Skip to main content

SEEK – Essentials in Investigations

When we look at the standard WHS curriculum in investigations or at the popular packages on the market, it remarkable what is missing. Most investigation methods are constructed from a mechanistic bias with little attention to the essentials of subjectivity, personal bias, perception bias, personality and perception, emergence in cause, problems of reductionism and randomness.
When one opens the standard text for WHS and does analysis on the investigations curriculum it is still dominated by antiquated theory of Bird’s and Heinrich’s Pyramids, matrices, curves and linear assumptions about cause and effect. There is no discussion of:
· The bias of the investigator or the investigator’s personality type.
· Engagement skills required if early at the scene.
· Pastoral skills of listening, understanding trauma and loss.
· Bias and perception of self and witnesses.
· The fundamentals of helping or what helping skills are.
Instead, objectivity of the investigator is assumed and cause and effect is assumed to be rational and ‘common sense’. There is also an assumption that all events have a cause and that ‘root cause’ can be known. This is not how a social psychology of risk views event investigations.
The process of event investigation is a process of ‘discovery, imagination and open questioning’, this is common language used in the social psychology of risk. Indeed, understanding how language and discourse work is essential for listening to the stories and narrative of others. However, the first essential in undertaking investigations from a social psychological perspective is to understand self, personal and cognitive bias, complexities of perception and the nature of subjectivity. Essential to this is developing and understanding of how the mind works (https://vimeo.com/106770292https://vimeo.com/156926212 ) and how this relates to the testimony of others.
It is important to understand the complexities of motivation in order to listen to others and understand why people do as they do. This is essential in any investigation process. Similarly, skills in open questioning and reflective listening are also essential, especially the skill of suspending agenda (bias). An understanding of visual and special literacy is also an essential, as well knowing how cause can be random and non-linear. Finally all the skills associated with helping and understanding trauma and loss are essential. It simply doesn’t make sense to train people for investigations as if pastoral care skills will not be needed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Safety Works in Mysterious Ways….

Signs On a Church Refurbishment Site Spotted these signs on the fence of a Church refurbishment project today. When I saw the irony (is that what you would call it?), I laughed until I stopped……

Systems as Imagined v Systems in Practice

Systems as Imagined v Systems in Practice The recent NSW Supreme Court decision,  Attorney General of New South Wales v Tho Services Limited (in liquidation) (ACN 000 263 678) [2016] NSWCCA 221  is another in a long line of decisions that highlight the disconnect between safety management systems as they are documented, and what occurs in practice. Documented safety processes are important.  They provide guidance on how safety is managed and evidence that an organisation is meeting its obligations.  However, where an accident reveals long-term, systemic non-compliance with obvious safety expectations documented safety processes do not provide a defence, often they do not provide mitigation, and in cases such as this they are an aggravating circumstance.  As the Court noted: The vast range of induction and supervising protocols adopted by the respondent or in force at its premises serves not to relieve the respondent of its responsibility for safety but on...

A Critique of Pure Reason

I was doing some research on incident investigation tools today and recalled this VERY popular post from last year. The SCM nicely allows us to take our pick of endless causes and to assign blame to not only the worker but management, the system and objects as well – no wonder it and ICAMembert are so popular: A Critique of Pure Reason –  (With Apologies to Immanuel Kant) There is not a week goes by without someone suggesting I should read James Reason or that I haven’t read James Reason. I am also advised that I don’t read James Reason properly because somehow all worldviews must be in agreement, particularly in safety. In the short history of safety, the works of Reason particularly, the Swiss Cheese metaphor (causation theory) and Human Error theory have become attributed as fact. Should one disagree with Reason’s theories one obviously can’t read or hasn’t read Reason’s work properly. It is interesting to note the way that Reason is used to invoke reductionist ...