Search for: All records

This research paper focuses on comparing engineering students’ beliefs and behaviors related to making process safety judgements. Despite emphasis on process safety education, serious health and safety accidents in the chemical process industry continue to occur. Investigations of major incidents have reported that, in many cases, tension caused by the need to balance several competing criteria was the culprit. While there have been substantial improvements in process safety education, most efforts have focused on preventing incidents through safer design, while few have focused on making process safety judgements in situations that have competing criteria. This pilot study investigates (1) what are engineering students’ beliefs about how they would approach process safety judgements with competing criteria? and (2) what are students’ responses to differences between their beliefs and behaviors in process safety judgements with competing criteria? We interviewed three chemical engineering students to determine their beliefs about making judgements in process safety contexts with competing criteria. Next, the students played through a digital process safety game, Contents Under Pressure (CUP). In CUP, students make process safety judgements in a digital chemical plant setting, and the judgements they encounter include a variety of criteria juxtapositions. Upon completing CUP, students were asked to reflect on their criteria priorities as they believed they played CUP through an online survey. GAP Profiles were generated as a way to directly compare initial beliefs, gameplay, and reflection criteria priorities. Finally, students reconciled differences between their beliefs and behaviors through a semi-structured interview, prompting students to think about the cause of the observed differences. In the initial beliefs interviews, we identified themes tied to prioritization of competing criteria. Some students rationalized their prioritizations by aligning them with their perceived priorities of the company, while others overcomplicated proposed hypotheticals in an attempt to find an optimized outcome. None of the participants could understand the link between process safety judgements and relationships, so they tended to devalue this criterion in their prioritizations. After playing CUP, the students communicated a better awareness of how relationships influence process safety judgements. Following gameplay, all participants stated that in-game feedback was critical to the ways in which they made judgements during CUP. Some participants indicated that their behaviors in CUP were more representative of the way they would approach process safety judgements in real life than their responses in the initial interview. This result may suggest that students have difficulty accurately predicting how they will apply process safety criteria in judgements without practicing these priorities in context. Results of this pilot study indicate that using a game-based approach to practice judgements with competing criteria gives students an opportunity to gain awareness about their approaches to process safety judgements and any differences that exist with their formulated beliefs. 

In the chemical industry, judgements related to process safety hold the potential to lead to process incidents, such as chemical leaks and mechanical failures that can have severe consequences. Many of these judgements require engineers to juxtapose competing criteria including leadership, production, relationships, safety, spending, and time. For such judgements, numerous factors are at play, including our beliefs about ourselves and our intention to behave a particular way. As part of a larger research project funded through the NSF Research in the Formation of Engineers (RFE) program, we are working to investigate: 1) What do engineering students and practitioners believe about how they approach making judgements?, 2) how do they behave when actually making judgements?, 3) what gap, if any, exists between their beliefs and behavior?, and 4) how do they reconcile any gaps between their beliefs and behaviors? After completion of the first year of the project, we have interviewed fourteen senior chemical engineering students about how they believe they will approach process safety judgements in scenarios where they must juxtapose competing criteria. During our initial analysis to characterize students’ espoused beliefs about their approaches towards making process safety judgements, we identified an emergent finding about how they justify these beliefs. We present this emergent finding by answering the research question: How do undergraduate engineering students justify their beliefs about how they will make judgements in process safety contexts? When we asked students to provide reasoning for the beliefs they conveyed about how they will approach process safety judgements, we found that overwhelmingly, students used their lived experiences in different work settings to justify their beliefs. These lived experiences included engineering co-ops, internships, volunteer, and retail work. This emergent finding suggests that students’ lived experiences may be greatly informing their espoused beliefs about how they will approach process safety judgements. This paper will also briefly discuss implications for process safety educators on how they may incorporate lived experiences, or other ways of knowing, so students may develop more robust beliefs about process safety judgements. 

In the chemical industry, judgements related to process safety hold the potential to lead to process incidents, such as chemical leaks and mechanical failures that can have severe consequences. Many of these judgements require engineers to juxtapose competing criteria including leadership, production, relationships, safety, spending, and time. For such judgements, numerous factors are at play, including our beliefs about ourselves and our intention to behave a particular way. As part of a larger research project funded through the NSF Research in the Formation of Engineers (RFE) program, we are working to investigate: 1) What do engineering students and practitioners believe about how they approach making judgements?, 2) how do they behave when actually making judgements?, 3) what gap, if any, exists between their beliefs and behavior?, and 4) how do they reconcile any gaps between their beliefs and behaviors? After completion of the first year of the project, we have interviewed fourteen senior chemical engineering students about how they believe they will approach process safety judgements in scenarios where they must juxtapose competing criteria. During our initial analysis to characterize students’ espoused beliefs about their approaches towards making process safety judgements, we identified an emergent finding about how they justify these beliefs. We present this emergent finding by answering the research question: How do undergraduate engineering students justify their beliefs about how they will make judgements in process safety contexts? When we asked students to provide reasoning for the beliefs they conveyed about how they will approach process safety judgements, we found that overwhelmingly, students used their lived experiences in different work settings to justify their beliefs. These lived experiences included engineering co-ops, internships, volunteer, and retail work. This emergent finding suggests that students’ lived experiences may be greatly informing their espoused beliefs about how they will approach process safety judgements. This paper will also briefly discuss implications for process safety educators on how they may incorporate lived experiences, or other ways of knowing, so students may develop more robust beliefs about process safety judgements. 

This research paper focuses on comparing engineering students’ beliefs and behaviors related to making process safety judgements. Despite emphasis on process safety education, serious health and safety accidents in the chemical process industry continue to occur. Investigations of major incidents have reported that, in many cases, tension caused by the need to balance several competing criteria was the culprit. While there have been substantial improvements in process safety education, most efforts have focused on preventing incidents through safer design, while few have focused on making process safety judgements in situations that have competing criteria. This pilot study investigates (1) what are engineering students’ beliefs about how they would approach process safety judgements with competing criteria? and (2) what are students’ responses to differences between their beliefs and behaviors in process safety judgements with competing criteria? We interviewed three chemical engineering students to determine their beliefs about making judgements in process safety contexts with competing criteria. Next, the students played through a digital process safety game, Contents Under Pressure (CUP). In CUP, students make process safety judgements in a digital chemical plant setting, and the judgements they encounter include a variety of criteria juxtapositions. Upon completing CUP, students were asked to reflect on their criteria priorities as they believed they played CUP through an online survey. GAP Profiles were generated as a way to directly compare initial beliefs, gameplay, and reflection criteria priorities. Finally, students reconciled differences between their beliefs and behaviors through a semi-structured interview, prompting students to think about the cause of the observed differences. In the initial beliefs interviews, we identified themes tied to prioritization of competing criteria. Some students rationalized their prioritizations by aligning them with their perceived priorities of the company, while others overcomplicated proposed hypotheticals in an attempt to find an optimized outcome. None of the participants could understand the link between process safety judgements and relationships, so they tended to devalue this criterion in their prioritizations. After playing CUP, the students communicated a better awareness of how relationships influence process safety judgements. Following gameplay, all participants stated that in-game feedback was critical to the ways in which they made judgements during CUP. Some participants indicated that their behaviors in CUP were more representative of the way they would approach process safety judgements in real life than their responses in the initial interview. This result may suggest that students have difficulty accurately predicting how they will apply process safety criteria in judgements without practicing these priorities in context. Results of this pilot study indicate that using a game-based approach to practice judgements with competing criteria gives students an opportunity to gain awareness about their approaches to process safety judgements and any differences that exist with their formulated beliefs. 

In the chemical industry, judgements related to process safety hold the potential to lead to process incidents, such as chemical leaks and mechanical failures that can have severe consequences. Many of these judgements require engineers to juxtapose competing criteria including leadership, production, relationships, safety, spending, and time. For such judgements, numerous factors are at play, including our beliefs about ourselves and our intention to behave a particular way. As part of a larger research project funded through the NSF Research in the Formation of Engineers (RFE) program, we are working to investigate: 1) What do engineering students and practitioners believe about how they approach making judgements?, 2) how do they behave when actually making judgements?, 3) what gap, if any, exists between their beliefs and behavior?, and 4) how do they reconcile any gaps between their beliefs and behaviors? After completion of the first year of the project, we have interviewed fourteen senior chemical engineering students about how they believe they will approach process safety judgements in scenarios where they must juxtapose competing criteria. During our initial analysis to characterize students’ espoused beliefs about their approaches towards making process safety judgements, we identified an emergent finding about how they justify these beliefs. We present this emergent finding by answering the research question: How do undergraduate engineering students justify their beliefs about how they will make judgements in process safety contexts? When we asked students to provide reasoning for the beliefs they conveyed about how they will approach process safety judgements, we found that overwhelmingly, students used their lived experiences in different work settings to justify their beliefs. These lived experiences included engineering co-ops, internships, volunteer, and retail work. This emergent finding suggests that students’ lived experiences may be greatly informing their espoused beliefs about how they will approach process safety judgements. This paper will also briefly discuss implications for process safety educators on how they may incorporate lived experiences, or other ways of knowing, so students may develop more robust beliefs about process safety judgements. 

This research paper focuses on comparing engineering students’ beliefs and behaviors related to making process safety judgements. Despite emphasis on process safety education, serious health and safety accidents in the chemical process industry continue to occur. Investigations of major incidents have reported that, in many cases, tension caused by the need to balance several competing criteria was the culprit. While there have been substantial improvements in process safety education, most efforts have focused on preventing incidents through safer design, while few have focused on making process safety judgements in situations that have competing criteria. This pilot study investigates (1) what are engineering students’ beliefs about how they would approach process safety judgements with competing criteria? and (2) how do students react to the process of comparing their beliefs and behaviors in process safety judgements? We interviewed three chemical engineering students to determine their beliefs about making judgements in process safety contexts with competing criteria. Next, the students played through a digital process safety game, Contents Under Pressure (CUP). In CUP, students make process safety judgements in a digital chemical plant setting, and the judgements they encounter include a variety of criteria juxtapositions. Upon completing CUP, students were asked to reflect on their criteria priorities as they believed they played CUP through an online survey. GAP Profiles were generated as a way to directly compare initial beliefs, gameplay, and reflection criteria priorities. Finally, students reconciled differences between their beliefs and behaviors through a semi-structured interview, prompting students to think about the cause of the observed differences. In the initial beliefs interviews, we identified themes tied to prioritization of competing criteria. Some students rationalized their prioritizations by aligning them with their perceived priorities of the company, while others overcomplicated proposed hypotheticals in an attempt to find an optimized outcome. None of the participants could understand the link between process safety judgements and relationships, so they tended to devalue this criterion in their prioritizations. After playing CUP, the students communicated a better awareness of how relationships influence process safety judgements. Following gameplay, all participants stated that in-game feedback was critical to the ways in which they made judgements during CUP. Some participants indicated that their behaviors in CUP were more representative of the way they would approach process safety judgements in real life than their responses in the initial interview. This result may suggest that students have difficulty accurately predicting how they will apply process safety criteria in judgements without practicing these priorities in context. Results of this pilot study indicate that using a game-based approach to practice judgements with competing criteria gives students an opportunity to gain awareness about their approaches to process safety judgements and any differences that exist with their formulated beliefs. 

In response to chemical process incidents, the ABET criteria for chemical engineering programs has expanded to include an emphasis on the understanding of hazards associated with chemical processes. This requirement has oftentimes been met with a focus on system design and requirements. However, experts are coming to recognize that human error and judgements can be contributing factors in serious accidents. Poor judgements are a risk of individuals inaccurately predicting their actions, and engineers are not immune to these risks, especially when they are considering how to make tradeoffs with process safety criteria. Where engineers may believe to be prioritizing safety, their behaviors may demonstrate otherwise, which risks the well-being of others. For example, the Pryor Trust well blowout and Chevron refinery explosion may have both been exacerbated due to engineers inadequately making trade offs between safety and productivity demands. It is possible to minimize poor judgments caused by inaccurate predictions by reconciling self-held beliefs with actions actually taken. The purpose of this paper is to describe a pilot study with five senior level engineering students that aims to facilitate understanding whether they have any gaps between their beliefs and behaviors regarding competing criteria in a process safety context. The project is driven by the following four research questions: 1) What do engineers believe about how they make judgements; 2) How do they behave when actually making judgements; 3) What gap, if any, exists between their beliefs and behavior; and 4) How do they reconcile any gap between their beliefs and behavior? To begin answering these questions, we will interview subjects on their beliefs using a semi-structured interview format. We will then obtain data on subjects’ actual behaviors through a recently developed process safety digital game, Contents Under Pressure. Finally, we will compare the subjects’ responses to similar dilemmas in both contexts to then generate a Gap Profile that provides a visual of differences, if they exist. Subjects will then be asked to reconcile their Gap Profile in a subsequent interview. 

In response to chemical process incidents, the ABET criteria for chemical engineering programs has expanded to include an emphasis on the understanding of hazards associated with chemical processes. This requirement has oftentimes been met with a focus on system design and requirements. However, experts are coming to recognize that human error and judgements can be contributing factors in serious accidents. Poor judgements are a risk of individuals inaccurately predicting their actions, and engineers are not immune to these risks, especially when they are considering how to make tradeoffs with process safety criteria. Where engineers may believe to be prioritizing safety, their behaviors may demonstrate otherwise, which risks the well-being of others. For example, the Pryor Trust well blowout and Chevron refinery explosion may have both been exacerbated due to engineers inadequately making trade offs between safety and productivity demands. It is possible to minimize poor judgments caused by inaccurate predictions by reconciling self-held beliefs with actions actually taken. The purpose of this paper is to describe a pilot study with five senior level engineering students that aims to facilitate understanding whether they have any gaps between their beliefs and behaviors regarding competing criteria in a process safety context. The project is driven by the following four research questions: 1) What do engineers believe about how they make judgements; 2) How do they behave when actually making judgements; 3) What gap, if any, exists between their beliefs and behavior; and 4) How do they reconcile any gap between their beliefs and behavior? To begin answering these questions, we will interview subjects on their beliefs using a semi-structured interview format. We will then obtain data on subjects’ actual behaviors through a recently developed process safety digital game, Contents Under Pressure. Finally, we will compare the subjects’ responses to similar dilemmas in both contexts to then generate a Gap Profile that provides a visual of differences, if they exist. Subjects will then be asked to reconcile their Gap Profile in a subsequent interview. 

In response to chemical process incidents, the ABET criteria for chemical engineering programs has expanded to include an emphasis on the understanding of hazards associated with chemical processes. This requirement has oftentimes been met with a focus on system design and requirements. However, experts are coming to recognize that human error and judgements can be contributing factors in serious accidents. Poor judgements are a risk of individuals inaccurately predicting their actions, and engineers are not immune to these risks, especially when they are considering how to make tradeoffs with process safety criteria. Where engineers may believe to be prioritizing safety, their behaviors may demonstrate otherwise, which risks the well-being of others. For example, the Pryor Trust well blowout and Chevron refinery explosion may have both been exacerbated due to engineers inadequately making trade offs between safety and productivity demands. It is possible to minimize poor judgments caused by inaccurate predictions by reconciling self-held beliefs with actions actually taken. The purpose of this paper is to describe a pilot study with five senior level engineering students that aims to facilitate understanding whether they have any gaps between their beliefs and behaviors regarding competing criteria in a process safety context. The projectis driven by the following four research questions: 1) What do engineers believe about how they make judgements; 2) How do they behave when actually making judgements; 3) What gap, if any, exists between their beliefs and behavior; and 4) How do they reconcile any gap between their beliefs and behavior? To begin answering these questions, we will interview subjects on their beliefs using a semi-structured interview format. We will then obtain data on subjects’ actual behaviors through a recently developed process safety digital game, Contents Under Pressure. Finally, we will compare the subjects’ responses to similar dilemmas in both contexts to then generate a Gap Profile that provides a visual of differences, if they exist. Subjects will then be asked to reconcile their Gap Profile in a subsequent interview. 

In response to chemical process incidents, the ABET criteria for chemical engineering programs has expanded to include an emphasis on the understanding of hazards associated with chemical processes. This requirement has oftentimes been met with a focus on system design and requirements. However, experts are coming to recognize that human error and judgements can be contributing factors in serious accidents. Poor judgements are a risk of individuals inaccurately predicting their actions, and engineers are not immune to these risks, especially when they are considering how to make tradeoffs with process safety criteria. Where engineers may believe to be prioritizing safety, their behaviors may demonstrate otherwise, which risks the well-being of others. For example, the Pryor Trust well blowout and Chevron refinery explosion may have both been exacerbated due to engineers inadequately making trade offs between safety and productivity demands. It is possible to minimize poor judgments caused by inaccurate predictions by reconciling self-held beliefs with actions actually taken. The purpose of this paper is to describe a pilot study with five senior level engineering students that aims to facilitate understanding whether they have any gaps between their beliefs and behaviors regarding competing criteria in a process safety context. The project is driven by the following four research questions: 1) What do engineers believe about how they make judgements; 2) How do they behave when actually making judgements; 3) What gap, if any, exists between their beliefs and behavior; and 4) How do they reconcile any gap between their beliefs and behavior? To begin answering these questions, we will interview subjects on their beliefs using a semi-structured interview format. We will then obtain data on subjects’ actual behaviors through a recently developed process safety digital game, Contents Under Pressure. Finally, we will compare the subjects’ responses to similar dilemmas in both contexts to then generate a Gap Profile that provides a visual of differences, if they exist. Subjects will then be asked to reconcile their Gap Profile in a subsequent interview.