When Myths Collide in Risk

It is strange how the word ‘myth’ is used negatively in the risk and safety world as if to declare something as a myth, is an in-truth. How we determine what is true, real and effective is not that easy. All myth is anchored to faith, not evidence.

Most often we develop myths according to our worldview and then find methods and symbols to confirm that myth. We see this in risk and safety in the use of linear symbols and models like Heinrich’s dominoes, Heinrich’s pyramid and Reason’s Swiss-Cheese. The truth and reality is, events are rarely linear or simple. Yet, Safety takes myths such as ‘root cause’ to incidents and finds the outcome to suit its assumption. Regardless of the fact that root cause is a myth (https://safetyrisk.net/root-cause-analysis-the-most-damaging-thing-for-safety/ ).

We see these investigations myths challenged in the book by Dr Nippin Anand: Are We learning from Accidents? A Quandary, A Question and A Way Forward .

Challenging myths should be the first thing a safety person should be interested in regarding risk. Particularly, regarding investigations. Finding the scapegoat doesn’t involve any learning yet, gets an outcome that makes everyone happy that a price has been paid. This is the dogma of Atonement that dominates the Safety worldview (including safety differently), based on engineering myths of linearity.

For example, the popular model of ICAM (https://safetyrisk.net/deconstructing-icam-useful-or-useless/ ) is based on this myth. Yet, this method has been made some kind of ‘industry standard’ suitably affirmed by its own symbols. For example, see Figure 1. ICAM Model.

Figure 1. ICAM Model.

When we deconstruct ICAM we see so many glaring omissions about the basics of investigating (https://safetyrisk.net/deconstructing-icam-useful-or-useless/)).

We know that myths are validated by semiotics/symbols and we see this clearly in the model above. Myths are driven by worldviews (philosophies/methodologies) and provide a filter in how one ‘sees’ the world. This is what worldviews/myths (methodologies) do. For example, the myth of zero drives a mindset of counting, the myth of Heinrich drives a focus on counting. No wonder the occupation of Safety believes that the task of safety is to count injury rates. Yet, we know that injury rates are not evidence of the presence or absence of safety??? We also know that behaviours and systems have little to do with culture yet, the safety world is dominated by a behaviourist worldview???

All myths compete, just as ideologies, values and worldviews compete. Except, in the mono-disciplinary world of safety there is little idea that there are competing worldviews outside of itself (https://safetyrisk.net/stepping-outside-your-worldview-take-a-risk/). When Safety wants to know about something about culture, it asks an engineer. When Safety wants to investigate a fatality, it asks an engineer. When Safety wants to understand risk, it asks an engineer. When Safety wants to tackle psychosocial health, it takes a focus on objects (hazards).

There are other valid worldviews other than Safety (https://safetyrisk.net/can-there-be-other-valid-worldviews-than-safety/ ). Yet, you won’t find these explored in any safety curriculum including, any supposedly ‘safety differently’ curriculum. One needs more than a few slogans to develop a methodology.

To engage in a Transdisciplinary worldview requires one to step outside the ‘safety worldview’ and give validity to myths other that those constructed by Safety. This means NOT turning to safety engineering every time one wants to know something. It also means giving validity to views anchored for example to: Anthropology, Sociology, Social Psychology, Religion, Philosophy and a host of disciplines that don’t understand risk the same way as Safety. It also involves reading outside the box of Safety when it comes to knowledge and practice.

But how can Safety move when it identifies itself as Zero? (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-as-zero-the-perfect-event/) The myth of Zero puts Safety in direct conflict with many worldviews and disciplines that demonstrate that zero is a delusion (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/).

Ever since 2017, every global Safety Convention has conducted the event of ‘linguistic gymnastics’ to try and hold to the ideology of zero whilst also counting the number of times it has never achieved it. Then proceeds to claim that zero ‘works’ and is the ‘only goal’. It then gets supported by ‘safety differently’ academics (https://safetyrisk.net/zero-is-an-immoral-goal/) with no expertise in ethics, moral philosophy or semiotics/mythology. This is how the myth is validated, even though it is held in denial of fallibility and all evidence to the contrary. This is how myths work.

There are other myths (worldviews and meanings) that compete with the beliefs/myths of Safety but, one can’t understand other myths until one first doubts the substance of one’s own myths and becomes open to a Transdisciplinary worldview.

If you are interested in a Transdisciplinary view you can begin your journey here:

Free books on SPoR: https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/

Free videos: https://vimeo.com/cllr

Free courses: https://vimeo.com/showcase/3949916; https://vimeo.com/showcase/4883640

Or Free conversations on risk: https://vimeo.com/showcase/3938199

It’s not too late to join us face-to-face at the SPoR Convention in Canberra in two weeks: https://spor.com.au/canberra-convention/ just email: [email protected] for your place.

 

 

Related