Behind every method is a methodology, a philosophy that drives the method. One of the grand delusions of Safety is that methods are neutral and objective, they are not.
Any template you download or use, hides a methodology. In safety this is usually a philosophy of Behaviourism or Positivism.
When you use any template downloaded or copied, these may give some kind of comfort that something is being done but, the design of that template hides its methodology/philosophy.
There is no such thing as a neutral or objective design. Most of the time whatever methods you use, even in S2, HOP and SD, the methodology is the same. For example, any method that explores ‘performance’ hides a methodology of assessment/analysis. No method of assessment or analysis is neutral or objective, it’s just that in safety, philosophy is never declared.
In this way, the philosophies of Positivism and Behaviourism show up in filling out forms and providing data to fill boxes, checklists and spreadsheets, that feed the design of the form.
In SPoR, we declare our philosophy openly and transparently and acknowledge our bias. In SPoR, we also declare that philosophy is foundational to method. Unfortunately, philosophy is devalued in traditional safety indeed, its discipline is promoted as of no value.
In SPoR, iCue is one of the foundational methods for tackling risk. iCue is a practical, visual and verbal method for tackling risk. I did a short video here https://vimeo.com/1081398967 to help articulate the philosophy behind the method. The philosophy of iCue is also declared in many of the free books offered by SPoR: https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/
We are currently doing the free masterclass in iCue (https://safetyrisk.net/spor-coaching-and-free-module-on-the-icue-engagement-method/) and started with discussion on philosophy, as should any workshop in safety. It is simply unethical to promote some approach to safety and not be open and transparent about the methodology that underpins what is being promoted.
As part of this first session in the workshop, I mapped the critical ideas that underpin the iCue method, you can see these mapped at Figure 1. iCue Methodology You will instantly notice, that all of the language mapped on the board is absent in any discussion of safety about risk. All of the foundational ideas in SPoR are found nowhere in any safety curriculum, including in S2. Indeed, S2 is driven by a mechanistic Positivist philosophy typically symbolised by FRAM. The language of Functional Resonance and its Discourse similarly, the idea of Resilience Engineering, is just typical traditional safety.
Look at any of the semiotics for FRAM (https://functionalresonance.com/) and you will see a focus on systems (not persons), the mechanics of work (not human decision making) and an emphasis on ‘function’ (not ecological relationship).
Figure 1. iCue Methodology
Of course, in FRAM there is no declaration of methodology indeed, FRAM is described as a ‘methodology’ that hides its underlying philosophy. FRAM is a method not a methodology as is declared in its introductory video. If you have a look at any of the semiotics of FRAM (https://functionalresonance.com/how-to-use-the-metadata-facility-in-fram/) you will see that it is preoccupied with data just like traditional safety. When FRAM presents a ‘new perspective’ on safety (https://youtu.be/3ejf6vyDjcE?si=0TSMLv6PVxf5j0Lk ), there is no new perspective. The contradictions are significant. The video explains FRAM as a method and the website descries FRAM as a methodology. Look at the video and its focus is a systems understanding of work. That is, the focus is exactly the same as traditional safety, on systems of work. The focus is mechanistic and it doesn’t even explain the method or methodology. Indeed, the silly slogan of ‘work as imaged and work as done’ also explains nothing. In S2 and FRAM there is no discussion on the nature of imagination nor a host of critical elements in understanding persons or the way they organise.
Read anything by Hollnagel and its just traditional safety, ‘cognitive systems engineering’ (https://www.erikhollnagel.com/A_tale_of_two_safeties.pdf). There are no ‘two safeties’. Just more spin and discourse for traditional safety (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285396555_Erik_Hollnagel_Safety-I_and_Safety-II_the_past_and_future_of_safety_management). Indeed, by manufacturing a supposed ‘difference in language the real underlying philosophy is hidden but it’s the same. It’s not a new understanding of safety but the same engineering approach proposing more systems, more mechanistic process and more data.
And after all of the spin of S2 and FRAM what results? More traditional safety, no change to methods or the methodology that creates those methods. Just more Positivism and focus on data. This is the attraction of S2, its appears if there has been a change, but it’s the same philosophy. It appears that there is a different discourse, but it’s the same Discourse.
In iCue, the philosophy is completely different. There is no focus on data rather the focus is on: the subjectivity and phenomenon of persons, bias, judgement, decision making and relationships are foundational. The method is open, circular, social, relational and based on visual/verbal mapping that empowers a semiotic understanding of being. SPoR and iCue have no interest in data or performance nor, engineering or functionalism. iCue is not focused on systems but rather Socialitie, culture and the way fallible humans live.
If you want to know more about iCue or want coaching in iCue, you can write here: admin@spor.com.au
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Third Group Commences the Graduate Program in The Psychology of Risk - May 10, 2025
- When Semiotics Show Your Real Agenda in Safety - May 10, 2025
- Heinrich Was Wrong, A NZ Case Study - May 7, 2025
- iCue Methodology – A Video - May 6, 2025
- The Delusions of DMAIC Investigation Method - May 5, 2025
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below