There is little more that is entertaining than seeing Safety parade its myths as ‘principles’.

Most of the time it’s just confirmation bias of some form of safety indoctrination.

A classic example is anchored to the myths of safety investigations and its popular models like ICAM, 5whys, Tap Root, Root Cause etc. None of these models on the market comes close to tackling the real challenges of safety investigations.

 What is most amusing is how Safety loves to parade its myths proudly before everyone, as if its silences cannot be heard. This is so easy, like money for jam, because in Safety there is so little critical thinking (https://safetyrisk.net/critical-thinking-a-checklist-for-safety/). But Safety doesn’t want critical thinking because its negative and toxic, so it continues to parade myths as fact as if it has some claim on reality. In Safety, the best of meat, is the sausage!

I saw this infographic last week paraded about in typical fashion, as if this is some kind of exemplar of what to do in investigations. The opposite is the case.

We could start on the nonsense semiotics of this infographic but perhaps save that for another time.

In safety investigations, the place to start is NOT with some process but rather with the Investigator!

The real key to safety investigations is NOT with the process but with all that precedes a method.

Just think of all that has been assumed about the nature of the investigator in any of its popular investigation models. Here are a few questions never discussed in the typical safety investigations model on the market:

1. Who is the investigator?
2. What are their cognitive, cultural and experiential biases?
3. What are their social psychological biases?
4. What are their subjectivities?
5. What are the subjectivities of their method?
6. In what method have they been indoctrinated?
7. What education and experience do they have in trauma?
8. What education and experience do they have in understanding persons?
9. What education and experience do they have in understanding personality?
10. What education and experience do they have in understanding how humans organise?
11. What education and experience do they have in understanding culture?
12. What education and experience do they have in understanding ethics?
13. What does the investigator bring to the moment?
14. Does the investigator believe in safety myths of objectivity and impartiality?
15. What does the investigator know about the ethics of power?
16. What does the investigator know of the human unconscious?
17. What does the investigator know of the collective unconscious?
18. Does the investigator know about social influences?
19. What is known about language, linguistics and para-linguistics?
20. Can the investigator ‘read’ people?

Any method in safety investigation is just a sausage machine unless these questions are considered.

 These are just some of the questions we tackle in the SPoR SEEK Program (https://cllr.com.au/product/seek-the-social-psychology-of-event-investigations-unit-2-elearning/ )

The reality is, the method doesn’t matter much at all. It is the disposition and worldview of the investigator that matters most?

If you want to learn about the SEEK approach to investigations you can email here: admin@spor.com or

Or if in Australia, you can attend the SEEK Program in Brisbane next March (https://spor.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Risk-Diversity-SEEK.pdf).

Or if in Europe, register for the SEEK program in London (https://novellus.solutions/mec-events/accidentinvestigationlondon/) scheduled for 19-21 November.

But if your model doesn’t consider the questions set out above, I hope you love the taste of sausages.