安全科学范式运演机制:基于安全-I、安全-II、安全-III的思维辨析

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2026.01.0564

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为阐释安全-I、安全-II、安全-III的本质差异,明确安全科学范式的运演机制,推动安全科学作为一门科学学科持续发展,运用文献综述法与比较分析法,从认识论和方法论维度解析三者的理论差异,进而从科学哲学视角论述安全科学范式的构建与转换,澄清三者的范式定位。结果表明:安全-I代表着重视因果关系的传统事故致因理论或模型,安全-II是强调从正面视角研究安全问题的韧性理论方法,安全-III则是基于系统理论及控制论的系统型事故致因模型。安全科学范式由一体四面构成,包括无范式阶段、范式建立阶段、常规科学研究阶段、范式危机以及范式转换阶段,当前安全科学范式以事故致因理论为主导,处于常规科学研究阶段,虽然存在范式危机现象,但尚未进入范式转换时期。安全-I和安全-III是事故致因理论范式中的研究内容,安全-II的信念和研究视角发生了转变,可视为安全科学新的研究方向,但尚未成为新范式。未来安全科学范式的发展有3种形式,需在新技术的引领下持续实践和探索。

关键词: 安全科学范式, 运演机制, 安全-I, 安全-II, 安全-III, 范式转换

Abstract:

In order to elucidate the essential differences among safety-I, safety-II, and safety-III, to clarify the operational mechanisms of safety science paradigms, and to promote the sustained development of safety science as a scientific discipline, this study adopted literature review and comparative analysis methods. The theoretical distinctions among the three from epistemological and methodological dimensions were analyzed. Then the construction and transformation of the safety science paradigm from the perspective of philosophy of science were discussed, and their paradigm positions were clarified. The results indicate that: Safety-I represents traditional accident causation theories or models that emphasize causality. Safety-II is a resilience theory that studies safety issues from a positive perspective. Safety-III is a systemic accident model grounded in systems theory and cybernetics. The safety science paradigm comprises one entity with four aspects. These aspects include the paradigm-free stage, paradigm establishment stage, normal science research stage, paradigm crisis stage, and paradigm shift stage. Currently, the safety science paradigm is dominated by accident causation theory and remains in the normal science research stage. Although there are signs of a paradigm crisis, it has not yet entered the paradigm shift period. Safety-I and Safety-III are research contents within the accident causation theory paradigm. However, Safety-II reflects changes in both beliefs and research perspectives. It can be seen as a new research direction in safety science, but it has not yet become a new paradigm. The future development of the safety science paradigm has three possible forms. It requires continuous practice and exploration led by new technologies.

Key words: safety science paradigm, operational mechanism, safety-I, safety-II, safety-III, paradigm shift

中图分类号:

X913.1安全运筹学

佟瑞鹏, 王益艳, 武琪, 毛颖, 许素睿, 安宇. 安全科学范式运演机制:基于安全-I、安全-II、安全-III的思维辨析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2026, 36(1): 7-16.

TONG Ruipeng, WANG Yiyan, WU Qi, MAO Ying, XU Surui, AN Yu. Research on operational mechanism of safety science paradigms: a conceptual analysis based on safety-I, safety-II, and safety-III[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2026, 36(1): 7-16.

图/表 4

表1

表2

图1

图2

参考文献 46

[1]	HOLLNAGEL E. Safety-I and safety-II: the past and future of safety management[M]. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2018:171-172.
[2]	GE Ji, XU Kaili, ZHENG Xin, et al. The main challenges of safety science[J]. Safety Science, 2019, 118:119-125. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.006
[3]	HALE A. Foundations of safety science: a postscript[J]. Safety Science, 2014, 67:64-69. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.03.001
[4]	KARANIKAS N, ZERGUINE H. Are the new safety paradigms (only) about safety and sufficient to ensure it? an overview and critical commentary[J]. Safety Science, 2024, 170:DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106367.
[5]	LEVESON N. Safety III: a systems approach to safety and resilience[J]. MIT Laboratory of Engineering Systems, 2020, 16:2021.
[6]	李杰. SafetyⅡ学术思想的科学传播研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2022, 18(11):223-228.
	LI Jie. The diffusion of the safety Ⅱ thought[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2022, 18(11):223-228.
[7]	傅贵. 安全科学学及其应用探讨[J]. 安全, 2019, 40(2):1-10.
	FU Gui. The science of safety science and its practical lmplications[J]. Safety & Security, 2019, 40(2):1-10.
[8]	吴超. 安全研究的预设和途径及新观点[J]. 安全, 2019, 40(8):32-37,42.
	WU Chao. Presupposition, pathes and new thought of safety research[J]. Safety & Security, 2019, 40(8):32-37,42.
[9]	佟瑞鹏, 王露露, 许素睿, 等. 本质安全、行为安全、过程安全与功能安全的比较研究:基于安全管理范式转换[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(1):7-15. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.01.1045
	TONG Ruipeng, WANG Lulu, XU Surui, et al. Comparative study of inherent safety, behavior-basedsafety, process safety and functional safety based onsafety management paradigm shift[J] China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(1):7-15. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.01.1045
[10]	罗通元. 安全科学研究对象的认识困境与探赜[J]. 现代职业安全, 2021(5):68-71.
	LUO Tongyuan. The cognitive dilemma and exploration of safety science research objects[J]. Modern Occupational Safety, 2021(5):68-71.
[11]	李杰. 关于安全科学三个方面的思考[J]. 技术与创新管理, 2020, 41(6):536,573.
	LI Jie. Reflections on three aspects of safety science[J]. Technology and Innovation Management, 2020, 41(6):536,573.
[12]	SWUSTE P, ZWAARD W, GROENEWEG J, et al. Safety professionals in the Netherlands[J]. Safety Science, 2019, 114:79-88. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.12.015
[13]	佟瑞鹏, 王露露, 胡向阳, 等. 安全软科学研究追溯与展望:内涵、外延与挑战[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(4):1-8. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.04.1894
	TONG Ruipeng, WANG Lulu, HU Xiangyang, et al. Review and prospect of safety soft scienceresearch:connotation,extension and challenge[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(4):1-8. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.04.1894
[14]	HAAVIK T K. On the ontology of safety[J]. Safety Science, 2014, 67:37-43. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.09.004
[15]	HOLLNAGEL E, LEONHARDT J, LICU T, et al. From safety-I to safety-II: a white paper[M]. Bruxelles: Eurocontrol, 2013:1-32.
[16]	刘祖德, 刘永泰, 王淸淸. 相关关系和因果关系在事故分析中的应用:研究综述与启示[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2020, 20(1):169-177.
	LIU Zude, LIU Yongtai, WANG Qingqing. Applications of the relevant and cause-result relationshipto the analysis of the production safety accidents:summary and enlightenment[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2020, 20(1):169-177.
[17]	伍星光, 侯磊, 刘芳媛, 等. 安全思维和事故模型研究分析与展望[J]. 石油科学通报, 2020, 5(2):254-268.
	WU Xingguang, HOU Lei, LIU Fangyuan, et al. The analysis and prospects of safety thinking and accident models[J]. Petroleum Science Bulletin, 2020, 5(2):254-268.
[18]	刘敏, 董华. 简单范式与复杂范式:论经典科学与系统科学的不同认识论模式[J]. 科学技术与辩证法, 2006, 5(2):21-24.
	LIU Ming, DONG Hua. Seeing science in multidimension[J]. Studies in Philosophy of Science and Technology, 2006, 5(2):21-24.
[19]	HOLLNAGEL E. Understanding accidents-from root causes to performance variability[C]. Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE 7^th Conference on.IEEE, 2002: DOI:10.1109/HFPP.2002.1042821.
[20]	WEARS R L. Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts[J]. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 2006, 15(6): DOI:10.1136/qshc.2006.018390.
[21]	HOLLNAGEL E. Safety-II in practice: developing the resilience potentials[M]. New York: Routledge, 2017:74-75.
[22]	HOLLNAGEL E. ow resilient is your organisation? an introduction to the resilience analysis grid (RAG)[C]. Sustainable Transformation: Building a Resilient Organization. 2010: 1-6.
[23]	HOLLNAGEL E. FRAM: the functional resonance analysis method: modelling complex socio-technical systems[M]. Boca Raton: Crc Press, 2017:127-134.
[24]	PATRIARCA R, DI GRAVIO G, WOLTJERl R, et al. Framing the FRAM: a literature review on the functional resonance analysis method[J]. Safety Science, 2020, 129:DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104827.
[25]	HOLLNAGEL E, SLATER D. The metamorphosis from safety-II to an incremental safety cultur[C]. 7^th Safety II Workshop, 2025, 25: 1-12.
[26]	LEVESON N G. Engineering a safer world: systems thinking applied to safety[M]. Cambridge: the MIT Press, 2016:10-15.
[27]	PATRIARCA R, CHATZIMICHAILIDOU M, KARANIKAS N, et al. The past and present of system-theoretic accident model and processes (STAMP) and its associated techniques: a scoping review[J]. Safety Science, 2022, 146:DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105566.
[28]	LR COZE J C, PETTERSEN K, REIMAN T. The foundations of safety science[J]. Safety Science, 2014, 67:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.03.002
[29]	GIERSZEWSKI J. Paradygmatyczne punkty widzenia nauk o bezpieczeństwie[J]. Historia I Polityka, 2019, 36(29): 9-25.
[30]	王秉, 史志勇, 王渊洁. 复杂性时代的国家安全学新范式:构建国家安全复杂学[J]. 国际安全研究, 2023, 41(4):57-81,157-158.
	WANG Bing, SHI Zhiyong, WANG Yuanjie. Research on the disciplinary establishment of national security and safety complexity science[J]. Journal of International Security Studies, 2023, 41(4):57-81,157-158.
[31]	方芳. 是谁动了库恩的“范式”? “范式”变异之译介促因分析[J]. 上海翻译, 2025(2):78-84.
	FANG fang. Who changed Kuhn's "paradigm":exploring the factors leading to variations of "paradigm"[J]. Shanghai Journal of Translators, 2025(2):78-84.
[32]	HOLLNAGEL E. Is safety a subject for science?[J]. Safety Science, 2014, 67: 21-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.025
[33]	KUHN T S. The structure of scientific revolutions[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997: 10-22.
[34]	郑杭生, 李霞. 关于库恩的“范式”:一种科学哲学与社会学交叉的视角[J]. 广东社会科学, 2004(2):119-126.
	ZHENG Hangsheng, LI Xia. On Kuhn's "paradigm": an interdisciplinary perspective bridging philosophy of science and sociology[J]. Social Sciences in Guangdong, 2004(2):119-126.
[35]	宋超, 杨瑶. 库恩范式结构特点的系统哲学解读[J]. 系统科学学报, 2023, 31(3):16-22.
	SONG Chao, YANG Yao. Interpretation of Kuhn's paradigm structure based on system philosophy[J]. Chinese Journal of Systems Science, 2023, 31(3):16-22.
[36]	张勇. 原始语境与具体运用:社会科学研究中运用范式概念的再认识[J]. 黑龙江社会科学, 2024(4):68-73.
	ZHANG Yong. Primitive Context and specific application: a furtherunder standing of the application of paradigm concepts insocial science research[J]. Social Sciences in Heilongjiang, 2024(4):68-73.
[37]	隋鹏程. 回顾与展望:从业安全48年的体会[J]. 劳动保护科学技术, 1999, 20(5): 7-8.
	SUI Pengcheng. Review and outlook:reflections on 48 years of occupational safety experience[J]. Labor Protection Science and Technology, 1999, 20(5):7-8.
[38]	傅贵, 郭孝臣. 事故致因理论的研究与应用简评[J]. 安全, 2019, 40(9):1-5.
	FU Gui, GUO Xiaochen. A brief review on the study and application of accident causation theory[J]. Safety & Security, 2019, 40(9):1-5.
[39]	WHETSTONE D. Tracing paradigm shifts in information literacy: a progressive knowledge domain visualization approach[D]. Columbia: University of Missouri-Columbia, 2022.
[40]	RAYMOND R, HECHT M. A SysML profile for MIL-STD-882E (system safety)[J]. INCOSE International Symposium, 2022, 32:10.1002/iis2.13004.
[41]	PROKOP L E. Software error incident categorizations in aerospace[J]. Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, 2024, 21(10): 775-789. doi: 10.2514/1.I011240
[42]	COOPER M D. The emperor has no clothes: a critique of safety-II[J]. Safety Science, 2022, 152:DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105047.
[43]	FU Gui, XIE Xuecai, JIA Qingsong, et al. The development history of accident causation models in the past 100 years: 24Model, a more modern accident causation model[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2020, 134: 47-82. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2019.11.027
[44]	STOOP J, DE KROES J, HALE A. Safety science, a founding fathers' retrospection[J]. Safety Science, 2017, 94: 103-115. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.01.006
[45]	HEGDE S, HETTINGER A Z, FAIRBANKS R J, et al. Qualitative findings from a pilot stage implementation of a novel organizational learning tool toward operationalizing the safety-II paradigm in health care[J]. Applied Ergonomics, 2020, 82:DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102913.
[46]	CHOI J J. What is diagnostic safety? a review of safety science paradigms and rethinking paths to improving diagnosis[J]. Diagnosis, 2024, 11(4): 369-373. doi: 10.1515/dx-2024-0008

维度		安全-I	安全-II	安全-Ⅲ
认识论	对安全的定义	尽可能少出错	尽可能多做正确的事情	由系统利益相关者确定的不可接受的损失
	认识本质	不良事件	系统在动态交互中持续成功运行的功能状态	安全作为控制问题而不仅是可靠性问题
	知识来源	历史数据与事故案例的经验归纳	成功实践的生成性知识	事故的经验归纳与信息挖掘
	认知范围	可以被明确识别、定义和量化的风险领域	以安全为中心的成功行为和条件	以系统控制为中心的工程技术范畴
	风险识别	已知-已知、已知-未知	未知-未知	已知-未知、未知-未知
	人因观	人类是风险来源	人类是系统韧性的核心资源	系统设计需支持人类的灵活性,确保其行为在安全边界内
方法论	指导原则	逻辑实证主义	实用主义	逻辑实证主义、实用主义
	分析基础	线性因果关系	韧性工程	系统论因果关系
	实践工具	链式事故致因模型 ①单因素:事故倾向性理论 ②简单链式:多米诺骨牌模型 ③复杂链式:瑞士奶酪模型、瑟利模型	①韧性评估网格(Resilience Assessment Grid,RAG)^[22] ②功能共振模型(Functional Resonance Analysis Method,FRAM)^[23] ③FRAM模型可视化软件(FRAM Model Visualiser,FMV)^[24]	①系统理论事故模型与过程(Systems-Theoretic Accident Modeland Processes,STAMP) ②系统理论过程分析(Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis,STPA) ③基于STAMP的因果分析(Causal Analysis based on STAMP,CAST)

构成要素		具体内涵
一体	安全科学共同体	安全科学共同体是指围绕安全科学相关议题展开科学研究及实践的群体,由来自不同学科背景的学者、专家、从业者以及政策制定者等组成,通过学术交流、合作研究、教育培训等方式,共同推动安全科学的发展
四面	安全科学的理论体系	安全科学的理论体系是由符号概括、基础假设、定律、原理、模型、应用、研究方法以及技术工具等组成的整体性研究架构。通常来说,理论体系是科学范式的显性表达
	科学成就	安全科学共同体普遍认可的重大研究成果,是最具解释力和竞争力的理论体系,也是范式形成的起点
	成功范例	能够被反复引用的经典问题的解决方案,通过模仿范例可掌握范式的应用方法。范例是范式在实践中的具体体现,指导安全科学共同体成员按规则解决问题
	安全科学的共同信念	安全科学的共同信念是解决安全问题的世界观选择,包括科学共同体的本体论承诺、认识论预设以及价值论取向,也是安全科学共同体一致遵守的研究纲领