0
$\begingroup$

Many tools exists that allow the investigation of incidents and safe behavior on the workplace, such as the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) or the System Hardware Environment Lifeware Lifeware (SHELL) model. Both describe the importance of the influence of the (culture within an) organisation on (un)safe behavior.

These tools are used to proof whether the organisation plays a role in an incident or, in general, in unsafe behavior. However, where did these models base the assumptions on that the organisation plays a role? Was there scientific evidence that shows that the organisation can promote (un)safe behavior?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is quite interesting, however, I'm not sure to fully understand what you're after. Would this study doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.08.008 fall under "scientific evidence … that the organization promotes (un)safe behavior"? Moreover, what do you mean with tools that are using their own tools as evidence for tools validity? Are you criticizing that they are self-refential in the sense of a recursive definition? I must admit that I don't know the tools you are referring to. I'm rather trying to understand the question on a general, methodological level. $\endgroup$ – user14074 Apr 12 '17 at 21:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Will, That would indeed be an interesting paper for an answer. Questionnaires about people's attitude about safety would be nice thus, but also logical reasoning or accident investigations. What made people believe that the organization may play a part in human error. $\endgroup$ – Robin Kramer Apr 13 '17 at 6:32
  • $\begingroup$ Regardig the "using their own tools as evidence for... ". It was not necessarily criticism, but rather a remark stating the need (for me) to have evidence that is not provided by those tools themselves, because that would be too easy. $\endgroup$ – Robin Kramer Apr 13 '17 at 6:39
  • $\begingroup$ I'm reluctant to try an answer because there still some aspects of the question that I can't see through -- I'm sure it's me, not the question :-) .. would such a tool be more credible if it could prove to have sufficient convergent validity with another tool? That is, using multiple measures to asses the impact of organizational factors? Sorry, I'm doing my best and I do really like to question (even critically) the "stringency" (is this the term?) of methods. $\endgroup$ – user14074 Apr 14 '17 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ As I have found out, the term theoretical "stringency" is used also in English: scholar.google.de/… $\endgroup$ – user14074 Apr 14 '17 at 13:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.