Reviewing Heinrich: Dislodging Two Myths From the Practice of Safety

F. A. Manuele
{"title":"Reviewing Heinrich: Dislodging Two Myths From the Practice of Safety","authors":"F. A. Manuele","doi":"10.1002/9781118574683.ch10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In The Standardization of Error, Stefansson (1928) makes the case that people are willing to accept as fact what is written or spoken without adequate supporting evidence. When studies show that a supposed fact is not true, dislodging it is difficult because that belief as become deeply embedded in the minds of people and, thereby, standardized. Stefansson pleads for a mind-set that accepts as knowledge only that which can be proven and which cannot be logically contradicted. He states that his theme applies to all fields of endeavor except for mathematics. Safety is a professional specialty in which myths have become standardized and deeply embedded. This article examines two myths that should be dislodged from the practice of safety: 1) Unsafe acts of workers are the principle causes of occupational accidents. 2) Reducing accident frequency will equivalently reduce severe injuries. These myths arise from the work of H.W. Heinrich (1931; 1941; 1950; 1959). They can be found in the four editions of Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach. Although some safety practitioners may not recognize Heinrich’s name, his misleading premises are perpetuated as they are frequently cited in speeches and papers. Analytical evidence indicates that these premises are not soundly based, supportable or valid, and, therefore, must be dislodged. Although this article questions the validity of the work of an author whose writings have been the foundation of safety-related teaching and practice for many decades, it is appropriate to recognize the positive effects of his work as well. This article was written as a result of encouragement from several colleagues who encountered situations in which these premises were cited as fact, with the resulting recommended preventive actions being inappropriate and ineffective. Safety professionals must do more to inform about and refute these myths so that they may be dislodged.","PeriodicalId":74579,"journal":{"name":"Professional safety","volume":"351 ","pages":"52-61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/9781118574683.ch10","citationCount":"73","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Professional safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118574683.ch10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 73

Abstract

In The Standardization of Error, Stefansson (1928) makes the case that people are willing to accept as fact what is written or spoken without adequate supporting evidence. When studies show that a supposed fact is not true, dislodging it is difficult because that belief as become deeply embedded in the minds of people and, thereby, standardized. Stefansson pleads for a mind-set that accepts as knowledge only that which can be proven and which cannot be logically contradicted. He states that his theme applies to all fields of endeavor except for mathematics. Safety is a professional specialty in which myths have become standardized and deeply embedded. This article examines two myths that should be dislodged from the practice of safety: 1) Unsafe acts of workers are the principle causes of occupational accidents. 2) Reducing accident frequency will equivalently reduce severe injuries. These myths arise from the work of H.W. Heinrich (1931; 1941; 1950; 1959). They can be found in the four editions of Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach. Although some safety practitioners may not recognize Heinrich’s name, his misleading premises are perpetuated as they are frequently cited in speeches and papers. Analytical evidence indicates that these premises are not soundly based, supportable or valid, and, therefore, must be dislodged. Although this article questions the validity of the work of an author whose writings have been the foundation of safety-related teaching and practice for many decades, it is appropriate to recognize the positive effects of his work as well. This article was written as a result of encouragement from several colleagues who encountered situations in which these premises were cited as fact, with the resulting recommended preventive actions being inappropriate and ineffective. Safety professionals must do more to inform about and refute these myths so that they may be dislodged.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
回顾海因里希:从安全实践中剔除两个神话
Stefansson(1928)在《错误的标准化》(The Standardization of Error)一书中指出,如果没有足够的证据支持,人们愿意把书面或口头的东西当作事实来接受。当研究表明一个假定的事实不真实时,推翻它是困难的,因为这种信念已经深深植根于人们的思想中,从而被标准化了。Stefansson呼吁一种心态,即只接受那些可以被证明的和逻辑上不能被反驳的知识。他说他的主题适用于除数学以外的所有领域。安全是一个专业领域,在这个领域里,神话已经变得标准化并深入人心。这篇文章检查了两个应该从安全实践中消除的神话:1)工人的不安全行为是职业事故的主要原因。2)减少事故发生频率,就等于减少严重伤害。这些神话来源于H.W. Heinrich (1931;1941;1950;1959)。它们可以在《工业事故预防:科学方法》的四个版本中找到。尽管一些安全从业人员可能不认识海因里希的名字,但他的误导性前提却一直存在,因为它们经常在演讲和论文中被引用。分析性证据表明,这些前提没有可靠的基础、可支持或有效,因此必须予以推翻。尽管这篇文章质疑了几十年来一直是安全相关教学和实践基础的作者的工作的有效性,但也应该承认他的工作的积极影响。这篇文章是在几位同事的鼓励下写成的,他们遇到的情况是,这些前提被引用为事实,因此建议的预防行动是不适当和无效的。安全专业人员必须做更多的工作来告知和驳斥这些神话,以便它们可能被驱逐。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
EXPLORING PERCEPTIONS of U.S. Healthcare & Public Safety Workers at the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic. SAFETY CLIMATE: The Derived Importance of Personal vs. Situational Factors in Mining. Forklift Safety - Pilot Study Evaluation of Retrofit Lights. SAW SAFETY Risk in the Real World. Job Autonomy & Safety Climate: Examining Associations in the Mining Industry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1