Skip Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
AnimalsAnimals
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

1 July 2021

Expert Perspectives on the Performance of Explosive Detection Canines: Operational Requirements

,
and
1
Army Medical Department Student Detachment, 187th Medical Battalion, 32nd Medical Brigade, Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, TX 78234, USA
2
Penn Vet Working Dog Center, Clinical Sciences and Advanced Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
3
Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals2021, 11(7), 1976;https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071976
This article belongs to the Collection Health, Behaviour and Performance in Working Dog Teams
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Simple Summary

Explosive detection canines safeguard lives and property by searching out and identifying explosive threats. The handlers, trainers, and leaders who work closely with these canines best understand what they are asked to do when tasked to search for explosives. This study used interviews with these highly experienced individuals to identify the requirements of explosive detection canines in team performance and in the physical, climate, operational, and explosive odor environments. These canines are used in different ways, and these differences influence their requirements. Despite these utilization differences, many requirements common to all explosive detection canines were identified. Searching for explosives is a team effort, and the handler likely has the greatest influence on the canine’s performance. A key requirement is appropriate preparation for the expected operational environment. The results of this study can inform the training, assessment, and utilization of these canines and guide future research in explosive detection canine research.

Abstract

Explosive detection canines (EDC) play an important role in protecting people and property. The utilization of and research on EDCs is often based on personal experience or incomplete knowledge. EDC practitioners (handlers, trainers, and leaders) possess the institutional knowledge necessary to understand EDC operational requirements. This study utilized a qualitative approach with semi-structured interviews of EDC experts (n = 17) from across the employment spectrum. The interviews elicited EDC expert perceptions of the performance of the EDC team and the operational requirements in the physical, climate, operational, and explosive odor environments. Analysis of the data revealed commonalities across all EDCs and utilization-specific differences. To be effective, the EDC team must function well on both ends of the leash, and the handler likely has the greatest impact on the EDC’s performance. Common requirements include expectations to perform at a high level in a variety of manmade and natural physical environments and under a range of climate conditions. EDCs must work through the visual, olfactory, and auditory challenges of the operational environment and the countermeasure efforts of those utilizing explosive devices. Utilization-specific differences like patrol or assault training and utilization add additional requirements for some EDCs. The results of this study can be used to inform EDC selection, training, assessment, and deployment, and further research into EDC performance.

1. Introduction

Explosive detection canines (EDCs) play a critical role in protecting people and infrastructure from explosive threats [1,2,3,4,5]. EDCs differ from other detection canines, as the work of searching for explosives is repetitive, rarely rewarding, and associated with lethal consequences [6,7]. The EDC team is a mobile sensor solution consisting of paired mammals, with the handler and EDC both playing important roles. The end goal is a consistent level of performance in the face of the challenges present in the operational environment. Effective selection, training, assessment, and utilization are key steps towards that goal, and these processes must be conducted in an operationally realistic manner [8,9,10].
To date, no one to our knowledge has published a systematic study examining EDC operational requirements. Thus, selection, training, assessment, and utilization of EDCs is often based on personal experience or incomplete descriptions of these requirements. Much of the institutional knowledge associated with EDC operations exists as tacit knowledge that is shared and analyzed informally by EDC practitioners: handlers, trainers, and leadership [11,12,13]. This knowledge is often overlooked and difficult to articulate and transfer to other EDC practitioners and to EDC researchers [14,15,16,17,18,19]. Despite these challenges, the hard-earned perspectives of these individuals should be added to the growing body of EDC knowledge.
The goal of this study was to describe the operational requirements of EDCs. Subject matter expert interviews with EDC practitioners were used to identify explicit knowledge and elicit tacit knowledge associated with EDC operations [20,21,22]. Highly experienced individuals from a range of employment and experience backgrounds were included.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

In-depth, semi-structured interviews with EDC experts from four utilization sectors (law enforcement, military, federal, and private) were conducted. These sectors were selected as they represent the primary domains in which EDCs operate. This qualitative study was led by a working dog veterinary practitioner (BDF) with expertise in EDC care, training, and program management and graduate training in qualitative research, in collaboration with a working dog veterinary practitioner (CMO) with expertise in detection dog research, and a medical sociologist (JES) with expertise in mixed-methods research. We sought to create a purposive sample that included individuals in each EDC utilization sector with a broad range of experience as a handler, trainer, and/or leader. Subject matter experts were identified through key individuals at representative organizations that employ, train, or manage EDC teams for each utilization sector. These experts were recruited by email, and no incentive was offered for participation. The protocol was deemed exempt by the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board.

2.2. Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted from April to May 2020. The interview guide contained open-ended questions intended to elicit participant knowledge and perceptions of operational requirements of EDCs (see Supplementary Materials for the guide). The key domains in the guide were the participant’s experience with EDC team performance and the physical, climate, operational, and explosive odor environments. One interview was conducted in person, and the remainder were conducted via telephone by BDF. Prior to the start of the interview, participants were made aware of the study’s purpose to characterize the operational performance requirements of EDCs. The interviewer assured potential participants that any sensitive or classified information shared during the interview would be redacted from the final dataset and no personally identifiable information would be collected. With permission of the participant, the interview was audio recorded.

2.3. Data Analysis

All audio files were transcribed and uploaded into NVivo 12 software for coding [23]. Data were analyzed using a flexible coding approach by one coder (BDF) in conjunction with two collaborators [24]. The interview guide was reviewed to guide the development of an index codebook, which was applied by BDF to two transcripts. The study team reviewed the application of the codebook to the data and suggested revisions. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Once the final codebook was developed, it was applied, line by line, to all transcripts. Once all transcripts were coded, patterns of themes within key domains were examined across interviews. Repeated themes across respondents were summarized and grouped them into two distinct categories: operational requirements of EDCs and performance degrading factors. The results reported in this manuscript are themes that were endorsed by the majority of participants.

2.4. Security Review and Omitted Data

The analyzed data were reviewed by the appropriate Department of Defense security offices (Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, TX, USA) and by individuals experienced in EDC operations. Any data determined to be sensitive or classified were omitted.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of Study Participants

Interviews were conducted with 17 EDC experts. Over half (n = 11, 64.7%) of the participants had experience as an EDC handler, and nearly all had experience as an EDC trainer (n = 14, 82.4%) or in leadership over EDC teams (n = 14, 82.4%). The majority of participants had experienced employment in multiple occupational settings, with 52.9% (n = 9) having experience in the military, 29.4% (n = 5) in law enforcement, 23.5% (n = 4) in the federal sector and 70.6% (n = 12) in the private sector. Participants with experience as an EDC handler, trainer, or leader had an average of 8.0 (range 1–17), 18.2 (range 2–35), and 17.6 (range 2–25) years of experience respectively. Participants with an experience as an EDC handler or trainer had experience in these roles an average of 14.3 (range 0–28) and 5.4 (range 0–23) years ago, respectively, and all participants with experience as a leader were currently in that role. Many of the participants had additional experience selecting and procuring potential EDCs, certifying, and auditing EDCs and EDC teams, consulting, teaching, participating in EDC working groups, and conducting EDC-related research, development, testing, and evaluation. Interviews ranged in length from 36 to 74 min, with a median of 58 min. In the sections that follow, exemplar quotes to support key themes will be provided in the accompanying tables.

3.2. EDC Utilization

Participants reported that EDCs are utilized in many ways, some of which are unique to one employment type, and others that are common to multiple employment types. An EDC may be utilized in just one way or in multiple ways during its career. A single EDC may be asked to perform multiple roles during a single shift or operation. Some EDCs also perform criminal apprehension or assault roles, and these roles may occur immediately before, during, or immediately after searching for explosives.
EDCs were described by participants as generally being used in two roles: screening objects or clearing areas for explosive threats. Screening typically consists of searching numerous discrete objects to confirm the absence of explosives. An EDC screening for explosives may be mobile, stationary, or a combination of the two. Screening operations may be continuous or intermittent. If screening operations are continuous, multiple EDCs may be assigned in rotation with a fixed or flexible work-to-rest ratio.
Clearance usually involves moving through a building, area, or large vehicle to identify explosives or confirm the absence of explosives. Participants explained that clearance operations may be categorized by the probability of identifying an explosive. For law enforcement EDCs, higher probability clearance operations include responding to bomb threats or searching suspicious packages. Military, law enforcement, or federal EDCs may perform clearance of routes or buildings with a pre-identified risk of explosives or explosive devices (Table 1, Quote 1). Lower probability operations include clearing a building, residence, or vehicle(s) for a dignitary or special event (Table 1, Quote 2).
Table 1. EDC utilization interview themes and exemplar quotations.

3.3. EDC Team Performance Requirements

In the EDC team, participants stated that both the EDC and the handler must demonstrate high levels of performance to be operationally successful (Table 2, Quote 3). EDCs must be healthy, highly motivated to search, and utilize appropriate search behaviors. An EDC must have its basic needs satisfied (e.g., hunger, thirst, and need to eliminate) and be free of performance-limiting medical conditions (e.g., illness, lameness, or pain). Participants stated that EDCs must possess sufficient athleticism to navigate the search area and endurance to effectively search for the required duration (Table 2, Quote 4). Hunt drive was described by participants as the primary drive necessary for detection. They stated that hunt drive is characterized as motivation, a consistent high level of energy, focus on the task, and ignoring or rapidly recovering from distractions (Table 2, Quote 5). The performance of EDCs with appropriate hunt drive, it was stated, does not decrease during prolonged searches or repeated searches of the same or similar areas without identifying the target odor (Table 2, Quote 6). The reported appropriate search behaviors include a high rate of closed-mouth sniffing (Table 2, Quote 7), a methodical search of productive areas (e.g., door seams) (Table 2, Quote 8), and searching at a pace appropriate for the expected scent picture (e.g., slower when searching small packages) (Table 2, Quote 9).
Table 2. EDC team performance interview themes and exemplar quotations.
The interaction between the EDC and their handler was identified by participants as a key component of operational performance. The EDC must have a good rapport with their handler and take direction easily. However, they must also confidently work independently of the handler, a skill that allows for effective searching at a distance (Table 2, Quote 10). Participants suggested that handlers must be conscious of their EDC’s physical, mental, and emotional needs, stay alert to changes in effective searching, and provide motivational training as needed if operationally feasible (Table 2, Quote 11).

3.4. Physical Environment Requirements

Participants explained that EDCs are expected to perform in any physical environment that does not pose an unreasonable risk of physical harm, such as the presence of hazardous chemicals, raw sewage, or fall risk from elevated surfaces (Table 3, Quote 12). Given that explosive devices can be placed, stored, or transported essentially anywhere, EDCs must deploy into a range of physical environments. In describing these environments, we found that participants’ answers could be categorized into manmade settings and natural settings. Manmade settings could be subdivided into indoor, outdoor and vehicles:
Table 3. Physical environment interview themes and exemplar quotations.
  • Indoor–residential, industrial, storage, educational, commercial, entertainment venues, sporting venues, places of worship, and transportation terminals;
  • Outdoor–exterior of indoor environments, damaged manmade structures, culverts and ditches, vehicle paths and tunnels, pedestrian paths and tunnels, transportation areas, and access control points;
  • Vehicles.
    • Small passenger–motorcycles, sedans, pickup trucks, and vans;
    • Commercial–semi-trucks with flatbed or enclosed trailers, maritime vessels, and cargo planes;
    • Mass transit–buses, trains, passenger planes, and ferries.
Participants described features of the natural physical environment in which EDCs are expected to search. These environments include those near manmade features and those far away from them, depressed areas, elevated and high-altitude areas, and the angled sides of terrain features (Table 3, Quote 13). Outdoor areas range from the yards of residential homes to parks and vast open landscapes with variable amounts and types of vegetation present, including rock, dirt, grass (short and tall), cactus-filled, dense forest, or desert. EDCs are expected to search along natural and manmade bodies of water (e.g., ponds, streams, rivers, and beaches) and to identify explosives under water (landmines under up to 18 inches of water and explosive caches under up to 3–4 feet of water). Natural vehicle and pedestrian paths (e.g., dirt paths or cross-country) are also locations for detection.

3.5. Climate Environment Requirements

Similar to their responses to the physical environment requirements, participants stated that EDCs must perform in nearly any climate based on their assignment or anticipated deployment as long as the climate is determined to be safe for the handler and other personnel to operate in. Situations with extreme heat, extreme cold, and with nearby lightning were identified as exceptions (Table 4, Quote 14). Some organizations strictly operate locally, so their EDCs would be expected to perform in a narrower range of climates. Other organizations operate predominantly indoors (e.g., at airports), but their EDCs are still expected to perform in the prevailing outdoor climate when necessary. Many EDCs are expected to travel great distances and operate in climates starkly differently from their home climate. Other EDCs encounter and are expected to perform in niche environments, including poor air quality and extreme heat or cold.
Table 4. Climate environment interview themes and exemplar quotations.
Participants explained that the EDC, handler, and leadership all play important roles in supporting operational performance in the climate environment. The EDC must be physically fit enough to thermoregulate and navigate the physical environment while simultaneously detecting effectively. The EDC must be properly acclimated to the climate environment, especially in hot and/or humid conditions. The EDC must be physically hardy enough and behaviorally acclimated to handle environmental changes (e.g., rain or snow) without an alteration in performance. The handler must be comfortable in all expected climates to maintain a consistent demeanor with the EDC and must ensure the EDC maintains the appropriate level of physical fitness and is properly acclimated to the climate. The handler must be able to monitor the climate and their EDC’s performance, implement corrective actions (e.g., rest), and make recommendations to their leadership regarding the EDC’s current and predicted performance. The role of EDC leadership is to establish climate-specific protocols to guide EDC utilization, effectively plan for the prevailing climate, and ensure adequate time for acclimation prior to utilization (Table 4, Quote 15).

3.6. Operational Environment Requirements

In addition to being able to perform in a diverse array of environments, participants explained that EDCs must display certain characteristics to ensure consistently high levels of performance in variable, volatile, and hyperstimulating environments. EDCs must be comfortable around all anticipated components of the environment, ignore distracting stimuli, and behave with innate confidence. When startled or distracted by a novel or noxious stimulus, an EDC must rapidly settle and effectively refocus on the detection task (Table 5, Quote 16). EDCs must operate consistently and without interference around people, animals, objects, sounds, smells, modes of transportation, in the context of time pressure, and requirements for situation-dependent responses:
Table 5. Operational environment interview themes and exemplar quotations.
  • People (types)—bystanders, criminal suspects or detainees, familiar or unfamiliar supporting personnel, and healthy, injured, or deceased people;
  • People (responses to EDC)—neutral, avoidant, anxious, and confrontational;
  • Animals—domestic, feral, and wild;
  • Sound—novel, sudden, sustained, loud, and high-pitched;
  • Novel objects—rolling baggage, mobility devices (e.g., wheelchairs or walkers), and heavy machinery (e.g., forklifts);
  • Odors—noxious (e.g., diesel fuel), distracting (e.g., food and animal urine), and similar to explosives (e.g., fertilizer).
EDCs may have limited time to acclimate to any of these stimuli if they are encountered for the first time operationally. Participants stated that the way the search is started, proceeds, and ends need to be considered when determining operational requirements. The EDC team may encounter repetitive and potentially monotonous searches or be expected to perform under significant time constraints due to altered plans or tactical pressure. The EDC may be transported to the search location via ground vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft. They may be lowered from a helicopter, attached to their handler as they fast rope or rappel, or they may travel on foot. Finally, the EDC may be expected to provide subtle final trained responses (e.g., behaviors indicating completion of the search). In some circumstances, EDCs may not be allowed to work to the source of the odor before the search is terminated due to tactical limitations.
Participants described handler characteristics that are required as EDCs navigate these environmental features. Handlers must be comfortable in the operational environment to continue monitoring the performance of their EDC and directing them as needed, while balancing any concurrent tactical situation and potential threat to their safety or that of the EDC (Table 5, Quote 17). The handler must also have the situational awareness to remain alert for visual indicators of explosive threats. Participants believed that EDC leadership plays a role in facilitating optimal performance through the provision of adequate time and resources to prepare the EDC team prior to utilization (Table 5, Quote 18).
EDCs that are trained to also perform criminal apprehension or assault functions face additional requirements. These EDCs must effectively detect explosives while cues around them indicate the opportunity to search for and engage a human is imminent (Table 5, Quote 19). They must also rapidly transition from engaging with a human back to searching for explosives (Table 5, Quote 20).

3.7. Explosive Odor Environment Requirements

Participants stated that EDCs must be able to detect all expected explosive odors in the anticipated operational presentations. They must be able to generalize sufficiently to detect odors similar but not identical to what they were trained with (e.g., homemade explosives with alternative ingredients or conventional explosives with regional differences). In addition, they must be able to discriminate between background odors and potential explosive odors (e.g., petroleum fuel from ammonium nitrate fuel oil) to prevent false positive responses (Table 6, Quote 21). An EDC must have a low enough detection threshold to identify explosive odor at the levels associated with operational threat devices. The handler must be experienced with and alert to subtle changes in behavior associated with scent pictures near their EDC’s threshold.
Table 6. Explosive odor environment interview themes and exemplar quotations.
Explosives may be buried, emplaced high above the ground, located deep within a wall, or located in or on a stationary or moving person or vehicle (Table 6, Quote 22). The EDC, therefore, must be accustomed to searching for explosives in varied locations. The handler must be able to adjust the search strategy and direct their EDC appropriately.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to identify the operational requirements of EDCs. This study utilized a qualitative approach to systematically identify the institutional knowledge accumulated by EDC subject matter experts [25]. Semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions and several participants from each EDC utilization sector revealed both common and unique operational requirements.
The qualitative approach is both effective and necessary to document the explicit and illuminate the tacit knowledge known primarily by EDC handlers, trainers, and leadership [25,26,27]. Individuals who possess this expert knowledge have not systematically shared detailed insights in such a comprehensive manner prior to this study, contributing to scientific understandings of EDC operational requirements. Future EDC research (and research into working dog performance in general) can leverage these findings, and researchers should be cautioned against relying on personal or limited experience when dealing with EDC operational requirements [28,29]. The participants were in near-unanimous agreement on EDC operational requirements and revealed the impact of utilization type on operational requirements. With few exceptions, EDCs have similar requirements in the physical, climate, and operational environments. The primary differences were in degree rather than in kind. For example, all EDCs are expected to recover quickly after exposure to sudden and loud sounds, but only some must continue to detect effectively after exposure to gunfire [30,31]. The way each EDC is used greatly affects the requirements it must fulfill. EDCs screening baggage and people at the airport do not face the same environmental and tactical pressures as military EDCs clearing routes and buildings during raids. Conversely, the military EDC supporting tactical operations typically experiences far fewer missions than the airport EDC performing continuous detection for many hours each day. Any use of operational requirements (e.g., to guide assessment or research) must consider both the general and utilization-specific requirements [32].
While the EDC team is a currently irreplaceable capability, the components on both ends of the leash must perform to the same high level to be effective. Many of the interview questions were aimed at the performance of the EDC, but participants consistently brought up requirements specific to the handler. Effective detection is a team effort, operational requirements must include the handler, and the handler likely has the greatest positive or negative effect on the EDC’s performance [33,34,35,36,37].
Participants emphasized the requirement for preparation in each environment. Nearly everything an EDC could encounter during a search is known ahead of time, allowing for and mandating effective preparation [38]. Certain factors (e.g., the presence of animals, specific sounds, and human behavior) cannot be anticipated, but the handler must be prepared to continuously monitor the performance of their EDC and apply corrective action when necessary.
Some of the themes that emerged from this study agree with the existing literature (e.g., the responsibility of the handler) [33,34,35,36,37]. Other themes (e.g., the supremacy of hunt drive) contrast with or are more narrowly focused than indicated by previous research [8,9]. A few areas (e.g., detection in the presence of cues for apprehension or assault or after performing these functions) have not been explored in the literature. The overlap between expert opinion and quantitative research highlights the importance of these areas and illustrates where aspects of the literature are used operationally. The gap between the experience of practitioners and the literature reveals the need for either additional research or greater communication of existing research to the operational level. Finally, the themes revealed in this study that have not been empirically studied represent areas for future research.
An additional consideration is that public dissemination of the operational requirements of EDCs risks revealing critical information that may be of value to adversaries [39,40]. This study utilized multiple screening steps to minimize this risk while attempting to maximize the value to the scientific literature and future research. Future research into EDC capabilities and limitations should consider a similar approach.
The strengths of this study were the expert interview approach and the inclusion of highly experienced participants from diverse backgrounds. These factors resulted in documentation of institutional knowledge previously absent from the literature. Use of a qualitative approach limits the ability to generalize these findings to all EDC operations. However, the diverse experiences of the participants, the high degree of agreement in their answers and the detail with which they shared their knowledge has generated rich and detailed insights that can inform future research. The study only included U.S.-based participants, but these findings provide a starting point for future regional and comparative efforts.
Within the context of these limitations, these results can inform further study of the operational requirements of EDCs. This future work can focus on specific organizations (e.g., the military) or EDC utilization types (e.g., cargo screening). EDC leadership may benefit from leveraging these results to develop operationally realistic assessments and performance standards. Finally, these results could be used to develop a quantitative instrument for use with current EDC handlers [41] and then triangulated with existing EDC regulations and training material [26,42,43].

5. Conclusions

EDCs perform key roles in support of peace, and the knowledge critical to understanding EDC operations is predominantly held by EDC handlers, trainers, and leaders. This study illuminated the perspectives of these expert EDC practitioners in the pursuit of defining EDC operational requirements. While these requirements differed by utilization type, the study participants revealed commonalities that transcended utilization type. EDCs are expected to perform at a high level in a variety of manmade and natural physical environments and under a range of climate conditions. They must work through the visual, olfactory, and auditory challenges of the operational environment and the best efforts of an intelligent adversary. These results can be used to guide selection, training, assessment, and utilization, and to inform further research into EDC performance.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani11071976/s1, Interview Guide.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.D.F. and C.M.O.; methodology, B.D.F., C.M.O. and J.E.S.; formal analysis, B.D.F.; writing—original draft preparation, B.D.F.; writing—review and editing, C.M.O. and J.E.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to this study not meeting the federal regulatory definitions of human research.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data generated and analyzed during this study are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the data and ethics restrictions on data sharing. Respondents did not consent to have their data publicly shared.

Conflicts of Interest

The views and information presented are those of the author (B.D.F.) and do not represent the official position of the U.S. Army Medical Center of Excellence, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, or the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government. The authors declare no other conflict of interest.

References

  1. Penn-Barwell, J.G.; Bennett, P.M.; Kay, A.; Sargeant, I.D.; Severe Lower Extremity Combat Trauma (SeLECT) Study Group. Acute bilateral leg amputation following combat injury in UK servicemen. Injury 2014, 45, 1105–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Barzilai, L.; Harats, M.; Wiser, I.; Weissman, O.; Domniz, N.; Glassberg, E.; Stavrou, D.; Zilinsky, I.; Winkler, E.; Hiak, J. Characteristics of Improvised Explosive Device Trauma Casualties in the Gaza Strip and Other Combat Regions: The Israeli Experience. Wounds 2015, 27, 209–214. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ferreri, T.G.; Weir, A.J. EMS Improvised Explosive Devices and Terrorist Activity; StatPearls: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Harper, R.J.; Almirall, J.R.; Furton, K.G. Identification of dominant odor chemicals emanating from explosives for use in developing optimal training aid combinations and mimics for canine detection. Talanta 2005, 67, 313–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Furton, K. The scientific foundation and efficacy of the use of canines as chemical detectors for explosives. Talanta 2001, 487–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gazit, I.; Goldblatt, A.; Terkel, J. The role of context specificity in learning: The effects of training context on explosives detection in dogs. Anim. Cogn. 2005, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Porritt, F.; Shapiro, M.; Waggoner, P.; Mitchell, E.; Thomson, T.; Nicklin, S.; Kacelnik, A. Performance decline by search dogs in repetitive tasks, and mitigation strategies. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lazarowski, L.; Waggoner, L.P.; Krichbaum, S.; Singletary, M.; Haney, P.; Rogers, B.; Angle, C. Selecting Dogs for Explosives Detection: Behavioral Characteristics. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Jamieson, L.T.J.; Baxter, G.S.; Murray, P.J. Identifying suitable detection dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Johnen, D.; Heuwieser, W.; Fischer-Tenhagen, C. An approach to identify bias in scent detection dog testing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Swap, W.C.; Leonard, D.A.; Shields, M.; Abrams, L. Using Mentoring and Storytelling to Transfer Knowledge in the Workplace. Manag. Knowl. Assets Creat. Innov. 2011, 137–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wasonga, T.A.; Murphy, J.F. Learning from tacit knowledge: The impact of the internship. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2006, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Farrar, N.; Trorey, G. Maxims, tacit knowledge and learning: Developing expertise in dry stone walling. J. Vocat. Educ. Train. 2008, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Polanyi, M.; Sen, A. The Tacit Dimension; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  15. Nonaka, I. The Knowledge-Creating Company. Econ. Impact Knowl. 1998, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lamberton, D. The Knowledge-based Economy: A Sisyphus Model. Prometheus 1997, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Boiral, O. Tacit Knowledge and Environmental Management. Long Range Plan. 2002, 291–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nunes, M.B.; Annansingh, F.; Eaglestone, B.; Wakefield, R. Knowledge management issues in knowledge-intensive SMEs. J. Doc. 2006, 101–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Johannessen, J.-A.; Olaisen, J.; Olsen, B. Mismanagement of tacit knowledge: The importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2001, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fricke, C.; Faust, B. Knowledge transfer acquiring implicit knowledge. Int. J. Nucl. Knowl. Manag. 2006, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mitchell, L.; Flin, R.; Yule, S.; Mitchell, J.; Coutts, K.; Youngson, G. Thinking ahead of the surgeon. An interview study to identify scrub nurses’ non-technical skills. Int. J. Nurs. Stud 2011, 48, 818–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Russano, M.B.; Narchet, F.M.; Kleinman, S.M.; Meissner, C.A. Structured Interviews of Experienced HUMINT Interrogators. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2014, 847–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Qualitative Data Analysis Software. Available online: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home (accessed on 4 March 2021).
  24. Deterding, N.M.; Waters, M.C. Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociol. Methods Res. 2018, 004912411879937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Martin, T.G.; Burgman, M.A.; Fidler, F.; Kuhnert, P.M.; Low-Choy, S.; McBride, M.; Mengersen, K. Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abernethy, M.A.; Horne, M.; Lillis, A.M.; Malina, M.A.; Selto, F.H. A multi-method approach to building causal performance maps from expert knowledge. Manag. Account. Res. 2005, 135–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Morse, J.M. Strategies for Sampling. Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1991; pp. 127–146. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lazarowski, L.; Krichbaum, S.; DeGreeff, L.E.; Simon, A.; Singletary, M.; Angle, C.; Waggoner, L. Methodological Considerations in Canine Olfactory Detection Research. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Hayes, J.E.; McGreevy, P.D.; Forbes, S.L.; Laing, G.; Stuetz, R.M. Critical review of dog detection and the influences of physiology, training, and analytical methodologies. Talanta 2018, 185, 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Gruen, M.E.; Case, B.C.; Foster, M.L.; Lazarowski, L.; Fish, R.E.; Landsberg, G.; DePuy, V.; Dorman, D.; Sherman, B. The use of an open-field model to assess sound-induced fear and anxiety-associated behaviors in Labrador retrievers. J. Vet. Behav. 2015, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sherman, B.L.; Gruen, M.E.; Case, B.C.; Foster, M.L.; Fish, R.E.; Lazarowski, L.; DePuy, V.; Dorman, D. A test for the evaluation of emotional reactivity in Labrador retrievers used for explosives detection. J. Vet. Behav. 2015, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rooney, N.J.; Gaines, S.A.; Bradshaw, J.W.S.; Penman, S. Validation of a method for assessing the ability of trainee specialist search dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 90–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lit, L.; Schweitzer, J.B.; Oberbauer, A.M. Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes. Anim. Cogn. 2011, 14, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. DeChant, M.T.; Ford, C.; Hall, N.J. Effect of Handler Knowledge of the Detection Task on Canine Search Behavior and Performance. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Duranton, C.; Gaunet, F. Canis sensitivus: Affiliation and dogs’ sensitivity to others’ behavior as the basis for synchronization with humans? J. Vet. Behav. 2015, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jezierski, T.; Adamkiewicz, E.; Walczak, M.; Sobczyńska, M.; Górecka-Bruzda, A.; Ensminger, J.; Papet, E. Efficacy of drug detection by fully-trained police dogs varies by breed, training level, type of drug and search environment. Forensic. Sci. Int. 2014, 237, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zubedat, S.; Aga-Mizrachi, S.; Cymerblit-Sabba, A.; Shwartz, J.; Leon, J.F.; Rozen, S.; Varkovitzky, I.; Eshed, Y.; Grinstein, D.; Avital, A. Human–animal interface: The effects of handler’s stress on the performance of canines in an explosive detection task. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rutter, N.J.; Howell, T.J.; Stukas, A.A.; Pascoe, J.H.; Bennett, P.C. Diving in Nose First: The Influence of Unfamiliar Search Scale and Environmental Context on the Search Performance of Volunteer Conservation Detection Dog-Handler Teams. Animals 2021, 11, 1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Obama, B.B. Executive Order 13526: Classified National Security Information Memorandum. White House, Office of the Press Secretary. Available online: https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html?_ga=2.35794016.1133502615.1620783446-1620139500.1615685658 (accessed on 11 May 2021).
  40. U.S. Department of the Army. Army Regulation 530-1: Operations Security. 2014. Available online: https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r530_1.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2021).
  41. Rooney, N.J.; Bradshaw, J.W.S. Breed and sex differences in the behavioural attributes of specialist search dogs—A questionnaire survey of trainers and handlers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Musa, M.; Isha, A.S.N. Holistic view of safety culture in aircraft ground handling: Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods with data triangulation. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2021, 102019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gallivan, M.J. Value in Triangulation: A Comparison of Two Approaches for Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Inf. Syst. Qual. Res. 1997, 417–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
A Standard Scale to Measure Equine Keeper Status and the Effect of Metabolic Tendency on Gut Microbiome Structure
Previous
Changes in the Pulmonary Artery Wave Reflection in Dogs with Experimentally-Induced Acute Pulmonary Embolism and the Effect of Vasodilator
Next