Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Ergonomics. 2011 Aug;54(8):679-83. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2011.592607.
This paper raises the issue of ergonomics' role in giving primacy to fully rational individual human actors in the creation of system failure, despite its commitment to see action as constrained by design and operational features of work. Reflecting on recent contributions to the journal, ergonomics' dilemma is considered against Enlightenment assumptions about individual human reason as the route to truth and goodness and its critics in continental philosophy. There is a pervasive, unstated pact here. What ergonomics chooses to call certain things (violations, errors, non-compliance, situation awareness) not only simultaneously affirms and denies full rationality on part of the people it studies, it also coincides with what the West sees as scientific, true and instrumental. Thus, ergonomics research legitimates its findings in terms it is expected to explain itself in. But by doing so, it reproduces the very social order it set out to repudiate. Statement of Relevance: Ergonomics' choice of words (violations, errors, non-compliance) at once affirms and denies full rationality on part of the people it studies, reproducing the very social order it is meant to question and change.
本文提出了一个问题，即尽管人体工程学致力于将行动视为设计和工作操作特征的约束，但它仍然优先考虑完全理性的个体人为系统故障的创造者。本文通过反思杂志上的最新贡献，从人体工程学的角度出发，考虑了其在启蒙时代关于人类理性作为真理和美德的途径的假设及其在大陆哲学中的批评。这里存在一种普遍的、未说明的默契。人体工程学选择将某些事物（违规、错误、不遵守、情境意识）称为特定事物，这不仅同时肯定和否定了它所研究的人的完全理性，而且还与西方视为科学、真实和工具的事物相一致。因此，人体工程学研究根据其预期的解释来使研究结果合法化。但是，这样做会复制它试图否定的社会秩序。相关性声明：人体工程学选择的词语（违规、错误、不遵守）既肯定又否定了它所研究的人的完全理性，复制了它试图质疑和改变的社会秩序。
