Originally posted on January 26, 2018 @ 7:22 AM
Making Technicians Not Helpers
People have enrolled in the CLLR Certificate online and in face-to-face studies (https://cllr.com.au/register-to-study/) recently, many with graduate and post-graduate qualifications in Safety. Near all, without exception, are looking for the skills and knowledge that is excluded from most safety training and qualifications. Near all report that their qualification has been primarily technical with a high focus on paper-systems, regulation, legislation, process and systems. One participant recently commented about his post graduate studies and said:
‘most of the curriculum I was funnelled into, I will never use … if we need knowledge on regulation and legal requirements my organization calls a lawyer, if we need help with cardio-vascular disease or muscular-skeletal issues we call a physio, and so on. What I need is people, communication and helping skills’.
I have these kinds of conversations daily. It seems that the safety industry believes it needs to create technicians not helpers. If anything, the current state of curriculum could be described as compulsory mis-education (https://safetyrisk.net/isnt-it-time-we-reformed-the-whs-curriculum/ ).
The safetyosphere is consumed with technical jargon (https://safetyrisk.net/knowledge-and-curriculum-for-risk-and-safety-people/ ), technical iconography and semiotics (https://safetyrisk.net/the-iconography-of-safety/ ) and, technical worldview (https://safetyrisk.net/the-safety-worldview-and-the-worldview-of-safety-testing-due-diligence/ ). I don’t get it, how did an industry that wants to HELP people develop ownership in tackling risk end out looking to technicians to develop curriculum for safety people??? How has safety emerged as a technical process when in reality when you get on the job it’s a people/helping activity??? Why is it that even when it comes to psychology that safety has its primary focus on the technical paradigm of behaviourism??? Why is it that Safety understands humans as a factor within a system???
All of the courses in CLLR (https://cllr.com.au/register-to-study/cllr-prospectus/) have everything to do with risk and safety but have nothing to do with traditional safety. When you do a CLLR program you never hear the word ‘safety’ unless it is discussed as an outcome. Mostly the language is about people, helping, communications, decision making, risk and the collective unconscious as culture. You hear what people say about their studies with CLLR here: https://vimeo.com/186359451
Here is a list of some of the practical skills and knowledge gained in studying with CLLR:
Active and Reflective Listening
How Social arrangements influence decision making
How semiotics influence decision making
How space and place influence decision making
How people learn?
How to construct learning by style and type
Observation and Listening Skills
Suspending Agenda, Pitch, Frame, Prime, Anchor and mirroring skills
Constructing meaningful curriculum
Making inductions learning events
The semiosis of meaning
The social meaning of motivation
How semiotics shapes perception
Critical Thinking Skills
The meaning of power
Social politics and ethics
How to observe
How to listen and look for the collective unconscious
How to hear for semiotic influence
These are just some of the skills people come looking for when they seek to study with CLLR. All of these skills will help you really become a helper in safety.
If any of this interests you, then:
If you are not resident in Australia you can study online and register here: https://cllr.com.au/online-courses-overseas-students/
If you live in Australia: https://cllr.com.au/register-to-study/
You can sample some of the learning here: https://vimeo.com/cllr
You can sample some of the key concepts here: https://vimeo.com/humandymensions
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below