Language is neither mechanical nor measurable and, similarly we don’t acquire language in such a way. So, when we look at what we write and say in safety, we can’t approach language through the behaviourist, engineering or scientist lenses of ‘safety’. This is why a Transdisciplinary lens is essential for effectiveness in safety.

The key to improving language, messaging and communication in safety for safety people is to consult outside the box of safety. One can’t improve culture, ethics or language by consulting a safety engineer. The same applies for developing education and learning. I’d like a dollar for all of the appalling presentations and inductions I have seen prepared by safety people.

Why is it that Safety thinks it is qualified to do all this stuff? Why is it that Safety thinks engineers are ethicists and experts in culture?

Similarly, this applies to what and how one reads. Most of the language and semiotics in texts on safety continue to push the same old paradigms of behaviourism and engineering. Indeed, most don’t know that this is the worldview of the text!

If you want to understand the use of text, language, metaphor, discourse and messaging don’t go to sources such as Usability Mapping (https://safetyrisk.net/paperwork-and-usability-in-tackling-risk/). All of the critical issues one should consider in messaging, meaning, language, comprehension, understanding and linguistics are NOT addressed by this approach. 

The best way to help develop messaging in safety is to NOT seek knowledge or expertise in safety. There is nothing in any safety curriculum or the AIHS Body of Knowledge that even scratches the surface in effective communication.

Sometimes I will watch some of these videos marketed in safety about ethics, culture etc and the only qualification of the presenter is in safety! It’s mind numbing.

The crazy thing is, there are endless texts by experts in culture, ethics, linguistics, language, paralinguistics and learning outside of the secure cocoon of safety. Are these not read or consulted because Safety can only access things that conform to its bubble? Are these sources not accessed because they are beyond the reading age of Safety? Seeking agreement in worldview is a recipe for non-learning but such is the nature of the mono-disciplinary lens of safety.

However, if you want to learn about language perhaps you could start here:

But don’t go to AI as if that will help. The effective use of language requires an understanding of context and life experience, things AI will never have.

If you want to improve your messaging in safety it’s going to take hard work, stepping outside the safety box and commitment to consult worldviews that don’t see the world through the safety lens.