Stepping outside the comfort zone of engineering, beahviourism and positivism is essential for anyone who wants to learn in safety.
Regurgitating and recycling the same assumptions about safety, will never lead to learning in safety. Similarly, approaching risk from a methodology that prioritizes safety, can never lead to anything ‘different’. This is why the only difference in safety that is about, is a change in slogans (https://safetyrisk.net/the-seduction-of-slogans-in-safety-2/).
If one wants to learn about risk, the best way forward is with a Transdisciplinary approach to research (https://studios.placeagency.org.au/2019/04/12/transdisciplinary-research-a-collaboration-process/). Unfortunately, when safety talks about research (https://safetyrisk.net/researching-within-the-safety-echo-chamber/) it means within its own echo chamber.
Even when Safety uses the word ‘different’ there is no shift in assumptions, methodology or methods. And, there is certainly no enquiry using disciplines where things are uncomfortable and Safety has to take a ‘back seat’. The key to research in safety is sadly to maintain power and be in control at all times. The key to learning is doubt, movement and uncertainty, the enemies of safety.
This article by Beer, Hes and Hernandez-Santin provides a neat model of how to go about Transdisciplinary research. A semiotic of that model is here:
A Model for Transdisciplinarity
The model doesn’t get caught up in the territory making and direct competition of disciplines/fields (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_fields) but rather, provides a moving map of Key elements to Transdisciplinarity.
If you can imagine this model moving like a roulette wheel, then you will realise the complexity and ‘wickedity’ of embracing a Transdisciplinary view.
The best way to move to a Transdisciplinary view in safety is to stop reading and embracing traditional approaches to safety (eg. Dekker, Conklin, HOP, Hollnagel etc). When the primacy of safety is the guiding lens for understanding the world, there is no ‘safety differently’. It’s just a ‘smoke screen’ (https://safetyrisk.net/smoke-screen-safety/). Throwing slogans together is not a methodology nor method.
What we see in this model for Transdisciplinarity is the engagement of multiple factors that rarely get consideration in safety. I so wish there was an animation of this model.
Let’s just take in to consideration one factor: ‘Indigenous Perspectives’. What can an indigenous perspective offer Safety? The first thing is this. If you want to know about culture, don’t start with safety (https://safetyrisk.net/if-you-want-to-know-about-culture-dont-start-with-safety/). Safety is not life (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-is-not-your-life/). Such a view is a psychosis.
I wrote about a different perspective on risk, from an Indigenous Perspective here: https://safetyrisk.net/a-different-world-of-risk/
The Indigenous worldview is completely different to the safety worldview. If you want to know about culture, this is the place to start. Life and being for First Nations people doesn’t start with safety. It is the least of their concerns. The world of safety is such a small world. The world for First Nations peoples is a much bigger world. Their world starts with myth, ritual, meaning, religion, Dreamtime, personhood, social relationships, purpose, culture and being-in-the-world.
This is why the suggestion that Safety has the right to override culture (Hopkins), is utter nonsense (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-gives-me-the-right-to-over-ride-your-rite/ ). The foundation of such a suggestion is profoundly unethical and offensive. This arrogance stems from a worldview that assumes safety is the all-powerful centre of being.
If the things that matter to the Indigenous Perspective are not a part of your research into risk, then your world is too small.
A Transdisciplinary approach opens up to Safety a much bigger world than the narrow preoccupation with injury counting and zero. In the First Nations worldview injury is required for initiation/induction. Similarly, they have a view on suffering and harm that is not demonised as it is in the myopic world of safety. The presence of injury and harm is NOT the definition of safety.
If you are interested in learning about a positive, practical and invigorating approach to Transdisciplinarity and risk, you can see here: https://cllr.com.au/product/transdisciplinarity-and-risk-unit-elearning/ or email here: admin@spor.com.au
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- The Subjectivity of Performance in Safety - December 13, 2024
- Hey Safety, What’s Your Worldview? - December 12, 2024
- Tier One Miners, Psychosocial Risk and Zero - December 12, 2024
- More Nonsense from the EHS Insight – Zero Injury Cultures??? - December 8, 2024
- Safety is an Art - December 7, 2024
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below