Over the past 20 years I have tried to follow as many court cases and coronial enquires as I can that involve decisions about safety. Interestingly, over those 20 years I have never read one outcome that is positive about Safety. Indeed, all outcomes of proceedings have been profoundly negative. So often, the Regulator comes in for a hiding or an organisation that clearly had little clue what safety is about. But if you only want to learn from the positive, don’t read or study any of this stuff.
The same applies for blame. Every court report or legal outcome of these cases has apportioned blame and sought either compensation of change to safety. Most of the time, it is clear that blame in the court system seeks to fix things. These findings of coronial enquiries, though negative, compel change and improvement in safety. But if you only want to learn from the positive, don’t read or study any of this stuff.
It’s great to see that Greg Smith is now delivering courses in ‘safety literacy’. Well overdue. If you can get a chance to participate in a workshop with Greg, take it (https://events.humanitix.com/greg-smith-safety-literacy-brisbane-tour-2026/tickets). But if you only want to learn from the positive, don’t go. If you have any anxiety about blame, don’t go. However, if you attend any workshop with Greg you will learn so much, but it all challenges the myth and ‘illusions’ of Safety.
There is no moral or ethical problem with either being negative or positive although, change rarely comes from blind affirmation or internal back-slapping. Change comes from critique, critical analysis and care-fronting the unethical and immoral. This is why The Ethics of Risk (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/the-ethics-of-risk/) should be a foundation for Safety.
When people are demonised by Safety, the negative needs to be spoken. When persons are dehumanised by Safety, the negative needs to be spoken. When persons are brutalised by Zero or BBS, in the name of safety, the negative needs to be spoken. If you are not up for Risky Conversations in the negative (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/risky-conversations-audio-book/; https://www.humandymensions.com/product/risky-conversations/) then stick to the myths of Seligman.
One of the early skills one learns in Historiography is the skill in deconstruction and reconstruction, the tearing down and building up. This happens in all inquiry into unethical and immoral conduct, a recent example is the Robodebt Royal Commission (https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/). Here we had a scheme over 10 years of intentional and illegal Government sanctioned victimisation of the vulnerable with, thousands of suicides, only brought to light by the tenacious critique by the negative. And even now after many years, still little sight for justice for many (https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-series/the-people-vs-robodebt).
One of the early skills one learns in Social Psychology is the skills of critique in Critical and Cultural Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_theory). As Wikipedia rightly states:
‘Culture theory is the branch of comparative anthropology and semiotics that seeks to define the heuristic concept of culture in operational and/or scientific terms.’
Indeed, when one enters the Higher Education sector one is expected to develop such skills in all endeavour. The skills of deconstruction and reconstruction are foundational to all forms of higher learning.
The very idea of ‘critical thinking’ involves the necessity to be ‘critical’. The same exists in Journalism, Politics, Anthropology, Religious Studies and Sociology etc. But, if you only want to learn from the positive, don’t read or study any of this stuff. The myth of learning from ‘normal work’ is little more than Safety speak for fear of blame. If learning is the goal, then the fear of blame is an impediment to learning.
In SPoR, we have shown in many places the origins of the discipline.
And we have also been strong advocates for Transdisciplinarity and the proposal of positive alternatives (https://safetyrisk.net/transdisciplinarity-a-source-for-learning-in-safety-a-video/ ). There is no publication in SPoR that doesn’t conclude in an alternative positive reconstruction of what is possible.
In the Education sector, from which I originally come, it is accepted that heavy criticism of the schooling and education system is necessary. Indeed, the negative of critique is invited as a necessity for learning and improvement. One of the best critiques of the education system came from Sir Ken Robinson (https://youtu.be/iG9CE55wbtY?si=76vzya-J7cyPubEy) All professions accept this. Just not Safety.
But if you only want to learn from the positive, don’t listen or watch Ken Robinson (the most watched TED talk of all time).
In SPoR, we always focus on the archetype of Safety (capital S) not individuals and this personification is accepted widely in safety. It’s just when SPoR personifies Safety it is unacceptable. Yet when Safety calls for a ‘Just Culture’ in all its negativity, that is acceptable. When the courts call for reform in Safety, that is acceptable. How interesting.
All those who engage with SPoR will speak of how transformative and positive it is. They will often speak about the dissonance they first encountered with this new worldview in risk and then later speak of how they wish they had engaged with it years ago. Often, the fear of the negative and anxiety about critique kept them away from learning. It was safer not to enquire or ask a question. It was safer to stay safe. It’s always safer to remain anchored to what you know: systems, factors, performance and tradition.
If you are ready for a move to something different you could start with the SEEK Program (https://safetyrisk.net/seek-investigations-workshop-online/).
The SEEK Program is about SPoR Methodology and methods of investigation. Yes, we do critique current investigations methods on the market and the many many gaps in such methods. This is demonstrated visually by the SEEK donut.
After we explore all that is missing in the typical investigation method (eg. ICAM) (deconstruction) we demonstrate a positive an alternative method (iCue) that fills in the gaps. What happens most often is that people learn the positives of iCue and use it to complement traditional investigation methods so they can close the gap.
The outcome is positive, constructive and practical. But if you only want to learn from the positive, don’t register.
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- You Don’t Do AI, AI Does You! Where Next for Safety? - November 14, 2025
- The Myths of Safety Investigations and the Taste of Sausages - November 11, 2025
- Where is Your Energy Focused in Safety? - November 10, 2025
- AI Looks Back, as Does Safety so, Where Will Innovation Come From? - November 9, 2025
- An Introduction to Semiotics and Risk - November 9, 2025
Matt Thorne says
It is quite ironic when LinkedIn denizens accuse Rob of negativity, when these very people are not aware of what they present as their ontology.
I have heard often in these pages people who say “I am Safety” ‘Safety is central to everything I do” “Safety saves lives”.
If you personify Safety, then feel disturbed when Safety is criticised, therein lies the problem. The criticism is of Safety, not of you.
Happy to discuss this further.
Rob Long says
Safety is excellent at selective negativity. There’s negativity that suits the safety agenda and negativity that is not liked. This will ensure that Safety never reads Foucault, Derrida, Kierkegaard, Deleuze, Lacan, Guattari or any of the post-structuralists or semioticians that, through negative critique have advanced our thinking across many fields through their wonderful work.