• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

SafetyRisk.net

Humanising Safety and Embracing Real Risk

  • Home
    • About
      • Privacy Policy
      • Contact
  • FREE
    • Slogans
      • Researchers Reveal the Top 10 Most Effective Safety Slogans Of All Time
      • When Slogans Don’t Work
      • CLASSIC, FAMOUS and INFAMOUS SAFETY QUOTES
      • 500 OF THE BEST AND WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
      • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
      • COVID-19 (Coronavirus, Omicron) Health and Safety Slogans and Quotes for the Workplace
      • Safety Acronyms
      • You know Where You Can Stick Your Safety Slogans
      • Sayings, Slogans, Aphorisms and the Discourse of Simple
      • Spanish Safety Slogans – Consignas de seguridad
      • Safety Slogans List
      • Road Safety Slogans 2023
      • How to write your own safety slogans
      • Why Are Safety Slogans Important
      • Safety Slogans Don’t Save Lives
      • 40 Free Safety Slogans For the Workplace
      • Safety Slogans for Work
    • FREE SAFETY eBOOKS
    • Free Hotel and Resort Risk Management Checklist
    • FREE DOWNLOADS
    • TOP 50
    • FREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS
    • Find a Safety Consultant
    • Free Safety Program Documents
    • Psychology Of Safety
    • Safety Ideas That Work
    • HEALTH and SAFETY MANUALS
    • FREE SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENT RESOURCES
    • Whats New In Safety
    • FUN SAFETY STUFF
    • Health and Safety Training
    • SAFETY COURSES
    • Safety Training Needs Analysis and Matrix
    • Top 20 Safety Books
    • This Toaster Is Hot
    • Free Covid-19 Toolbox Talks
    • Download Page – Please Be Patient With Larger Files…….
    • SAFETY IMAGES, Photos, Unsafe Pictures and Funny Fails
    • How to Calculate TRIFR, LTIFR and Other Health and Safety Indicators
    • Download Safety Moments from Human Resources Secretariat
  • Social Psychology Of Risk
    • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
    • Safety Psychology Terminology
    • Some Basics on Social Psychology & Risk
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk – Prof Karl E. Weick
    • The Psychology of Leadership in Risk
    • Conducting a Psychology and Culture Safety Walk
    • The Psychology of Conversion – 20 Tips to get Started
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk And Safety
    • Psychology and safety
    • The Psychology of Safety
    • Hot Toaster
    • TALKING RISK VIDEOS
    • WHAT IS SAFETY
    • THE HOT TOASTER
    • THE ZERO HARM DEBATE
    • SEMIOTICS
    • LEADERSHIP
  • Dr Long Posts
    • ALL POSTS
    • Learning Styles Matter
    • There is no Hierarchy of Controls
    • Scaffolding, Readiness and ZPD in Learning
    • What Can Safety Learn From Playschool?
    • Presentation Tips for Safety People
    • Dialogue Do’s and Don’ts
    • It’s Only a Symbol
    • Ten Cautions About Safety Checklists
    • Zero is Unethical
    • First Report on Zero Survey
    • There is No Objectivity, Deal With it!
  • THEMES
    • Psychosocial Safety
    • Resiliencing
    • Risk Myths
    • Safety Myths
    • Safety Culture Silences
    • Safety Culture
    • Psychological Health and Safety
    • Zero Harm
    • Due Diligence
  • Free Learning
    • Introduction to SPoR – Free
    • FREE RISK and SAFETY EBOOKS
    • FREE ebook – Guidance for the beginning OHS professional
    • Free EBook – Effective Safety Management Systems
    • Free EBook – Lessons I Have Learnt
  • Psychosocial Safety
    • What is Psychosocial Safety
    • Psychological Safety
      • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
      • Managing psychosocial hazards at work
      • Psychological Safety – has it become the next Maslow’s hammer?
      • What is Psychosocial Safety
      • Psychological Safety Slogans and Quotes
      • What is Psychological Safety?
      • Understanding Psychological Terminology
      • Psycho-Social and Socio-Psychological, What’s the Difference?
      • Build a Psychologically Safe Workplace by Taking Risks and Analysing Failures
      • It’s not weird – it’s a psychological safety initiative!
You are here: Home / Robert Long / The Quantitative and Qualitative Divide in Safety

The Quantitative and Qualitative Divide in Safety

January 11, 2021 by Dr Rob Long 2 Comments

The Quantitative and Qualitative Divide in Safety

imageRisk and safety by their evolution through Engineering and Science have now become disciplines of quantity. Unfortunately, critical human skills like: communications, listening, dialogue, understanding persons, social psychology, community, ethics, critical thinking and semiotic/poetic thinking are completely missing from the risk and safety disciplines. There is very little human considered in the Risk and Safety Bodies of Knowledge (BoK) or related curriculum as well as in Safety 2 discourse.

The focus of the curriculum, BoK and S2 in risk and safety remains focused on objects not subjects. Introducing people to the Social Psychology of Risk is not about the elimination of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) but rather a balancing of Technique with all those things that are qualitative, that cannot be measured. These non-measureables are called Poetics. What SPoR seeks to do is draw the safety industry back into some sense of balance between qualitative and quantitative methodologies (https://safetyrisk.net/balance-in-risk-and-safety/). At the moment we see in the curriculum, S2 and BoK an 90% focus on objects, metrics, systems, hazards and numerics.

The best way to bring risk and safety back to balance is through a Transdsciplinary approach. I find the following quote by Belenky et.al. helpful:

‘We do not think of the ordinary person as preoccupied with such difficult and profound questions as: ‘What is truth?’, ‘What is authority?’, ‘To whom do I listen?’, ‘What counts for me as evidence?’, ‘How do I know what I know?’, ‘Why do the good suffer?’, How does any of this make sense?’… Yet to ask ourselves these questions and to reflect on our answers is more than an intellectual exercise, for our basic assumptions about the nature of truth and reality and the origins of knowledge shape the way we see the world and ourselves as participants in it. They affect our definitions of ourselves, the way we interact with others, our public and private personae, our sense of control over life events, our views of teaching and learning, and our perceptions of morality.’ (Belenky, et. al., 1997 Women’s Ways of Knowing)

The questions above are all commonly asked at any funeral, in times of suffering or when someone is harmed. I remember so many times being called to console, help and support people in times of loss and these were the questions that were asked. Most questions of why regarding fallibility involve answers that are qualitative and mysterious without answer. There is no binary answer to suffering and harm.

All humans try to make sense of things in life that are ambiguous, mysterious and paradoxical, looking for answers to fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/ ) as if an answer exists. It is often in times of such dissonance that people make huge leaps of faith to forms of faith that hold no stronger evidence than what was believed previously, even faith in Scientism. Many moments of conversion in faith don’t have anything to do with religion (further see The Oxford Handbook on Religious Conversion, 2014).

I often see extraordinary faith, trust and belief in risk and safety management systems when there is absolutely no evidence that such systems ‘work’! Much is attributed to systems when these are not actually used on site for decision making (https://vimeo.com/471823469 ). Then when things fall over and faith is exposed as faith out comes all the blaming and finger pointing.

How Workers Make Decisions? from CLLR on Vimeo.

Every time there is a fatality the industry doesn’t question the assumptions of the system, they always look for solutions to problems within the faith-in-the-system worldview. The basis of STEM-only-faith is unquestioned, hence management systems grow exponentially because solutions couldn’t possibly lie outside of the STEM-only worldview, that would give validity to other worldviews and other disciplines that cannot be measured. The ideology of quantative measurement rules the risk and safety world whether it be in s1 or S2, the worldview remains the same.

It seems strange that in a world that is so Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous and Diverse (VUCAD) that the discipline of STEM (embodied in Positivism) is the only trusted source of knowledge in risk and safety, even though STEM-only offers no knowledge or method for the questions asked by Belenky.

This is not to say that the STEM-only worldview is invalid but rather to say that there are other valid worldviews that could offer the risk and safety industry profound insight into tackling risk that have never been considered. The current Bodies of Knowledge in risk and safety are testimony to this.

Whenever I critique STEM it is never to its exclusion but rather I always use the language of ‘STEM-only’. It is only those from binary mono-disciplinary worldviews that cannot see, hear or read such a distinction. When one’s worldview is framed against one’s opposite in binary thinking then zero makes sense.

It is a shock to people when they first realize that knowledge is not ‘received’ but rather ‘constructed’. This is why there is such a diversity of disciplines, each representing a differing view of the world. The realization that knowledge is constructed according to a worldview changes the whole way one understands truth and learning. It is confronting when one realizes that various disciplines compete in dialectic for truth and that no one worldview (including my own) holds all the answers to the questions stated above.

This is why Transdisciplinarity offers risk and safety hope beyond the STEM-only ideology. I pointed out the possibility of Transdisciplinary when I mapped the various ‘schools of thought’ in risk and safety (https://safetyrisk.net/a-great-comparison-of-risk-and-safety-schools-of-thought/ ).

Any activity that demands human trust involves some element of faith. Faith enacts trust in what humans don’t know, in the absence of evidence. So when systems fail that one has trusted, then one experiences a failure in faith not a failure of the system (see further Sydow, How can systems trust systems? Pp. 377 – In Handbook of Trust Research, 2006).

Most of the risk and safety world that runs around madly hoping for the infallibility of systems (eg. Holnagel’s Resilience Engineering) never consider matters of trust and faith in their own assumptions about systems.

All suspension of uncertainty, involves the enactment of faith and trust. Humans must live life ‘as-if’ they know an outcome, when they don’t. But without the suspension of uncertainty, one couldn’t get out of bed in the morning and live life fallibly. Humans can endeavour to predict all they like, but there is no such thing as forward knowing in this world, unless one enters into the discourse on prophecy.

This is the nature of risk. Every intuitive decision, every action on tacit knowing displays an element of faith and trust. Giddens (Modernity and Self Identity 1991, p.19) states that trust: ‘presumes a leap of commitment, a quality of ‘faith’ which is irreducible’. It is astounding how much trust and confidence is placed in systems in the risk and safety industry as if systems are an infallible answer to fallibility.

The trouble is when a different worldview proposes a theory of knowledge that criticises compliance and oppositionalism then any questioning or debate will be perceived as anti-STEM. Unfortunately, one can’t embrace another worldview or qualitative worldview unless one ‘entertains doubt’ in one’s own discipline and considers what one might not know in another discipline.

This is where conversation, semiotics, poetics and metaphor serve as the starting point for learning. Unfortunately for the risk and safety industry there is a huge impediment to conversation about dissent. There can be no conversation or Transdisciplinarity in the absolute of zero. Conversation comes when one can entertain doubt and zero discourages any doubt just as compliance cannot question its own assumptions. Risk and safety by embracing zero-as-absolute has locked itself into one worldview framed in the mantra of stasis, everything only comes from one direction and when it gets there, it cannot move.

One way to break the deadlock of zero is to drop its ideological hold and move away from it. Such movement opens up opportunities of learning-risk in a new direction, of seeing risk in a new way and enacting a new vision. This is what happens when one seeks a balance to the STEM-only worldview and the seduction of measurement and begin to ask questions that don’t have measurable answers. This is the nature of the divide between quantitative and qualitative knowing.

  • Bio
  • Latest Posts
  • More about Rob
Dr Rob Long

Dr Rob Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions
Dr Rob Long

Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)

  • What’s Your Agenda in Safety? - May 26, 2023
  • When Safety Delights in ‘I Told You So’! - May 24, 2023
  • Beware the Cult of Denial - May 23, 2023
  • Understanding Safety as a Cultural Reproductive Process - May 23, 2023
  • Thinking Outside the Safety Bubble - May 21, 2023
Dr Rob 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.

Please share our posts

  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Related

Filed Under: Robert Long, Social Psychology of Risk, Zero Harm Tagged With: fallibility, positivism, safety 2, safety moments, STEM

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Rob Long says

    January 18, 2021 at 9:51 AM

    Technology is one thing and ‘Technique’ quite another. Ellul forecast the ideology of Safety 50 years ago in ‘The Technological System’ and the resultant religious ideology that emerges from the zero cult.

    Reply
  2. Bernard Corden says

    January 17, 2021 at 6:29 PM

    The rapid expansion of technology with an exponential increase in artificial intelligence implies the human brain is merely a computer on top of your body.

    This is exacerbated by the mechanistic black box psychology of Watson and Skinner’s behaviourism, which emerged in the 1920s in an otiose attempt to square the circle and turn our 3.14159 recurring subjective minds into one objective brain via operant conditioning. If we continue on this trajectory, why can’t we teach pigeons to play table tennis?

    “Computers have calculated pi to the trillions of digits. But pi isn’t really solved and remains insolvable rendering it a fantastic philosophical tool and a reminder to both the mathematically and mystically inclined of all that cannot be fully understood despite great effort” – Ephrat Livni

    Reply

Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below Cancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Search and Discover More on this Site

Never miss a post - Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,523 other subscribers

Recent Comments

  • Rob Long on It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe
  • Chris. on It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe
  • Pierre Joubert on Zero Doesn’t Work, Road Fatalities Increase
  • James on We are all equal
  • Rob Long on We are all equal
  • James Parkinson on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on What Does Safety Achieve?
  • Admin on We are all equal
  • James Parkinson on We are all equal
  • Rob Long on What Does Safety Achieve?
  • Brent Charlton on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on We are all equal
  • Brent Charlton on What Does Safety Achieve?
  • Simon Cassin on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Simon Cassin on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • Rob Long on You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time

RECOMMENDED READING

viral post – iso 45003 and what it cannot do

Introduction to SPOR – FREE!!

Psychosocial Safety and Mental Health Series

It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe

The KISS of Death in Safety

Is Your Safety World Too Small?

You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time

When Safety (Zero) is Abusive

Hands Up the Best Safety Fraud!

Communicating Professionally in Risk

How NOT to be Professional in Safety

How NOT to do Anything About Culture in Building and Construction

Celebrating 60 Years of Lifeline

More Posts from this Category

NEW! Free Download

Please take our 2 minute zero survey

FREE eBOOK DOWNLOADS

Footer

VIRAL POST – The Risk Matrix Myth

Top Posts & Pages. Sad that most are so dumb but this is what safety luves

  • Free Safety Moments and Toolbox Talk Examples, Tips and Resources
  • 500 OF THE BEST AND WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
  • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
  • Ratio Delusions and Heinrich’s Hoax
  • Road Safety Slogans 2023
  • How to Calculate TRIFR, LTIFR and Other Health and Safety Indicators
  • FREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS, CHECKISTS, REGISTERS, TEMPLATES and APPS
  • Safety Acronyms
  • 15 Safety Precautions When Working With Electricity
  • What Is Safety?

Recent Posts

  • What’s Your Agenda in Safety?
  • When Safety Delights in ‘I Told You So’!
  • Beware the Cult of Denial
  • My Story is Better than Yours
  • Understanding Safety as a Cultural Reproductive Process
  • The Unconscious and the Soap Dispenser
  • Thinking Outside the Safety Bubble
  • Understanding Language Influencing, A Video
  • Safetie
  • You are NOT the Sum of Safety
  • Update on SPoR in India, Brazil and Europe
  • It is NOT My Responsibility to Keep You Safe
  • Safety at the Margins
  • Research Basics for Safety
  • We Need Communities and They Need Us
  • Researching Within The Safety Echo Chamber
  • Confirmation Bias, Risk and Being Offensive
  • Lemmings for Lemmings in Leadership and Risk
  • Expertise by Regurgitation and Re-Badging
  • Zero Doesn’t Work, Road Fatalities Increase
  • Can There Be Other Valid Worldviews Than Safety?
  • Evaluating Value by the Value of What You Don’t Know
  • Reality vs Theory, The Binary Divide
  • No Paradigm Shift with BBS
  • The KISS of Death in Safety
  • Is Your Safety World Too Small?
  • What Does Safety Achieve?
  • In Praise of Balance in Risk and the Threat of Extremism
  • We are all equal
  • You Can Fool Someone Some of the Time but, You Can Fool Safety All of the Time
  • What in the (Risk & Safety) World is Imagination?
  • iCue Engagement Process
  • SPoR, Metanoia and a Podcast on Change with Nippin Anand
  • For the Monarchists of Safety
  • The Sully Effect
  • All Things Must Pass in Risk
  • Scapegoating and Safety
  • Understanding Habit, Habituation and Change
  • Don’t Mention the War
  • Safety in Design for Who by Who?
  • Beyond ‘What We Do Around Here’
  • Asking the Wrong Questions
  • When Safety (Zero) is Abusive
  • Mandala as a Method for Tackling an Ethic of Risk (a Video)
  • Safety Cosmetics
  • Visualising the EHS Role
  • Towards Dumb
  • Workshops with Dr Long – Vienna, Austria 26-30 June 2023
  • Visual, Verbal and Relational Mapping in Risk Assessment
  • Abduction in Risk and Safety

VIRAL POST!!! HOW TO QUIT THE SAFETY INDUSTRY

FEATURED POSTS

Visualising the EHS Role

Traditional Safety

How Bias Inhibits Learning in Safety

Selective and Slow Harm is not Zero Harm

EGO is not a dirty word

Why Safety Isn’t a Choice You Make

Actions in ‘Bad Faith’

What or Who Is Safety?

Beware of Hazardous ‘OINTMENT’

Intuitional Ways of Knowing in Safety

If you truly believe in zero it will happen

The 10 Behaviours of the Safety Sociopath

Checklist Seduction and The Delusion of Data

SPoR Quarterly Newsletter September 2021

Safety Engagement with Workspace, Headspace and Groupspace

An Introduction to Semiotics and Risk

Inspirational Safety Ideas

Risky Conversations Book Launch in Perth

Organising to Manage Uncertainty in an Unpredictable World

Banning Head Protection is Safer

The Seduction to Simplify Safety

I’m Not Playing Any More

Words Can Change Your Brain

How I Feel About Risk

Mandala as a Method for Tackling an Ethic of Risk (a Video)

Are You a Safety Fool?

Beware the Cult of Denial

The Disembodied Human and Persons in Safety

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF RISK – INTRODUCTION WORKSHOP

The Human Safety Newsletter is Out

Resilience and Safety

Reflection Makes Sense

Out of your (Unconscious) Mind

Semiotics, Semiology and Safety Sense

Anchoring, Framing and Priming Risk

Triarachic Thinking in SPoR

The Difference Between Psycho-Social Health and Social-Psychology of Risk

European Tour Dr Long 1-5 June 2020

History and Hindsight in Safety

New Video Explains Cognitive Dissonance and Safety

More Posts from this Category

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,523 other subscribers

How we pay for the high cost of running of this site – try it for free on your site

WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY?

What is Psychological Safety at Work?


WHAT IS PSYCHOSOCIAL SAFETY

x
x