For the past five years I have been studying a
Bachelor of Occupational Health
and Safety; as I came to the final stage of my degree and the requirement to
complete six co-plan subjects I found myself at an impasse. The choices ranged
from Management; I am no leader and prefer to follow quietly in the flock
(which is really to say I prefer to have others think for me!)... Health
Promotion (which apparently does not include the walk to McDonald's after
clubbing at 3am).... and Environmental subjects. Now as a budding Safety
Professional I am well aware that the E in HSE requires workplaces to consider
the detrimental effects that its industry has on the surrounding environment; that
water is becoming a scarce commodity, and that we are slowly suffocating in a
carbon induced vapour cloud, but only if we can keep our heads above the tides as
the rising oceans, meted out by the melting ice-caps, as a result of greenhouse
gasses, threaten to overwhelm humanity! However.... the idea of tree-hugging
sessions in mangrove swamps and testing atmospheres to ensure the removal of
impurities that rate lower than my teenage sons’ bedrooms, sadly does not
inspire me the way it should. By the grace of good fortune 2012 opened the door
to a new pathway, a trail blazoned with the brilliance of common sense, a
missing piece of the OHS puzzle so appropriate that I wonder how it was ever
over-looked?!
Generally, students of safety have been taught to recognise
risk by rote, to follow a checklist mentality, and to control identified hazards
with a set of prescribed and textbook treatments. However, a new phenomenon
has occurred, a course designed to drag the robotic mind of the safety
practitioner out from under the protected shell of regulatory requirement, fire
up a few neurons and climb out of the carefully constructed boxes that ensure
they function is a similar manner to worker ants on a picnic. Students of the
new Accident Forensics course have been obliged to go where few have dared tread before; they have been encouraged, nay required, to do something that is both
foreign and uncomfortable, that flies in the face of traditional learning
principles... Students of this new degree have been asked, to THINK!
Actually it gets worse, students have been requested to think
about thinking?! They have been taught to observe and face up to their own
perceptions, beliefs and convictions and to confront their contextual reality.
They have been challenged to broaden their focus both inwards and outwards
simultaneously, a veritable game of mental twister! We have been asked to use a
word that is often disciplined or discouraged from our psyches before we are
old enough to start school; a word generally frowned upon in academic halls, a
word so foreign and so uncomfortable that it took several practice attempts to
utter its syllable. A small word, but one with the power to change the mindset
of intellectually hardened adults, with the authority to open doors into a
world of possibility that until now had been blanketed in mystery, and to
challenge the acuity of everything we thought we knew until now; the word is “WHY”....
Previously I believed this small, three letter word would elicit
a reasonably simple response, certainly from my own parenting memories the word
“why” was generally responded with “because”.... quid pro quo. What I have learnt
is that there are many ways to employ this word and apply its request when
faced with a problematic situation. As investigators we are predominantly
working backwards, post apocalyptic event, to discover the precursors leading
up to and inflaming the situation; the chicken crossed the road, “why”... to
get to the other side “why”... what?! Isn’t that the end? Root cause defined,
problem solved, and job well done? Apparently not. It appears if we want to
prevent any more adventurous chickens from crossing bustling highways and avoid
wheels disease, it is imperative to ascertain the reasons behind the treacherous
journey to being with... I know right?! The question WHY is asked until it is clear that the origin
has been defined (after several Whys it was established that Charlie Chicken
had crossed the road to digest the grain, that had been spilled beside the
neighbours old farm shed, through a rusty hole in the wheelbarrow that was being
used to transport it to the fields for ploughing.... and that Charlie had missed
breakfast).
Now I know I mentioned that despite Steve Irwin being my hero
I am in no hurry to run naked through a pine forest, singing Kumbaya and
cuddling drop bears, however disaster met environment when our lateral thinking
threw down roots, grew branches and blossomed into Event trees. Once again it
was revealed that every aspect of an incident was a branch forking from the
tree containing multiple trajectories of possibility and insight. Admittedly my
foliage was a little sparse but with hard work and a bit of fertilizer I
predict a rainforest of expanding ideas and new concepts will be cultivated.
For the visually creative, (and students who have not yet
progressed past join the dots) the Accimap was introduced. All of the factors
that had been carefully teased out with persistent questioning (not unlike
nagging) and/or cultured into plantations of manicured vegetation, were now
categorised into various elements and levels in neat little boxes.... which was
then systematically annihilated by linking arrows which criss-crossed between
levels and within their own parameters, providing evidence of the Swiss-cheese
effect; for one element to contribute to the outcome it is generally preceded
by another. The result although worthy of Picasso, can get complicated as it is
often too easy to get carried away with linkages; however it assisted in establishing
the previously unconsidered connections between root cause and outcome. The
next trick was to ascertain if the evidence clearly dictated the conclusion.
Argument and Reasoning do not usually compliment the other,
however the role of the investigator is to deduce from the evidence whether the
hypothesis is sound. Admittedly whilst I am never short of an argument, I found
my ability to apply Inductive reasoning
more challenging than expected. Learning the concept of strong and weak, valid
and invalid arguments has afforded me the opportunity to rewind and replay
previous conversations and explore old evidence with new insight; until now I
was pretty sure all my arguments (I
prefer advisories) were both strong and valid! One particularly confrontational
task involved conducting a web-site investigation to establish content validity;
this was a confronting and difficult journey as I struggled to accept that my
personal tutor, Mr Google, would have ever considered leading me astray. The theory
of Deductive reasoning taught me to dissect the information provided to
establish if the premise matched the conclusion, and has me wondering if I
should have followed the advice of my 6 year old self who realised at a
remarkably young age that all boys are yukky!
As with all courses I began the term seeking answers; the
difference with Accident Forensics is that in order to find the answers you
must first learn to ask the right questions, however it doesn’t stop there...... The
answers must then be broken down, dissected, queried, expanded, joined,
validated or discarded. Like a well drawn Accimap each new concept this term
has linked to the other and a picture is beginning to form in my mind. Some of
the lines are a little hazy still, and like the newly created synapses of my brain,
some associations have not yet been accomplished. What I have established is
that my feet are planted firmly on this journey of enlightenment and I have
become engrossed in connecting the dots and fitting the pieces to form an image
of the completed puzzle that is slowly revealing itself before me (“upside down
Miss Jane!” ).
To conclude on a serious note....
Throughout the term I have experienced a range of emotions within
the stories of Challenger, Titanic, Bhopal and Texas City; from sadness, to
disappointment, then anger and finally resolve; to take away from these
tragedies key findings, to be used in future to prevent similar catastrophes.
I have always been a bit rebellious, often looking for
opportunities to upset the status quo and I am rarely challenged intellectually
in a way that excites me and piques my insatiable hunger for knowledge.
Accident Forensics has afforded me the opportunity to renew my enthusiasm for learning
and experiment with innovative approaches to problem solving. A large part of
my role as a Safety Professional is to investigate work related incidents and
until this term my manner and reasoning has been one-dimensional. I have
already had the opportunity to apply some of the concepts learned this term, and just last
week, whilst completing an investigation and facing the frustration of
differing versions of events by two parties, the theory ‘Triangulation of
Evidence’ came to mind; seeking out a third witness to the incident immediately
simplified and clarified the opposing statements.
My role in Safety is to
protect workers from incidents that could result in harm and prevent
reoccurrences of dangerous situations; there is no doubt in my mind that this
course will provide me with the necessary skills to conclusively establish the causation
factors so that appropriate treatments can be applied. I believe the skills
required to succeed in this degree are ones that require the maturity to face
our pre-conceived realities with an open mind and an ability to colour outside
the lines.
