Identifying Barriers to Unsafe Incident Reporting in Engineering Students' Clubs
Project Overview
Background
-
Although safety procedures are taught in formal lab settings, many engineering students do not carry these practices into their student club activities—where hazardous hands-on work is often unsupervised. At Oregon State University, no near-miss reports had been filed by engineering students' clubs since 2018, raising concern about the reporting culture and awareness within these informal learning environments.
Objectives
-
Investigate why near-miss and safety incidents in engineering clubs go unreported.
-
Understand student perceptions of safety, reporting behavior, and knowledge of procedures.
-
Identify cultural, cognitive, and procedural barriers to creating a safe and accountable students' clubsenvironment.
Impact
-
Most participants reported feeling uncomfortable speaking up about unsafe behaviors.
-
Club members said safety is rarely discussed in their clubs.
-
Some club leaders were unaware their clubs engaged in hazardous activities.
-
Informed EHS action at OSU to redesign safety onboarding and promote near-miss reporting culture in student clubs.
Team
-
My role: Contract UX researcher - Conducted interviews with club members and brainstormed ideas with other team members.
-
Team members:
-
1 supervisor
-
4 other researchers
-
-
Collaborated with Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) at Oregon State University.
-
Stakeholders: Engineering department at Oregon State University.
Tools Used in this Project
Qualtrics
Used to design and distribute online forms for identifying student societies engaged in hazardous activities.
Excel
Used for organizing responses, tracking participation, and analyzing basic frequency data
How Did I Solve the Problem?
Methodology
Purposive Sampling
Selected clubs and participants based on involvement in hazardous activities, then expanded via peer referrals.
1:1 Interviews
Used to explore club leaders' perception of unsafe incident reporting in their club
Focus Groups
Used to explore club members' perception of unsafe incident reporting in their club
Document Analysis
Reviewed student club safety documentation to assess awareness, access, and integration into practice.
Purposive Sampling
What did I do?
To ensure we captured meaningful safety practices and barriers, we used purposive sampling to target engineering clubs that were likely to perform hazardous activities (e.g., welding, using machines, chemical handling). These clubs were identified through prior knowledge, EHS consultation, and safety documentation provided by EHS. We chose this approach because not all clubs engage in hands-on work, and broad sampling would dilute the study’s relevance.
After interviewing club leaders, we used snowball sampling by asking them to refer active members for focus groups. This allowed us to capture both policy-level perspectives (from leaders) and day-to-day behavioral insights (from members).
What were the results?
-
Recruited leaders and members from 16 engineering clubs, yielding 42 participants across interviews and focus groups.
-
The sampling approach revealed a clear gap between leadership intentions and member behaviors, particularly in how safety protocols are communicated and internalized.
-
It also highlighted which clubs lacked formal safety procedures altogether — a key insight for targeting future interventions.
What challenges did I face?
-
Our initial outreach via email received a 0% response rate, despite multiple follow-ups. This suggested that students either overlooked the emails or did not see the relevance or urgency of the request.
-
I pivoted to in-person recruitment by attending Engineering Student Council meetings, where club leaders were already required to be present. This face-to-face method built trust, clarified our research goals, and led to immediate sign-ups.
-
I also used peer referrals from early participants to expand the sample, particularly to reach members who might not be responsive to formal communication channels.
-
1:1 Interviews
What did I do?
I conducted semi-structured 1:1 interviews with leaders of engineering student clubs that engaged in hazardous activities. The goal was to explore their perceptions of safety, reporting practices, and how responsibilities are communicated and enforced within their organizations. This method was selected to give leaders space to speak candidly about their challenges and decision-making without peer influence. Leaders play a pivotal role in shaping club safety culture, so understanding their mindset was essential to identifying upstream barriers to reporting.
What were the results?
-
Interviewed leaders from 16 engineering clubs, collecting insights on safety documentation, risk awareness, and incident response practices.
-
Found that while some leaders understood safety expectations, many were uncertain about what constitutes a reportable incident or how to access reporting tools.
-
Several leaders expressed that safety was not a routine part of club meetings, and reporting processes were often informal or nonexistent.
-
These results implied that even among leadership, gaps in knowledge and formal training exist, and without institutional reinforcement, safety can fall off the radar.
-
It also showed that leaders often did not feel fully equipped to monitor safety or encourage reporting in a meaningful way.
What challenges did I face?
-
Some leaders were initially hesitant to participate, unsure of the purpose of the study or concerned about potential scrutiny.
-
I clearly communicated that the purpose of the study was not to audit or penalize, but to understand current challenges and inform support strategies.
-
-
A few were reluctant to admit gaps in safety documentation or knowledge, especially when they felt responsible for setting standards.
-
I built rapport during scheduling and interviews, and emphasized confidentiality and choice to end the interview at any time.
-
Focus Groups
What did I do?
I conducted focus groups with student members of engineering clubs that engaged in hazardous activities. While 1:1 interviews with leaders helped uncover formal policies and intentions, focus groups were designed to explore how those safety practices were actually experienced and understood by members. This method allowed for peer-to-peer dialogue, enabling students to reflect openly on safety culture, peer dynamics, and reporting behaviors within their club environment. It was particularly useful for revealing social norms, group pressures, and collective attitudes toward incident reporting.
What were the results?
-
Discussions revealed that many members were unaware of existing safety documentation or unclear about what incidents qualify as reportable.
-
Most members said that safety was rarely discussed, and many admitted they wouldn’t feel comfortable reporting a near-miss—citing fear of embarrassment, peer judgment, or uncertainty about consequences.
-
These insights highlighted a disconnect between leadership intentions and member experiences, as well as the role of peer culture in silencing safety concerns.
-
It also emphasized that without structured onboarding or consistent reinforcement, safety awareness does not diffuse evenly through club membership.
What challenges did I face?
-
Some students were hesitant to speak honestly in a group setting, particularly when discussing lapses in safety practices.
-
We started each session by setting a tone of trust and non-judgment, emphasizing that the discussion was anonymous, voluntary, and aimed at improvement—not evaluation. I also offered snacks to project a warm accomodating environment.
-
-
Scheduling group sessions was difficult due to varied availability, and turnout sometimes depended on the support of club leaders.
-
We offered sessions at flexible times and locations, often coordinated with the clubs’ existing meeting schedules to improve attendance.
-
-
In some clubs, the culture of informality made safety seem like a “non-topic,” which created initial resistance or discomfort during early group conversations.
-
Leaned on support from interviewed club leaders to endorse participation and normalize the conversation around safety.
-
Document Analysis
What did I do?
I conducted a document analysis of safety-related materials shared by engineering student clubs—such as safety manuals, equipment procedures, and PPE guidelines. This method was used to assess how clubs formally think about and communicate safety. It also served as a way to validate whether safety practices discussed in interviews and focus groups were supported by any structured, written protocols. Document analysis helped identify gaps between what is written, known, and practiced, and gave insight into how accessible and useful these materials actually were to students.
What were the results?
-
Of the 16 clubs identified as engaging in hazardous activities, only 8 had any form of safety documentation.
-
Just 2 clubs shared their documentation in advance, and only 5 clubs were aware those documents even existed.
-
Several documents were found to be outdated, inaccessible, or not integrated into club routines.
-
These findings suggested that while some clubs had taken formal steps to document safety, the materials were not consistently shared, discussed, or enforced—limiting their real-world impact.
-
It also highlighted the need for centralized support and oversight to ensure clubs maintain updated, relevant, and visible safety protocols.
What challenges did I face?
-
Low submission rate of safety documents, even after multiple requests, made it difficult to conduct a thorough review across all clubs.
-
We followed up with leaders during 1:1 interviews to ask specific, clarifying questions about documentation practices, even when documents weren’t submitted.
-
-
Some leaders were unsure who had ownership of the documentation (e.g., a past officer or external advisor), revealing weak documentation continuity.
-
We consulted with EHS staff, who helped confirm whether some clubs had submitted documentation through official university channels in the past.
-