Phenomenology: A Counter to Reductionism in Safety

by Simon Renatus

Phenomenology[i] challenges the reductionist approach that dominates Safety.  In high-risk work, the focus is often on simplifying complex human and environmental interactions into neatly packaged, linear processes.  While this approach offers a clear model for management and ‘accountability,’ it fundamentally misunderstands the depth and complexity of human experience.  Understanding the tension between reductionism and phenomenology is key to transforming safety into a more responsive and human-centered practice.

Reductionism seeks to break down the complexities of the world into smaller, simplified components, assuming that these parts can explain the whole.  This approach is often supported by principles like Ockham’s razor, which prefers the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions.

If a certain range of properties can be reduced to another range of properties, the former can be explained by the latter.  (Zahavi, 2019, p. 48)

This leads to a methodological simplification that overlooks subjective experience, offering an incomplete picture of reality.  While this is effective in science and engineering—allowing for quantifiable, predictable models where outcomes can be controlled through abstract systems—it falls short when applied to human systems.  Reductionism strips away subjectivity, resulting in an incomplete representation of lived risk-reality.

Phenomenology, in contrast, argues that the lived, subjective experience of engaging with the world is irreducible.  Human decision making cannot be fully understood by breaking it down into algorithms.  Phenomenology asserts that we must understand the whole experience, as it appears to individuals in real time.  In Safety, this means recognising that workers engage with their environment dynamically, interpreting risks as they emerge, rather than blindly following static rules or pre-determined processes.

This tension between reductionism and phenomenology is clearly seen in conventional safety practices.  Reductionist tools—like risk matrices, pre-determined controls, and checklists—assume that risks can be neatly categorised, quantified, and managed.  However, these tools often fail to account for the fluid, dynamic nature of real-world risks. They present a simplified, linear model of risk management that work on paper but are disconnected from the workers’ lived experience.

On the other hand, a phenomenological approach recognises that risks are not static.  They emerge and shift as workers engage with their environment, shaped by factors that cannot always be predicted. Workers are not passive enforcers of safety systems but active participants who interpret and respond to risks in real time.  The reductionist assumption that risk can be fully managed through pre-determined models ignores this reality, leading to gaps between ‘work as imagined’ and ‘work as experienced.’

The implications of reductionism in safety are profound.  Systems that rely on simplified models often fail to adapt to the evolving nature of risk.  Workers are expected to fit into rigid frameworks that may not reflect the reality they face, leading to dissonance and disengagement.  When safety systems treat workers as objects within a model, their lived experience and expertise are undervalued.  This results in a culture where incidents are attributed to ‘human error’ rather than recognising that the system itself failed to adapt to emerging risks.

In contrast, a phenomenological approach views workers as co-creators of safety.  It recognises their experience and insight as essential to understanding and mitigating risks as they unfold.  By creating time and space for workers to share their experiences, safety systems become more adaptive and responsive, not only more effective but also more ethical, as they respect workers’ autonomy in shaping a shared risk understanding.

Conventional safety systems rely on a limited set of reductionist tools—like risk matrices, Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS), and checklists—leaving them ill-equipped to handle the complexities of risk in the real world.  Executives are drawn to these tools because they offer an over-simplified model that seems easy to manage from a distance.  However, this lack of tools reveals a deeper flaw: conventional Safety is constrained by its narrow focus, overlooking a broader range of disciplines that could enrich our understanding of risk and human behaviour.

Standing inside conventional safety, we see a limited toolbox—dominated by safety management systems of policies, procedures, risk assessments, and audits.  These reductionist tools are built around the familiar ‘plan, do, check, act’ cycle, which offers structure but oversimplifies the complexity of reality.  Looking to the horizon, however, we see an array of unexplored disciplines—phenomenology, semiotics, linguistics, critical theory—that offer deeper insight into the dynamic, lived experiences of workers.  By focusing too narrowly on rigid systems, Safety misses the opportunity to engage with the rich, human-centered perspectives these disciplines offer.

A phenomenological approach acknowledges workers as active participants, shaping safety through their real-time engagement with risk.  It transcends rigid compliance models and checklists, creating a safety system that is adaptive and responsive to real-world conditions.  This makes safety practices not only more effective but also more ethical, respecting workers’ agency and expertise.

Understanding the tension between reductionism and phenomenology is crucial to transforming Safety.  While reductionism offers a simplified view that may appeal to management, it overlooks the complexity of human experience.  Phenomenology, by contrast, respects the dynamic and emergent nature of risk, recognising workers as active participants in creating safe environments.  By moving beyond reductionist models and embracing a phenomenological approach, safety practices can become more ethical, effective, and responsive to the real conditions workers face.

Sources

Zahavi, D. (2019). Phenomenology: The basics. Routledge.

[i] Phenomenology: As one of the most influential philosophical traditions of the 20th century, phenomenology was founded by Edmund Husserl to examine how we directly experience and perceive the world.  Rather than seeking to explain why things exist, phenomenology focuses on how they appear to us, exploring the structures of consciousness and experience.  Prominent figures such as Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Emmanuel Levinas, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty expanded on Husserl’s work, furthering our understanding of reality as it’s lived, rather than as an abstract concept.