All language is interpreted according to a multitude of factors: culture, context, intent, grammar and orientation. This is why one can look up a word in a dictionary and it can have many meanings. For example, just look up the meaning of the word ‘frame’ (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/frame) and you will see the many ways it can be used in discourse. This is why in SPoR, we study Linguistics (https://safetyrisk.net/learning-the-basics-of-influencing-thorough-studying-linguistics/) as a foundation for understanding risk.
The idea that language is neutral and objective is nonsense.
Howard Gardner published his wonderful book Frames of Mind in 2011 (https://www.academia.edu/36707975/Frames_of_mind_the_theory_of_multiple_inteligences) and challenged the education and learning world with his ideas on Multiple Intelligences.
What Gardner proposes is that we have various ‘frames’ with which we interpret perception and that this ‘frame’ is a disposition toward the world. This is not dissimilar to the idea of ‘type’ put forward by Jung (https://jungiancenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vol-6-psychological-types.pdf) except the context and focus by Gardner is education and learning.
What Gardner suggest is that as learners we have a bias to certain ‘frames’ of learning, that he called ‘learning intelligences’. For example, I have never been good at Mathematics and don’t understand it and so, was able in my schooling to drop that subject in Year 9 High School. I was lucky at the time that I was able to find a school in Adelaide that enabled this in 1969.
On the other hand, I married a person who is super intelligent about everything in the biological world, I have no sense about plants etc. Gardner would say that she had very strong Nature Intelligence.
We study this and much more in our SPoR module on Learning (https://cllr.com.au/product/learning-community-and-the-social-psychology-of-risk-unit-7/ ). I have attached the model we use to understand learning Intelligences here:
What this means is that we all learn in a different way and are motivated to learn in different ways than others. These are our ‘frames of mind’.
This means we can be in the same induction group or training program in safety as others and not comprehend what has been presented. This also means that there are people in our work groups that have very little intelligence about Interpersonal or Intrapersonal matters. Sometimes we even say people are ‘gifted’ in one area or another. Gardner calls these ‘intelligences’ or ‘frames of mind’.
The idea that teaching or ‘learning teams’ is some kind of neutral and objective process is nonsense.
A frame of Mind is a worldview, an orientation, disposition and ontology (theory of being) towards the world. We use the word ‘Mind’ in upper case to denote that this is NOT brain but rather means ‘whole person’. Education and learning is NOT about getting data into heads but rather about the growth and maturity of the whole person.
This is what we call ‘embodied learning’. Unless learning is embodied and involves movement, it’s not learning. The input of data into a computer and recall is NOT learning.
We learn this is any study of Philosophy/Methodology (yet another discipline Safety doesn’t do), so that knowing worldviews can better enable ‘framing’.
So, before we can talk about ‘frames’ in language that is, the container the message has been formed in, we need to understand that a person’s worldview, as their ‘frame of Mind’, shapes the way they interpret the world and all that is communicated to them.
The same applies with the understanding of symbols. All symbols are interpreted through the culture within which they are situated. Symbols are not neutral or objective.
I really enjoyed the video released yesterday by Dr Nippin Anand who tackles the complexity of this issue of framing in his discussion about ‘Why People Don’t Speak Up’. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ5E95nuR9E
What Nippin demonstrates is the some of the complexities of framing and the simplistic and naïve approach of risk and safety to framing, psychological safety and ‘speaking up’.
In the safety world, the idea that people don’t ‘speak up’ has been framed as a moral problem. That is, because not speaking up often results in harm. Unfortunately, in the simplistic and binary safety world, the behaviourist response is all about inputs and outputs rather than the many complexities associated with this issue.
It’s so easy in the ignorance of the Safety world to build a moral case of righteousness about ‘speaking up’ with no study in Ethics. Indeed, it is amazing how this industry that loves to speak the word ‘professional’, has no study of Ethics in its formation, training and development of qualification. Even when it puts forward an amateurish chapter on ethics in the AIHS Body of Knowledge, it is a micky mouse’ deontological load of goop that simply enables the bullying of people. Amazing in this publication that there is no discussion on the nature of power or care!
In the simplistic world of safety what is then pushed is that people don’t speak up because of psychological safety. Ah, wonderful, now Safety has a new training program to ‘fix’ people. This further enables Safety’s binary view to the world to thrive in ‘telling’ that psychological safety will fix the problem of not ‘speaking up’. It won’t. Changing the dynamics of power on its own in a group, doesn’t enable ‘speaking up’. Indeed, I can feel psychologically safe with my family and because of that safety I don’t speak up.
Ah, but in the world of safety righteousness, all the fixes are laid out simply. Don’t you know we’re safety professionals.
The reasons why people do and do not speak to each other about many things is not simple indeed, it’s a wicked problem. Even a brief study of Linguistics, Ethics, Personhood, e-Motion, Perception, Socialitie and Methodology will show that psychological safety on its own is not panacea for the concern of Safety to ‘speak up’.
One thing we do know, all the silly campaigns by the regulator (https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/advice-and-resources/speak-up-app) to ‘speak up’ don’t work! The last place one should go to learn anything about; communication, care, Linguistics or Ethics, is the regulator. Indeed, all such campaigns do is the opposite.
So, we see, safety once again brings it’s binary behaviourist worldview to an issue and toxifies it. We also see the same in all that is currently being undertaken in ‘psychosocial hazards’ (https://safetyrisk.net/what-is-psychosocial-safety/). The rule is pretty clear. If you want to wreck something and make it worse, just leave it up to Safety.
The only way to really tackle any ‘wicked problem’ is with a Transdisciplinary approach (https://safetyrisk.net/transdisciplinarity-and-worldviews-in-risk/ ), NOT the mono-disciplinarity (behaviourism) of Safety.
If you are interested in learning more about the complexities of communications and Linguistics you can email Dr Rob Long (robertlong2@mac.com). The next module starts on 3 September.
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
Nippin says
Such a wonderful piece. I find the gap between speaking up and a lack of psychological safety just like between the rainstick and rain. But of course the latter is not masked in science. Thank you Rob.
Rob Long says
Thanks Nippin. It is unfortunate that Safety desires the simplistic and binary. From this base whatever it touches it toxifies with incompetence. Without a transdisciplinary approach it will continue to make things like psychological safety a panacea for ignorance.