We all know the joke and cartoon:

‘A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “this is where the light is.’

It’s a bit like this in popular and traditional safety investigations methods.

All investigations methods are designed by someone, many by engineers or technical specialists. This makes undertaking an investigation easy when you have a template or a checklist. However, all methods embody a hidden ‘affordance’. That is, they embody the bias of the design.

So, when you complete an ICAM, Taproot, Fishbone, 5 Whys or whatever method you have adopted, you are completing a process designed by someone else. This includes the biases or the designer and the limits of their worldview (philosophy).

Unfortunately, most investigations methods come from an engineering/technical worldview and so they seek technical outcomes. A classic example of this was the investigation into the Dreamworld disaster (https://safetyrisk.net/an-engineering-dreamworld/) or another, the Grenfell Tower Disaster (https://safetyrisk.net/grenfell-uncovered-but-dont-blame-anyone/).

What these examples show is that investigations from one worldview miss the mark. If we are going to do an investigation, a Transdisciplinary approach (https://safetyrisk.net/the-value-of-transdisciplinary-inquiry-in-a-crisis/) would be much better.

It goes without saying, different views of the world, see the world differently. For example, if your approach to safety is framed by ‘performance’ or fixing hazards, you will investigate from that perspective.

Your methodology (philosophy) drives your method. This is why methodologies matter.

 It is absurd to suggest methodologies don’t matter. Your philosophy determines whether you demonise persons in process or whether you prioritise objects in process.

There is no such thing as a neutral or objective investigation method including, the SEEK methodology and method proposed by SPoR.

The only thing about the SPoR approach to investigations is that it comes from a very different methodology than any other investigations model on the market. Other than SEEK, there is no investigations design on the market that considers a Social Psychological approach to investigations.

This is why we use the semiotic of a donut to demonstrate the holes in traditional methods of investigation and how SEEK fills the gap.

The more we have a chance to include these in our investigations method the more chance we have of achieving a more realistic and holistic outcome. This also explains why so many investigation reports change so little. Unless an investigation affects the nature of cultural cause, it is likely that nothing will improve in what follows.

If you want to explore a broad Transdisciplinary approach to event investigation you can register for the SEEK Online Workshops in November, delivered by Dr Long here: admin@spor.com.au