The way the Social Psychology of Risk (SPoR) tackles risk is based on a strong understanding of its worldview/philosophy. If one wants to be professional then the starting point is understanding one’s ethos (ethic), ontology (theory of being) and, one’s view of the world (methodology). It is from such a foundation one develops and implements methods (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/).

SPoR has a history that emerged out of: ethnographics, semiotics, poetics, cultural studies, critical theory and semiology. This history is represented visually as follows:

SPoR doesn’t have a history in the science, engineering or any of the behaviourist disciplines common to safety. Indeed, SPoR has a Transdisciplinary focus that enables and validates disciplines not part of the risk and safety world.

It is really quite straight forward, SPoR doesn’t see the world of living and being through the traditional safety lens. Moreso, it has just as much right to declare a view as valid as any other philosophy that is present in the safety world.

The dominant philosophies in the safety world are materialist, positivist and behaviourist and SPoR stands in opposition to these worldviews. The materialist, positivist and behaviourist worldviews see the world as something to control whereas SPoR sees the world ecologically as what we live and participate in. The world is NOT ‘out there’ as some objective thing to control but rather as something we participate in subjectively.

SPoR is not interested in objects but rather subjects. SPoR is interested in persons living ethically in the world NOT as factors in a system. Similarly, SPoR is not interested in measuring safety performance or metrics. None of this discourse helps people tackle risk. None of this locates persons at the centre of Discourse.

Unfortunately, the philosophy of safety (never articulated) is consumed with objects and the control of objects. We see this evidenced in the nonsense discourse of ‘psychosocial hazards’ (https://safetyrisk.net/what-is-psychosocial-safety/). What a nonsense idea that controlling objects in a workplace can enable psychosocial health! What a nonsense idea that Safety has any expertise in the area of mental health or the well-being of persons. There is no major study of these in any safety qualification. Safety qualifications still have a sole focus on regulation, hazards and policing and until there is curriculum reform, safety will remain a policing activity.

90% of AIHS Body of Knowledge is focused on objects. Even its amateurish chapter on ethics is focused on objects. There is nothing in the BoK that focuses on personhood, ethics, mental health, care, helping or the fundamentals of communication. Even when the AIHS BoK mentions the word ‘human’ it’s not about being human.

In the AIHS BoK, when the word ‘politics’ appears its not about politics, when the word ‘cause’ appears it’s not about cause, when the word ‘research’ appears it’s not about research and, the use of the word ‘culture’ is not about culture. This is the culture of Safety, stating what is by what isn’t (https://safetyrisk.net/declaring-what-is-by-what-isnt-hop-as-traditional-safety/). And in no place does the AIHS BoK articulate its worldview/methodology. Indeed, the culture of safety holds any thought about methodology/philosophy with distain. Even in the chapter on Ethics there is no articulation of its ethos. This is the culture of Safety.

In SPoR, our Body of Knowledge is declared semiotically and poetically (https://safetyrisk.net/social-psychology-of-risk-body-of-knowledge/). It is also openly articulated in many of our books that are for free download (https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/). We even offer free courses for those who want to learn about SPoR. There is no impediment in the way if you want to learn about SPoR. And if you have a question, there are email contacts etc available to ask that question.

If you just want to complain about what you don’t understand, please just keep to traditional safety or whatever fad is on the safety radar. If you have a genuine question, ask. There is ample positive, constructive and practical material available if you want to know how SPoR works (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/) and it’s free. And SPoR is being implemented and practiced in many workplaces globally.

However, if you do want to understand SPoR you have to step away from the positivist and behaviourist assumptions of traditional safety to learn. You may not even know what your safety philosophy is but you can’t bring behaviourist, engineering or scientist assumptions to try and understand SPoR. You can’t understand a different paradigm through the lens of a familiar paradigm.

If you have a question, then you can write here: admin@spor.com.au