Framing and Priming Investigations, The Manawanui Tragedy

The sinking of the HMNZS Manawanui demonstrates how traditional safety ‘frames’ and ‘primes’ investigations.

Here we have reported by the Chief of Navy for New Zealand stating:

‘Chief of Navy Rear Admiral Garin Golding said it was “too early to speculate” whether mechanical failure or human error were to blame’

This is how traditional safety works. He could have simplify said ‘it’s too early to speculate’ full stop, but he didn’t. He went on to frame the situation as, a binary choice: ‘mechanical failure or human error’. This is typical of binary traditional safety that has little idea of the ‘wicked’ nature of risk, culture, methodology and ethics.

Once the framing and priming is set in such a binary way, whatever follows will conform to it.

All investigations are subjective, regardless of method. Unfortunately, no investigation methods on the safety market ever declare their ethic or philosophy. This is what Safety does best, keeps within its own echo chamber (https://safetyrisk.net/researching-within-the-safety-echo-chamber/) remaining positive that there’s no alternative to engineering, behaviourism and slogans.

Indeed, apart from a few slogans, Safety continues to show no interest in how methodology creates method. This is why the slogans of HOP are so attractive (https://safetyrisk.net/defining-safety-by-the-absence-of-accidents-injury-and-harm/) and then calling these ‘philosophy’ (https://safetyrisk.net/hop-is-traditional-safety/) demonstrates just how bankrupt Safety is when it comes to critical thinking.

But when you have slogans to sell, why need an ethic or philosophy?

No doubt the Head of Navy is already being lobbied to empty the New Zealand Defence bank account on global experts in slogans to come and respond to this tragedy. No doubt, ICAM is already hot on the track to sell a product that doesn’t work to the Navy (https://safetyrisk.net/deconstructing-icam-useful-or-useless/).

When there’s a product to sell and an bucket full of dollars you’ll find snake oil sales (https://safetyrisk.net/risk-psychometrics-spin-and-snake-oil/) hard on the heels of a cash flow, complete with war stories, slogans and slick marketing.

No doubt the Engineers are already lining up like they did for the Dreamworld disaster (https://safetyrisk.net/an-engineering-dreamworld/) so that a mechanical meaning can be found. No doubt engineering bias (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-disconnect-and-the-dreamworld-tragedy/) is not being questioned. Just like the Brady investigation into Queensland Mining Industry (https://safetyrisk.net/brady-review-nothing-new-no-way-forward-2023/) a sure way to ensure that everything stays the same and traditional safety stays in place. We can see how the Brady Report made such a difference to mining in QLD (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-19/history-of-safety-in-queensland-mining-industry/101990482; https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/09/09/fren-s09.html).

Isn’t it amazing, that when traditional safety gets involved, out come the slogans and engineers, all packaged in rhetoric of ‘differently’, as if there is no other choice.

This is how framing and priming work. This is testimony to an industry and safety curriculum with no imagination, creativity or innovation. This is the industry that loves to use this kind of language but continues to do more of the same, hoping something will improve.

In the case of HMNZS Manawanui we know that a Court of Inquiry has been set up, no doubt with a great deal of interest in Risk Conversations (https://vimeo.com/showcase/3938199). Probably not, as it’s pretty clear that Safety rarely wants to learn from accidents (https://safetyrisk.net/are-we-learning-from-accidents-book-review/).

At the foundations of all safety investigations methods on the market we have a fundamental philosophical problem, with an industry that has little interest in philosophy. Yes, the methods have a method but a methodology if rarely declared. Why articulate a philosophy when 5 slogans will do?

If you are interested in an ethic of risk, you can study here: https://cllr.com.au/product/an-ethic-of-risk-workshop-unit-17-elearning/

If you want to understand what a philosophy is, you can study here: https://cllr.com.au/product/philosophy-and-spor-module-23/

If you want to understand a different methodology and method from traditional safety then you can connect here: admin@spor.com.au

• If you want to get some practical, positive and effective methods for tackling risk that are actually different and work, you can read here: https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/
• https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/

There is an alternative to the binary framing and priming or traditional safety, and it can be learned by simply asking a question. However, it seems that is too much to ask from this poorly mis-educated industry that thinks its worldview cannot be questioned.

• Bio
• Latest Posts
• More about Rob

Dr Rob Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions

Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)

• My Target Goal is Zero Death - November 14, 2024
• Safety is NOT Your Life - November 14, 2024
• Embodiment and Risk – Online Workshops – February 2025 - November 12, 2024
• Ethics and the Foundation for Being Professional - November 11, 2024
• Cautions in eLearning Safety - November 11, 2024

PhD., MEd., MOH., BEd., BTh., Dip T., Dip Min., Cert IV TAA, MRMIA Rob is the founder of Human Dymensions and has extensive experience, qualifications and expertise across a range of sectors including government, education, corporate, industry and community sectors over 30 years. Rob has worked at all levels of the education and training sector including serving on various post graduate executive, post graduate supervision, post graduate course design and implementation programs.