698 The promise and problems with the “new view” of safety: weaknesses, limitations, and suggestions for further research

<h3>Background</h3> The “New View” of occupational health and safety (Resilience Engineering, Human and Organization Performance, Safety Differently, Safety-II, etc.), has promised an updated approach to improve safety performance and outcomes. For over a decade it has been the “hot topic” with courses, conferences, and professional practice groups globally. However, safety outcomes remain unchanged. <h3>Objective</h3> To determine if application of New View approaches have reduced the rate and severity of unwanted safety events. <h3>Programme Description</h3> A literature review was conducted of related texts, case studies, and journal publications. Podcasts, videos, courses, and presentations by its main proponents were included. Reported implementation was assessed against evidence of outcomes. <h3>Outcomes and Learning</h3> The New View has not lived up to its promise for several reasons. New View approaches assume, and even rebrand, “old” practices (learning teams). Many definitions, assertions, and arguments are circular and/or internally inconsistent (“safety,” systems are the problem and the solution?). The multiple contextual layers that influence how “safety happens” are vaguely understood, dismissed, or missed – peculiar since “context drives behaviour” is the central New View assertion. As a result, New View applications have failed to produce evidence any measurable improvements. <h3>Implications</h3> Despite significant issues, the “New View” does contain important insights. One is a renewed focus on context in shaping behaviours and actions. Another is how to ensure responses to unwanted events align with effective corrective action and long-term organizational learning. These should be taken to heart by all safety practitioners within their continual improvement efforts. <h3>Conclusion</h3> The New View has yet to demonstrate an advantage over the “old view.” To prove otherwise, future research will need to directly and rigorously compare implementation of New View approaches to implemented “old” practices, demonstrating if they can achieve better safety outcomes as promised.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2024-08-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2024-safety.347
Primary Topic
Occupational Health and Safety Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

698 The promise and problems with the “new view” of safety: weaknesses, limitations, and suggestions for further research

Michael Roman Fears
Occupational Health and Safety Research
article

698 The promise and problems with the “new view” of safety: weaknesses, limitations, and suggestions for further research

Michael Roman Fears
article en

Abstract

<h3>Background</h3> The “New View” of occupational health and safety (Resilience Engineering, Human and Organization Performance, Safety Differently, Safety-II, etc.), has promised an updated approach to improve safety performance and outcomes. For over a decade it has been the “hot topic” with courses, conferences, and professional practice groups globally. However, safety outcomes remain unchanged. <h3>Objective</h3> To determine if application of New View approaches have reduced the rate and severity of unwanted safety events. <h3>Programme Description</h3> A literature review was conducted of related texts, case studies, and journal publications. Podcasts, videos, courses, and presentations by its main proponents were included. Reported implementation was assessed against evidence of outcomes. <h3>Outcomes and Learning</h3> The New View has not lived up to its promise for several reasons. New View approaches assume, and even rebrand, “old” practices (learning teams). Many definitions, assertions, and arguments are circular and/or internally inconsistent (“safety,” systems are the problem and the solution?). The multiple contextual layers that influence how “safety happens” are vaguely understood, dismissed, or missed – peculiar since “context drives behaviour” is the central New View assertion. As a result, New View applications have failed to produce evidence any measurable improvements. <h3>Implications</h3> Despite significant issues, the “New View” does contain important insights. One is a renewed focus on context in shaping behaviours and actions. Another is how to ensure responses to unwanted events align with effective corrective action and long-term organizational learning. These should be taken to heart by all safety practitioners within their continual improvement efforts. <h3>Conclusion</h3> The New View has yet to demonstrate an advantage over the “old view.” To prove otherwise, future research will need to directly and rigorously compare implementation of New View approaches to implemented “old” practices, demonstrating if they can achieve better safety outcomes as promised.

CIMA+ (Canada) (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Occupational Health and Safety Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

698 The promise and problems with the “new view” of safety: weaknesses, limitations, and suggestions for further research — Michael Roman Fears · (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS