Reconciliation can lead to better application: A rejoinder to Perrow (2009)

Human Relations

Volumn 62, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 1395-1398

  Shrivastava, Samir ^a   Sonpar, Karan ^b   Pazzaglia, Federica ^c  

^a SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

Author keywords

High reliability; Negentropy; Normal accident; Temporal dimension

Indexed keywords

EID: 70249111541     PISSN: 00187267     EISSN: 1741282X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0018726709339123     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Hales, C. P. Why do managers do what they do? Reconciling evidence and theory in accounts of managerial work. British Journal of Management, 1999, 10, 335-50.
2. Hopkins, A. The limits of normal accident theory. Safety Science, 1999, 32, 93-102.
3. Perrow, C. Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. New York: Basic Books, 1984.
4. Perrow, C. The limits of safety: The enhancement of a theory of accidents. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 1994, 2, 212-20.
5. Perrow, C. What's needed is application, not reconciliation: A response to Shrivastava, Sonpar, and Pazzaglia (2009). Human Relations, 2009, 62, 1391-3.
6. Shrivastava, S., Sonpar, K. & Pazzaglia, F. Normal accident theory versus high reliability theory: A resolution and call for an open systems view of accidents. Human Relations, 2009, 62, 1357-90.
7. Vallero, D. A. & Vesilind, P. A. Socially responsible engineering: Justice in risk management. New York: Wiley, 2007.