Learning to Reject Zero
One of the fallacies that circulate in the safety-sphere is that change in thinking/cognition is learning. This often comes from Safety with no expertise in Learning and Education. Then once learning has been declared by Safety wonder why nothing changes. How fascinating all these training programs and inductions developed by safety people! No wonder learning doesn’t happen. There is nothing in any safety qualification that even attempts to understand Education or Learning. Rote training is NOT learning. Memory recollection is NOT learning.
How strange this safety industry that seeks behaviour change but doesn’t study Personhood, Education or Learning. In Teacher Education, these are the starting point.
Training, instruction and ‘telling’, the darlings of the safety industry, are not learning. Unless information/knowledge is embodied it is just cognitive data. Roy and I tackled the problem of learning in the risk industry in our book: Tackling Risk, A Field Guide to Risk and Learning (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/tackling-risk/ ). If you are interested in Education and Learning the last place to find it is by studying Engineering or Safety Science.
How fascinating this safety industry that undertakes incident investigations with no understanding of Personhood, Education and Learning.
Most educators know that ‘schooling’ and ‘instruction’ are not learning. Indeed, ‘schooling’ is often portrayed as anathema to learning and education . Unless engagement with information/knowledge is holistic, change is unlikely. How can Safety develop a sense of holistic learning unless it is prepared to tackle Transdisciplinarity and look to learning outside of its own camp?
How odd this safety industry that seeks to find out cause but has no idea about the psychology of goals and motivation.
There is nothing globally in any safety curriculum that helps in the understanding of learning or motivation. How interesting this behaviourist cult of zero that supposes it knows why people do what they do? What a strange belief that negative reinforcement, fines and audits leads to learning.
I called for reform of the WHS curriculum 5 years ago (https://safetyrisk.net/isnt-it-time-we-reformed-the-whs-curriculum/). One of the opening paragraphs stated:
‘It simply doesn’t make sense to call for safety to be done ‘differently’ or for ‘safety II’ without also calling for reform in the WHS (Work, Health and Safety) curriculum. One can despair as much as one likes about the state of Safety indeed, one can declare it ‘broken’ (http://www.shponline.co.uk/safety-is-broken-says-john-green-at-safety-differently-forum/) or bankrupt, but without reform of the WHS curriculum we will continue to train people in nonsensical myths that frame the way they approach the work of safety.’
How strange this industry that parades the ideology of zero (https://safetyrisk.net/the-spirit-of-zero/) in denial of an essential focus on Personhood and fallibility for learning. Similarly, you will find nothing on these in the safety differently movement.
Any admission of the need for learning is a denial of zero. Zero can only ever be achieved by perfect people in a perfect world. The ideology of Zero denies the reality of learning. Zero cannot dialogue, compromise or enter into dialectic essential for learning, zero is zero tolerance. If fallibility and learning are essential for an Ethic of Personhood, then zero is nonsense. You can’t believe in zero and hope to have any understanding of what learning is (https://safetyrisk.net/you-cant-believe-in-zero-and-learning-at-the-same-time/).
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Heinrich Humbug - May 18, 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