Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 207–212 | Cite as

Cognitive engineering and the moral theology and witchcraft of cause

Original Article

Abstract

In keeping with the concerns of this special issue—while extending its empirical reach—we consider the influence that some fundamental ideas of Western society have had on how we look at failure and accountability in complex systems. We suggest that these may have gone somewhat unnoticed or been neglected by cognitive systems engineering and that this could undermine its agenda.

Keywords

Cause Blame Human error Cognitive engineering Criminalization 

References

  1. Bailey FG (1994) The witch-hunt: or, the triumph of morality. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  2. Columbia Accident Investigation Board (2003) Report volume 1, August 2003. U. S. Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Cook RI, Woods DD, Miller C (1998) A tale of two stories: contrasting views of patient safety. National Patient Safety Foundation, American Medical Association, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Cowell A (2008) Criminal charges against continental in deadly concorde crash. The New York Times, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Dekker SWA (2005) Ten questions about human error: a new view of human factors and system safety. Lawrence Erblaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  6. Douglas M (1992) Risk and blame: essays in cultural theory. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erikson K (1966) Wayward puritans. Wiley, New York, p 11Google Scholar
  8. Ferner RE, McDowell SE (2006) Doctors charged with manslaughter in the course of medical practice, 1795–2005: a literature review. J R Soc Med 99:309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Galison P (2000) An accident of history. In: Galison P, Roland A (eds) Atmospheric flight in the twentieth century. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gawande A (2002) Complications: a surgeon’s notes on an imperfect science. Picado, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Govan F (2008) Mechanics face manslaughter charge for Madrid air crash. The Daily Telegraph, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Hadjicostis M (2009) Cyprus trial of Helios crash adjourned until April. The Washington Post, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Heft H (2001) Ecological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker and the legacy of William James’s radical empiricism. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  14. Horns KM, Loper DL (2002) Medication errors: analysis not blame. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 31(3):347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Learmount D, Modola P (2004) ATC body blasts Linate verdicts. Flight International, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Lennersand M (2008) Försoning (reconciliation). Forskning och Framsteg (Res Prog) 1:56–59Google Scholar
  17. McNeill PM, Walton M (2002) Medical harm and the consequences of error for doctors. Med J Aust 176(5):222–225Google Scholar
  18. Mould RF (2000) Chernobyl record: the definitive history of the Chernobyl catastrophe. IOP, PiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pagels E (1988) Adam, Eve and the serpent. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Reason JT (1999) Are we casting the net too widely in our search for the factors contributing to errors and accidents? In: Misumi J, Wilpert B, Miller R (eds) Nuclear safety: an ergonomics perspective. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 199–205Google Scholar
  22. Rock P (1998) Rules, boundaries and the courts: some problems in the Neo-Durkheimian sociology of deviance. British J Sociol 49(4):586–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rotenberg M (2003) Damnation and deviance: the protestant ethic and the spirit of failure. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 4–5Google Scholar
  24. Ruitenberg B (2002) Court case against Dutch controllers. Controller 4(41):22–25Google Scholar
  25. Schmidt S (2009) Some airlines require confidentiality deals before safety inspections. The Province, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  26. Shorrock S, Young M, Faulkner J, Braithwaite G (2004) Who moved my (Swiss) cheese? The (R)evolution of human factors in transport safety investigation. ISASI proceedings, session IX, pp 141–144Google Scholar
  27. Sibbald B (2001) Ending the blame game key to overcoming medical error. CMAJ 165(8):1083Google Scholar
  28. Snook SA (2000) Friendly fire: the accidental shootdown of US Black Hawks over Northern Iraq. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomas SM (2007) Outwitting the developed countries? Existential insecurity and the global resurgence of religion. J Int Aff 61(1):21–47Google Scholar
  30. van den Hoven MJ (2001) Moral responsibility and information technology. Erasmus University Center for Philosophy of ICT, RotterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wallerstein I (ed) (1996) Open the social sciences: report of the Gulbenkian commission on the restructuring of the social sciences. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  32. White L (1974) Death and the devil. In: Kinsman RS (ed) The darker visions of the renaissance: beyond the fields of reason. University of California Press, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilkinson I (2001) Anxiety in a risk society. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Woods DD, Cook RI (2002) Nine steps to move forward from error. Cogn Tech Work 4:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Ball State UniversityMuncieUSA

Personalised recommendations