Phenomenology: The Lifeworld and the Illusion of Objectivity in Safety

by Simon Renatus

Phenomenology[i] introduces the concept of the Lifeworld, emphasising that all experiences—scientific, engineering or otherwise—are rooted in the subjective, pre-theoretical world we live in.  While Safety claims to offer objective, detached assessments of risk, this notion of pure objectivity is false.  Safety practices are embedded within the Lifeworld, shaped by subjective experiences and interpretations.  Recognising this tension is crucial to transforming Safety from a rigid, reductionist model to one that respects the richness and complexity of the human experience.

The Lifeworld (Lebenswelt), a concept introduced by Edmund Husserl, refers to the pre-scientific world we take for granted in daily life.  It is the foundational layer of experience from which all knowledge, including science and engineering, arises.  In phenomenology, the Lifeworld is understood as subjective and intersubjective, meaning that it includes both individual experiences and shared cultural understandings.  Objectivity, then, is not separate from the Lifeworld but nested within it, emerging from subjective experiences and individual perspectives that actively create meaning.

The search for objectivity is, of course, laudable, but we shouldn’t forget that any objectivity, any explanation, understanding, and theoretical modelling, presupposes the first-person perspective as its precondition.

(Zahavi, 2019, p. 53)

Safety practices that claim to be objective are, in reality, rooted in the Lifeworld, as the subjective experience of the Lifeworld is the departure point for any deeper investigation or understanding.  Before any ‘objective’ risk assessment can be made, someone must first perceive the risk, interpret it, and act upon it.  This means that the basis of all objectivity starts with subjectivity.  Science and engineering can create models that attempt to quantify risk, but these models are limited by the subjective experiences of the people who design and apply them.

The tension between phenomenology and the pursuit of objectivity is clearly illustrated in incident investigation methodologies such as ICAM (Incident Cause Analysis Method).  ICAM aims to provide an objective analysis of incidents, breaking down events into discrete components to identify ‘root causes.’  It follows a rigid structure that assumes incidents can be neatly categorised and a definitive ‘truth’ uncovered.

The use of the word ‘method’ is telling.  Borrowing language from science and engineering, Safety uses terms like method (and methodology) to convey objectivity and rigor, suggesting that incident investigations are as predictable and controllable as laboratory experiments.  However, safety incidents do not conform to such linear models.  They are shaped by a web of interrelated factors—human decision making, interactions with the environment, and social/organisational influences—that resist reduction to isolated categories.

By adopting language from science and engineering, Safety implicitly asserts that it can achieve objectivity.  Yet, this pursuit overlooks a critical point: all objectivity is rooted in subjectivity. Before any so-called objective analysis can occur, an individual must first perceive and interpret the event.  This initial, subjective encounter forms the basis of any further analysis.  Safety’s reliance on methodologies risks stripping away the subjective nuances of human experience, focusing instead on decontextualised fragments.

Phenomenology would argue that incidents cannot be fully understood by isolating causes from their lived context. The term ‘methodology’ in Safety reflects a blind spot—what we might call a scotoma—where subjective experiences are ignored.  By emphasising structured methodologies over lived experiences, safety systems risk seeing only part of the picture, missing the underlying complexity that phenomenology seeks to capture.

The implications of relying on methodologies like ICAM are profound. By claiming to offer objective insights, such systems risk alienating workers who are treated as data within a model. These investigations often miss the nuanced, contextual elements that contribute to incidents, instead attributing causation to abstract ‘root causes’ or ‘human error’ without understanding the real-world complexities workers face.  This cultivates a mindset that focuses narrowly on isolated factors, missing the broader context and failing to attend to risk as it emerged.

A phenomenological approach, in contrast, would view incidents within the full context of the Lifeworld [Footnote].  It would consider the subjective, lived experiences of workers as essential to understanding the root causes of incidents. Rather than striving for a false sense of objectivity, this approach would accept that incidents are part of a dynamic and emergent process, shaped by the constantly shifting interactions between workers and their environment. By embracing this approach, Safety can move beyond rigid, reductionist models and create systems that are more responsive to real world complexities.

Safety’s obsession with objectivity reflects a blind spot—a scotoma—where it fails to recognise its own limits. Risk assessments and investigation methods like ICAM claim to deliver objective insights, yet they ignore the fundamental truth that all observations begin in the Lifeworld. ICAM’s focus on checklists, categories, and root causes might give executives the impression of certainty, but it misses the fluidity and complexity of actual work environments. By treating workers as passive participants in the system, Safety loses sight of their lived experiences and the contextual nuances that are essential for understanding risk.

Safety has a very limited set of tools, all of which are built around objectivity and reductionism.  But looking beyond, we find disciplines like phenomenology that expose Safety’s blind spots, reminding us that true understanding begins not in abstract models but in the lived experiences of workers on the ground.  By recognising the Lifeworld as foundational, Safety can begin to move beyond reductionist methods and embrace a more holistic, human-centred approach.

Embracing phenomenology’s concept of the Lifeworld exposes the limitations of Safety’s pursuit of objectivity. By recognising that objectivity is always nested within subjectivity, Safety can move beyond rigid frameworks and create systems that are adaptive, responsive, and respectful of workers’ experiences.  In doing so, it can shift from a narrow focus on objectivity to a more meaningful engagement with the realities of the human world, ensuring that safety practices are not only more effective but also more ethical.

Sources

Moran, D. (2012). Husserl’s Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.

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.