Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dekker, S. W. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Dekker, S. W. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Doctors Are More Dangerous Than Gun Owners: A Rejoinder to Error Counting

Sidney W. A. Dekker

Lund University, Ljungbyhed, Sweden, sidney.dekker{at}tfhs.lu.se

Objective: This paper analyzes some of the problems with error counting as well as the difficulty of proposing viable alternatives. Background: Counting and tabulating negatives (e.g., errors) are currently popular ways to measure and help improve safety in a variety of domains. They uphold an illusion of rationality and control but may offer neither real insight nor productive routes for improving safety. Method: The paper conducts a critical analysis of assumptions underlying error counting in human factors. Results: Error counting is a form of structural analysis that focuses on (supposed) causes and consequences; it defines risk and safety instrumentally in terms of minimizing negatives and their measurable effects. In this way, physicians can be proven to be 7500 times less safe than gun owners, as they are responsible for many more accidental deaths. Conclusion: The appeal of error counting may lie in a naive realism that can enchant researchers and practitioners alike. Supporting facts will continue to be found by those looking for errors through increasingly refined methods. Application: The paper outlines a different approach to understanding safety in complex systems that is more socially and politically oriented and that places emphasis on interpretation and social construction rather than on putatively objective structural features.

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 49, No. 2, 177-184 (2007)
DOI: 10.1518/001872007X312423
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics SocietyHome page
T. B. Sheridan
Risk, Human Error, and System Resilience: Fundamental Ideas
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, June 1, 2008; 50(3): 418 - 426.
[Abstract] [PDF]