Wang, Yafeng (2024) Criteria of Success for Engineering Accident Investigations: A Question-Centered Account. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 14 (16). pp. 1-30. ISSN 1879-4912
![[img]](https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
Criteria of Success Accepted Version.pdf - Accepted Version Restricted to Repository staff only until 19 March 2025. Download (485kB) |
Abstract
Engineering accident investigations are systematic inquiries into the facts and causes of engineering accidents. The aims of an engineering accident investigation include identifying significant truths about an accident, learning lessons to prevent similar future accidents, and authoritatively communicating the investigative results to the stakeholders. An important normative dimension along which an engineering accident investigation can be evaluated is its degree of success in fulfilling these aims. In this paper, I propose criteria for evaluating the degree of success of an engineering accident investigation using a question-centered framework, and then argue for the relevance of this proposal to the actual engineering practice. The basic idea of my proposal is that an engineering accident investigation is successful to the extent that (1) questions that should arise in the investigation do arise, and (2) questions that arise—especially the more significant ones—are resolved satisfactorily by the end of the investigation. The first part of this paper unpacks my proposal by analyzing the following three concepts and illustrating them using examples from the TWA Flight 800 accident investigation: The (satisfactory) resolution of questions, the significance of questions, and the arising of questions. The second part of this paper argues for the relevance of my proposal to the practitioners and stakeholders of engineering accident investigations. First, I argue that my proposal is sensitive to the aims of the investigators and stakeholders regarding engineering accident investigations, and that it helps them navigate competing and conflicting aims. Second, I go beyond the TWA 800 case study and argue that my proposal explains the strengths and limitations of different types of accident causation models used in investigations.
| Export/Citation: | EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL |
| Social Networking: |
| Item Type: | Published Article or Volume | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creators: |
|
||||||
| Keywords: | Engineering accident investigation, degree of success, questions, question resolution, question significance, question arising | ||||||
| Subjects: | Specific Sciences > Engineering General Issues > Technology |
||||||
| Depositing User: | Yafeng Wang | ||||||
| Date Deposited: | 01 Apr 2024 05:28 | ||||||
| Last Modified: | 01 Apr 2024 05:28 | ||||||
| Item ID: | 23155 | ||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | European Journal for Philosophy of Science | ||||||
| Publisher: | Springer | ||||||
| Official URL: | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13194-0... | ||||||
| DOI or Unique Handle: | https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00578-5 | ||||||
| Subjects: | Specific Sciences > Engineering General Issues > Technology |
||||||
| Date: | 18 March 2024 | ||||||
| Page Range: | pp. 1-30 | ||||||
| Volume: | 14 | ||||||
| Number: | 16 | ||||||
| ISSN: | 1879-4912 | ||||||
| URI: | https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/23155 |
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Altmetric.com
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[feed]](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}