Injury Rates, what do they mean for Boards and Risk and Safety Practitioners
Today’s drop with Matt Thorne from RiskDiversity, Dave Whitefield from Semiosphere and Andrew Thornhillfrom Clarity Enabled, all of us in 3 Small Chat Rooms.
“Injury Rates, what do they mean for Boards and Risk and Safety Practitioners?”
If you have a topic you would liked discussed, please mention in comments and we can cover it in the weeks ahead.
Chat Rooms Week 3 Injury Rates.mp4 from Matthew Thorne on Vimeo.
Matt Thorne
Executive Director at Risk Diversity
Risk Diversity coaches and mentors Companies and People to understand Leadership, Culture and Risk, helping them to humanise and harmonise their systems.
Latest posts by Matt Thorne (see all)
- Social Resilience - September 17, 2021
- RU Ok – A Conversation About Helping - September 10, 2021
- Injury Rates, what do they mean for Boards and Risk and Safety Practitioners - September 3, 2021
- Life Saving Rules - August 28, 2021
- Why are people not reporting incidents? - August 20, 2021
Colin Felmingham says
Have really liked your short episodes but really got the feeling you were all rushing to the point that diction was sacrificed. Take a breath guys and we can take it up to 10 minutes without stressing. Some of us do have attention spans that can go the distance.
I am looking forward to future episodes and maybe a Part 2 on re-defining injury recording such as Class 1, 2 and 3 where we can start to see the personal impact on the ones that get injured and where efforts can be concentrated.
riskcurious says
Just an observation, for a blog that espouses diversity of views and thinking there appears to be a very high representation of white, middle aged males. Any clues as to why this may be? (Perhaps just a reflection of the base rate of males working in safety but can’t help to think that something else might be going on).
Admin says
Huh? We would be so grateful for contributions from those who identify with other than what you have observed. Some of our most popular articles were contributed by Gabby Carlton, Drewie and SJ – I hope they will contribute again in the future!. There is certainly no editing, intentional barriers or selection criteria applied. The only comments deleted are those that are abusive or spam. If you know of people from diverse backgrounds or groups please encourage them to contribute some relevant content, they are more than welcome. If you think that this blog is in any way intimidating, sexist, racist or exclusive then please try to articulate that with real examples along with some suggestions on how we might improve. How about contributing some content yourself – or would that just confirm your observations?
riskcurious says
Thanks, Rob. It was actual just an observation and open question. This should not automatically mean that I have some issue with the content, I was just particularly curious for the reasons you yourself mention. The blog is intended to provide an alternative view more sensitive to fields such as sociology/humanities which tend to have a higher rate of female participation than maths/science (not because of any inherent different capability of course but likely as a result of social forces) so it might be expected that females in safety seeking a blog etc might be drawn to this one. But in terms of contributors including commenters this doesn’t seem to be the case (on face value only, I have not done an in-depth analysis). I would have to guess that it really is just due to the base rate of males vs females being so much higher in the safety profession and particularly in higher level management roles (who are going to be the ones more likely to have the confidence, time and space to contribute) but I was actually just interested to see if others thought there might be something else going on.
Rob Long says
There are many females in risk and safety who study with me privately but don’t wish to write or be identified, despite much encouragement. There is this feeling that if a female writes about safety they will be attacked. I think this feeling shapes the way the Women in Safety movement conforms to masculinst models of safety. This group are seen as no threat to the status quo of conformist/brutalism. Interestingly, no women in safety have produced anything on ‘care ethics’ or feminist discourse for example. It is a huge problem met with by the safety industry and the so called ‘safety differently’ orthodoxy with tokenism.
I don’t think the industry even has the framework or background in Critical Theory to even understand how the hegemony works. Yes, I think there is a lot going on but the industry has no capability with which to se it.
Apart from this blog, there is no other voice that articulates the problem.
Rob Long says
Of course your observation of white middle class males in safety is often true, except I’m not middle aged myself so don’t fit the stereo type.
My observation is that women are not attracted to the ideology of zero and its defining outcome of brutalism. Similarly, women who are attracted to safety are often squeezed into a conformist, compliance-centered and masculinist worldview because that’s what the industry is founded on. The Women in Safety group and things like Mum’s for Safety from Lend Lease endorse this worldview. The industry in general accepts astounding levels of sexism eg. hazardman.
Similarly, the safety industry is a political and ethical vacuum, so no surprises there. eg. nothing in the AIHS BoK on any of this stuff. This blog site stands in stark contrast to an industry that is mono-disciplinary and mis-educative.
Of course feminism and post-structuralist politics are not necessarily limited by gender and I have written on this before. https://safetyrisk.net/can-there-be-a-feminist-safety/
I did a video a few years ago where I facilitated a conversation with 5 women in safety which is quite a contrast to the dominant discourse of the industry.
So, there is the industry that is and the industry that we would like to see/envision, less dehumanising, less brutal and more positive and upbuilding. The AIHS BoK on Ethics is a masculinist deontological ethic that endorses masculinist power.
This blog site on the other hands certainly contributes to all the underlying values common in a feminist worldview, just not presented by a female. But a female presenting a masculinist ethic is simply a masculinist ethic presented by a female. It would be nice to have a balance in gendered representation but not likely in this industry the way it has evolved.
Both my daughters are in real professions where the opposite is the case, with male representation at under 10% but the argument is not about gender or representation by sex but rather about philosophy and its outcomes for an ethic of serving, helping and care.
These videos by these 3 blokes contribute some valuable critique to the dominant mono-disciplinary masculinist discourse of the industry and for that it is valuable, helpful and educative.