43-49.
Work Environment Act 1977 (Sweden).
Worksafe Australia 1994, The Cost of Work-related Injury and Disease, AGPS, Canberra.
Worksafe Australia 1995, Estimates of National Occupational Health and Safety Statistics, Australia, 1992-93,
AGPS, Canberra.
Yellman, T.W. 1987, Events, Accidents, Causes and Hazards: Thoughts on basic terminology and
methodology, Hazard Prevention, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 14-16.
Young, L. 1987, How CEOs Nurture Creative Thinking, FE, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 22-26.

269

Zaleznic, A. 1988, Making Managers Creative: The psychodynamics of creativity and innovation, in Kuhn,
R. L. (ed.), Handbook for Creative and Innovative Managers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Zechmeister, E.B. & Johnson, J.E. (1992), Critical Thinking: A functional approach, Brooks/Cole, Pacific
Grove, Cal.
Zeller, D.B. 1986, Heinrich Revisited, Professional Safety, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 40-42.
Zervos, C. 1952, Conversation with Picasso, in Ghiselin, B. (ed.), The Creative Process, New American
Library, New York.
Zwicky, F. 1969, Discovery, Invention, Research: Through the morphological approach, Macmillan,
Toronto.

270