I have explained in many places the nature of my worldview (philosophy) and it is not the philosophy/ethic of Safety. I write from this worldview. One doesn’t have to agree with this worldview and certainly safety doesn’t but if one wants to understand it, a question of inquiry would be needed. Not a loaded question or binary question of self-affirmation but the kind of question one asks when understanding and learning is desired.
As Wilson (2008) stated wisely: ‘research is all about unanswered questions, but it also reveals our unquestioned answers’.
One such example was sent to me today through a third party (as if most often the case) a comment, ‘why does Rob endorse the “fake science” of myers-briggs in the book ‘risk makes sense?’
Of course, the statement/question is inaccurate. I do NOT endorse Myers-Briggs in the book. (I often find that people rarely read articles, blogs or books but rather read their assumptions into them). Do I find Jungian typology helpful, yes. And, there is a reason for it, if you want to understand why, ask.
Do I find linear thinking helpful for risk and safety? No. If you want to know why, ask. I don’t just criticise those like Heinrich, Reason or Dekker for entertainment. There are deeply held reasons why linear thinking doesn’t work in understanding causation. There are reasons why injury ratios are unhelpful. There are semiotic reasons why many safety myths are harmful. There are reasons why the brutalism of zero is harmful. If you want to understand why, ask.
I have been working for many years on the philosophy that undergirds the Social Psychology of Risk. It is not some kind of accidental thing worked out on the back of a postage stamp. This view is evident in all that I write and in what is deconstructed there is always a positive alternative that offers a reconstruction in something more positive and humanising that what Safety offers.
I don’t criticise the Safety view of ethics for fun but rather offer an ethic that humanises persons in a better method of tackling risk. This is not just some theoretic thing but is highly practical and is being practiced all over the globe by people and organisations who want a better method for tackling risk.
There is no point in advocating some performance-centric view of safety that privileges outcomes over process. If one doesn’t consider the process as well as the outcome, then harming others becomes easy to do in the name of ‘good’.
What is more, so much of what is on offer is free. This also resonates with the ethic of SPoR that has its primary focus on improving safety.
If you want to understand this view, just ask.
______________________
Wilson, S., (2008). Research is Ceremony, Indigenous Research Methods. Fernwood Publishing. Halifax and Winnipeg.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- The First Rule of the Titan, Don’t Talk About Safety Culture - June 15, 2025
- You Spell the Devil L-T-I and God P-P-E - June 15, 2025
- Meaningless Non-Vision in Safety - June 15, 2025
- Propositions to Not Live By - June 15, 2025
- 51 Stories in Culture, To Live and To Be – Free Download - June 14, 2025
Sherralynne Smith says
Apologies for my appalling spelling in the original post. I agree with your comments Rob, having had the opportunity to listen and learn from you, Nippin, Craig, Greg, Matt, Pedro, Rachel and many others in recent years, I’m astonished when I hear comments from other Safety and Risk people rubbishing new ideas without having taken the time to explore different ideas/perspectives. SPoR and iCue has opened my eyes and ears. While I may not say much in iCue sessions and SPoR workshops, there has never been a time that I haven’t learned something from a participant. I was invited to attend an interview a few weeks ago. I wasn’t offered the position because I hadn’t focused on my technical reporting skills, which I discovered the interviewers were keen to learn more about. The preferred applicant had explained in great detail what he wanted to do in the reporting area, which impressed the panel. A few days ago, the position was readvertised which surprised me. I have no intention of reapplying because the employer expectations are focused on the technical skills and very little on the people interactions with a view to build those critical relationships. Exploring alternatives is vital, along with an open mind.
Rob Long says
The rubbishing of what someone doesn’t know says much more about them than it does about what the challenge is. Once someone is indoctrinated in a mindset it is very hard to shift it. Once someone has been cultivated in the myths of safety, endorsed by semiotics, the myth is very hard to shift. It is very similar to the challenge of religious conversion. This is why the safety curriculum is critical if anything is going to change in safety. and, everytime there is a review its always engineers and regulators who do it. Hence no change.
Once indoctrinated into the safety industry and given power, it is very hard to shift the culture that says ‘you are the expert, you know everything’. Questioning and critical questioning are completely absent from the safety curriculum. Then when an outsider with expertise in linguistics, semiotics or ethics challenges safety myths rather than listen, Safety must demonise the challenge as non-compliant.
This is how Safety ensures that nothing changes.
Sherralynne Smith says
Thanks for your informative and interesting blog Rob. I questioned a LinkedIn user a short time ago, after he responded to Matt. The user wrote quite a long post espousing his reasons why it was a good practice to count injuries, no matter how minor. I asked the user if he had explored SPoR. Furthering my humble enquiry I recommended that he do a Google search on you and take the opportunity to download your free books, adding in that there were over 1 million downloads, which I said was imp7 and dud he agree with me. I also mentioned that thousands of Safety and Risk people from around the globe had attended your workshops. Waiting for a response from him, which I’ll share in here if he responds.
Rob Long says
Hi Sherralynne, I often find it bizarre that so much is there of quality in risk and safety for free and people don’t even look at it. or, with no expertise in linguistics, ethics, semiotics etc. want to tell me I’m wrong, rather than ask a question of enquiry. What a strange industry that creates such a culture that builds a fortress of anti-learning. So comfortable in the indoctrination of safety ideology, complain so loud about what is wrong but don’t seek an alternative that works.