Public Rhetoric and Public Safety at the Chicago Transit Authority: Three Approaches to Accident Analysis
http://jbt.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/16/3/277
  access restricted (by the publisher) to members/subscribers/customers only
  peer-reviewed

Coogan, David
STC Proceedings
2002

Abstract:

This article compares three rhetorical approaches to accident analysis: materialist, classical,and constructivist. The focal points for comparison are the two accident reportsissued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)—reports that attempted(and failed) to persuade the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) to change a problematicpolicy about rail communication alongside its technology for rail communication. Thecentral question the article asks is, How can rhetorical theory help explain the CTA'sinaction, which ultimately led to property damage, injury, and death? Classical andconstructivist approaches, emphasizing rational deliberation between equals, on onehand, and the social construction of technical knowledge between professionals, on theother, offer plausible explanations for what went wrong. But only the materialistapproach appears capable of discerning the ideological nature of the CTA's resistance tothe NTSB's recommendations.