Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
57 Introduction The data collection process utilized a mixed methodology approach, which is a combination of semi-structured personal interviews and several self-report questionnaires. The qualita- tive interview developed was resultant of a review of the liter- ature on the impact of exposure to trauma, a review of the diagnostic criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and factors that influence the determination that an absence of resiliency in an individualâs reaction to trauma occurred. The interview includes demographic data, assessment of strengths, and accident history of individualâs previous training of dis- aster response, previous experience with aviation disasters, symptoms of psychological trauma, natural coping skills, and personal recommendations for coping with aviation acci- dents based upon their experience. The quantitative self-report questionnaires are highly used measures in psychology. They assess psychological and physical reactions to trauma exposure. Subsequent sections provide a detailed description of these questionnaires. The purpose of this section of the study was twofold: 1. To discover how airport/airline employees perceive their response/reaction to disasters or traumatic incidences, and 2. To determine what assisted or hindered airport/airline employees recovery from the disaster/traumatic incident. The interviews did not include the experiences from the county, city, or airport police officers, fire-fighters and EMT (emergency medical technician) personnel who are usually considered first responders to an incident, since research has already been conducted with these groups. The groups that were interviewed are personnel that work at the airport. Their normal course of work is not disaster response; how- ever, these employees often find themselves having a role in disaster response activities when a disaster occurs. The research questions included the following: 1. How did you perceive yourself responding to or coping with the traumatic incident? 2. What preparation did you have that assisted in dealing with the emotional response you experienced? 3. What would you perceive as helpful to persons experienc- ing this type of trauma in your industry? 4. Were there processes or events that assisted you in coping with the trauma of the experience? 5. Were there processes or events that increased the trauma of the experience and hindered coping? A semi-structured interview guide was developed to obtain information that provided answers to the research questions. Another set of measurements obtained were demographics that included age, gender, education level, marital status, occupation history and other pertinent demographic mea- sures. Many of the aforementioned measures have been found to mediate the deleterious impact of exposure to a traumatic event. Sample The aircraft accident database from the National Transpor- tation Safety Board (NTSB) was scanned to see what airlines/ airports had been involved in incidents since 2001. The research team felt that timeliness of the accident could be an important factor, as feelings may begin to fade, and the most recent accidents should be researched first. There were several aircraft crashes studied. The American Association of Airport Executives database for hurricane relief was also utilized to determine which airports had been hardest hit by natural dis- asters in the past several years. Contact was then made with the appropriate airport official. A P P E N D I X B Research Methodology
The accident sites were narrowed by the number of people that were involved or affected by the trauma. In the end, there were a few sites that the research team was unable to visit, as the incidents were off airport, and there was no airport response. A number of airports did agree to participate. In order to con- duct interviews and set up meetings, a letter was sent to the airport director seeking permission for voluntary on-site in- terviews with affected employees. Due to the cost, compli- cated organizational structures, and time elapsed since the accident, the research team decided against attempting to con- tact witnesses who may not have been prepared to unexpect- edly be queried about their involvement in a prior catastrophic event. While it was possible to order the entire investigation file(s) from the NTSB and comb through the witness statements to find all of the employees that were involved in the event, the team elected to focus on volunteer interviewees who were more easily attainable versus a âcold-callâ to an employee or former employee, forcing that individual to revisit the trau- matic incident. The participants interviewed had experience with one of the selected aircraft accidents, or were an airport employee involved in the chosen natural disaster. A total of 24 participants were interviewed that had exposure to man-made and natural disasters. Participants represented a wide variety of employee positions commonly found in the airline/airport industry (such as labor crew chief, customer service supervisor, analyst, acting director of emergency response, training instructor, airport police and airport safety officers, and airport admin- istration). Most have worked in different positions within the aviation industry over the course of their careers. While the ultimate sample utilized was one of convenience, the team attempted to obtain as representative a sample as possible. The diversity within the sample also supported maximum variation in experiences and shared stories which allowed for multiple themes to emerge from various perspectives. The participants ranged in age from 29 to 67 years old (mean = 49.43). Eighteen of the participants were males and six were females. The educational level of participants included five people with a high school diploma, four with a two-year degree, nine with a Bachelorâs degree, four with a masterâs degree and one with a doctoral degree. The participants were individuals involved in and/or exposed to a variety of aviation-related traumatic events as well as individuals outside of the airline/airport industry who were involved in the response to traumatic events in both air- line and airport disasters. Individuals were identified through the NTSB public reports, and their voluntary participation was solicited through advertisements at their local airport. Several of the participants had experience with or been involved in multiple aircraft incidents and catastrophes. Each participant was interviewed individually to determine such things as the extent of their exposure to the disaster, their experiences while responding to the disaster, whether they had been previously trained or prepared for disaster re- sponse (and the specific nature of that training), and what they did to cope with the psychological impact of responding to the disaster. Each qualitative interview was recorded and later transcribed in order to attain the greatest accuracy. Participants were asked to speak about their experience with, personal connection to, and role in an identified disaster. They were asked to explain all effects, emotional and physical. Interviewers included summative statements asking for val- idation if the perceptions/experiences did or did not fit their experience. Participants freely agreed and disagreed on these summative points. The majority of the participants presented a friendly open posture during the interviews with organ- ized answers to the questions asked. Emotions were expressed (crying or teary eyed) by many participants. However, there was no need to terminate an interview due to a high level of emotional response (no loss of control of feelings). Compar- ative analysis continued throughout the study. Themes were identified and categorized during and beyond the completion of the last interview. It should be noted that the research team had great diffi- culty in soliciting some groups of employees and other periph- eral professional organizations to participate in this study. At times, there appeared some trepidation by some potential subjects who preferred to not take part in these endeavors. While the team chose not to pursue a rationale or assign a reason for such avoidance behaviors, it is important to note such impediments to the study existed and could be a focus of future inquiry. 58
