【24h】

IS SAFETY CULTURE STILL A THING?

机译:安全文化还是一件事吗?

获取原文

摘要

Safety culture has been a theme in human factors research and practice for more than two decades. The concept has resulted in a mass of research and practical interventions, both small and large, in many industrial sectors. Recent thinking has, however, been increasingly critical of the concept and the value of safety culture research and practice. Criticisms of safety culture include the accusations that safety culture is inherently contradictory (Walker, 2010), that the links with systems thinking are not evident (Reiman and Rollenhagen, 2014), that there is insufficient integration with macroergonomics (Murphy et al, 2014), that culture talk can also obscure uncomfortable, yet crucial social phenomena (Szymczaka, 2014). There is also a concern that safety culture, or facets of it such as 'just culture', may be rooted in a traditionalist safety paradigm (Safety-Ⅰ) and conflict with the emerging paradigms (Safety-Ⅱ, see Hollnagel, 2014). At the same time, practitioners' experience on the ground is that the concept remains useful and relevant for various practical and political reasons, and should not be discarded. The middle ground may be that our ideas about safety culture need to adapt, both theoretically and practically, in several ways. This should be of interest to many human factors specialists, both for research and practice.
机译:安全文化一直是人类因素的主题研究和实践超过二十年。该概念导致了大量的研究和实用的干预措施,包括许多工业部门。然而,最近的思维对安全文化研究和实践的概念和价值越来越批评。对安全文化的批评包括安全文化本质上矛盾的指控(Walker,2010),与系统思维的联系不是明显的(Reiman和Lortenhagen,2014),与MuroRogomics的整合不足(Murphy等,2014) ,这种文化谈话也可以模糊不舒服,但至关重要的社会现象(Szymczaka,2014)。担心安全文化或其“只是文化”等方面可以植根于传统主义的安全范式(安全-Ⅰ),并与新兴范式冲突(Safety-Ⅱ,见Hollnagel,2014)。与此同时,从业者对地面的经验是,概念仍然有用,与各种实用和政治原因相关,不应被丢弃。中间地面可能是我们关于安全文化的想法需要以理论上和实际上以几种方式适应。这应该对许多人类因素专家来说是有意义的,用于研究和实践。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号