![]() Governments and organisations will invest, based on the advice of 'most'. "Most" will be the community that use and repurpose this content and that like it to communicate threat, risk, danger, harm and peril. While most psychologists, sociologists, criminologists, advanced academics, safety, security and risk scientists are aware of these influences and issues. The below visual summarises the ethnographic, corpus linguistic and thematic influences of the document. Because the researchers and authors of this document didn't. Intentional or not, readers will have a negative bias without understanding or exploring the confounding variables or mitigating facts/actions from jurisdiction to another. Uncertainty, risk and war are more prevalent terms than safety, management, crime or prevention. Reinforcing point 3 but demonstrating the variance or 'drift' in meaning over time or from one passage to another. The expressions and linkage of words, phrases and facts leading into and out of any one reference of safety, security, risk, uncertainty, etc differs greatly.In other words, they are not objective, factual statements reflective of reality or the entire world's population. Extraction of a key phrase distorts the meaning and creates new meaning(s), often aligned with the researchers or observers own bias or ideology. That is, safety, security risk, etc vary in both context and definition from one passage to the next. Definitions and context are taken for granted.Confusion, conflict, power and representation come into play. They are unlikely to share the same native language, let alone culture. There is not one universal person nor thought. In short, the opinions, experience, education and thinking of many people. The document is the product of many authors, facts, disciplines and timelines.Rather they will 'cherry pick' keywords, phrases and extracts. At 320 pages and 211,401 words, few are likely to consume the document in full.If they did, the would observe some of the following influences, findings and issues: But how many individuals or organisations analysed the document, narratives and 'meaning' in detail? The product of which is the result of just 'reading' the text and repurposing assertions, quotes, analysis or numbers to support or refute and argument. The content of which will feature in many risk, security, safety and resilience publications and narratives for some time to come. This is particular evident in summaries, literature reviews and consolidated 'intelligence analysis' across disciplines.įor example, the UNDP recently released a forecast analysis on human development, inclusive of forecasted harm, threat, risk, safety and security concerns. A lack of consideration or examination manufactures new threats and may even misguide prioritisation, focus or individual/collective understanding. While marketers, researchers, scientists and scholars are familiar or skilled in some of these areas, it remains a persistent deficit within applied risk, resilience, safety, security and management practices, professions and application. In other words, there is reading, understanding, analysis and intent layers concealed and presented in every written passage. ![]() Even less conduct cumulative semantic meta-analysis of the document, relationships and related literature/content. Very few analyse the document for thematic, linguistic or discourse 'meaning' concealed within the narrative(s). Everyone reads and reviews documents, reports and literature.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |