The STEM vs STEAM debate has been about for a long time. I remember back in the 1970s as a teacher in the South Australian school system, a similar debate about allocated times to subjects in schools. Back then, the idea of alternatives to mainstream education were popular and, in those cases, (as we did in Galilee School), the children were able to choose their own curriculum (eg. Summerhill).
The same weighting of subjects still abounds in schools today. For those unfamiliar with these acronyms:
- STEM: Science, Engineering, Technology, Mathematics.
- STEAM: Science, Engineering, Technology, Arts, Mathematics.
In the 1980s, I remember watching subjects like Geography and History getting subsumed into amalgams called SOSE (Studies of Society and the Environment) and then observing time allocations and ‘options out’. Yet, as a double History major, I saw the unique ways of thinking critically in History erode across the Education sector. At the same time there was also significant confusion about what History was and, the discipline paid the price in the end for not teaching itself well.
This also coincided with more and more subjects and issues being jammed into an already overloaded curriculum.
Now, as my grandkids attend school and with a teacher in the family, it’s is clear not much has changed. The curriculum has always been a political football. It is no different in safety.
Just have a look at the safety curriculum and see what dominates. Just see how much is weighted to a singular worldview and discipline.
Does adding the Arts in STEAM do much? Afterall, in sense of proportion it’s still a ratio of 1:4.
This is not the case in the safety curriculum or Body of Knowledge where STEM dominates in proportion of 85-95% of focus. This is why I called for reform of the safety curriculum many years ago: https://safetyrisk.net/isnt-it-time-we-reformed-the-whs-curriculum/
When I first came into safety it was a shock to see all that this discipline was and still is silent on (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-culture-silences/). There is so much in the Arts and Humanities that would benefit this sector if it could only engage with what it doesn’t know. The imbalance towards STEM disciplines is indeed one of its greatest weaknesses. The industry remains consumed with: policing, measurement, systems, performance and metrics.
When we talk about the SPoR curriculum we simply offer some disciplines that might help safety move towards a balance. For example, even the use of language across all STEM disciplines requires the use of linguistics to communicate yet, in such disciplines there is little understanding of how linguistics works or how messaging can work against what is intended to communicate. This is why there is a huge issue in safety in messaging and often why Safety speaks nonsense to the industry (https://safetyrisk.net/more-nonsense-from-the-ehs-insight-zero-injury-cultures/). Communicating with meaning is essential for making sense of risk.
Some of the disciplines that are the glue to effective communication in risk, such as Linguistics Mythology, Belief and Learning, receive little focus in OHS. This is why a Transdisciplinary focus is important.
If you are interested in Transdisciplinarity, then we can offer a curriculum to help (https://safetyrisk.net/spor-curriculum/).
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- Poetics and Risk Workshop, From Language to Doing - December 12, 2025
- Divergent Thinking About Risk - December 7, 2025
- Stop the Train I Want to Get Off - December 7, 2025
- Safety Leadership - December 7, 2025
- Espoused Theory and Theory-in-Use in Safety - December 7, 2025
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below