Ergonomics & Human factors
fade of a discipline
J.C.F. de Winter (TU Delft - Human-Robot Interaction)
Y.B. Eisma (TU Delft - Human-Robot Interaction)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
In this commentary, we argue that the field of Ergonomics and Human Factors (EHF) has the tendency to present itself as a thriving and impactful science, while in reality, it is losing credibility. We assert that EHF science (1) has introduced terminology that is internally inconsistent and hardly predictive-valid, (2) has virtually no impact on industrial practice, which operates within frameworks of regulatory compliance and profit generation, (3) repeatedly employs the same approach of conducting lab experiments within unrealistic paradigms in order to complete deliverables, (4) suggests it is a cumulative science, but is neither a leader nor even an adopter of open-science initiatives that are characteristic of scientific progress and (5) is being assimilated by other disciplines as well as Big Tech. Recommendations are provided to reverse this trend, although we also express a certain resignation as our scientific discipline loses significance. Practitioner Summary: This paper offers criticism of the field of Ergonomics. There are issues such as unclear terminology, unrealistic experiments, insufficient impact and lack of open data. We provide recommendations to reverse the trend. This article concerns a critique of EHF as a science, and is not a critique of EHF practitioners.
help_outline