Marine Policy 43 (2014) 301–306

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Multilingual crews on Norwegian fishing vessels: Implications

for communication and safety on board
Trine Thorvaldsen n, Signe Annie Sønvisen n
SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture, PB 4762 Sluppen, N-7465 Trondheim, Norway

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the last few decades, use of foreign labor in the Norwegian fishing fleet has increased. As fishing is a
Received 15 April 2013 high-risk occupation, this article investigates a prevalent question regarding how the increased share of
Received in revised form foreigners affects communication and safety on Norwegian fishing vessels. The article shows that
25 June 2013
multilingual crews and varying language proficiencies are not perceived by the fisheries actors
Accepted 25 June 2013
Available online 25 July 2013
themselves as risk factors in terms of safety in everyday operations. Fishing experience, hybrid language
and body language compensate for language challenges and contribute to fishers' feeling of safety.
Keywords: & 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Safety
Communication
Language
Fishing fleet

1. Introduction
Just before midnight on November 11, 2008, while fishing in
the Barents Sea 310 NM north of mainland Norway, a fire started in
the engine room of the longliner Frøyanes Senior. Considering the
gale-strength storm combined with the loss of propulsion and
electricity, the situation seemed dramatic. However, it was quickly
handled by the crew. Due to risk that the fire could flare up again,
the crew prepared for the worse and put on lifesaving suits in case
a fast evacuation would become necessary. Things went well “first
and foremost due to good seamanship…, but also because the fire
extinguishing equipment worked as it should”, said Geir Rune
Aarsheim on behalf of the shipping company Ervik Havfiske. The
vessel was towed by another longliner to the mainland, and the
crew of fifteen arrived safely in port two days later. “Everything
was fine aboard. The crew was exhausted, but happy to make it to
shore. Four of them left for their home on the west coast; the rest,
mainly Russians, will stay in Havøysund, [Norway], for now”, said
Aarsheim [1,2].
This dramatic occurrence in the Barents Sea makes visible an
important aspect related to developments in the Norwegian fish-
eries, namely the increased use of foreign crew. In recent years, the
use of foreigners on Norwegian fishing vessels has been a debated
topic. Concerns are that foreign workers may have limited knowl-
edge about their labor rights, but also that they may lack
n
Corresponding authors. Tel.: +4799165944.
E-mail addresses: trine.thorvaldsen@sintef.no (T. Thorvaldsen),
signe.sonvisen@sintef.no (S.A. Sønvisen).
knowledge about Norwegian health and safety systems [3]. Hence,
there are concerns that the use of foreign crew may have
implications for safety aboard Norwegian fishing vessels.
In particular, language barriers have been named as an element
that may negatively affect safety and work environment aboard [4].
Globally, fishing is described as a high-risk occupation due to
harsh working conditions and a high number of fatalities and
injuries [5–10]. In the Norwegian context, whereas the number of
fatalities is highest in the coastal fleet, reported accidents are
highest in the deep-sea fleet. Underreporting of non-fatal acci-
dents is, however, believed to be common [10]. Even though
fatalities and reported accident rates have declined over the last
twenty years, fishing is statistically the most dangerous occupa-
tion in Norway as reflected by man-years [8–10].
The overarching objective of this article is to investigate how an
increased share of foreign crew affects communication and safety
on board Norwegian fishing vessels. The questions addressed are
as follows: how does a multilingual setting affect communication
and safety aboard? How and in what ways are language and
communication experienced as safety risks? How are challenges in
terms of language solved in everyday practice? And finally, what
may be the implications of the present practices?
1.1. Increased share of foreign workers
There has been a rise in the share of foreign fishers in the
Norwegian fishing fleet in the last decades, but due to a lack of
mandatory registration, the number and nationality of these
workers are largely unknown. In 2012, the Norwegian Ministry
of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA) estimated that about 500

0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.06.013
302 T. Thorvaldsen, S.A. Sønvisen / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 301–306
foreign workers were employed in the Norwegian fishing fleet.
A recent study, however, estimates the number to be at least
900, probably higher [11]. In comparison, about 10,000 full-time
fishermen are registered in Norway.
The main reason for employment of foreign workers is low
recruitment of Norwegians. The lack of local recruits is due to the
depopulation of coastal communities [12,13], but low recruitment
has also been linked to the overall low unemployment rate in
Norway [14]. Rationalization of the sector, mainly through restruc-
turing policies, has also been argued to affect the supply of local
recruits. The combination of fewer fishers and a depopulation of
coastal communities have removed important venues for socializ-
ing youth into the fisheries. Hence, fewer local youth are exposed
to the fishing occupation [15]. Low recruitment to the fleet may
also be ascribed to structural factors, such as the development of
the welfare state and increased labour and educational opportu-
nities, meaning youth have several occupational options available
[16]. In addition, the fleet has struggled for decades with poor fleet
profitability, low wage-paying ability and low rate of fleet renewal.
These factors arguably leave fishing a less attractive occupation
than some of its competition for labour among other maritime
industries [15,17]. A recent study also shows that foreign workers
are recruited because of economic reasons, related to lower wages,
but also for their qualifications and good work ethic [11].
1.2. Formal regulations concerning employment of foreign workers
Formal regulations influence employment of foreign workers in
the Norwegian fishing fleet. Initially, regulations for vessels
operating in Norwegian territorial waters required the operator
and at least half of the crew to be Norwegian citizens. However,
due to Norway's commitment to free movement of labour in the
European Economic Area, the law was amended and a require-
ment of residency was introduced in 2006. Thus, since 2006, the
vessel master and at least half of the crew have to be residents of a
coastal municipality or a neighbouring municipality [18]. The
definition of a coastal municipality is a municipality that borders
with the open sea or a fjord. As of January 1, 2010, 350 of 430
municipalities are coastal or neighbouring municipalities. Since
only half of the crew is required to be residents of coastal
municipalities, residents of non-coastal municipalities may also
be hired as crew. This rule also applies to foreign crew with
addresses abroad, regardless of nationality. In essence, the entire
crew could be foreign citizens.
With regards to formal qualifications, demands for obligatory
safety training for all fishers who are going to work on Norwegian
vessels is regulated by the International Convention on Training,
Certification and Watch Keeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel
(STCW-F). In addition, as part of qualifications and certificates for
seafarers,1 a standard working language on board is required. The
regulation states that seafarers should be able to communicate
with each other on the ship's working language regarding basic
safety and understand safety information through text, symbols
and alarms. The working language for a given vessel is to be
decided by the ship-owner. In addition, seafarers who come into
contact with pilots or land-based authorities should be able to
communicate in English or whichever language the pilots or
authorities use. This regulation clearly highlights the importance
of language in relation to safety.
1
Regulations concerning qualifications and certificates of personnel on Norwegian
ships, fishing vessels and mobile offshore units (http://lovdata.no/for/sf/nh/
xh-20111222-1523.html).
1.3. Language, communication and safety
Communication has been pointed out as one of the core skills
necessary to ensure effective and safe production and performance
in high-risk industries [19]. A previous study mapping parameters
critical to safety in the Norwegian fishing fleet identified the lack
of a common work language as a potential safety risk [20]. The
results were based on a survey where fishermen rated common
working language to be very important for safety. Studies from
other Norwegian maritime industries have yielded similar find-
ings. For instance, a study of freight vessels showed that seafarers
consider working conditions to be less safe when fewer Norwe-
gians are on board. This is related to both local knowledge
and language aspects [21]. A study of chemical tankers with
multilingual crews found that language confusion could cause
incidents [22]. Similarly, in the offshore fleet, multilingual crews
were seen as a safety risk causing communication problems, which
were further exacerbated in combination with inexperience [23].
Another factor that comes into play in multilingual or multicultural
crews is that of leadership and the relationships between skipper and
crew. A shipping study reported incidents where Norwegian officers
raised questions about safety but foreign crew and officers voiced
their criticism to a lesser degree and appeared to be loyal to the
prevailing conditions and leadership [24].
2. Material and methods
The material presented in this article is based mainly on in-
depth ethnographic interviews, but also rely relies on secondary
literature related to safety and a selection of accident reports. The
qualitative approach of interviews was considered suitable for
exploring experiences and attitudes related to work, language,
communication and safety. An interview guide was developed and
used to ensure that certain topics were covered in each interview.
Nevertheless, open-ended questions allowed informants to elabo-
rate on topics they found especially important and relevant. The
interview guide covered different aspects related to four main
topics: (1) formal rules and regulations; (2) language and com-
munication; (3) training; and (4) psychosocial working environ-
ment. To explore aspects related to risk and safety, informants
were asked questions such as “How is on-the-job training done?”
and “From your point of view, is lack of a common work language
experienced as or considered a safety risk?” Questions about
accidents or near-accidents and misunderstandings related to
language or communication were also asked, as well as which
solutions have helped to deal with language problems.
A total of 64 informants were interviewed. Fishermen, skippers
and ship-owners who have experience with multilingual crews
were prioritized in this sample. Furthermore, representatives from
the Norwegian Fishermen's Association, the Norwegian Coastal
Fishermen's Association, the Norwegian Seamen's Federation and
the Norwegian Maritime Authority were interviewed to include
the perspectives of organizations and authorities.
Informants were selected by “snowball sampling”. Snowball
sampling is widely used in qualitative studies of social networks
where the aim is to locate a specific type of informants who are in
possession of a certain type of information [25]. In snowball
sampling, key informants are used to locate other informants.
The approach thus gives access to the networks that comprise the
environment one aims to study [26].
Some interviews were conducted by phone, but most inter-
views were conducted in person. Two geographical areas were
chosen for the personal interviews, namely Båtsfjord in Northern-
Norway and the Ålesund/Vågsøy/Selje area on the west coast. Both
are important areas to the Norwegian fishing industry and
 T. Thorvaldsen, S.A. Sønvisen / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 301–306
particularly relevant in relation to the coastal- and deep-sea
fishing fleets respectively. Båtsfjord is a small but important area
for fishing, employing a high share of foreign labour in the on-
shore fishing industry [27]. Ålesund, Vågsøy and Selje are
municipalities with a long history in fishing and maritime
industry, and several of the largest fishing companies are located
in this area.
Analysis of interview material highlighted different actors'
experiences and points of view in relation to language, commu-
nication and safety. Specifically, the analytical effort focused on
assessing congruity and identifying connections and patterns as
well as inconsistencies and contradictions in the material. To
understand different actors' point of views, studies of relevant
contextual material, such as formal regulations and public docu-
ments, were also conducted.
3. Theory
3.1. A relational approach to safety-critical systems
This article is written within the relational perspective of Actor-
Network Theory (ANT), which is a useful theoretical tool when
things change fast and when it is difficult to separate humans and
non-humans [28,29]. For actors to act in a given situation, they
depend on cooperation and alliances with both human and non-
human actors—this is particularly so in a high-tech environment.
Technological advances have changed relationships in the fisheries
and have redefined fishers and their practices [30]. From being
mostly about human physical labour, fishing has entered into
complex cybernetic systems [31]. This has also affected safety and
safety technology, such as vessel design, sea-keeping abilities,
fishing gear, automatization of operations and radio communica-
tion. In addition, requirements for safety training and safety
regulations have been implemented.
Within the framework of ANT, the article is inspired by a study
of a Ladbroke Grove train disaster in London, which sees safety in
two different perspectives: the regional dimension and the system
dimension [32]. When an accident happens, the regional dimen-
sion will point to an exact point at which the blame could be
allocated—it is compartmentalized. Such point could be “human
factors” or technical failures, but could also be organizational
culture or managerial responsibility. An investigation of the
system dimension, however, considers regional thinking as too
simplistic, as a number of factors which may be hard to identify,
usually coincide in an emergency situation—hence a system
failure.
Following this approach, for the topic of multilingual crews,
communication might be viewed either in a compartmentalized
way or as a system issue. For instance, language may be linked to
safety as an isolated element. This approach might support
statements that language proficiency is of crucial importance to
communication and therefore to safety. However, communication
may also be categorized as a human factor that is affected by a
number of elements, such as fatigue, stress, work pressure,
situation awareness, risk perception, decision-making and team-
work. Thus, misunderstandings and unwanted incidents may be a
result of several factors coinciding—not only inadequate commu-
nication, but also poor team work or lacking situation awareness,
or both [8].
A third approach sees safety in relational terms and as a part of
a dynamic and heterogeneous network of relations [32]. The
definition of safety depends on a network of related human and
non-human elements. Thus, what defines safety and the percep-
tion of safety is related to a number of heterogeneous elements
such as technology, verbal and non-verbal communication,
303
context, situation, relations, subjective risk perception and embo-
died knowledge. The importance of subjective risk perception
[5,9,33–37] and embodied knowledge in fishing [9,30,38] has been
discussed in several previous studies. The point here is that in
complex networks we can never have a complete overview and
thereby not control every aspect of the network. In relation to the
train system “the partial disorder of these not very coherent
arrangements does just fine a good deal if not all the time”
[32,10]. Hence, on a fishing vessel, language proficiency and verbal
communication are just two elements among many partial coher-
ences affecting safety. In addition, how language and communica-
tion affect safety will vary depending upon the situation and the
context. Thus, although language and communication do not affect
safety in one situation, this may not be true in another.
4. Results
4.1. Language and communications
In terms of considering language as a safety risk, informants
were divided into two main groups: those who considered
language a safety risk and those who did not. This division was
clearly linked to roles and occupation, as the majority of those who
expressed concerns about language and safety were informants
who did not work aboard vessels. These actors argued for the need
for clear communication in daily work, critical situations and
training. However, most of the informants who worked in close
vicinity to daily operations – fishermen, skippers, crew managers
and owners of larger vessels – did not perceive language as a
significant safety issue because despite the lack of a common
formal language, a common language on board was seldom
completely absent.
In terms of language proficiency, findings showed that the
majority of foreign fishers had some knowledge of English or
Norwegian. A mixture of words and phrases from different
languages were often used to make oneself understood. For
example, on a factory trawler with a crew consisting of
Norwegians and Russians, the working language was a mixture
of Norwegian, Russian and English. Another case with a larger
coastal vessel showed that, even if the official working language
was English, the English language proficiency of the skipper and
his Eastern-European and Norwegian crew was average. When
asked about what language they used in everyday communication
on board, the skipper explained that “it is a mixture of English-
Norwegian and sign language”, which he claimed worked satis-
factorily. Overall, common language references and use of sign
language are perceived as sufficient for daily routine tasks; hence,
language or communication barriers are therefore not perceived as
compromising safety. Findings were consistent and applied to
both Norwegian and foreign informants.
Furthermore, work was often organized in ways that compen-
sated for language challenges, which had implications for how
working teams were put together and who would be doing what
tasks. As one skipper explained, having a large number of Russians
aboard, to facilitate dealing with language issues, he would run full
shifts with pure Russian or pure Norwegian crews. He would also
make the skilled English speakers work with those who were less
skilled and thereby function as translators in their relations with
Norwegian crew members. Informants also stressed that work in
the factory of freezer trawlers or on board longliners is typically
routine work, meaning the need for verbal communication was
oftentimes secondary to other parts of the work.
However, communication was not completely without chal-
lenges. A recurring issue was the under-communication of lan-
guage comprehension. Several informants mentioned experiences
304 T. Thorvaldsen, S.A. Sønvisen / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 301–306
when foreigners would say that they understood a message when
in fact they had not. A quote from one skipper may illustrate this:
“When someone says no problem, I know there is a problem”.
Another skipper described how Portuguese engineers often failed
to report difficulties in the engine room. Whenever the skipper
asked, everything was perfect, even if it was not. This latter point
may not only be related to low levels of language comprehension,
but also timidity in relation to leadership. Consequently, when
someone does not reveal their lack of understanding, it may lead
to dangerous situations.
The above discussion about language and communication
related to safety has so far been related to daily fishing operations.
In order to uncover aspects related to language in emergency
situations or unforeseen events, informants were asked explicitly
whether they had experienced or knew of accidents or near
accidents caused by language- or communication failures. The
answers from the informants where split along the same lines as
the before presented findings. Those who claimed that language
would be a crucial factor in emergency situations were not directly
involved in fishing. Those who did not consider language a safety
issue, even in emergency situations, were the informants who
worked aboard the fishing vessels.
To investigate the topic of language and safety further, a
selection of accident reports were also studied. Findings from
the Norwegian Maritime Authority's accident database show 53
reported accidents involving injuries to non-Norwegian fishers on
Norwegian vessels in the period 2000–2011. Of these, only two
injury reports mention “communication problems” as the cause of
the accident; however, it was not specified whether this was
directly related to language or other types of misunderstandings.
In general, accidents are reported to be caused by inattention,
weather conditions or misjudgments. Although it is difficult to
make a definitive conclusion, the low number of reports empha-
sizing communication as a cause of accidents is in accordance with
the findings from this study, namely that language is not perceived
as a risky factor in relation to safety onboard Norwegian fishing
vessels.
4.2. Training
Training in fishing has traditionally taken place on board
through observation and participation. Today, most of the training
still takes place on board, but formal safety training prior to this is
also mandatory. Due to technological advancements, training is
increasingly intertwined with technology and formal systems [31].
As with daily work and emergency situations, training also
depends upon effective communication. The material shows
different perceptions regarding whether language was considered
a problem in relation to training, but the majority of the infor-
mants did not perceive language as a problem. The lack of a
common language was solved in a number of ways, such as non-
verbal communication, signs and symbols or experienced crew
who spoke both needed languages were used as translators. One
factory chief explained that he used other strategies when lan-
guage skills were insufficient:
If I am training someone who doesn't really know English all
that well, I just show them how they should do it, and then
they get to try for themselves. If they don't do it correctly, I just
shake my head to let them know that's not how it should be
done, and then I show them again.
Some informants did, however, describe on-the-job training as
a challenge in itself. Due to the high tempo and demands for
effective production, time was always scarce to train newcomers
properly—a situation made worse in the presence of poor language
proficiency. It was stressed that it was easier to train an experi-
enced fisherman, regardless of language skills. Experience was
thus highly valued and seen as crucial in any situation, as seen in
the incident on board Frøyanes Senior.
4.3. Psychosocial working environment
Language was more often problematized in relation to the
psychosocial working environment than in other aspect. This
finding was consistent throughout the interviews. Language often
acted as a barrier to communication, meaning that small-talk
during breaks and spare-time was experienced as very demanding
and exhausting for both Norwegians and foreigners. Same-
language crew would tend to stick together and talk amongst
themselves in their mother tongues, creating so called “linguistic
ghettos” [39]. This was especially found among informants in the
deep-sea fleet. Challenges in terms of multilingual crews and
working environment may be more evident in this fleet segment
as they have a higher share of foreign fishers, but also because
some vessels in this fleet segment are at sea for extended periods
—some vessels in the longline fleet are at sea up to eight weeks at
a time. Needless to say, the psychosocial working environment is
important for the well-being of the crew. Challenges in terms of
the psychosocial working environment are, however, not limited
to foreign fishers only. Cultural divisions may occur within purely
Norwegian crews as well, as crew members from the same
community or certain personality types socialize more easily. That
challenges related to psychosocial work environment were not
solely related to language or nationality was also stressed by the
informants.
5. Discussion
Although the share of foreign workers aboard Norwegian fish-
ing vessels has increased, this study indicates that language and
communication is not perceived as a safety risk by those directly
involved in fishing activity. This seems to be the case for both
everyday operations and critical situations. There are however,
several aspects that might influence this finding. First, few of the
informants had experienced critical situations in general and none
had experienced critical situations related to communication fail-
ure. This may be due to the sample of informants, and it may also
be due to a generally low level of awareness regarding commu-
nication failures in accidents. Second, several studies show that
fishers may, as a coping strategy, consciously or unconsciously
under-communicate or trivialize aspects of their work that they
perceive as unsafe [5,33–37].
Third, people may not wish to disclose issues related to their
work activities [40] because they may fear that problematizing
language might lead to additional formal language requirements
or language tests that would complicate recruitment of foreign
fishers. Fourth, work on a fishing deck or in a vessel factory may
largely be described as “quiet”, meaning that verbal communica-
tion is subordinate to non-verbal communication. Thus, crews
might manage fine with limited vocabularies or hybrid languages.
Previous studies have highlighted the importance of “embodied”,
“silent” or “practical” knowledge in fishing [9,30,38].
Fifth, fishers, and particularly foreign fishers with few other
employment alternatives, are often reported to be diligent and
loyal to leadership [24]. Therefore, they may not question the
orders of the leadership and try not to reveal when they do not
understand; as a result, they under-communicate or do not report
critical situations.
In addition to factors directly related to communication during
operations, language affects training and psychosocial working
 T. Thorvaldsen, S.A. Sønvisen / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 301–306
environment. In terms of training, there are reports of foreign
fishers claiming to understand instructions, when they in fact do
not. This may affect safety training. Moreover, depending upon the
actors' respective roles on board and their culture (and therefore
perspective), a critical situation may be perceived differently by
different people [22].
In relation to psychosocial working environment, limited lan-
guage proficiency may lead to exclusion. If the majority of the
crew is Norwegian, it is natural that the main language of
communication is Norwegian. In a Norwegian context, a great
deal of information sharing and transfer takes place in informal
settings—also related to safety. Hence, those with limited language
skills may miss out on important knowledge and information [39].
The aspects mentioned thus far, deal with communication and
safety from a rather regional, compartmentalized perspective by
discussing communication and safety in terms of isolated ele-
ments: language, training and psychosocial environment [32].
Thus, in the event of an accident caused by communication failure,
analysis could point to “human errors”, such as poor language
proficiency, training or socialization, or non-human factors, such
as technical failures, or even culture or managerial failure, such as
attitudes toward and management of communication and safety
procedures. Although this perspective offers a point where instru-
ments can be applied to improve the situation, it also offers a
rather fragmented view of a complex world and does consider the
different logics at play in different parts of the system and how
these relate. Language, communication and safety can also be
viewed from a system perspective, which examines how a number
of related elements or incidents lead to an accident or system
failure. However, from a systems perspective, pinpointing failure
is difficult and thereby difficult to deal with [32]. For instance, on
a number of larger deep-sea vessels, poor language proficiency,
insufficient safety training, and a multi-cultural work environ-
ment, combined with low focus on safety at the managerial
level could lead to the expectation of system failure and acci-
dents. However, where to apply the remedies would be more
ambiguous.
In most everyday operations and critical situations, commu-
nication works. Why? According to Law [32], seeing safety either
as compartmentalized or as a system may be useful, but may also
fall short. The world is too complex, too fluid, and the system is
only partially coherent. It is difficult to fully comprehend the entire
system in one picture. Rather than seeing partial coherency, or
system imperfections, as “curses” or “sloppiness”, partial coher-
ency may be the reason the system actually works. “[P]artial
coherences… are the stuff of life” [32,14]. Hence, despite the
official requirement for a common working language – usually
Norwegian or English – a large number of fishing vessels are not
practising this requirement strictly. Fishers compensate for insuf-
ficient language proficiency by using hybrid language and body
language combined with fishing experience and thereby avoid
disasters. A rigid application of the official language requirements
could inhibit effective fishing operations, as vessels are not able to
recruit crew members with the sufficient language skills. It may
very well be that the organization's ability to adapt and respond –
rather than strictly applying a rigid system that attempts to take
into account every eventuality – makes it work. Thus, non-
compliance may not be sloppiness or system failure, but what
makes the system work—at least most of the time [32,41].
In addition, the fishing fleet consists of complex technological
organizations, and communication and training are increasingly
inscribed into technology, procedures and manuals; thus, transfer
of knowledge depend less on social relations [31]. As communica-
tion of knowledge in general, and safety in particular, is standar-
dized and built into technology, language may become less of a
risk factor in daily fishing operations. Consequently, in relation to
305
safety, there may be less demand for fishers from the local
community, not even from Norway [42].
6. Conclusions
So does the increased share of foreign crew negatively affect
communication and safety on board Norwegian vessels? No, not
necessarily. Although an increased number of foreign fishers have
been working in both the coastal and the deep-sea fleets, and a
number of actors in the fisheries sector assert that language
proficiency affects safety onboard, this study shows that active
fishers do not tend to see language and communication barriers as
risk factors—neither in daily operations nor in emergency situa-
tions. Language is, however, seen as a challenge in terms of the
psycho-social environment. One reason may be that fishing
involves several routine tasks that do not rely upon verbal
language. Another reason may be that fishing experience is usually
seen as a more important qualification than language proficiency.
Yet another reason may be that, despite varying levels of language
proficiency, there is rarely a complete lack of a common language.
However, where a common language is lacking, it is often
compensated for by the organization of the work (in teams),
hybrid language, non-verbal language and use of translators.
Nevertheless, language may have implications for safety in the
event of something unexpected, when quick clarification or verbal
responses are needed. As this study was not able to disclose how
language and communication affect emergency situations, it is
necessary to study what may be the consequence in emergency
situations where crew will not be able to rely on their daily
routines or hybrid languages.
From the relational perspective used here, the reader must be
aware that what constitutes safety is fluid and affected by changes
in fisheries and how fishing is undertaken, for instance through
changes in technology or regulations. In particular, as more and
more non-human elements are introduced into the fisheries, new
challenges in terms of safety emerge. Moreover, an increased use
of foreign fishers may also affect how we perceive and work with
safety onboard fishing vessels.
Acknowledgements
This article has been written in connection with a research
project on the topic of foreign workers in the Norwegian fishing
fleet and implications for safety on board. Thanks to the
Norwegian Seafood Research Fund (FHF) for funding the project.
And thanks to all the informants, who remain anonymous in this
article for the protection of their privacy, for their contributions.
References
[1] Ivetorp L. Dramatisk natt i Barentshavet. FiskeribladetFiskaren 2008.
[2] Grytås G. “Frøyanes” trygt i havn—rekker årets siste tur? FiskeribladetFiskaren.
15.11.2008 ed2008.
[3] St. Meld. (White Paper) 22 (2012-2013). Verdens fremste sjømatnasjon. In:
Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, editor. Oslo.
[4] Geving IH, Aasjord HL, Jørgensen KU, Sandsund M. HMS i fiskeflåten—Marin
verdiskaping, koste hva det koste vil? Trondheim: SINTEF Fisheries and
Aquaculture; 2008.
[5] Bye R, Lamvik GM. Professional culture and risk perception: coping with
danger on board small fishing boats and offshore service vessels. Reliab Eng
Syst Saf 2007;92:1756–63.
[6] Lindøe PH, Engen OA, Olsen OE. Responses to accidents in different industrial
sectors. Saf Sci 2011;49:90–7.
[7] Håvold JI. Safety culture aboard fishing vessels. Saf Sci 2010;48:1054–61.
[8] Aasjord HL, Holmen Ingunn Marie, Thorvaldsen Trine. Fiskerulykker og
årsaksforhold Analyse av årsaksforhold ved dødsulykker og alvorlige persons-
kader i norsk fiskeri. Trondheim: SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture; 2012.
306 T. Thorvaldsen, S.A. Sønvisen / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 301–306
[9] Thorvaldsen T. The importance of common sense: how Norwegian coastal
fishermen deal with occupational risk. Mar Policy 2013;42:85–90.
[10] McGuinness E, Aasjord HL, Utne IB, Holmen IM. Injuries in the commercial
fishing fleet of Norway 2000–2011. Saf Sci 2013;57:82–99.
[11] Thorvaldsen T, Sønvisen SA, Holmen IM. Sikker kommunikasjon om bord En
studie av omfang, rekruttering, språk, kommunikasjon og sikkerhet med fokus
på utenlandsk arbeidskraft i norsk fiskeflåte. Trondheim: SINTEF Fisheries and
Aquaculture; 2012.
[12] Statistics Norway (SSB). Fortsatt sentralisering. Oslo: SSB; 2007.
[13] Norut Tromsø AS. Konjunkturbarometer for Nord-norge, Høsten 2010. Tromsø:
Norut Tromsø AS; 2010.
[14] Henriksen KH. Skrikende behov for arbeidsfolk i nord. Kirkenær: Ask Media;
2011.
[15] Sønvisen SA. Recruitment to the Norwegian Fishing Fleet: Storylines, para-
doxes, and pragmatism in Norwegian fisheries and recruitment policy MAST.
In print.
[16] Sønvisen SA, Johnsen JP, Vik J. The Norwegian coastal employment system—
What it was and what it is. MAST 2011;10(1):31–56.
[17] Sandberg MG, Olafsen T. Kartlegging av kompetansebehov i norsk fiskeri- og
havbruksnæring. Trondheim: SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture; 2006.
[18] Act on prohibition against foreigners engaged in fishing eiNtwon, § 3,. In:
Affairs MoFaC, editor. Oslo.
[19] Hetherington C, Flin R, Mearns K. Safety in shipping: the human element. J Saf
Res 2006;37:401–11.
[20] Geving IMH, Aasjord HL, Jørgensen K, Sandsund M HMS. i fiskeflåten—Marin
verdiskapning, koste hva det koste vil? SINTEF 2008.
[21] Størkersen KV, Bye RJ. Røyrvik JOD. Sikkerhet i fraktefarten—analyse av drifts-
og arbeidsmessige forhold på fraktefartøy. Studio Apertura. NTNU samfunns-
forskning 2011.
[22] Sangolt AI, Glesnes JK. Hendelsesrapportering til sjøs.: Høgskolen Stord/
Haugesund; 2011.
[23] Fenstad J, Solem A, Størkersen K. Samlerapport for bedre fartøysikkerhet –
Kapteinsrollen, Fartøy på korttidskontrakter, Vaktordninger. Trondheim: Stu-
dio Apertura, NTUNU samfunnsforskning; 2010.
[24] Torjesen DO, Laugen T. Kvalitetssikring og betydningen av nye organisasjons
og ledelsesformer i skipsfarten. Rapport fra en forstudie. Kristiansand:
Agerforskning; 2004.
[25] Andrews T, Vassenden A. Snøballen som ikke ruller—utvalgsproblemer i
kvalitativ forskning. Sosiologisk tidsskrift 2007;15:151–63.
[26] Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Walnut Creek CA: AltaMira; 2006.
[27] Aure MA. Arbeidsmigrasjon fra Teriberka til Båtsfjord 1999–2002. Tromsø:
Universitetet i Tromsø; 2008.
[28] Latour B. Reassembling the social—an introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.
New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
[29] Callon M. Actor-network theory—the market test. In: Law J, Hassard J, editors.
Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell; 1999.
[30] Johnsen JP. Norsk senter for b. Fiskeren som forsvant?: avfolking, overbefolk-
ing og endringsprosesser i norsk fiskerinæring i et aktør-nettverk-perspektiv
Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forl; 2004.
[31] Johnsen JP, Murray GD, Neis B. North Atlantic Fisheries in Change. From
Organic Associations to Cybernetic Organizations. Marit Stud 2009;7:55–82.
[32] Law J. Ladbroke Grove, or How to Think about Failing Systems. Centre for
Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN, UK; 2000.
[33] Poggie J, Pollnac R, Jones S. Perceptions of vessel safety regulations: a southern
New England fishery. Mar Policy 1995;19:411–8.
[34] Broch H. Strategies of coping with fright and risk onboard Norwegian Fishing/
Whaling vessels. Suomen Antropologi 2006:31.
[35] Binkley M. Risks, dangers and rewards in the Nova Scotia offshore fishery.
Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press; 1995.
[36] Davis ME. Perceptions of occupational risk by US commercial fishermen. Mar
Policy 2012;36:28–33.
[37] Edvardsson IRT Diana, Conides Alexis J, Drakeford Ben, Holm Dennis. Fisher-
men's risk perception in four European Countries. MAST 2011;10:139–59.
[38] Power NG. Occupational risks, safety and masculinity: Newfoundland fish
harvesters' experiences and understandings of fishery risks. Health, Risk Soc
2008;10:565–83.
[39] Trajkovski S, Loosemore M. Safety implications of low-English proficiency
among migrant construction site operatives. Int. J. Project Manage.
2006;24:446–52.
[40] Schwartzman HB. Ethnography in organizations. Newbury Park, Calif: SAGE;
1993.
[41] De Laet M, Mol AM. The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: mechanics of a fluid
technology. Soc Stud Sci 2000;30:225–63.
[42] Vik J, Johnsen JP, Sønvisen SA. Kysten i endring: Om fiskeripolitikken som
distrikts og lokalsamfunnspolitikk. In: Haugen MS, Stræte EP, editors. Rurale
brytninger. Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag; 2011.