I see this often in the safety industry in three key areas: ethics, culture and linguistics.
Please note, this is not just a discussion on qualifications or research but a holistic exploration of Transdisciplinarity and its implication for how we tackle risk.
One example is how Safety discusses culture. Most of the material I read in safety about culture comes from little expertise or research experience in disciplines on culture. In any piece I read from Safety on culture, there is never any mention of religion or foundational knowing on myths, rituals, ceremony or other foundational anthropological issues. Yet, anyone with expertise in culture often starts with a study of religion and its foundational place in understanding cultures, societies and civilisations. Similarly, I am yet to see any work on culture emerging from Safety that discusses the foundational nature of semiotics. Most often Safety confuses culture for systems, behaviours or organising. No wonder we get engineers writing about safety culture that conclude by demanding that we not talk about safety culture.
Another example is ethics. It is mindboggling to see a publication like the AIHS Body of Knowledge on Ethics that makes no mention of power, personhood, zero or a host of foundational issues associated with ethics and moral philosophy. We see the same where an academic calls slogans ‘principles’, that are clearly NOT principles and don’t emerge from any articulation in ethics. We see the same from the ASSP that trots out engineers as ethicists (https://www.assp.org/docs/default-source/psj-articles/gtk_0925.pdf?sfvrsn=efe4846_0) that never confesses to its own deontological ethic (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/the-ethics-of-risk/).
It seems that expertise in safety makes on an ethicist, cultural anthropologist, theologian and linguist.
Ballantyne uses several examples in his work of epistemic trespass, demonstrating that caution and critical thinking are required when interrogating sources. He states two theses:
First, trespassing is a widespread problem that crops up especially in the practice of interdisciplinary research, as opposed to what we might call ‘single-discipline’ research. Second, reflecting on trespassing should lead us to have greater intellectual modesty, in the sense that we will have good reason to be far less confident we have the right answers to many important questions.
One of the dangers of epistemic trespass is its trajectory. For example, it is quite common in safety to see the use of religious language and concepts (eg. cardinal rules, saving lives etc) without any awareness that the discussion is religious. Similarly, it is not unusual in safety to see the abuse and ignorance of metaphor, myth, ritual and semiotics without qualification or discussion of limitations. As Ballantyne argues, this can lead to dangerous outcomes generated by so called ‘thought leaders’ and ‘gurus’ with no expertise in what they discuss. Often it is the case that assumptions are not discussed, subjectivities are not confessed and worldview is silent. Sure, it is OK to speculate (Weick) about many things in risk and safety but also declaring bias, philosophy and ethic is important so that readers are not mislead without understanding sources. What we have now is safety running about all over the place declaring slogans as principles and then madly trying to operationalise slogans without a methodology. It’s a recipe for going nowhere except making some cool dollars for a few good at marketing.
One of the skills of Historiography is the skill of deconstructing sources. When I taught History, this is where we always started indeed, I always declared my bias for Annales History as part of my lecturing etc. I do so in my books and presentations where I declare my ethic, assumptions and worldview. Similarly, when I present on religious history. There are plenty of good guides about to help in tackling History (https://archive.org/details/historiographyin0000chen; https://analepsis.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/companion-to-historiography.pdf). The important thing for Safety is to seek and question the source.
I read an article the other day in safety that used the language of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and yet, there was no admission of ethical assumptions (they were deontological) nor was there any discussion of morality. This is no different to where we see the AIHS declare a ‘code of ethics’ that affirms objectivity and impartiality. See below:
When we did our examination of the 22 most common Investigations methods on the market we discovered the same thing (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/seek-investigations-a-semiotic-method/). None declared their methodology/worldview or assumptions about the ethics of investigation, respect for persons, limitations of method, linguistic bias or moral bias. Indeed, there seems this naïve belief that if one undertakes safety (as a noble activity) it doesn’t need any justification of assumption or bias.
The same can be applied to checklists, the law and regulation. None of these are objective, neutral or impartial which is why we need to be cautious when we see Safety run about preaching ‘just culture’ with no expertise in jurisprudence, the law or Justice. Similarly, when we copy checklists we are simply adopting the undeclared methodology of the creator of that checklist. Whenever I venture close to these issues, I consult people like Greg Smith etc who actually have the expertise in the law. You don’t get this expertise from a safety qualification or safety work.
So, this leads us back to the issue of critical thinking skills (https://safetyrisk.net/critical-thinking-a-checklist-for-safety/ ) and even here, this is not taught as any part of safety curriculum indeed, compliance seems to reign supreme and Safety must not be questioned. Perhaps read Ballantyne and see what you think. And, if in doubt, stay in doubt, there is nothing wrong with such a disposition as opposed to the naïve adoption of ideas as if they are gospel.
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- Weick’s Expectations of the Unexpected - May 13, 2026
- The Non-Revolution in Safety - May 12, 2026
- Suspending Your Agenda to Begin Learning in Risk - May 11, 2026
- The De-Ethicization of the Object in Safety - May 9, 2026
- Weick’s Organising as ‘Consensually Validated Grammar’ - May 9, 2026
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below