Methodology (Philosophy) Drives Your Safety Method

Many use the word ‘methodology’ and the word ‘method’ interchangeably but this just creates confusion.

Your methodology is your philosophy (your reason for being and knowing) and this drives your method (what you do).

Many people in safety adopt methods eg. checklisting, investigation methods, risk assessments, forms and systems designs, not realising the philosophy that undergirds them. Then when things don’t work, they tinker with the method rather than question the underlying methodology.

So, in all the discourse in safety one reads about keeping things simple and practical, there is a fundamental problem with a fear of engaging with Philosophy. Indeed, we often see Safety shun any idea of complex thinking or dismissing anything with three syllables as ‘academic’.

When we understand foundations in methodology, we begin to see why some things don’t work and why people become dehumanised in some safety practices. If your method doesn’t consider personhood, power, ethics or subjectivity at its foundation, then these don’t go away. What we do in systems and system design will always affect people.

The key elements of any methodology (values, ethics, beliefs, persons, power, moral meaning etc) can be ignored but there is no such thing as a neutral or objective methodology. For example, a Behaviourist methodology that drives a Behaviourist method views persons as cogs in machine like process (https://safetyrisk.net/its-all-in-the-cogs-for-safety/ ). The focus on inputs and outputs leads to a dehumanising ethic which is why Behaviour Based Safety (BBS) doesn’t work.

Similarly, if your primary discourse is on ‘performance’ the underlying methodology in Behaviourism is hidden. However, such discourse always drives judgement and blame, despite the fact that groups like HOP project slogans of no blame. If your language is fixed to ‘performance’ then the resulting judgement of ‘poor performance’ and a fixation with measurement follows. So, forget the marketing of ‘differently’ and ‘innovation’. If the fundamental image is about cogs, then that tells you what such a view thinks of humans and, it has nothing to do with innovation.

Whenever you hear language about ‘wasting time’ or see a focus on injury rates as evidence, you are witnessing the outcome of Behaviourist philosophy. This is why so much of the semiotics of safety loves cogs, brains-as-computers, dominoes and mechanistic metaphors to explain method.

I wrote recently on the inefficiencies of being person-centric in method (https://safetyrisk.net/celebrating-the-joy-of-inefficiencies-in-safety/). This is because in SPoR, we don’t share much in common with the accepted methodologies of safety (Behaviourism and Deontology). In SPoR, we have little interest in performance, measurement or judging human outputs, unless they are anchored to a clearly articulated ethic (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/the-ethics-of-risk/).

In SPoR, we have no interest in a duty to safety, we rather hold a duty to persons. This is a huge difference. If your method (and methodology) dehumanises persons, SPoR has absolutely no interest in it. How remarkable that most of the methods of investigations on the market DON”T articulate their methodology (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/seek-investigations-a-semiotic-method/).

Don’t be conned by the slogans, slick marketing and reframing, if there is no transparent declaration of a methodology, you are probably being fed a con. Start by chasing where the money and power is, it won’t take long to find what is motivating the con (https://safetyrisk.net/the-pcbu-the-law-blame-reality-and-the-con/).

If you decide to move towards SPoR methodology and methods, you must unlearn and jettison the methodologies of Behaviourism and Deontology. In SPoR, we have no interest in the myths of Scientism or treating humans as factors in a system.

If you want to dig a bit deeper than most and learn a bit about philosophy, you can sign up for our free workshops (https://safetyrisk.net/philosophy-for-risk-and-safety-free-workshops/) starting in May.

• Bio
• Latest Posts
• More about Rob

Prof. Robert Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions

Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)

• Weick’s Expectations of the Unexpected - May 13, 2026
• The Non-Revolution in Safety - May 12, 2026
• Suspending Your Agenda to Begin Learning in Risk - May 11, 2026
• The De-Ethicization of the Object in Safety - May 9, 2026
• Weick’s Organising as ‘Consensually Validated Grammar’ - May 9, 2026

PhD., MEd., MOH., BEd., BTh., Dip T., Dip Min., Cert IV TAA, MRMIA Rob is the founder of Human Dymensions and has extensive experience, qualifications and expertise across a range of sectors including government, education, corporate, industry and community sectors over 30 years. Rob has worked at all levels of the education and training sector including serving on various post graduate executive, post graduate supervision, post graduate course design and implementation programs.