Basic Concepts in Professional Ergonomics: Defined or Debunked?

Abstract

Professional forensic ergonomists are often confronted with difficulties in making sure that their expert opinions are both understood by juries and judges but also that they make the desired contribution to resolving critical issues in injury and tort law. What is at issue here are the terms and phrases used by the professionals “under oath” meaning when providing formal testimony in a court of law or as part of a deposition. For example, there are such terms and phrases as “with complete certainty,” “accident,” “fault,” “cause,” “mitigated,” “random,” “arbitrary,” and “artifactual,” just to cite a few.

The problem lies with the vagaries of the English language where any single word or phrase can have many meanings and interpretations depending upon the context, the intent of the user, and the biases of those who hear it or read it.

When dealing with a critically important issue such as debilitating injury to human being and in the course of trying to determine whether or not some other person is responsible, as such is the realm of tort law, vagueness of phrasing by the persons who are contributing testimony are a nagging problem. The final decision of the court and the juries may hang on a single word or phrase.

In order to ensure that the professional integrity of forensic ergonomics as well as to add solidarity to the foundation of the discipline of professional ergonomics, it is critically important that it is not the forensic ergonomists in tort litigation who fail to make their intended and necessary contributions to the case because of unsuccinct words and phrases when testifying.

This is a very complex issue and more than one way highly frustrating for many practicing professional forensic ergonomists. Thus, this panel discussion is designed to make an initial foray into this problem which in itself is vague and ill-defined. The panel will address three key points: 1) Whether there should be an established, professionally accepted, or endorsed taxonomy (lexicon) of standard terms to be used by forensic ergonomics professionals and lawyers. 2) How should a standard taxonomy of professional forensic ergonomic terms be developed, adopted, promulgated?; and 3) How to determine which terms and phrases need to be put into the taxonomy or lexicon.

The panel will be comprised of a chair or moderator (TBD) and four professional forensic ergonomists who have extensive experience “under oath” in providing expert opinion and analysis in tort law.