Social Psychology of Risk

Safety Methods Emerge From Methodology

ByProf. Robert Long

We have just started our Philosophy and Risk workshops and it’s good to have many who want to learn about how philosophy drives method, in relation to risk.

We started our workshop with an overview of the language, discourse and Discourse of philosophy and so we asked all in the group to come up with one word they thought of when they think of philosophy. The outcome of that exercise is below.

Whenever we do a Language Audit in SPoR we are always testing what is available (availability bias) to those who participate. What language is available to anyone is determined by: use, repetition, experience, knowledge, research, studies, History and expertise. If you are highly experienced in something you language and vocabulary is usually broad, if you are inexperienced in something, you language and discourse is usually narrow.

When we use language as a diagnostic tool we also see what is said but also can tell a great deal from what is NOT said. This is also helpful and tells the facilitator what is not ‘front of Mind’. BTW, when we think of the word Mind we do NOT mean brain. The whole person thinks, not just the brain. Our whole-body thinks, moves and gives meaning to life and being. Indeed, most of what we do intuitively is unconscious and based in muscle and embodied memory.

As part of our introduction we also did a considerable amount of mapping. Concept mapping is a huge part of study in SPoR because the best way to visualise relationships between things is through mapping. This is why one of our founding methods is iCue.

One of the maps we looked tells us about various schools of philosophy and their relationship to each other. This is both historical and educative because it also maps what you don’t know. In the face of such a map, one should exercise great humility when it comes to declaring a worldview.

Indeed, when it comes to the philosophies that dominate safety (positivism, behaviourism, pragmatism, rationalism, deontology – https://safetyrisk.net/the-safety-world-view-and-the-worldview-of-safety/ ) it would be wise to look underneath the so called ‘methods’ used, to examine and deconstruct the philosophy that drives such a method.

For example, what philosophy drives the idea that right and wrong are absolute and knowable? What philosophy drives the popular safety idea of linearity in swiss-cheese? Do you realise that all Eastern philosophies contradict this linear philosophy? What philosophy sits underneath the idea of a hierarchy of control? What theory of power and personhood dominates such a theory? What is the ethic/ethos of Heinrich etc? These, and many more questions are worth asking, rather than naively adopting methods without question.

Do you realise that even the checklists and methods you use in safety hide a philosophy? Do you realise that when you enact a checklist, you are enacting a methodology/philosophy designed by someone else? Do you understand that popular slogans like ‘safety is a choice you make’ (determinist) and ‘blame fixes nothing’ (positivism) are all loaded with a philosophy? Do you understand that the slogans and ideas of HOP have a philosophy that drives its popularity? And why is safety so comfortable with HOP? Do you realise that the philosophy behind HOP is just the same as espoused in traditional safety? The values, virtues, vices and beliefs in HOP are exactly the same, disguised by spin and HOP propaganda. But there is no new method.

The real test of any idea and belief being circulated about safety is ‘by what method’?

When all the entertainment and stories are finished and the conference ends, what do you go back to? What is the ‘new’ method? Why is it that no methodology or ethic is declared in this so called ‘new view’? No wonder Hollnagel declares that S2 and Resilience Engineering is RIP (https://safetyrisk.net/values-attitudes-and-beliefs-in-risk-chase-the-money/ )? The reason why these fads fizzle is because there is no new philosophy. It’s the same old philosophy dressed up as new, but the emperor has no clothes.

In order to perceive what is the philosophy underneath something, one has to be practiced in: philosophy, ethics, moral philosophy, deconstruction and Critical Discourse Analysis. These are not studies encouraged in safety. Indeed, what one learns through religious studies is that safety preaches the same religion throughout these fads we see fall into the safety market: ‘safety saves’, ‘believe the impossible’, ‘all accidents are preventable’, ’blame fixes nothing’ and human error avoidance, are all founded on the religious denial of fallibility (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-philosophy-as-a-reality-distortion-field/).

To err is human (https://safetyrisk.net/to-err-is-human-to-forgive-divine/) to forgive divine! In other words, understand how to be human (https://safetyrisk.net/to-err-is-human-you-better-believe-it/) and stop trying to be divine.

So, as we continue to ask Socratic questions of safety in our studies (https://safetyrisk.net/critical-thinking-and-questioning-in-safety/ ), what is the purpose? Perhaps to be a little wiser about what we adopt and practice without critical thinking. Perhaps to be more perceptive about the trade-offs and by-products of safety fads. Perhaps to be less naïve and conned by spin doctors and marketing gurus selling nothing new. Perhaps to better develop a more humanising method in tackling risk.

For those in the study group in the philosophy of risk we will not find many answers to the age-old paradoxes and ambiguities of fallibility and risk. We won’t find any great new certainties about some miracle pathway to zero harm. However, we know that in engaging in this journey in philosophy we might become a little wiser about how to tackle risk and less naïve about claims to perfection and promises of certainty where there is none.

 

Prof. Robert Long

Prof. Robert Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions
Prof. Robert Long
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.

Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below