Tell me a 

Story 

Using stories to improve 

occupational safety training 

By Elaine T. Cullen 

Safety Training Safety Training 

H

not only are entertaining, but also provide the rules 

about what is expected by society and how to make 

meaning of experiences. Stories are integral to 

human existence and have great power to change or 

influence how people think or react. They are an 

integral part of how learning takes place, and have 

obvious benefits to trainers and educators who want 

to impact what and how students learn. 

This article discusses the social and cultural 

power of stories, and how they have been used to 

develop training for skilled blue-collar workers. It 

includes examples as well as suggestions for trainers 

on where to find stories, what types of stories to pay 

attention to, and how to use them to 

improve occupational safety training. 

HUMANS ARE NATURAL STORYTELLERS and 

story listeners. People learn very early that stories 

Background 

The research behind this work takes 

place within the framework of the U.S. 

mining industry. In the late 1990s, the 

Spokane Research Lab (SRL), one of 

two NIOSH mining offices, held a 

series of stakeholder meetings in the 

West to gain input on issues and concerns that would benefit from NIOSH 

safety and health research. SRL held 

these meetings in different mining 

areas to meet with representatives of 

the many unique segments of the 

industry. Engineers, geologists, supervisors, union representatives and safety 

specialists were invited to share their 

ideas and help SRL create a research program that 

was responsive to industry needs. The issue of training was raised at each meeting. Training materials 

were generally perceived to be outdated and boring, 

or absent altogether. 

Federal law—specifically 30 CFR parts 46 and 

48—requires safety and health training for all miners 

(MSHA, 2002). This includes new miner training, 

specified as at least 40 hours of training for new 

underground miners and 24 hours for new surface 

miners, and annual refresher training for every miner, 

which is mandated to be at least 8 hours each year. 

Mining is one of the few industries that has such a 

stringent federally required training component. 

However, instructors were not sure the required 

training was making a difference. They were, in their 

opinion, meeting the letter of the law, but not necessarily meeting the intent. In fact, according to several 

instructors, miners dreaded refresher training, referring to it as “safety jail,” and considered it little more 

than an opportunity for a free donut and a nap. 

According to trainers, miners begrudgingly spent the 

required 8 hours of “seat time,” but getting them to 

pay attention was another matter. Trainers believed 

that there was a need for more and better training 

materials that would get and keep the attention of 

workers, and that would be remembered after the 

sessions were over. They asked NIOSH to help by 

creating effective training materials for the industry. 

An ambitious project emerged as a result of these 

meetings. Its objective was to develop and evaluate 

effective safety training for miners. One major obstacle was that no one could say what “effective” looked 

like or how to measure it, although everyone knew it 
was the goal. Safety professionals, however, offered 

ideas, technical advice and access to work sites, and 

readily offered critical opinions if they thought the 

project was off-track. The industry’s mandate for 

training was an asset in that trainers were required to 

train every miner each year, and would be grateful, if 

not eager, for any new materials. 

At the start of the project, an informal group of 

safety trainers and directors was organized to help 

create a prioritized list of topics that needed new or 

improved training materials, and to act as technical 

advisors. This group was crucial to the project’s success. Members not only made suggestions, they also 

acted as subject-matter experts and became, in a 

sense, cocreators of the materials that were developed. Membership in the group was fluid as the topics under development changed, but the safety 

experts consistently ensured that created materials 

met their needs and those of workers. 

Before developing training materials, it was necessary to spend time studying theories of adult 

learning (Knowles, Holton & Swanson, 1998; Lave & 

Wenger, 1991; Kowalski & Vaught, 2002; Wlodowski, 1985), training models (Owenby, 1992; Pegg, 

1999; Billett, 1994) and regulations that controlled, to 

some degree, what was included in safety training. 

Currently available materials were examined as 

well. The team had to find a different way of presenting information to fulfill the initial request to 

make training more interesting and effective. Two 

dominant characteristics of the mining industry 

became the underlying framework for the new 

videos: mining’s strong occupational culture and the 

miners’ love for stories. 

Abstract: This article 

discusses the social and 

cultural power of stories, and how they have 

been used to develop 

training for skilled bluecollar workers. Examples 

are included as are suggestions for trainers on 

where to find stories, 

what type of stories to 

pay attention to and 

how to use them to 

improve occupational 

safety training. 

The Role of Culture 

Every organization has its own culture. Culture is 

not something an organization has, it is something 

the organization is (Lewis & Thornhill, 1994). It has 

been described as a social roadmap for its members, 

providing essential information on how to survive 

and be successful within its boundaries. Patton 

(2002) defines culture as “that collection of behavior 

patterns and beliefs that constitutes: 

•standards for deciding what is; 

•standards for deciding how one feels about it; 

•standards for deciding what to do about it; 

•standards for deciding how to go about doing 

it” (p. 81). 

Culture is inherently social. It develops over time 

through the shared experiences of its members who 

then teach new members its rules, perpetuating the 

culture. It can be a difficult thing to define, but it is 

readily apparent to those inside and, often, to those 

outside. Simply put, it is “the way we do things 

around here.” 

Occupations also have cultures, particularly 

those with a shared sense of danger or whose members believe they are different from other work cultures. Occupational cultures have been defined as “a 

group of people who consider themselves to be 

engaged in the same sort of work; whose identity is 

drawn from the work; who share with one another a 

set of values, norms and perspectives” (Van Maanen 

& Barley, 1984, p. 287). These cultures are also seen 

as relationships “that apply to but extend beyond 

work-related matters . . . whose social relationships 

meld work and leisure” (p. 287). 

According to Van Maanen and Barley, occupational cultures that are particularly strong because of 

shared dangers faced by members will be resistant to 

any changes suggested or mandated by outsiders. 

Examples include the military, loggers, firefighters, 

police, commercial fishermen and miners. If these 

same changes are brought forward by insiders, however, they are much more likely to be viewed positively and eventually adopted. According to Van 

Maanen and Barley: 

Danger . . . invites work involvement and a sense 

of fraternity. . . . Recognition that one’s work 

entails danger heightens the contrast between 

one’s own work and the work of others, and 

encourages comparison of self with those who 

share one’s work situation. Attitudes, behaviors 

and self-images for coping physically and psychologically with threat become part of an occupational role appreciated best, it is thought, only 

by one’s fellow workers (p. 301). 

The lesson is that members of these work cultures 

view outsiders as incapable of understanding the dangers they face, and are likely to place more trust in 

those who are perceived to be part of the occupational culture. Credible insiders have much more power to 

change behaviors within a culture than do outsiders. 

Occupational cultures can often be identified by 

their tribal language (Neuhauser, 1988). This language is understood by members and can be used as 
shorthand, while maintaining the added benefit of 

being somewhat incomprehensible to outsiders. It 

serves as a communication tool, but also helps identify who is inside the culture and who is out, who is 

good and who is bad. It may be jargon specific to the 

industry, geographic idioms or phrases that come 

from languages other than English. Whatever the 

origin, it is the common language that has the power 

to convey meaning. 

If trainees 

cannot use 

the information provided 

to construct 

meaning for 

their own 

work experience, then it 

cannot be 

effective. 

Using language in training programs that is not 

common to the culture will not be effective. While it 

may be understood, it will clearly brand the communicator as an outsider, and will create one more barrier between the speaker and the members (Hansen, 

1995). In studying existing mine safety training materials, it became obvious that many of the materials 

available were presented in highly technical or regulatory language that was not commonly spoken in 

the industry. This may have been the primary reason 

the materials were considered ineffective. The products were full of information, but as Bruner (1990) 

points out, “Information is indifferent with respect to 

meaning” (p. 4). If trainees cannot use the information provided to construct meaning for their own 

work experience, then it cannot be effective. 

Organizations are often made up of many subcultures, all of which have their own way of doing 

things and their own internal language. In a large 

mining operation, for example, the mechanics may 

not believe they have much in common with the 

geologists. Environmental engineers probably have 

a whole different set of concerns as compared to 

truck drivers. Shovel operators may not believe that 

company managers understand what they do or 

what their problems are. A safety trainer needs to be 

aware of the differences between organizational and 

occupational culture in order to be truly effective 

and to realize that with respect to safety training one 

size does not fit all. 

Hansen (1995) believes that new information 

such as training will always be filtered through the 

beliefs, experiences and norms provided by the 

learners’ occupational culture. Members of these 

work cultures share a belief that “members have the 

exclusive right to perform a given set of related 

tasks” (p. 60), and this can make them quite resistant 

to outside influences. Hansen further says that 

“information communicated in a manner greatly 

different from what is culturally common requires a 

longer learning period and often leads to a lack of 

comprehension or misunderstanding” (p. 61). 

Learners are much quicker to pay attention to and 

pick up the meaning of new information if the 

teacher looks, walks and talks like they do. 

Two characteristics of strong occupational cultures 

such as mining, logging or fishing are workers’ shared 

belief in their own competence, and their reliance on 

the ability and willingness of others to perform tasks 

without putting coworkers in danger (McCarl, 1997). 

This means that experienced workers believe no one 

knows the job better than they do, and they can 

become resentful of someone else, particularly an outsider, telling them how to do it better (Voynick, 1978). 

There is also a strong sense of independence among 

these workers—what experts would call an internal 

locus of control (Wyman, 1979). Because they have a 

cultural resistance to outsiders trying to control them, 

they will generally do something because they 

choose to do it, not necessarily because someone else 

tells them to (Schein, 1996). Trying to permanently 

change behaviors in this type of culture without 

obtaining the buy-in of the workers is impossible. 

People will change their behavior to comply with 

mandated rules when they must (when an external 

locus of control is present such as the supervisor or 

inspector) but when no one is monitoring their 

actions, they will generally revert to how they have 

always done things, and how the occupational (not 

organizational) culture expects things to be done. To 

openly and willingly go against a traditional norm, 

workers must be convinced that the new behavior is 

a better choice—and that it is their choice. If this is 

done successfully, the new behavior becomes part of 

the cultural norms and a safety trainer or director 

does not need to monitor it. 

The Value of Storytelling 

The question is, How do you convince people— 

especially people with experience in an industry and 

perhaps a long history of doing things unsafely—to 

do things differently? The first and most obvious step 

is to get their attention. The safety trainer needs to find 

the internal switch that responds to the question, Why 

should I care about this information? and answers, 

Because it makes sense for me to care. It may save my 

life someday. Stories have the ability to do this. 

Stories have been used to entertain ever since 

humans gathered together in groups. They have 

other functions, however, such as to help us make 

sense of what is happening in our lives. “Storytelling 

is a natural way of recounting experience, a practical 

solution to a fundamental problem in life, creating 

reasonable order out of experience” (Moen, 2006). 

Simmons (2001) believes that stories are “the oldest 

tool of influence in human history” (p. xvii) and that 

they effectively “connect people to what’s important 

and to help them make sense of their world” (p. 29). 

Slater (2002) further explains the power stories have 

to influence behavior. “It is difficult to consider 

another communication genre that can communicate 

beliefs, model behavior, teach skills, provide behavioral cues, and simulate consequences of behaviors 

over time in as compelling a fashion” (p. 16). 

For a trainer, one of the most valuable characteristics of stories is their ability to teach vicariously. 

One need not actually be part of the story to learn 

from it. Because stories engage both the thinking 

and feeling sides of the brain, learners can place 

themselves inside the story and think about what 

they might have done in the same circumstances, 

while at the same time feeling the anxiety caused by 

the problem. Storytellers can elicit the fear, confusion 

or heightened awareness common to disaster stories 

without ever placing the learners in danger. This sit­
uation greatly increases the likelihood that listeners 

will remember both the story and the lessons it 

taught. Livo and Rietz (1986) claim: 

“Story” is a way of knowing and remembering 

information—a shape or pattern into which 

information can be arranged. It serves a very 

basic purpose; it restructures experiences for 

the purpose of “saving” them. And it is an 

ancient, perhaps natural order of the mind. . . . 

By imposing the structure of a story onto some 

circumstance or happening, greater coherence 

and sensibility are achieved within the event 

itself, and otherwise isolated and disconnected 

scraps are bound up into something whole 

and meaningful (p. 5). 

The facility with which stories organize random 

or unfamiliar information makes them valuable 

tools to train new workers. People entering a new 

work environment can be overwhelmed by the 

unknown. Not only do new employees not know 

the tribal language, they may have no point of reference to connect unfamiliar tools or environmental 

features with something they do understand. It is 

difficult to make sense of so much new information, 

even more so to make use of it. 

Stories, however, provide information about what 

to do, how to do it and why it is important to do it a 

certain way. They also clearly communicate the 

penalty for ignoring established norms in that they 

relate what happened when someone failed to follow 

the guidelines. People pay attention and listen more 

attentively to stories than they do to formal types of 

instruction, making it easier to remember what they 

heard and to put it into practice. The story has particular power to change work behavior if the storyteller 

is a recognized member of the culture with the credibility to comment on the culture and tell stories about 

it. It is this authority that Durrance (1997), an expert 

on organizational training, describes when she states, 

“You don’t have to be an expert to use stories to motivate people, but you must be credible” (p. 28). 

In the U.S., federal law mandates safety training 

for workers in many industries. Lawmakers believe 

it is critical for workers in inherently dangerous 

industries to receive what researchers call socially 

relevant information. Turning that socially relevant 

information into personally relevant information is 

the key to effective training. 

Often, however, safety trainers use regulations, 

facts or statistics—all of which is clearly socially relevant information—to make their point about a work 

hazard. Yet, as Cole (1997) points out, “many learners 

who receive . . . this formally codified and socially 

relevant knowledge tend to find both the content and 

the instruction to be burdensome, dull and boring” 

(p. 334). Statistics and regulations are impersonal and 

uninteresting. Behind every regulation and statistical 

chart is a good teaching story. These stories can give 

a face to the impersonal and make it interesting—the 

people in the stories are just like the listeners, and the 

listeners understand them. They share a sense of 

camaraderie and understand that what happened in 

the story could happen again. Listeners empathize, 

especially if they are caught up in the story, and they 

remember the lesson. 

Good stories are easy to find. Almost anyone who 

has worked in a job that includes exposure to danger 

has either heard of or experienced a close call. In some 

cases, these experiences end in tragedy. Workers love 

to share these stories because they reveal the dangers 

and complexity of the work, as well as instruct the listener on what to do in a similar situation. 

Types of Stories 

During the course of this project, researchers 

found that most of the teaching stories they gathered 

could be divided into four broad groups, categorized 

by the type of story or the role of the main characters. 

The categories are the author’s attempt to find meaning in the many stories that were shared with her, by 

defining common themes. All of these stories are useful for creating effective training, as long as one listens carefully for the underlying messages. 

•Hero stories. These stories take the form of talking about people who are or were larger than life. 

They may be about skilled workers who taught the 

storyteller how to perform the job safely and producBehind every regulation and statistical 

chart is a good teaching story. These stories can give a face to 

the impersonal and 

make it interesting— 

the people in the stories are just like the 

listeners, and the listeners understand 

them. They share a 

sense of camaraderie 

and understand that 

what happened in 

the story could happen again. 
tively, or about someone who saved a colleague in a 

crisis. They almost always refer to traits that are 

admired by the culture (e.g., hard work, dependability, toughness, courage, creativity under duress). The 

hero embodies these qualities, and the story gives 

guidance to listeners as to what the culture values, as 

well as what it expects. The unspoken (but strongly 

communicated) message to the listener is that the 

hero is the model for them and that this is the behavior and the moral fiber that the culture demands. 

•Villain stories. These stories are also about the 

values and norms of the culture, but view them from 

the shadow side, as Campbell (1973) describes it. 

Rather than embodying the valued traits of the culture, the villain has turned away from them and is, 

therefore, one to be scorned, feared or punished. The 

norms, however, remain the same. The villain is not 

courageous, hardworking, kind or dependable. 

These stories reveal as much about the culture’s values and expectations as do the hero stories. The message to the listener is that this type of behavior is 

unacceptable and should be avoided. 

•Adventure or disaster stories. These stories are 

about events and may have many characters involved, who all react to the event. The stories told 

about the events surrounding the attacks on the 

World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, are examples. 

Stories of this nature can be heartbreaking or entertaining—adventures are thrilling by nature—but 

they can also serve to highlight dangers that are 

intrinsic to the work environment. Workers who regularly face unforeseen danger, such as underground 

miners, must make sense of this danger. This can be 

enhanced by sharing stories of what can go wrong 

and how people react when it does. 

The research team gained valuable insight on the 

significance of this aspect of storytelling when working on a video about a major mine disaster, the 

Sunshine Mine Fire. The stories shared by survivors 

highlighted their resilience in the face of losing 91 of 

their friends and coworkers, as well as how they 

constructed meaning from this horrible disaster. The 

ability to make sense of what has happened and to 

find meaning behind it may be one of the strongest 

coping mechanisms available to workers who must 

face dangers each day. Adventure/disaster stories 

are good teaching stories because they inform listeners about what could go wrong, and they give them 

guidance by describing what others have done 

when this happens. 

•Fool stories. These may be the most valuable 

type of training stories. Fool stories are about what 

happens when someone ignores warnings, forgets 

training, becomes careless or complacent, or perhaps 

acts unsafely. When a listener first hears these stories, the storyteller typically begins, “I knew a guy 

once who. . . .” As the storyteller comes to trust the 

listener, however, the stories will begin, “Let me tell 

you what happened to me one day.” These are warning or near-hit stories more than anything—if the 

protagonist suffers a serious injury or is killed, they 

quickly become disaster stories. 

In these stories, the protagonist survives the 

event and learns a valuable lesson. The storytellers 

often use humor or show a lot of emotion, and admit 

that they were just plain lucky “that time.” They 

usually acknowledge that they learned a powerful 

lesson from the experience and that others could 

save themselves similar pain and embarrassment if 

they could just learn from the story. For a trainer, 

these stories are priceless. 

A word of caution for trainers and safety professionals: The tellers of fool stories will not share their 

experiences if they believe they will be punished for 

doing so. These stories have great power but they 

must be shared in a safe environment. 

The Research Project 

Funded by NIOSH, the pilot project had an initial 

budget of $10,000 and a staff of only one full-time 

researcher. The objective of the project was to determine whether SRL could develop effective training 

materials that would be accepted by the mining 

industry. Colleagues at SRL’s sister lab in Pittsburgh, 

PA, had a proven track record of creating training 

materials for coal miners, so the Spokane project was 

limited to the underground hard rock segment of the 

industry. As the team began producing training 

materials that became popular with trainers, however, the project was expanded to a full research project that included surface mining and aggregate 

operations. The budget and staffing grew as well to 

eventually include a team of five. 

Early discussions with trainers at different mine 

sites revealed that most mining operations did not 

have access to state-of-the-art multimedia training 

facilities, but most had the ability to show videos. 

The advisory group and research team agreed that 

video was the best medium to use—information and 

stories could be captured visually to produce VHS 

or DVD products, which could be distributed fairly 

inexpensively to mines across the country. 

The technical advisory group provided a prioritized wish list of training topics; at the top of the list 

was handling explosives—not for blasters, who 

were well-trained in their art, but for others who 

work around or handle explosives as they are 

moved to different areas of the mine. 

The team learned a great deal in the development 

of this video. While fairly knowledgeable about 

mining practices, SRL did not have in-house capability to do the video taping, so a professional crew 

was hired. This was a key decision, because the quality of the footage and sound track determined what 

kind of products would be produced. The footage 

captured during the project was professionally shot 

and of excellent quality. When it was time to put a 

video together, poor audio or blurry footage were 

not constraints. 

Working with a professional crew also allowed 

the team to focus on the content of the training 

videos—the miners and the stories they told—rather 

than on technical concerns. A cautionary note: A person cannot establish the necessary trust and connec­
tion with an interview subject if s/he is also the one 

behind the camera. To tell a story effectively, the 

interviewees must be able to ignore the camera and 

talk to the interviewer as if they were alone. 

Miners in underground hard rock mines have a 

unique subculture within the mining industry (Miller, 

1991). Many of the mines use what is known as a gypo 

or contract system—miners are paid an hourly wage, 

but also have the opportunity to earn substantial production bonuses. (Their often-stated goal is to triple 

their day’s pay.) No bonus is paid if the miner does 

not make the round for the day, so gypo miners are 

accustomed to working hard and fast. They do not 

tolerate interruptions, especially those that might cost 

them money. When the project first started, many in 

the industry doubted the top miners would be willing 

to cooperate because of the tedious and time-consuming process of making a video. Their paychecks 

would most certainly be affected if they became 

involved. There was also a very real concern that miners would view the team as outsiders and refuse to 

collaborate because of a lack of trust. 

Both of these fears proved groundless. Mining is a 

culture that attaches high value to expertise and skill; 

every experienced miner learned how to do the job 

from a master miner, who in turn was taught by 

another master. The status that accompanies recognition as a master miner is prized. The team discovered 

that the miners were very proud of their work and 

that being selected as an expert—and therefore recognized as a master/mentor who would also be a movie 

star—guaranteed bragging rights. Generally, it was 

not possible to identify ahead of time who these people might be, because the film crew did not know 

who was considered to be the best at a given task. 

To have access to the worksites, equipment and 

workers needed, the team worked with individual 

gatekeepers at the mine sites—usually the safety 

directors or trainers—who suggested miners who 

would be good for certain roles or who might be willing to participate. Miners were given the right to 

decide whether they wanted to participate and few 

refused to do so. In fact, after the first few videos were 

released and circulated through the industry, the 

team had more volunteers than needed. This was an 

unexpected but pleasant problem to have. 

When working with nonprofessional actors such as 

miners or fishermen, it is important to be patient and 

to allow them to grow comfortable with the filming 

process. They are not generally accustomed to performing in front of an audience or on camera, and are 

afraid of making mistakes or looking stupid. In the 

first couple of videos created, an attempt was made to 

write scripts for the miners/actors, but this quickly 

proved to be wasted time. Not only were the scripts 

written in language they would not use, but the miners had difficulty memorizing scripts, which made 

them even more uncomfortable with the process. It 

was better to simply tell them the role they were playing and ask them to do what they normally would do, 

explaining as they went, as if they had a new hire to 

train. They managed this with enthusiasm. If they 

missed an important point, the 

crew simply shot more video 

until the point was captured. 

Generally, a list of topics was 

developed before the shoot 

started, but often the miners 

themselves made suggestions 

about things they thought 

should be included, or made 

corrections if they were asked to 

do something they thought was 

inaccurate. They were well 

aware of the shortcomings of 

current training, and were ingenious in their suggestions on 

how to improve it. They also 

had a good perception of what 

new hires would need to know 

to stay safe and be productive. 

The project generated nine 

videos in its 7-year history: 

•Handling Explosives in Modern Underground Mines (1998); 

•Preventing Rock Fall Injuries 

in Underground Mines (1999); 

•Miner Mike Saves the Day 

(or Ground Support . . . It’s 

Important) (2000); 

•Hazards in Motion (2001); 

•Hidden Scars (2001); 

•You Are My Sunshine (2002); 

•Zen and the Art of Rock Bolting (2002); 

•Aggregate Training for the Safety Impaired (2003); 

•The Sky Is Falling! (2004). 

An additional video was completed in 2007 for 

the commercial salmon fishing industry. The Most 

Powerful Thing . . . Deck Safety Awareness for Purse 

Seiners includes stories from fishermen injured during fishing operations. 

All of the videos were screened before release with 

groups of topical experts who acted as technical 

reviewers and ensured that the material was both 

accurate and met the industry needs. The finished 

products were made available free of charge to safety 

practitioners. A database was created to track where 

videos were sent and to obtain feedback. 

To date, more than 13,000 copies have been 

requested and sent to mines in every U.S. state and 

more than 50 other countries. Videos have also been 

used by other industries such as firefighting, the military, foundry workers and university public health 

programs. Lessons learned during the project have 

been documented in several publications (Cullen & 

Fein, 2005; Camm & Cullen, 2002; Cullen, 2006) and 

are being used in other projects designed to create 

training and safety awareness materials. 

To tell a story effectively, the interviewees 

must be able to ignore the camera and talk to 

the interviewer as if they were alone. 

Evaluation of Effectiveness 

Evaluation of training programs is a recognized 

challenge, regardless of the industry under discussion. Lewis and Thornhill (1994) admit, “There 

seems to be widespread agreement with the propo-
sition that evaluation is the least well conducted 

aspect of all training activities [in organizations]” (p. 

25). Their study found that many organizations do 

not evaluate training at all and rely on the “act of 

faith effect,” which concludes that “training must be 

a good thing” and is, therefore, worth doing (p. 27). 

Stories are 

an integral 

part of how 

learning 

takes place, 

and have 

obvious 

benefits to 

trainers and 

educators. 

Kirkpatrick (2001) developed a four-level evaluation schematic in which evaluation data progresses 

from the easiest and most informal to very resourceintensive: 

1) reactions to or perceptions of training; 

2) improvement in knowledge or skills as a result 

of training; 

3) changes in behavior or adoption of new skills 

and knowledge; 

4) overall impact on the organization (p. 122-132). 

It was believed that miners’ reactions to the video 

would be fairly easy to obtain. Increases in knowledge of those who viewed the videos were possible 

to measure, but accurately assessing either changes 

in miners’ behavior or permanent impact on organizations or the industry as a whole would be difficult 

at best. Nonetheless, several evaluation studies of 

the videos were completed. 

The first evaluation study, conducted by Fein and 

Isaacson, looked at the initial five videos produced. 

The team used a mixed-methods approach, with 

true/false tests, multiple choice, Likert scales to 

assess trainee perceptions, and more qualitative, 

open-ended questions. The team also interviewed a 

random sample of trainers who had requested the 

videos to learn how the videos were used and how 

they were perceived by trainees. Subjects were given 

the opportunity to provide feedback on the products, which were then analyzed for common themes. 

The results of the study are available in the team’s 

final report (Fein & Isaacson, 2001) and are also summarized in the final report on the project (Cullen & 

Fein, 2005). 

There were several confounding factors to doing 

a traditional statistical study. U.S. law requires that 

every miner be trained before entering a mine, so 

designating a control group of untrained workers 

for the sole purpose of testing the effectiveness of the 

training materials was impractical if not unethical. 

The research team was not certified under the law to 

provide training itself, but relied on trainers to voluntarily use the videos and report how they were 

accepted. Additionally, the miners themselves were 

not obligated to take the pre/posttests, but were 

asked to do so voluntarily. While most miners asked 

to assist in the evaluation did so, no data were available on how many opted out. 

A further complication for the evaluation team 

stemmed from the demographics of the workforce 

itself. At the time the study began, the U.S. mining 

population was aging, with an average age of 

around 50 with more than 30 years of mining experience. Clearly, these workers would not be trained 

by the videos so much as reminded by them. 

Assessing any increase in knowledge for this group 

would be difficult. 

The SRL research team hoped that all miners— 

both new and experienced—would find the videos 

interesting enough that they would pay attention to 

them and to the lessons they contained. This turned 

out to be the case. Scores on the posttests were higher 

for both groups. For the four videos for which data 

were gathered, miners who identified themselves as 

having less than 1 year experience showed improvements between 9.4% and 14.6%, while experienced 

miners showed improvements between 0.4% and 

11.6% (Cullen & Fein, 2005). 

The results of the pre/posttest questionnaires 

given to trainees indicated that the videos were, in 

fact, effective training tools. The miners enjoyed 

watching them—they freely commented on the quality and on how much they liked the stories. 

Fein and Isaacson (2001) discovered, however, that 

miners are not disposed to taking tests of this type. 

The videos were shown to classes of new trainees and 

to experienced miners during annual refresher classes. 

While the videos themselves were well accepted 

(judging from comments made by both trainers and 

miners), the tests were not. Veteran miners believed 

that the true/false and multiple-choice tests were disrespectful of their experience, and that anyone could 

guess the right answers to the questions. New miners 

often did not have enough knowledge of the mining 

language to understand the questions; literacy was 

also a barrier to some. 

Several videos are more accurately described as 

safety awareness products rather than traditional 

training on how to do something. These were very difficult to assess for increases in knowledge. It was obvious to the evaluation team that this type of testing was 

not providing the best indication of effectiveness. 

Accordingly, Fein and Isaacson (2001) developed a 

different type of assessment tool to evaluate the 

remaining videos in the study. This tool also uses a 

mixed-methods approach, but does not use true/false 

or multiple-choice questions. Instead, it is made up of 

a limited number of open-ended questions that relate 

directly to the topic of the video under evaluation. An 

example is, What should you do when first entering 

your work area at the start of the shift? The same 

questionnaire is given before and after watching the 

video, and the answers are compared for each trainee. 

If the video is effective as a safety awareness product, 

the evaluation team believed that there should be 

both more answers and more specific answers than 

on the pretest version. 

This type of tool gives experienced miners credit 

for prior knowledge, and the video itself becomes a 

reminder rather than a primary training tool for 

them. For new miners, however, the video shows 

them how to do the things they will be asked to do 

underground, which are also explained by a credible 

master-mentor. Their responses after watching 

showed significant improvement in awareness and 

knowledge of what to do and why. 

The posttest survey also included several questions for trainees that asked them to rate themselves 

on Likert-type scales regarding how much they 
learned, how much they liked or disliked the video, 

etc. A separate questionnaire was developed that 

asked trainers to observe the trainees and report 

reactions to the video, as well as to rate it for training 

value, including the effectiveness of the stories. The 

details and results of the first use of this instrument 

show that the new assessment tool is a better indicator of knowledge gained (or perhaps information 

remembered) than were the traditional true/false 

tests (Fein, 2003). 

Similar evaluations using a mixed-methods

approach were completed for the remainder of the 

videos. Each video was created to answer a specific 

question or to meet a specific need. In all cases, 

because of the qualitative nature of the materials 

developed, the assessments themselves were also

qualitative rather than quantitative. The results of the 

evaluations show that they were effective in meeting 

that need. (These studies have been completed, and 

the results will be published soon by NIOSH.) 

Conclusion 

The goal of this small pilot-project, funded by 

NIOSH in 1998 and subsequently for another 6 years, 

was to create effective training for the mining industry. The nine videos that it produced were developed 

in operating mines, using real miners as role models 

and teachers. They used the stories told within the 

industry to convey specific safety awareness messages and did so in a way that was interesting and 

accepted by the occupational culture of the trainees. 

Evaluation studies have shown that the videos 

are effective, but perhaps their wide distribution in 

the industry could also be viewed as another measure of acceptance. The videos are provided free of 

charge to trainers, but SRL/NIOSH has been asked 

to replace them constantly—apparently many miners borrow them to show their families. If two necessary keys to effective training are getting the

attention of trainees and gaining cultural acceptance 

of the messages taught, the NIOSH videos appear to 

have succeeded. There is no reason to believe these 

lessons would not be useful for other industries. 

All of the videos/DVDs developed

by this program are available from 

NIOSH’s Spokane Research Lab. For 

information, visit www.cdc.gov/ 

niosh/mining/products. 

References 

Billett, S. (1994). Situated learning in the workplace: Having 

another look at apprenticeships. Industrial and Commercial Training, 

26(11), 9-16. 

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press. 

Camm, T.W. & Cullen, E.T. (2002). Releasing the energy of 

workers to create a safer workplace: The value of using mentors 

to enhance safety training. In R.H. Peters (Ed.), Strategies for 

improving miners’ training (NIOSH Publication No. 2002-156, 

Information Circular No. 9463, pp. 35-38). Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NIOSH, Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory. 

Campbell, J. (1973). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, 

NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Cole, H.P. (1997). Stories to live by: A narrative approach to 

health-behavior research and injury prevention. In D.S. Gochman 

(Ed.), Handbook of health behavior research methods: Volume 4 (pp. 

325-349). New York: Plenum. 

Cullen, E.T. (2006, March). The power of storytelling in getting 

through to miners. In E.T. Cullen, T. Camm, M. Jenkins, et al. (Eds.), 

Getting to zero: The human side of mining 

(NIOSH Publication No. 2006-112, 

Information Circular 9484, pp. 14-23). 

Spokane, WA: DHHS, CDC, NIOSH, 

Spokane Research Laboratory. 

Cullen, E.T. & Fein, A.H. (2005, 

Aug.). Tell me a story: Why stories are 

essential to effective safety training 

(NIOSH Publication No. 2005-152, 

Report of Investigations 9664). 

Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH. 

Durrance, B. (1997). Stories at work. Training + Development, 

51(2), 25-29. 

Fein, A.H. (2003). Evaluation of zen and the art of rockbolting. 

Report prepared for DHHS, CDC, NIOSH, Spokane Research 

Laboratory. 

Fein, A.H. & Isaacson, N.S. (2001). Video-based training program for underground miners evaluation report. Report prepared 

for DHHS, CDC, NIOSH, Spokane Research Laboratory. 

Hansen, C.D. (1995). Occupational cultures: Whose frame are 

we using? Journal for Quality and Participation, 18(3), 60-64. 

Kirkpatrick, D. (2001). The four-level evaluation process. In 

L.L. Ukens (Ed.), What smart trainers know: The secrets of success 

from the world’s foremost experts (pp. 122-132). San Francisco, CA: 

Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. 

Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F. & Swanson, R.A. (1998). The 

adult learner (5th ed.). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Kowalski, K.M. & Vaught, C. (2002, Sept.). Principles of adult 

learning: Application for mine trainers. In R.H. Peters (Ed.), 

Strategies for improving miners’ training (NIOSH Publication No. 

2002-156, Information Circular No. 9463, pp. 3-8). Pittsburgh, PA: 

DHHS, CDC, NIOSH, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory. 

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 

Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (1994). The evaluation of training: 

An organizational approach. Journal of European Industrial Training, 

18(8), 25-33. 

Livo, N.J. & Rietz, S.A. (1986). Storytelling: Process and practice. 

Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited Inc. 

McCarl, R. (1997). Contested space: The above and below ground 

landscape of Idaho’s Coeur d’Alene mining district. Salt Lake City, UT: 

University of Utah Graduate School of Architecture. 

Miller, H.B. (1991). A comprehensive analysis of contract mining 

and wage incentives in underground metal mining. Unpublished masters’ thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO. 

MSHA. (2002). Federal metal and nonmetallic mine training, safety and health standards. Price, UT: Mine Safety Associates. 

Moen, T. (2006). Reflections on the narrative research approach. 

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(4), Article 5. Retrieved 

May 28, 2008, from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/ 

5_4/html/moen.htm. 

Neuhauser, P.C. (1988). Tribal warfare in organizations. New 

York: HarperBusiness. 

Owenby, P.H. (1992). Making case studies come alive. 

Training, 29(1), 43-46. 

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods 

(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Pegg, M. (1999). The art of mentoring. Industrial and Commercial 

Training, 31(4), 136-142. 

Schein, E.H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 229-240. 

Simmons, A. (2001). The story factor: Inspiration, influence and 

persuasion through the art of storytelling. Cambridge, MA: Perseus 

Books Group. 

Slater, M.D. (2002). Entertainment education and the persuasive impact of narratives. In M.C. Green, J.J. Strange & T.C. Brock 

(Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (p. 157). 

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Van Maanen, J. & Barley, S.R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. In B.M. Staw and L.L. 

Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior: Volume 6 

(pp. 287-366). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 

Voynick, S.M. (1978). The making of a hard rock miner. Kearney, 

NE: Morris Publishing. 

Wlodowski, R.J. (1985). Enhancing adult motivation to learn. San 

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Wyman, M. (1979). Hard rock epic: Western miners and the industrial revolution, 1860-1910. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.