I have explained in many places the nature of my worldview (philosophy) and it is not the philosophy/ethic of Safety. I write from this worldview. One doesn’t have to agree with this worldview and certainly safety doesn’t but if one wants to understand it, a question of inquiry would be needed. Not a loaded question or binary question of self-affirmation but the kind of question one asks when understanding and learning is desired.
As Wilson (2008) stated wisely: ‘research is all about unanswered questions, but it also reveals our unquestioned answers’.
One such example was sent to me today through a third party (as if most often the case) a comment, ‘why does Rob endorse the “fake science” of myers-briggs in the book ‘risk makes sense?’
Of course, the statement/question is inaccurate. I do NOT endorse Myers-Briggs in the book. (I often find that people rarely read articles, blogs or books but rather read their assumptions into them). Do I find Jungian typology helpful, yes. And, there is a reason for it, if you want to understand why, ask.
Do I find linear thinking helpful for risk and safety? No. If you want to know why, ask. I don’t just criticise those like Heinrich, Reason or Dekker for entertainment. There are deeply held reasons why linear thinking doesn’t work in understanding causation. There are reasons why injury ratios are unhelpful. There are semiotic reasons why many safety myths are harmful. There are reasons why the brutalism of zero is harmful. If you want to understand why, ask.
I have been working for many years on the philosophy that undergirds the Social Psychology of Risk. It is not some kind of accidental thing worked out on the back of a postage stamp. This view is evident in all that I write and in what is deconstructed there is always a positive alternative that offers a reconstruction in something more positive and humanising that what Safety offers.
I don’t criticise the Safety view of ethics for fun but rather offer an ethic that humanises persons in a better method of tackling risk. This is not just some theoretic thing but is highly practical and is being practiced all over the globe by people and organisations who want a better method for tackling risk.
There is no point in advocating some performance-centric view of safety that privileges outcomes over process. If one doesn’t consider the process as well as the outcome, then harming others becomes easy to do in the name of ‘good’.
What is more, so much of what is on offer is free. This also resonates with the ethic of SPoR that has its primary focus on improving safety.
If you want to understand this view, just ask.
______________________
Wilson, S., (2008). Research is Ceremony, Indigenous Research Methods. Fernwood Publishing. Halifax and Winnipeg.
brhttps://safetyrisk.net/is-it-that-hard-to-ask/
Prompt