Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“You Are Well Clear of Friendlies”: Diagnostic Error and Cooperative Work in an Iraq War Friendly Fire Incident

  • Published:
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers diagnostic error in cooperative work as a contributing factor for a military ‘friendly fire’ incident. It emphasises aspects of the moment-to-moment sequential organisation of interaction, and turn design, to explore the significance for the error of a loss of intersubjectivity and joint understanding. The paper uses as data the cockpit video recording from a US Air Force aircraft that fired on a British armoured vehicle convoy in March 2003, in the early days of the Iraq War. The analytic approach is grounded in concerns of ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA) for uncovering the language, practices and processes of reasoning by which people accomplish social actions, particularly for conducting cooperative work. The paper highlights the impact for the participants’ perception, understanding and action of varying forms of participation, for example as speaker, addressed recipient, or as potential overhearing non-addressed recipient, and relative to participants’ involvement in the task at hand, and to their possibilities for accessing relevant phenomena (i.e. the vehicles and their visible features). Diagnosis in cooperative work demands that participants act relative to one another’s diverse perspectives and representations of the scene and its objects and events. Diagnosis requires participants to manage situations of ambiguity and uncertainty, and to resolve apparent conflicts of understanding and perceptual evidence. The paper examines the social character of diagnostic work by showing how processes of cooperation can be vulnerable and ultimately go wrong, particularly when multiple participants are physically distributed and interaction is mediated by communication technologies such as radio.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For analysis of another aspect of the incident see McHoul (2007).

  2. As many researchers of human error have recently emphasised (e.g. Dekker 2006c), and as one reviewer of this paper also noted, the label or construct ‘error’ is applied and meaningful only after the event. At the time the pilots did not set out to make an error, and were not aware they were making an error. The pilots were performing their duties in what was to them a rational and routine manner.

  3. The three participants (the two pilots and the controller) work together towards the same overall battlefield goals, however here I will use the term ‘team’ to refer only to the two pilots. This is because the two pilots act jointly to perform tasks, complete goals, exchange information, and perceive and experience the battlefield, in ways not shared by the controller.

  4. See also related studies of teamwork and sense making in teams, for example Salas et al. (1995), Sarter and Woods (1995), Bowers et al. (2005), or Weick (1995).

  5. The HUD projects onto the external environment important flight information, for example on aircraft altitude and attitude (pitch, roll), so the pilot can spend less time looking down to the instrument panels.

  6. See also, for example, Luff and Heath (2002) on managing calls to the control room of an urban transport system, or Nevile (2004a) on airline pilots’ interaction with air traffic controllers.

  7. Evidence of controllers’ orientation to such a grid map appears in the data later when a different controller (not MH) calls the pilots, tragically just seconds too late and apparently unaware of the attack, to tell them of “friendly armor” in the area: “roger, Popov. (please) be advised that ah in the ah three one (.) two two: and three two (.) two two group box, (0.2) you have ah friendly armor (0.3) in the area, yellow, ah, (0.3) small armored tanks, ah jus’ be advised.”. The controller refers to the vehicles’ location by reference to their position on the grid map: “in the ah three one (.) two two: and three two (.) two two group box,”. The pilots immediately abort the attack and verbalise recognition of their error.

References

  • Alač, M. and E. Hutchins (2004): I See What You Are Saying: Action as Cognition in fMRI Brain Mapping Practice. Journal of Cognition and Culture, vol. 4(3), pp. 629–661. doi:10.1163/1568537042484977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arminen, I. (2005): Institutional Interaction: Studies of Talk at Work. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilmes, J. (1988): The Concept of Preference in Conversational Analysis. Language in Society, vol. 17(2), pp. 161–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, C., E. Salas and F. Jentsch (2005): Creating High-Tech Teams: Practical Guidance on Work Performance and Technology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broth, M. (2008): The Studio Interaction as a Contextual Resource for TV-Production. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 40, pp. 904–926. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büscher, M. (2006): Vision in Motion. Environment & Planning A, vol. 38, pp. 281–299. doi:10.1068/a37277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büscher, M. (2007): Embodied Conduct and Movement in Emergency Teamwork. In L. Mondada, and V. Markaki (eds): Interacting Bodies: Online Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the International Society of Gesture Studies. Lyon: ENS LSH & ICAR Research Laboratory. Available at http://gesture-lyon2005.ens-lsh.fr/IMG/pdf/Buscher_revised2706.pdf.

  • Dekker, S.W.A. (2001): The Disembodiment of Data in the Analysis of Human Factors accidents. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, vol. 1(1), pp. 39–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, S.W.A. (2004a): The Hindsight Bias is Not a Bias and Not About History. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, vol. 4(2), pp. 87–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, S.W.A. (2004b): Why We Need New Accident Models. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, vol. 4, pp. 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, S.W.A. (2006a): Doctors are More Dangerous than Gun Owners: A Rejoinder to Error Counting. Technical Report 2006-01, Lund University School of Aviation, Sweden.

  • Dekker, S.W.A. (2006b): Past the Edge of Chaos. Technical Report 2006-03, Lund University School of Aviation, Sweden.

  • Dekker, S.W.A. (2006c): The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, P. and J. Heritage (1992): Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flach, J.M., S. Dekker and P.J. Stappers (2006): Playing Twenty Questions with Nature: Reflections on Quantum Mechanics and Cognitive Systems. Technical Report 2006-04, Lund University School of Aviation, Sweden.

  • Garfinkel, H. (2002): Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism (edited by A.W. Rawls). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1981): Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1994): Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, vol. 96(3), pp. 606–633. doi:10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1995): Seeing in Depth. Social Studies of Science, vol. 25(2), pp. 237–274. doi:10.1177/030631295025002002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1996): Transparent Vision. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff and S.A. Thompson (eds): Interaction and Grammar., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 370–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1997): The Blackness of Black: Color Categories as Situated Practice. In L.B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo and B. Burge (eds): Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition., Berlin: Springer, pp. 111–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2000): Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 32, pp. 1489–1522. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2002): Time in Action. Current Anthropology, vol. 43(Supplement), pp. S19–S35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2007): Participation, Stance, and Affect in the Organization of Activities. Discourse & Society, vol. 18(1), pp. 53–73. doi:10.1177/0957926507069457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. and M.H. Goodwin (1996): Seeing as a Situated Activity: Formulating Planes. In Y. Engeström and D. Middleton (eds): Cognition and Communication at Work., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 61–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. and M.H. Goodwin (1997): Contested Vision: The Discursive Constitution of Rodney King. In B.-L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell and B. Nordberg (eds): The Construction of Professional Discourse., London: Longman, pp. 292–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. and M.H. Goodwin (2004): Participation. In A. Duranti (ed): A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology., Maldan, MA: Blackwell, pp. 222–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanks, W.F. (1990): Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space Among the Maya. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Have, P.t. (2007): Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide, 2nd Edition. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C. and P. Luff (2000): Technology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C., S. Svensson, J. Hindmarsh, P. Luff and D. vom Lehn (2002): Configuring Awareness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 11(3–4), pp. 317–347. doi:10.1023/A:1021247413718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmreich, R.L. (1994): Anatomy of a System Accident: The Crash of Avianca Flight 052. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, vol. 4(3), pp. 265–284. doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0403_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (2002): Oh-prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement. In C. Ford, B. Fox and S. Thompson (eds): The Language of Turn and Sequence., New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 196–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (2007): Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in References to Persons (and Places). In T. Stivers and N. Enfield (eds): Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. and G. Raymond (2005): The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 68, pp. 15–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindmarsh, J., C. Heath, D. vom Lehn and J. Cleverly (2005): Creating Assemblies in Public Environments: Social Interaction, Interactive Exhibits and CSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 14(1), pp. 1–41. doi:10.1007/s10606-004-1814-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T., C. LeBaron, C. Goodwin and P. Feltovich (2006): The Mystery of the Missing Referent: Objects, Procedures, and the Problem of the Instruction Follower. Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Banff, Alberta, Canada, pp. 373–382.

  • Koschmann, T., C. LeBaron, C. Goodwin, A. Zemel and G. Dunnington (2007): Formulating the Triangle of Doom. Gesture, vol. 7(1), pp. 97–118. doi:10.1075/gest.7.1.06kos.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luff, P. and C. Heath (2002): Broadcast Talk: Initiating Calls through a Computer-Mediated Technology. Research on Language and Social Interaction, vol. 35(3), pp. 337–366. doi:10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D., J. O’Neill, D. Randall and M. Rouncefield (2007): How Can I Help You? Call Centres, Classification Work and Coordination. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 16(3), pp. 231–264. doi:10.1007/s10606-007-9045-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurino, D.E., J. Reason, N. Johnston and R.B. Lee (1995): Beyond Aviation Human Factors: Safety in High Technology Systems. Aldershot: Avebury Aviation.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHoul, A. (2007): “Killers” and “Friendlies”: Names Can Hurt Me. Social Identities, vol. 13(4), pp. 459–469. doi:10.1080/13504630701459131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, L. (2003): Working with Video: How Surgeons Produce Video Records of Their Tasks Visual Studies vol. 18(1), pp. 58–73. doi:10.1080/1472586032000100083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, L. (2006): Participants’ Online Analysis and Multi modal Practices: Projecting the End of the Turn and the Closing of the Sequence. Discourse Studies, vol. 8(1), pp. 117–129. doi:10.1177/1461445606059561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K.M. (2005): Collaborative Imagining: The Interactive Use of Gestures, Talk, and Graphic Representation in Architectural Practice. Semiotica, vol. 156(1/4), pp. 113–145. doi:10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nevile, M. (2004a): Beyond the Black Box: Talk-in-Interaction in the Airline Cockpit. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevile, M. (2004b): Integrity in the Airline Cockpit: Embodying Claims About Progress for the Conduct of an Approach Briefing. Research on Language and Social Interaction, vol. 37(4), pp. 447–480. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3704_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nevile, M. (2005): ‘Checklist complete.’ Or is it? Closing a Task in the Airline Cockpit. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 28(2), pp. 60–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevile, M. (2006): Making Sequentiality Salient: And-prefacing in the Talk of Airline Pilots. Discourse Studies, vol. 8(2), pp. 279–302. doi:10.1177/1461445606061797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nevile, M. (2007a): Seeing the Point: Attention and Participation in the Airline Cockpit. In L. Mondada and V. Markaki (eds): Interacting Bodies: Online Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the International Society of Gesture Studies. Lyon: ENS LSH & ICAR Research lab. At http://gesture-lyon2005.ens-lsh.fr/article.php3?id_article=245.

  • Nevile, M. (2007b): Talking Without Overlap in the Airline Cockpit: Precision Timing at Work. Text and Talk, vol. 27(2), pp. 225–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevile, M. and M.B. Walker (2005): A Context for Error: Using Conversation Analysis to Represent and Analyse Recorded Voice Data. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, vol. 5(2), pp. 109–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1984): Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettersson, M., D. Randall and B. Helgeson (2004): Ambiguities, Awareness and Economy: A Study of Emergency Service Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 13(2), pp. 125–154. doi:10.1023/B:COSU.0000045707.37815.d1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, A. (1984): Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds): Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, A.W. (2002): Introduction. In Harold Garfinkel, Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism (edited by A.W. Rawls). Lanham, Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield.

  • Reason, J. (1990): Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, J. (1997): Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H. (1987/1973): On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds): Talk and Social Organisation., Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 54–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H. (1992): Lectures on Conversation. Two volumes. Edited by G. Jefferson. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson (1974): A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, vol. 50(4), pp. 696–735. doi:10.2307/412243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., C. Prince, D.P. Baker and L. Shrestha (1995): Situation Awareness in Team Performance: Implications for Measurement and Training. Human Factors, vol. 37(1), pp. 123–136. doi:10.1518/001872095779049525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarter, N.B. and D.D. Woods (1995): How in the World did We Ever Get into that Mode? Mode Error and Awareness in Supervisory Control. Human Factors, vol. 37(1), pp. 5–19. doi:10.1518/001872095779049516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snook, S.A. (2000): Friendly Fire: The Accidental Shootdown of US Black Hawks over Northern Iraq. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stivers, T. (2002): Presenting the Problem in Pediatric Encounters: ‘Symptoms Only’ Versus ‘Candidate Diagnosis’ Presentations. Health Communication, vol. 14(3), pp. 299–388. doi:10.1207/S15327027HC1403_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK Army (2004): Board of Inquiry Report into the Death of the Late 25035018 Lance Corporal of Horse Matthew Richard Hull, The Blues and Royals (Royal Horse Guards and 1st Dragoons) Household Cavalry Regiment. Army, UK. [Available via en.wikipedia.org, ‘190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident - March 28, 2003’. Accessed 7 April 2008].

  • Weick, K.E. (1995): Sensemaking in Organizations. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegmann, D.A. and S.A. Shappell (2003): A Human Error Approach to Aviation Accident Analysis: The Human Factors Analysis and Classification Scheme. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank the editors of this volume and three anonymous reviewers for their detailed reading and for suggestions which have greatly improved this paper. I began to analyse this data throughout September 2007 as a Visiting Scholar at the University of Tampere, Finland. I am grateful to Ilkka Arminen and the Research Institute for Social Sciences for the invitation, and for funding to make the visit possible. I have had the opportunity to develop my thinking, and to receive insightful feedback from many colleagues, when presenting on this data and analysis: in Finland at the universities of Helsinki, Jyväskylä, Oulu, and Tampere; in Denmark at the MOVIN Conversation Analysis network, at the University of Southern Denmark (Kolding), and as a paper at the conference ‘Language, Culture and Mind III’; in France at the Summer school I_DOCORA (Interaction: DOnnées, CORpus, Analyse) at the University of Lyon 2; and in Australia at the Discourse Analysis Group at the Australian National University, and at the University of Canberra. I thank especially Birte Asmuss, Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, Arja Piirainen-Marsh, Jakob Steensig, Sanna Vehviläinen, and Johannes Wagner. Thanks also to Birte Asmuss, Liisa Tainio, and Lorenza Mondada for informing my thinking and wording on specific points. Shannon Clark and Alec McHoul made valuable comments in early discussions of the material. I alone am responsible for acting on any comments and advice I have received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods, College of Arts and Social Sciences, The Australian National University, Linnaeus Cottage, Building 96, Linnaeus Way, Acton, ACT, 0200, Australia

    Maurice Nevile

Authors
  1. Maurice Nevile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurice Nevile.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nevile, M. “You Are Well Clear of Friendlies”: Diagnostic Error and Cooperative Work in an Iraq War Friendly Fire Incident. Comput Supported Coop Work 18, 147–173 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-008-9089-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-008-9089-0

Key words

Search

Navigation