Exciting new research explores reality-based safety science, aiming to improve safety practices by examining work dynamics rather than just accidents. The conversation critiques traditional research methods and emphasizes the need for collaboration between academics and practitioners. It highlights the importance of direct observation, clear measurement techniques, and understanding the complexities of safety behavior. Also discussed are the differences between case studies and controlled examples, advocating for a partnership that respects both practitioners' and researchers' roles.
Reality-based safety science promotes an emphasis on understanding work dynamics rather than merely analyzing accidents to enhance workplace safety practices.
Effective safety research requires direct observation of practices to ground findings in actual work conditions, avoiding superficial conclusions.
Collaboration between researchers and practitioners is essential for aligning safety science with practical needs, fostering mutual respect and shared knowledge in the field.
Deep dives
Understanding Reality-Based Safety Science
Reality-based safety science emphasizes a thorough examination of how safety theories and practices can be improved rather than engaging in debates between established safety views like Safety One and Safety Two. The focus should be on understanding the broader field of safety science, considering how various theories are constructed and defended, and encouraging dialogues that bridge the gap between academic research and practical application. By fostering a collaborative environment between researchers and practitioners, the manifesto aims to direct safety science toward innovative practices that enhance workplace safety. This approach seeks to create a roadmap for future research that identifies and addresses the real challenges faced in the field.
The Importance of Describing Work
Safety researchers must prioritize examining work as the core object of interest instead of merely studying accidents. Understanding work involves investigating how tasks are performed, how workers interact, and what factors contribute to safety or risk in various settings. By gathering insights about work practices, researchers can develop more relevant safety interventions that are based on real-world conditions rather than theoretical assumptions. This commitment advocates for a shift from accident analysis to a more holistic understanding of work dynamics, ultimately supporting safer work environments.
Descriptive Research Before Normative Claims
The manifesto stresses the need for researchers to observe and describe current work practices before prescribing changes or solutions. This means that safety science must not rush into solutions without a thorough understanding of the existing work context. Researchers are encouraged to use a variety of methods to capture a comprehensive picture of how work functions in practice, thus ensuring that any recommendations made are grounded in actual data. This commitment seeks to prevent the common pitfall of drawing conclusions based on superficial observations and fosters deeper engagement with the complexities of work environments.
The Role of Observational Research
Direct observation of practices is emphasized as a key commitment in enhancing safety research. Relying on self-reported behavior or secondary data often leads to misconceptions and misses critical aspects of actual work practices. Observational research allows for a more authentic understanding of work as it occurs, offering insights into the real challenges and decision-making processes workers face daily. This approach aims to inform safety interventions that are not only relevant but also adaptable to the dynamic nature of work.
Collaboration Between Research and Practice
The manifesto advocates for a partnership approach between researchers and practitioners in safety science, aiming to break down barriers between academia and fieldwork. This relationship should be collaborative, recognizing that both practitioners and researchers bring valuable expertise to the table, and thus should coexist as equal partners. By establishing connections and ongoing dialogues, the safety science field can better align research objectives with the needs and realities of on-the-ground safety practices. This commitment highlights the need for mutual respect and shared knowledge to drive meaningful advancements in the safety profession.
We have just co-authored a paper with two other researchers and it examines the big picture of safety science. We don’t usually like to plug ourselves, but we’re very excited about this particular accomplishment. We use his paper, AManifesto for Reality-Based Safety Science, to frame our discussion.
Topics:
Why practitioners shouldn’t tune out this podcast.
Evidence-based medicine as a reform movement.
Studying work, not accidents.
Investigate and theorize before measuring.
The lag in safety science.
Forecasting theories.
How safety knowledge is not fixed.
Quotes:
“There was a strong perception that there was a lot of evidence about what worked and didn’t work, that wasn’t making its way into practice.”
“When you study an accident, all of the analysis that you do is necessarily driven by counterfactual reasoning and hindsight bias.”
“If the researchers are influencing it, if the researchers are controlling it, if the researchers are doing it, it stops being a case study and it becomes action research…”
