• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • Just culture: who gets to draw the line?

    Author(s)
    Dekker, SWA
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Dekker, Sidney
    Year published
    2009
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    A just culture is meant to balance learning from incidents with accountability for their consequences. All the current proposals for just cultures argue for a clear line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. This alone, however, cannot promote just culture as it falsely assumes that culpability inheres in the act, bearing immutable features independent of context, language or interpretation. The critical question is not where to draw the line, but who gets to draw it. Culpability is socially constructed: the result of deploying one language to describe an incident, and of enacting particular post-conditions. Different ...
    View more >
    A just culture is meant to balance learning from incidents with accountability for their consequences. All the current proposals for just cultures argue for a clear line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. This alone, however, cannot promote just culture as it falsely assumes that culpability inheres in the act, bearing immutable features independent of context, language or interpretation. The critical question is not where to draw the line, but who gets to draw it. Culpability is socially constructed: the result of deploying one language to describe an incident, and of enacting particular post-conditions. Different accounts of the same incident are always possible (e.g. educational, organizational, political). They generate different repertoires of countermeasures and can be more constructive for safety. The issue is not to exonerate individual practitioners but rather what kind of accountability promotes justice and safety: backward-looking and retributive, or forward-looking and change-oriented.
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Cognition, Technology and Work
    Volume
    11
    Issue
    3
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-008-0110-7
    Subject
    Information systems
    Causes and prevention of crime
    Cognitive and computational psychology
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/37890
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E
    • TEQSA: PRV12076

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander