Challenging conventional wisdom: lifeguarding relies more on collective observations than research, and that puts patrons, staff and facilities at risk.(lifeguarding guidelines)(Editorial)

History is littered with examples of people mistaking collective wisdom for scientific fact. Probably the most notorious is the flat-earth theory. It took science and research to disprove that notion and show that, in fact, our world is quite the opposite of flat.

In many ways, lifeguarding is in a similar position. Though there are plenty of manuals, scanning techniques, guidelines and advice, precious few are based on any actual science--or studies involving lifeguards in real-world situations. Instead, they rely on collective wisdom, on-the-job observations and basic logic.

The result is a handful of agencies with sometimes-conflicting guidelines and practices that confuse operators and leave facilities more vulnerable to liability. As one high-level lifeguard official put it, today's lifeguarding agencies rely more on marketing than science.

Meanwhile, basic questions plague lifeguards and their managers: How long should guards be on duty before they get a break? Which scanning technique is really most reliable? Is it more important for guards to be strong swimmers, or to demonstrate the ability to pull someone from the water?

All of these questions are crucial to lifesaving. But none of them yet have solid answers based on research or science. The closest we can come is science based on similar skills and demands required of lifeguards.

In this issue, we ...