Unfortunately, people in safety are not educated in the nature of trauma and there is no focus on this in any of the methods floating about the sector. Similar, there is no education in a safety qualification that addresses trauma, mental health or pastoral care. Furthermore, Safety has no legal expertise but creates the delusion that it does. This is indeed dangerous in any investigation that has legal implications. We see this ignorance affirmed in the latest AIHS BoK Chapter on Investigations.
Of course, this is no surprise coming from the industry that has a duty to objects and little duty to people. This is the same industry that has little Discourse on care, learning, listening and resilience. Moreso, when this industry seeks information on anything it turns inward to itself to try to understand everything outside of itself.
There is no Transdisciplinarity in safety (https://safetyrisk.net/transdisciplinarity-and-worldviews-in-risk/) and this is clear in how this BoK Chapter focuses its attention. Indeed, even a basic Discourse Analysis demonstrates that the document recognises those affected by trauma (p, 35) and then says nothing about it. This is the way of safety! (https://safetyrisk.net/best-fraud-in-safety-wins-this-is-the-way/).
One would think if investigations were ‘a core function for many generalist OHS’ the amateurs in safety who want to act professionally, might want professional ethics and skills included in the OHS curriculum or BoK. They are not!
Whilst it is good that this BoK Chapter focuses on Investigator bias and lenses, it simply doesn’t tackle the elephant in the room, the OHS curriculum and non-education processes in safety. This is also the same absurdity in the area of psychosocial risk (hazards).
The chapter states ‘the primary objective of investigating incidents should be organisational learning for future prevention’. How fascinating, this from a BoK that has no articulation on learning and education and a Chapter on Ethics that is not about Ethics. Unless an investigator can approach an investigation ethically, understand the nature of learning and care for those traumatised, the actions of safety in investigations will most likely be an interrogation. Especially, from an industry that identifies itself as Zero.
When Zero is one’s foundation for identity, as was confirmed at the recent World Congress in Sydney (https://visionzero.global/vision-zero-takes-centre-stage-world-congress), all that follows can only be brutal (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/). And Zero was proudly supported by the AIHS, regulators and many Australian sponsors (https://safetyrisk.net/the-sponsors-of-zero-are/). You can note the lovers of zero here: https://safetyrisk.net/the-sponsors-of-zero-are/.
The foundation for investigations in safety is rarely about learning. We read this in the latest book by Nippin Anand: Are We Learning From Accidents, A Quandry, A Question and A Way Forward. It is plain in the chapter that Safety has a little clue what learning is.
The foundation for investigations are not learning but: care, understanding, helping, listening, care for persons and resilience. When one is in the middle of an investigation with an amateur cultivated in the ideology of Zero, there will be no learning. Similarly, there will be neither professionalism, helping or care. In Safety, all of the spin that circulates about ‘just culture’ (including in this document) and rhetoric about no blame is situated in the context of an industry that loves Zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/for-the-love-of-zero-free-download/).
In this BoK Chapter, there is neither an ethic of care, listening or helping. Yet, these are the foundation of effective investigating.
The use of the word ‘learning’ is spread throughout this chapter especially quoting safety people with no expertise in learning. The document itself articulates no theory of learning but rather assumes the reader knows what learning is. Training is not learning. Data is not learning. Knowledge is not learning. Information is not learning.
This is what safety does. It puts forward a theory of ethics using people who know nothing about Ethics (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-the-expert-in-everything-and-the-art-of-learning-nothing/). It talks about learning ensuring that a safety engineer articulates its methodology (https://safetyrisk.net/what-theory-of-learning-is-embedded-in-your-investigation-methodology/). It spruiks spin about psychosocial hazards from within its own safety bubble.
The idea that safety is situated in a ‘socio technical systems context’ is a clear give away about what this chapter is about, more of the same. Systems, Technique (Ellul) and systems. And, we have all the same old favourites to quote about what safety doesn’t know: Dekker, Hollnagel blah blah blah. More mono-disciplinarity, more of the same, no methodology, no ontology and no method.
Like most safety texts this chapter talks about culture and doesn’t define it just as it talks about learning. Similarly, it raises the language of ‘ethical investigations’ without a discussion on ethics. A code of ethics is NOT an ethic of risk. This section in the chapter is simply appalling, immature and amateurish.
By the time one gets to the section of this chapter on the ‘investigation process’ (p.26) the journey into safety gobbledygook is complete. None of what follows tackles the need for a methodology and method for investigations. Most of it is regurgitation of just the same old safety goop. The focus remains on objects and Technique NOT the nature of persons. The reality is, the safety curriculum and culture of safety doesn’t prepare people for the nature of investigations. Neither does this chapter.
The inclusion of an ‘investigation form’ is simply absurd. Good old safety, give out a checklist and all will be fine. The flow chart on page 54 is similar safety goop.
In the popular SEEK program (https://cllr.com.au/my-account/basket/ ) delivered by SPoR, we include very little of what is in this chapter.
Most of its focus of this chapter on ‘’socio technical systems’ thinking is irrelevant to developing skills of investigation.
It would certainly be interesting to see some comment from Greg Smith on this chapter. His latest book Proving Safety (https://www.booktopia.com.au/proving-safety-greg-smith/book/9798893421439.html ) stands out as a much better lead in how to think about investigations. Similarly, Nippin Anand’s book Are We Learning From Accidents, A Quandry, A Question and A Way Forward (https://www.amazon.com.au/Are-We-Learning-Accidents-quandary/dp/1738560309).
It doesn’t really matter what Safety puts out these days, it always seems to endorse itself and its worldview and assumptions of the world (S1 or 2, HOP or ‘new view’). The ontology and methodology remain the same, with a focus on systems, performance, Technique and objects.
The key to effective investigations is NOT Technique (Ellul), rather, it is a focus on persons, understanding personhood, Ethics, Transdisciplinarity and helping/care. None of this is in this chapter. An alternative focus is offered in the methods of SPoR (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/) that work! (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/).
If you interested in an approach to investigations that work, you can enrol in the SEEK program or contact Dr Long directly ([email protected]) and we can connect you with a person in SPoR in your area who can introduce you to a better and more effective approach to investigations than what is presented in this BoK chapter.
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
PhD., MEd., MOH., BEd., BTh., Dip T., Dip Min., Cert IV TAA, MRMIA
Rob is the founder of Human Dymensions and has extensive experience, qualifications and expertise across a range of sectors including government, education, corporate, industry and community sectors over 30 years. Rob has worked at all levels of the education and training sector including serving on various post graduate executive, post graduate supervision, post graduate course design and implementation programs.
Related
