I find it fascinating that Safety thinks that criticism of safety is being anti-safety. In real professions, criticism is normal and understood as necessary for the improvement of the profession. In real professions diversity of worldviews are welcomed and improvement is understood as part of maturity and growth. I have worked in six distinctly different professions and know this to be the case.
In safety, where everything is sacred (https://safetyrisk.net/the-sacred-and-profane-rituals-and-semiotics-a-lesson-for-safety/ ), one must not be critical because this is anti-safety.
Yet, how fascinating that people are happy to be critical of criticism in contradiction of the very point they make. Ah, I get it, criticism is only good if it comes from Safety directed at anti-safety. I get it, one-way safety is the best way to learn. This then is usually followed by projections of ignorance such as: ‘I don’t know anything about SPoR but I know you are wrong’. Splendid stuff. Didn’t you know, head-in-the-sand safety is the best way to learn (https://safetyrisk.net/consciously-safe-unconsciously-unsafe-or-head-in-the-sand-safety/).
At the heart of SPoR is a different worldview/philosophy and a very different method. It is a practical positive methodology with constructive alternatives to the common paradigm of dehumanising persons. For every book or blog published by SPoR there are always positive alternatives offered to improve safety that work (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/ ). There can be no improvement or learning without criticism.
The first step in learning is unlearning much of the indoctrination feed by Safety that is neither real, true or works.
What is odd in the reverse criticism of SPoR is that no-one writes back, seeks questions of clarification or discussion. They just want to have a winge but have no alternative. In 20 years of helping organisations across the globe improve safety I have only had three direct enquiries from the safety industry to find out what SPoR does.
SPoR has a very clearly articulated methodology that is positive, constructive and practical but few want to know about it (https://safetyrisk.net/engaging-learning-in-spor/ ). They would much rather keep to the delights of zero and its unethical outcomes. They would rather understand critical thinking as negativity and not see what alternatives are on offer. I guess this is why Safety doesn’t study ethics, it makes criticism so simple.
We are currently running an international workshop on Linguistics and Risk (https://cllr.com.au/product/linguistics-flyer-unit-21/) with people from all over the world (Romania, Canada, USA, Austria, NZ and Australia) and this week we are looking at Critical Discourse Analysis.
You would think Safety would want to know about its messaging and want to do it well, apparently not.
There is no study of Critical Discourse Analysis in safety anywhere across the globe. No wonder most safety messaging is just the same old tired stuff: controls, PPE, controls, systems, controls, performance, controls, injury rates, controls, metrics, policing and oh yes, controls (https://safetyrisk.net/striking-a-balance-between-negative-and-positive-messaging-in-safety/).
This week in the Linguistics program we used several of the SPoR DA tools to help people understand what was in and under safety messaging. We looked at a promotional flyer from a safety company about fatality management using the SPoR DA worksheet tool that has 21 key criteria for analysis. Looking at just the first criteria, we discovered this in the document:
The complete worksheet looks like this:
You can see quite easily from just the analysis of words what this document focused on. How strange that in a document on Fatality Risk Management there is no language on care, helping, listening, learning, empathy, wisdom and relationships. Oh yes, but don’t criticise safety, we know that fatality risk management is about ‘controls’ and ‘work’ etc.
This is the culture of safety and the messaging doesn’t work. But I know, let’s just keep doing the same thing and hope everything improves! Don’t criticise Safety.
Critical Discourse Analysis is just one of many skills Safety doesn’t know how to do, it would much rather message using: pickles, pyramids, blobs and meerkats (https://safetyrisk.net/meerkat-safety-can-it-get-more-dumb/). When you don’t know how to message in safety apparently engineering knows best.
It takes quite some time to learn how to do Critical Discourse Analysis even using this worksheet. However, the first step in learning requires a willingness to criticise Safety so that safety can improve. The second step is not being afraid to step outside of engineering and behaviourism to Transdisciplinary methods that reveal what’s really going on in the messaging of Safety (https://safetyrisk.net/dumb-ways-to-discourse-a-failed-approach-in-safety/).
If you want to know the positive benefits for safety in Critical Discourse Analysis perhaps start here: https://safetyrisk.net/discourse-analysis-safety-alerts-and-safety-boards/
SPoR always offers better alternatives for those who want to learn.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- More Nonsense from the EHS Insight – Zero Injury Cultures??? - December 8, 2024
- Safety is an Art - December 7, 2024
- When Risk Doesn’t Make Sense - December 7, 2024
- How to Enable Unethical Practice in Safety - December 7, 2024
- Mapping an Ethic of Risk - December 6, 2024
Rob Long says
Ricardo, please show me anywhere on the globe where safety includes Critical Discourse Analysis? I would suggest you read the links at the end of the blog.
RICARDO MONTERO says
Dear Rob, in our Safety and Health Master Degree, we include linguistic lessons regarding safety, it is not a complete module, but we do. Just now, I am teaching a course for clients of a safety assurance company (150 online students) on Soft skills for influencing safety conversations, where there are linguistic matters, including CDA. We are discussing this specific matter with colleagues in Colombia and Brasil around the topic of crucial conversations and the context surrounding them. I dont have doubts that you teach it better than us, but I hope you be some happy!!!. You could, perhaps, take into account that, any professional can study and improving their education on safety management and all the multiple disciplinary visions on it, including engineers. I hope you have many engineer students and I hope they do not read your blogs….Sorry for your feelings, but engineers and physicians have been the professions that more have helping to workers in regards of safety in real life of them, in the last 100 years, not psychologists, sociologists or anthropologists, of course you are more than welcome. In the academic´s field, in the ideas field the situation can be other, but at the end, in the floor, there is not to much influence, yet.
Rob Long says
Interesting you call people skills ‘soft skills’ demonstrating that you know so little about linguistics. ‘Hard’ skills and ‘soft’ skills are linguistic nonsense. If you knew anything of CDA or linguistics you wouldn’t even entertain such language and demonstrate clearly what you don’t know.
Perhaps if you want to learn something you might ask a question or do some study/reading rather than parade what you don’t know in such an open forum.
RICARDO MONTERO says
Dear Rob,
I agree in general and I will add:
1. Engineering has been the more important discipline for reducing accidents along the history, today it is yet the more effective one. In order of it, Engineering has been the more effective way for helping and caring workers.
2. Engineering is not a discipline for using in safety management in order of motivating and inspiring people. I agree that engineering methods and insufficient and in many cases using it alone for safety management is a mistake.
3. Behavioural and Constructisvism method for safety management have been very well methods for improving safety management and safety performance, you can write what you want of course, but it do not change the plenty evidence in many organizations. Not recognised the positive effects of previous works and only highlight the many insufficients is noy critical analysis, it is commercial marketing.
4. Behavioural and Constructisvism method for safety management are not enought and new methods are welcome, SPoR methods among them, I am fascinating with them for the moment. I really would like usual validation studies of SPoRs methods made for specialists with not interest conflicts. I can also understand that you say “I invented this, if you like well, if you do not like, well”
5. Some absolute affirmations like “There is no study of Critical Discourse Analysis in safety anywhere across the globe.” only express dessinformation at least, but I agree that there are few.
Any gift (SPoR) must take into account how it is packaged. Acceptance of the gift also has to do with this.