Background to Ship as a Site of Practice

On board the ship there are three distinct territories of practices (Yanow, 2006; Gherardi, 2016) that come together for the ship to be operational, the practices of navigation, the practices of deck work and the practices of maritime engineering. These three practices have central hubs where they are located, the navigation practices on the bridge, the deck work on the deck and the engineering practices in the engine room. On the deck, the cadets can observe the work of the ratings. They are able to observe and participate in mooring and unmooring operations, shipboard maintenance, cleaning, taking tank soundings, cargo operations such as loading and unloading the cargo, keeping a watch on the cargo and, when in port, they would keep a gangway watch. They would have access to the knowledge of (relative) old-timers, but these would be engaged in different practices than the practices on the bridge.

Deck work is physically demanding and often involves long hours of repetitive tasks. Furthermore, the boatswain, along with the chief officer, acts as a gatekeeper for deck practices and these practices, in turn, can affect the cadet’s access to the practices of navigation. The bridge is the hub of navigational practices. If cadets have access to the bridge, they potentially have access to observing the use of navigational equipment such as the radar, GMDSS, navigation console and the ECDIS. Furthermore, they are able to see navigational charts; they can observe the officers on their watch, how they work with the materials, how they respond to other ships in the vicinity and how they use the communication equipment. Moreover, they have access to the (relative) old-timers, their experiences and how they performed their work. The position and responsibilities of each rank is detailed in table 3-4 below.

Table 3-4 Deck Department Work Practices

Officially, per the training policy of Crewco, cadets are supposed to have time and learning opportunities both on the deck (with crew) learning the practices of seamanship, and on the navigation bridge (with officers) learning the practices of navigation. However, Crewco being a third-party manager means that they have little control or monitoring over the actual

practices on board as each ship owner or principle might enforce the cadet training in different ways. Being the crew manager, Crewco has little influence in this matter. They can have a larger degree of influence over ships under full management, and there is a hope that as the captains and management officers are mostly from Crewco as well, they will follow the company policy on training on board; however, findings will show that this is not necessarily happening. The field notes below were notes after a conversation with two training consultants at CCTC about the role that the organization plays regarding training on board.

The ships that are under Crewco management can be influenced so that the captains train the cadets. However, for some of the third-party clients, they need to be told that this must be done. Even the influence on the captains is limited. The cadets are expected to familiarize themselves on the bridge, that is the point for the cadetship, and they are also told that they should ask for the opportunity instead of waiting for someone to give it to them. This also builds their soft skills, being proactive [CCTC Field Notes].

The merchant navy, to a large extent, still holds a quasi-military approach to work. This quasi-military approach is noted through the division between officers, as well as officers and ratings, in terms of practices, space, social relations, and materials. On MV Sea-Line for example, the accommodation was divided as follows, just below the bridge are the captain and chief engineer’s cabins; no-one was permitted access to this floor. On the level below were the second officer and second engineer’s cabins along with a cabin for passengers. Then there was the third officer’s cabin (where I stayed), the boatswain’s and the ABs’ cabins. On the last accommodation level were the OS cabins, the cadet, the wiper and the chief cook’s cabins. Below that was the galley and two mess halls which were separated into the officers’ mess and the ratings’ mess. The workspaces on board were also hierarchically determined, that is, the

ratings worked on the deck, primarily, with some tasks on the bridge if required by the officers, while the officers worked mainly on the bridge. This, in turn, meant that the practices of the deck department were divided between the ratings who did the deck work and the officers who were in charge of navigation, safety and security of the ship (See Appendix B for field note sample of shipboard familiarization). Due to the nature of the occupation, there was a lack of divide between the work and life aspects on board. Hierarchy influenced both these aspects; one example of this is that everyone on board was called according to their ranks rather than by name, this was also noted by Sampson & Thomas (2003) in their work on the merchant navy.

As shown in table 3-4 on board the ship each officer has designated duties; the captain is in charge of overall ship management; the chief officer is responsible for the cargo operations; the second officer is usually in charge of the navigational charts; the third officer (if present) in charge of the safety. The cadet, on the other hand, comes on board initially as a learner during the first sea-time training and as a rating during the second sea-time training contract. During their first contract, their role as a learner seems to be more fluid and is interpreted differently by different members. Access to participation in practices is mediated by the officers on board as well as the work practices on deck (Gekara, 2009; Caesar, Cahoon & Fei, 2015). The uncertain work environment, tremendous natural forces, and large economic scale leads to an environment where safety and accountability become paramount. Another reason is the transient nature of the industry, as well as frequent changes in the composition of the crew, which adds ambiguity. These combined issues mean that rank rather than interpersonal relationships drive access to participation in certain sites of practice. Hence, the rank bestows the initial access to certain sites of practices across different ships. This notion of seafaring as a high-risk occupation industry

is noted in the training center where there is a large degree of focus on accidents at sea and avoiding these mistakes in the future. During conversations, especially with officers, it was brought up that the rigidity stems from the notion that in a dangerous situation everyone should be able to follow the captain’s command and there is no room for debate. Furthermore, while the individuals on board the ship might change, the activities on board the ship remain constant. This, in turn, has an impact on how activities are carried out, by whom, where (in which part of the ship) and when (“dangerous” shifts of dawn and dusk being denied to inexperienced officers).