Daved van Stralen, MD, FAAP, Sean D. McKay, Thomas A. Mercer, RAdm, USN (Retired)

Abstract

Understanding and engagement have a strange relationship with a situation. We fit the situation into our understanding, then use the situation to extend our understanding. We do this through engagement. Engagement is what bridges the gaps between objective knowledge and subjective experience. The situations we engage in are moving toward disorder. Engagement creates structure as it generates information. However, this is information in flux, meaning that engagement constantly updates our information as we continually revise our understanding—information changes in salience, meaning, and relevance. Effective engagement relies on attitudes, values, and reciprocal decision-making. Up close and engaged, the fog of war is the starting point for creating the structure.

[READ REST OF ARTICLE BELOW REFERENCES]

References:

1. van Stralen D, Mercer TA. The Nature of Neonatal Experience during Pandemic COVID-19. Neonatology Today. 2021;16(3):87-97. doi: 10.51362/neonatology.today/202131638797.
2. van Stralen D, Mercer TA. Common Sense High ReliabilityOrganizing (HRO) in the Response to COVID-19. Neonatology Today. 2021;16(7):90-102. doi: 10.51362/neonatology.today/2021716790102.
3. Zundel M, Kokkalis P. Theorizing as engaged practice. Organization Studies. 2010;31(9-10):1209-27.
4. Sandberg J, Tsoukas H. Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of management review. 2011;36(2):338-60.
5. Weick KE. Organizing for Transient Reliability: The Production of Dynamic Non-Events. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 2011;19(1):21-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5973.2010.00627.x.
6. van Stralen D. Pragmatic High-Reliability Organization (HRO) During Pandemic COVID-19. Neonatology Today. 2020;15(4):3-9. https://doi.org/10.51362/neonatology.today/2020415439
7. May RM. Biological populations with nonoverlapping generations: stable points, stable cycles, and chaos. Science. 1974;186(4164):645-7. Epub 1974/11/15. doi: 10.1126/science.186.4164.645. PubMed PMID: 4412202.
8. Halley JM. Ecology, evolution and 1/f-noise. Trends in ecology & evolution. 1996;11(1):33-7.
9. Yates FE. Self-organizing systems: The emergence of order. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
10. Camazine S, Deneubourg J-L, Franks NR, Sneyd J, Theraula G, Bonabeau E. Self-organization in biological systems: Princeton University Press; 2020.
11. McDonnell MD, Abbott D. What is stochastic resonance? Definitions, misconceptions, debates, and its relevance to biology. PLoS computational biology. 2009;5(5):e1000348.
12. Bracha HS. Human brain evolution and the “Neuroevolutionary Time-depth Principle:” Implications for the Reclassification of fear-circuitry-related traits in DSM-V and for studying resilience to warzone-related post-traumatic stress disorder. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry. 2006;30(5):827-53.
13. van Stralen D, McKay SD, Hart CA, Mercer TA. Implementation of High-Reliability Organizing (HRO): The Inherent Vice Characteristics of Stress, Fear, and Threat. Neonatology Today. 2022;17(6):26-38. https://doi.org/10.51362/neonatology.today/20221762638
14. van Stralen D, McKay SD, van Stralen E, Mercer TA. High-Reliability Organizing (HRO): Engagement Matters, Is Personal, and Initiates Enactment. Neonatology Today. 2022;18(1):25-37.
15. van Stralen D, Mercer T. The Art of Neonatology, the Art of High Reliability as a Response to COVID-19. Neonatology Today. 2021;16(2):74-83. doi: 10.51362/neonatology.today/202121627483.
16. Weick KE. Organized sensemaking: A commentary on processes of interpretive work. Human Relations. 2012;65(1):141-53.
17. Engel AK, Maye A, Kurthen M, König P. Where’s the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2013;17(5):202-9.
18. McCarthy J. Artificial intelligence, logic and formalizing common sense. In: R.H. T, editor. Philosophical logic and artificial intelligence. Berlin, Germany: Springer, Dordrecht; 1989. p. 161-90.
19. LaPorte TR, Consolini PM. Working in Practice but Not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of “High-Reliability Organizations”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 1991;1(1):19-48.
20. Thorvaldsen T. The importance of common sense: How Norwegian coastal fishermen deal with occupational risk. Marine Policy. 2013;42:85-90. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.02.007.
21. James W. The Present Dilemma in Philosophy. In: James W, editor. Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. New York, NY: Longman Green and Co 1907. p. 3-40.
22. Dewey J. The pattern of inquiry Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1938. p. 101-19.
23. Jovchelovitch S. The Rehabilitation of Common Sense: Social Representations, Science and Cognitive Polyphasia. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2008;38(4):431-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.2008.00378.x.
24. Parnas J, Bovet P. Autism in schizophrenia revisited. Comprehensive psychiatry. 1991;32(1):7-21.
25. Sternberg RJ, Wagner RK, Williams WM, Horvath JA. Testing common sense. American Psychologist. 1995;50(11):912-27. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.50.11.912.
26. Fletcher GJ. Psychology and common sense. American Psychologist. 1984;39(3):203-13. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.39.3.203.
27. Geertz C. Common Sense as a Cultural System. The Antioch Review. 1975;33(1). doi: 10.2307/4637616.
28. Watts DJ. Common sense and sociological explanations. AJS. 2014;120(2):313-51. Epub 2015/03/27. doi: 10.1086/678271. PubMed PMID: 25811066.
29. Taylor CC. Sociology and Common Sense. American Sociological Review. 1947;12(1). doi: 10.2307/2086483.
30. Furnham A. Social psychology as common sense. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 1983;36:105-9.
31. Carbonell JG, Minton S. Metaphor and common-sense reasoning. Arlington, VA: Carnegie-Mellon University, 1983.
32. McCarthy J. Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory CSD; 1979 STAN-CS-79-725.
33. Minsky M. How to Teach a Robot. Naval Research Reviews 1972;25(12):1-13.
34. Simon HA, Newell A. Heuristic Problem Solving: The Next Advance in Operations Research. Operations Research. 1958;6(1):1-10. doi: 10.1287/opre.6.1.1.
35. van Stralen D, Mercer TA. High Reliability Organizing (HRO) is the Extension of Neonatology during Pandemic COVID-19. Neonatology Today. 2021;16(5):97-109. doi: 10.51362/neonatology.today/2021516597109.
36. van Stralen D, Byrum S, Inozu B. High Reliability for a Highly Unreliable World: Preparing for Code Blue through Daily Operations in Healthcare. North Charleston, SC: CreatSpace Publishing; 2017.
37. Weick KE. Sensemaking in organizations. Dickens G, editor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995.
38. van Stralen D, McKay SD, Mercer TA. Consequences – Initiating the Path to High-Reliability Organizing (HRO). Neonatology Today. 2022;17(9):24-35.
39. Bruza PD, Wang Z, Busemeyer JR. Quantum cognition: a new theoretical approach to psychology. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2015;19(7):383-93.
40. 4Aerts D. Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 2009;53(5):314-48.
41. Boyd J. Destruction and creation. Fort Leavenworth, KS: US Army Comand and General Staff College, 1976
42. Sandberg J, Tsoukas H. Sensemaking Reconsidered: Towards a broader understanding through phenomenology. Organization Theory. 2020;1(1). doi: 10.1177/2631787719879937.
43. Heggie V. Experimental physiology, Everest and oxygen: from the ghastly kitchens to the gasping lung. The British Journal for the History of Science. 2013;46(1):123-47. doi: 10.1017/s0007087412000775.
44. van Stralen D, Mercer TA. High-Reliability Organizing (HRO),Decision Making, the OODA Loop, and COVID-19. Neonatology Today. 2021;16(8):86-96. doi: 10.51362/neonatology.today/202181688696
45. Sulis W. Contextuality in neurobehavioural and collective intelligence systems. Quantum Reports. 2021;3(4):592-614.
46. Shannon CE. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal. 1948;27(3):379-423. doi: 10.1002/35.j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
47. Minsky M. A framework for representing knowledge. In: Winston PH, editor. The Psychology of Computer Vision. NewYork, NY: 211-277; 1975.
48. Smith NK. A Commentary to Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”.In: Smith NK, editor. A Commentary to Kant’s ‘Critique of PureReason’. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2003. p. 1-78.
49. Sandberg J, Tsoukas H. Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organizational Behavior.2015;36(S1):S6-S32. doi: 10.1002/job.1937.
50. Wolfberg A. Full-spectrum analysis: A new way of thinking for a new world. Military Review. 2006;86(4):35-42.
51. Banaji MR, Heiphetz L. Attitudes. In: Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G, editors. Handbook of Social Psychology. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley; 2010. p. 353–93.
52. Petty RE, Wegener DT, Fabrigar LR. Attitudes and Attitude, Change. Annual Review of Psychology. 1997;48(1):609-47. 56.
53. Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM. Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity. Quinn RE, editor. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2001.
54. Abd-Allah SA, Rogers MS, Terry M, Gross M, Perkin RM. Helium-oxygen therapy for pediatric acute severe asthma requiring mechanical ventilation. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine. 2003;4(3):353-7.
55. Dieterly DL. Problem Solving and Decision-making: An Integration. Moffett Field, California: NASA Ames Research Center, 1980 Contract No.: NASA Technical Memorandum 81191.
56. Orr GE. Combat Operations C3I: Fundamentals and Interactions. Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, AL: Airpower Research Institute, USAF; 1983.
57. McConnell M, van Stralen D. Emergency medical decision-making in the tactical environment. The Tactical Edge (National Tactical Officers Association). 1997;15(3):32-9.
58. Boyd J. A discourse on winning and losing. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air University Press; 2018.
59. Richards C. Boyd’s OODA Loop (It’s Not What You Think). In: Willeke E, editor. Proceedings of the Lean Software & Systems Conference. Sequim, WA: Blue Hole Press; 2011. p. 127-36.
60. Boyd J. The Strategic Game of ? and ? In: Hammond GT, editor. A discourse on winning and losing. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air University Press; 2018. p. 255-314.
61. van Stralen D, Westmoreland T. Use of a visual five-point respiratory exam to evaluate breathing in the operational area. Special Operations Medical Association Scientific Assembly (SOMSA); December 8-11, 2014; Tampa, FL2014.
62. van Stralen D, Mercer TA. High-Reliability Organizing (HRO) in the COVID-19 Liminal Zone: Characteristics of Workers and Local Leaders. Neonatology Today. 2021;16(4):90-101. doi: 10.51362/neonatology.today/2021416490101.
63. Prud’homme A. Bob Bea, the Master of Disaster. Men’s Journal 2013;5:72-5.
64. van Stralen D, Mercer TA. Inductive Processes, Heuristics, and Biases Modulated by High-Reliability Organizing (HRO) for COVID-19 and Disasters. Neonatology Today. 2021;16(9):104- 12. doi: 10.51362/neonatology.today/20219169104112.
65. Kunda Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological bulletin. 1990;108(3):480.
66. Bénabou R, Tirole J. Mindful Economics: The Production, Consumption, and Value of Beliefs. Journal of Economic Perspec-tives. 2016;30(3):141-64. doi: 10.1257/jep.30.3.141.
67. van Stralen D, McKay SD, Hart CA, Mercer TA. Implementation of High Reliability Organizing (HRO): The Inherent Vice of Stress, Fear, and Threat. Neonatology Today. 2022;17(5):24- https://doi.org/10.51362/neonatology.today/20221752435
68. van Stralen D, McKay SD, Mercer TA. Disaster Series: The Abrupt NICU Evacuation – Disasters without a Plan. Neonatology Today. 2021;16(12):10-22. https://doi.org/10.51362/neonatology.today/202116121022
69. Sarason IG, Novaco RW. Stress and Coping in Recruit Training: Roles of the Recruit and the Drill Instructor. Arlington, VA: OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH, 1982 AR-ONR-008.
70. Novaco RW. The cognitive regulation of anger and stress. In: Kendall PC, Hollon SD, editors. Cognitive-behavioral interventions: Theory, research, and procedures. New York, New York: Academic Press; 1979. p. 241-85.
71. Perkin RM, van Stralen D. My child can’t breathe: New tools for the recognition and early management of pediatric respiratoryfailure. Journal of Emergency Medical Services. 1999;24(3):43-48
72. Van Stralen D, Rogers M, Perkin RM, Fea S. Retrograde Intubation Training Using a Mannequin. American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 1995;13(1):50-2.
73. Tinsley C, Hill JB, Shah J, Zimmerman G, Wilson M, Freier K, et al. experience of families during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatrics. 2008;122(4):e799-e804.
74. van Stralen D, Mercer TA. Pragmatic High-Reliability Organizations (HRO) Modulates the Functions of Stress and Fear Behaviors During Pandemic COVID-19: The Stress-Fear-Threat Cascade. Neonatology Today. 2020;15(10):126-34. doi: 10.51362/neonatology.today/2020101510126134.
75. Bracha HS, Bracha AS, Williams AE, Ralston TC, Matsukawa JM. The human fear-circuitry and fear-induced fainting in healthy individuals. Clinical Autonomic Research. 2005;15(3):238-41.
76. van Stralen D, Mercer TA. During Pandemic COVID-19, the High-Reliability Organization (HRO) Identifies Maladaptive Stress Behaviors: The Stress-Fear-Threat Cascade. Neonatology Today. 2020;15(11):113-24. doi: 10.51362/neonatology.today/2020111511113124.
77. van Stralen D, Mercer TA. Pandemic COVID-19, the High-Reliability Organization (HRO), and the Ecology of Fear. Neonatology Today. 2020;15(12):129-38. doi: 10.51362/neonatology.today/2020121512129138.
78. Novaco RW, Sarason IG, Cook TM, Robinson GL, Cunningham FJ. Psychological and Organizational Factors Related to Attrition and Performance in Marine Corps Recruit Training. Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research, 1979 AR-001.