Ergonomics

ISSN: 0014-0139 (Print) 1366-5847 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20

Editorial New paradigms in ergonomics

Neville A. Stanton, Paul M. Salmon & Guy H. Walker

To cite this article: Neville A. Stanton, Paul M. Salmon & Guy H. Walker (2017) Editorial New
paradigms in ergonomics, Ergonomics, 60:2, 151-156, DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2016.1240373

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1240373

Published online: 04 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1550

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=terg20
Ergonomics, 2017
VOL. 60, NO. 2, 151–156
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1240373
EDITORIAL
Editorial New paradigms in ergonomics
New paradigms
A paradigm is a world view underlying the theories and
methodology of a particular scientific discipline; in our case,
ergonomics. The ability to engage in new thinking and new
paradigms is a critical aspect for the lifeblood of any discipline.
Thankfully, ergonomics has a long history of innovations in
theory, methodology, science and application. Once regarded
as an offshoot of experimental psychology, physiology, bio-
mechanics, engineering and computer science, ergonomics
now draws from a much broader range of insights to become
a discipline in its own right. This is reflected in the develop-
ment of models and methods that are unique to the disci-
pline. Accident causation models, for example, first emerged
in the early 1900s (Heinrich 1931) but have since evolved to
consider entire systems and emergent properties therein (e.g.
Leveson 2004; Perrow [1984] 1999; Rasmussen 1997; Reason
1990). Methodologies have moved from focusing on human
tasks (Taylor 1911) and work (Gilbreth 1912) to entire sys-
tems and the constraints shaping behaviour in the world (e.g.
Vicente 1999). Human performance itself has shifted from a
world view in which it was mathematically characterised in
terms of, for example, response times, sensitivity or decision
bias (e.g. Green and Swets 1966) to more complex forms of
distributed and situated cognition (e.g. Hutchins 1995).
The systems in which ergonomists work continue to
evolve, creating emergent problems and often strengthening
intractable issues. In order to remain relevant and impactful,
the discipline needs its paradigms to evolve too. The aim of
this special issue is to provide researchers and practitioners
with an opportunity to present and discuss contemporary,
forecasted and required paradigm shifts in ergonomics.
Contributions to this New Paradigms in Ergonomics special
issue have been grouped into three themes: new paradigms
in theories and methods; new paradigms in practice; and new
paradigms in domains and values. These themes take the
reader on a journey through underlying theories, news ways
to apply those theories, emerging domains in which ergo-
nomics is expected to play a greater role and to what ultimate
ends. In the new paradigms, in theories and methods theme,
are papers on ‘Quantum ergonomics’ (Walker et al. this issue),
‘Nonlinear dynamical systems for theory and research in ergo-
nomics’ (Guastello), ‘Fitting methods to paradigms’ (Salmon
et al. this issue), ‘Quantitative modelling in cognitive ergo-
nomics’ (Moray, Groeger, and Stanton, this issue) and ‘Beyond
human error taxonomies in assessment of risk in sociotech-
nical systems’ (Stanton and Harvey,  this issue). In the new
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
paradigms, in practice theme, are papers on ‘Detection of
error-related negativity in complex visual stimuli’ (Sawyer
et al. this issue), ‘Towards continuous and real-time attention
monitoring at work’ (Mijovic et al. this issue), ‘Musculoskeletal
disorders as a fatigue failure process’ (Gallagher and Schall,
this issue). In the new paradigms, in domains and values
theme, are papers on ‘The field becomes the laboratory?’
(Sharples and Houghton), ‘Imposing limits on autonomous
systems’ (Hancock, this issue) and ‘Nature’ (Richardson et al.
this issue). Summaries of each of the contributions together
with conclusions for the special issue are in the following sec-
tions of this editorial.
New paradigms in ergonomics theory and methods
Walker, Salmon, Bedinger and Stanton (Quantum ergonomics:
Shifting the paradigm of the systems agenda) draw inspira-
tion from the world of quantum physics to confront some
difficult truths about ergonomics paradigms. Walker et al.
present three case studies to demonstrate ‘quantum effects’
in ergonomics science. In the first case study, they show how
the nanoscale, individual behaviour of drivers cannot reveal
the macro-scale behaviour of the entire road traffic network.
The case study reveals the unexpected reverse finding; that
more route guidance (in effect, better situational awareness)
on the part of individual drivers does not necessarily result in
lower CO2 emissions for the whole road network. Sometimes
it is worse. ‘Catastrophically counter-intuitive’ findings like
these show the difficulty in predicting system-wide emer-
gent properties (often the thing we really want to know)
simply from studying the behaviour of individuals and mag-
nifying the resultant findings. In the second case study of a
submarine control room, Walker et al. present insights into
the behaviour of a command team system that have been
hitherto unforthcoming from studying individual operators.
The system dynamics have enabled the development of a
submarine command room simulator that is currently being
used to generate new understanding of how these teams
work together in challenging environments (Stanton 2014).
Walker et al. argue that we need systems approaches if we
are to remain an effective discipline in the new increasingly
complex and networked world. They argue that we need to
look at new approaches, such as phase spaces (see Stanton,
Walker, and Sorensen 2012; Guastello, this issue), as a means
of offering some rigour in naturalistic studies (see Sharples
and Houghton this issue). In the final case study, Walker
152   EDITORIAL
et al. present findings from a large-scale operation field trial
(see Stanton et al. 2009). Using network analysis methods,
they were able to show how the organisational dynamics
changed over time. Walker et al. comment that ergonomic
methods need to be fit-for-purpose (see Salmon et al. this
issue) and offer the maximum of insight for the minimum
of effort. This is in contrast to a ‘one size fits all’ approach to
method (and theory) selection. The discipline of ergonomics
is good at responding to problems in the world – which are in
a constant state of flux – so the methods need to adapt and
develop to meet this evolving demand. The overall message
is one of hope: methods currently exist to enable these chal-
lenging systems problems to be tackled in practical real-world
circumstances, provided the necessary paradigm shift can be
made to occur.
Guastello (Nonlinear dynamical systems for theory and
research in ergonomics) also argues that the complexity of
sociotechnical systems requires a paradigm shift in ergonom-
ics theory (see Walker et al. 2010 this issue) and practice (see
Salmon et al. this issue). He proposes the non-linear dynam-
ical systems approach as an alternative paradigm that can
cope with this complexity, as it addresses:
• structures and patterns of variability;
• underlying dynamics and system changes;
• both internal and external dynamics;
• effects of state-dependent changes; and
• both top-down and bottom-up emergent properties in
systems.
Guastello explains how systems do not just have one ste-
reotypical response, rather there are a multiplicity of behav-
iours with different patterns and outcomes. The effects can
be both large and small, depending upon the state of the
system. Guastello brings many different systems concepts and
methods together under the non-linear dynamical systems
framework with the view that these will help ergonomics
explain complex systems behaviour. One example is the use
of phase spaces to visualise the dynamical processes in sys-
tems (Walker et al. this issue; Stanton, Walker, and Sorensen
2012). He provides numerous examples of the practical appli-
cation of non-linear dynamical systems methods, including
(but not limited to): accidents, biomechanics, performance
variability, resilience and team coordination and workload.
The non-linear dynamical systems approach has much to
offer systems ergonomics, both as a theoretical construct
and practical methods.
Salmon, Walker, Read and Stanton (Fitting methods to par-
adigms: are ergonomics methods fit for systems thinking?)
question whether current ergonomics methods really are
fit for the new systems paradigm which, from the above, is
clearly in the ascendancy. In many ways, ergonomics methods
have always been about system interactions, from individuals
to teams to organisations (Stanton et al. 2013). Yet Salmon
et al. argue that the increasing complexity of the modern
world (Walker et al. 2010), and challenges that ergonomics
faces, may have left the methods wanting. They show that
despite the dramatic reductions in accidents over the dec-
ades the statistics are plateauing. It is suggested that we may
have reached the limits of deterministic methods, so new
approaches are required. Salmon et al. explore how well our
current methodological toolkit can cope with modern day
problems by focusing on five key areas within the ergonomics
paradigm of systems thinking: normal performance as a cause
of accidents, accident prediction, system migration, systems
concepts and ergonomics in design. The ergonomics methods
available for pursuing each line of inquiry are explored, along
with their ability to respond to key requirements. Salmon
et al. come to the conclusion that, although our current suite
of ergonomics methods is highly useful, there is work to be
done. For example, they conclude that, although providing
rich outputs, some of our existing accident analysis meth-
ods do not describe accident causation in a manner that is
congruent with contemporary models (e.g. Rasmussen 1997).
With regard to accident prediction, it is concluded that we
currently do not have appropriate methodologies for predict-
ing systemic accidents (although see Stanton and Harvey, this
issue, for new developments). Likewise, Salmon et al. argue
that assessing the migration of performance towards and
away from safety boundaries, a key systems thinking concept,
is outside of the capabilities of our current methodological
toolkit. They also suggest that further ergonomics problems
and constructs may be suited to systems level analysis, and
that few ergonomics methods are actually being used directly
in system design processes. Salmon et al. close the article in
an upbeat manner, highlighting that many seemingly appro-
priate methods already exist, both in ergonomics and other
disciplines, and that research is underway to develop some
of the methods required (see Salmon 2016a,b). In closing,
they map out the prerequisites for methods development in
systems ergonomics. If our discipline is to maintain currency
and rise to the contemporary and future design challenges,
we need to develop methods that have the entire sociotech-
nical system as the unit of analysis.
Moray, Groeger and Stanton (Quantitative modelling in
cognitive ergonomics: predicting signals past at danger) state
that the discipline of ergonomics is sufficiently mature to
enable quantitative modelling of performance. A case study
of the activities of the Thames Trains driver in the Ladbroke
Grove rail accident is presented. All three authors were expert
witnesses in this case, so they combined their knowledge for
this paper. Moray et al. present accounts of the accident back-
ground, context, infrastructure and timeline together with
‘black box’ data from the train. The accident raises questions
about why the driver behaved in a particular way on that
fateful day, as well as the performance of signals and warnings
inside and outside the train cab. Eye movement data were
used as the basis for the development of a cognitive model
of driver visual attention. The model accounts for attention
both inside and outside the train cab. It revealed the diffi-
culty in acquiring the signal in a relatively short amount of
time, due to the number of signals, their placement and the
speed of the train as well as initial masking of the signals.

The ambiguity of the automatic warning system horn further
compounded the problem coupled with a strong expectation
of the signal being in a non-red aspect and glare from the
sun. The quantitative model shows how prediction of visual
attention can be used to determine risks associated with sig-
nal sighting, which can in turn be used to support guidelines
and in-cab display design.
Stanton and Harvey (Beyond human error taxonomies
in assessment of risk in sociotechnical systems: a new para-
digm with the EAST ‘broken-links’ approach) introduce a new
paradigm for risk assessment based on the Event Analysis
of Systemic Teamwork (EAST) method. They argue that the
approach offers a fundamentally different way of thinking
about risk in systems, and is dramatically different from exist-
ing human error taxonomies. Rather than treat accidents as
the result of ‘human error’ the EAST broken-links approach
treats them as information communication failures. Stanton
and Harvey provide examples of information communication
failures in the Herald of Free Enterprise capsize at Zeebrugge,
the British Midland crash at Kegworth and the Thames Train
collision at Ladbroke Grove. All of these accidents have the
common feature that key information was not communicated
to an appropriate agent by the system in an effective manner
at the right time. Stanton and Harvey present a case study of
an EAST analysis of a RAF Hawk and RN Frigate system (see
Salmon et al. this issue, for a call on understanding normative
systems). The EAST model comprised normative task, informa-
tion and social networks together with the composite model.
Stanton and Harvey demonstrate that by systematically
breaking the task and social links in the networks, risks are
revealed by information not being communicated between
tasks and social agents. One hundred and thirty-seven risks
were revealed by breaking only 12 task and 19 social links.
Stanton and Harvey show how the emergent information
communication failures transpose risk around the network
of agents, actors and artefacts. Furthermore, they show
how reducing risk in one part of the system increases risk
in another part. For future work, Stanton and Harvey plan to
break and/or add multiple links simultaneously to show how
compounded information communication failures and short
circuits could affect system performance.
New ergonomics paradigms in practice
Sawyer, Karwowski, Xanthopoulos and Hancock (Detection
of error-related negativity in complex visual stimuli: a new
neuroergonomic arrow in the practitioner’s quiver) have
established a link between the error-related negative evoked
response potential (ERN-ERP) and the complex task of iden-
tifying a motorcycle in a busy visual scene. The innovation in
this work is to take visual search tasks beyond simple letter
arrays and icon images in binary forced-choice tasks to a more
naturalistic task. Motorcycle detection is notoriously difficult
and undoubtedly the cause of accidents. Sawyer et al. trans-
ferred this task into the laboratory alongside a more tradi-
tional letter flanker task (where the target letter was flanked
Ergonomics   153
on either side by non-target letters). They demonstrated that
both tasks produce similar error rates and workload ratings.
Sawyer et al. found that the ERN-ERP waveforms were very
similar for the letter flanking and motorcycle identification
tasks. In both tasks, the wave was flat for the correct response
and had a pronounced negative deflection for the incorrect
response. Sawyer et al. propose that this finding shows the
ERN-ERP has potential for practical application and they plan
to use the procedure for dynamic environments in the future.
Potential applications include use in training and naturalistic
human–computer interfaces.
Mijovic, Kovic, De Vos, Macuzic, Todorovic, Jeremic and
Gligorjevic (Towards continuous and real-time attention mon-
itoring at work: reaction time versus brain response) state that
wearable electroencephalogram (EEG) has made objective,
online, continuous, monitoring of attentional state a practical
possibility. They have applied the use of EEG to examine the
P300 (an ERP wave component associated with the process of
decision-making) whilst people performed simulated simple
and repetitive assembly tasks. The purpose of the research
was to test the relationship between attention level (as
measured by the P300 amplitude) and the time it takes to
complete a task cycle on the assembly line. The simulated
assembly task was designed to replicate monotonous work,
comprising: picking up two items, connecting them together,
placing them in a machine, pressing a pedal to crimp the parts
together, removing them from the machine and placing them
in a bin. The entire task cycle took less than 10 s and a shift
would involve over 2500 cycles. The EEG data were collected
simultaneously. The study revealed that the P300 was corre-
lated with attention on the task. High P300 values were found
with shorter cycle times and vice versa. Mijovic et al. are keen
to point out that there are inter-individual differences which
led to some inconsistencies in the data, but the findings hold
true for the collective group level. This study has also shown
that continuous monitoring of attention is possible and that
neuroergonomic approaches have the potential to be used
in the workplace (see also Sawyer et al. this issue).
Gallagher and Schall (Musculoskeletal disorders as a
fatigue failure process: evidence, implications and research
needs) state that musculoskeletal disorders are a major cause
of workplace injury and, although much is known about the
causes, little theoretical work has been presented. By way of
contrast, fatigue failure in materials is well established and
well understood. Fatigue failure in materials is a function
of differential loading characteristics and the frequency of
cycles. This is analogous to the cumulative trauma disorder
in human tissue, which has led Gallagher and Schall to the
fatigue failure hypothesis. Some evidence from recent studies
has lent support to this hypothesis, that musculoskeletal tis-
sue also shows signs of fatigue failure. In particular, a large epi-
demiological study has shown that forceful repetition leads to
carpal tunnel syndrome. Gallagher and Schall offer a unifying
framework for musculoskeletal disorder risk factors together
with validated methods for assessing the risk of cumulative
damage. They argue that the fatigue failure process offers the
154   EDITORIAL
possibility to assess risk and develop effective interventions.
Ultimately, musculoskeletal disorders could be predicted as
our understanding of the fatigue failure process develops.
This requires a much larger data-set of fatigue failure on
musculoskeletal tissues (much like the data held on material
fatigue). It also requires a better understanding of the dynam-
ical properties of the musculoskeletal system (see Guastello,
this issue). Gallagher and Schall are working towards a fatigue
failure theory of musculoskeletal disorders and a consequent
reduction in workplace injury.
New ergonomics paradigms in domains and values
Sharples and Houghton (The field becomes the laboratory?
The impact of the contextual digital footprint on the discipline
of E/HF) argue that the ubiquity of data collection in the dig-
ital world has had a dramatic effect on the volume of infor-
mation available for ergonomics research and development.
They go so far as to suggest it could even change the nature
of how the discipline goes about its practice in terms of new
methods and insights (see Walker et al. this issue; Guastello,
this issue; Salmon et al. this issue). The digital exhaust (called
‘contextual user data’ by Sharples and Houghton) that is
emitted by people in their work, social and home lives could
provide a richer understanding about the behaviour of indi-
viduals and collectives, but with that comes a range of ethi-
cal, moral and privacy issues. Sharples and Houghton present
three scenarios, a hospital as a digital workplace, distributed
crowd-sourced activity, and managing journeys. In each of
these scenarios, Sharples and Houghton show the potential
for the technology to be both beneficial (improving human
well-being) and detrimental (making work harder, less enrich-
ing, disengaging and potentially harmful). They argue that,
used appropriately, ergonomics methods could make use of
the contextual user data in a manner to improve the design
of work, social and home lives consistent with the values of
the discipline. Big data analytics are likely to play an important
role in the discipline, and its methods, going forward.
Hancock (Imposing limits on autonomous systems) warns
of the impending march from automated rule following tech-
nologies that require human supervision to autonomous
systems, those intelligent enough to not necessarily require
human supervision). He states that it is necessary for the
ergonomics community to engage with the debate, and to
rigorously research and design these systems if we are to ward
off the (many) potential pitfalls of the technology. There are
some foreseeable problems, such as the so-called ‘mode error’,
where human supervisors confuse the mode the automated
(or autonomous) system is in (e.g., Stanton, Dunoyer, and
Leatherland 2011). More worryingly are the unforeseeable
problems, those that emerge through complex system inter-
actions (Walker et al. this issue; Guastello, this issue). Hancock
is quick to point out that each potential benefit afforded by
technology is accompanied by drawbacks (see Sharples and
Houghton, this issue). He goes much further to suggest that
automation could have deeper and more profound societal
effects. One of these is to deepen the societal divide between
rich and poor. History has shown that technology can have
dramatic effects on work, social and leisure lives. Hancock
warns that technological Darwinism may not always be to
the benefit of society at large. By way of mitigation, he argues
for an ethical approach to automation, which the ergonom-
ics community should be leading. Autonomy brings moral
philosophy into sharp focus, with Hancock’s depiction of the
ultimate delegation of authority to automation that could
lead to very inhuman acts. He argues that, as ergonomics
is about human betterment especially with technological
development, we should not shirk our responsibilities., Thus
the paradigm is not merely theoretical or methodological, but
strikes to the heart of the discipline’s underlying value base.
The final paper of this special issue is provided by
Richardson, Maspero, Golightly, Sheffield, Staples and Lumber
(Nature: a new paradigm for well-being and ergonomics) who
propose ‘nature’ as a new paradigm for ergonomics that is
required to promote physical and mental well-being as a core
principle of the discipline. They argue that the progressive
urbanisation and removal of our experience with the nat-
ural world (a global trend) has a negative effect on health
and well-being. From a review of the corpus of evidence,
Richardson et al. are able to demonstrate the benefits that
arise from the ‘nature experience’. This evidence shows that
people who live in urban environments generally have poorer
health than those in rural settings. Green spaces in urban
environments have offset some of those negative effects
for city dwellers, leading to improvements in mood, mental
health, well-being, anxiety, vitality, job and life satisfaction.
Similar benefits have been found for physical health as well,
with reports on improvements in heart rate, blood pressure,
muscle fatigue, sickness and stress. Even virtual scenes of
nature seem to have short-term restorative effects, presum-
ably because of the associations they evoke. Richardson
et al. argue that the degree of connectedness people feel
with nature has an effect on their psychological well-being in
the workplace. They offer ‘nature’ as a cost-effective, simple,
ergonomics intervention strategy with positive physical and
mental health benefits. It has the potential to be a transfor-
mational paradigm shift that is consistent with the mission
of the ergonomics discipline as a whole.
Conclusions
This collection of papers from leading researchers and prac-
titioners in our discipline represents a tantalising glimpse
into a fascinating ergonomics future – or possible futures.
Given the shifting nature of the systems in which ergonomists
work, there is clearly a strong need to revisit the ergonomics
unit of analysis and a groundswell of support for a broader,
stronger, and more rigorous approach to systems thinking.
There is a corresponding need, and opportunity, to enhance
our ergonomics practices, with several important advances

now afforded by new technology and the discipline’s matur-
ing state of knowledge in critical areas. Finally, there is an
equally strong need to combine these paradigm shifts in the-
ory, methods and practice with continued scrutiny of where
ergonomics should be applied, how it should be applied, and
to what ends. In other words, to keep asking ourselves ‘what
do we stand for?’. With this in mind, the collection of papers
provides a series of important take-home messages. These
include:
• The need to face up to the ‘quantum effect’ in ergonom-
ics science and analyse systems at the appropriate level
and with appropriate methods.
• That non-linear dynamical systems approaches offer a
way of dealing with some of the true complexities of
sociotechnical systems.
• That autonomous systems pose a significant threat to
our way of life and we need to ensure they are imple-
mented in an ethical manner.
• That work is required to develop ergonomics methods
that are capable of modelling key systems thinking con-
cepts such as normal performance, future accidents and
system migration.
• That quantitative modelling on cognitive ergonomics is
now able to predict performance and can be used to
assess risk and design systems.
• That new modelling approaches can model normal
performance and assess risk in complex sociotechnical
systems.
• That the sheer quantity of contextual user data available
from our digital work, social and home lives will provide
a richer understanding of human, organisational and sys-
tem behaviour.
• That neuroergonomics methods can be used for prac-
tical visual search tasks and measures of attention in
applied settings.
• That the fatigue failure process could explain musculo-
skeletal disorders and reduce workplace injury.
• That connection with nature can offer transformational
physical and mental health benefits for urban dwellers
and office workers, and is an emerging ergonomics
criterion.
It is hoped that readers of this special issue will be inspired
by these new paradigms in ergonomics and seek to push the
boundaries even further. The lifeblood of the science depends
on continual evolvement and developments to take on the
challenges we face in complex sociotechnical systems design
and evaluation. Perhaps the most significant take-home mes-
sage is that all these papers have demonstrated how theory
maps onto practice. As such, perhaps the only remaining
paradigm shift is for these ideas and concepts to be taken
up more widely and the discipline advanced, until the next
paradigm shift occurs.
Ergonomics   155
References
Gallagher, S., and M. Schall, Jr. this issue. “Musculoskeletal Disorders as a
Fatigue Failure Process.” Ergonomics.
Gilbreth, F. B. 1912. Primer of Scientific Management. New York: Van
Nostrand.
Green, D. M., and Swets J.A. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and
Psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
Guastello, S. this issue. “Nonlinear Dynamical Systems for Theory and
Research in Ergonomics.” Ergonomics.
Hancock, P. this issue. “Imposing Limits on Autonomous Systems.”
Ergonomics.
Heinrich, H. W. 1931. Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Leveson, N. 2004. Engineering a Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to
Safety. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mijovic, P., V. Kovic, M. De Vos, I. Macuzic, P. Todorovic, B. Jeremic, and
I. Gligorjevic. this issue. “Towards Continuous and Real-time Attention
Monitoring at Work.” Ergonomics.
Moray, N., J. Groeger, and N. A. Stanton. this issue. “Quantitative Modelling
in Cognitive Ergonomics.” Ergonomics.
Perrow, C. [1984] 1999. Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk
Technologies. Revised ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rasmussen, J. 1997. “Risk Management in a Dynamic Society: A Modelling
Problem.” Safety Science 27: 183–213.
Reason, J. 1990. Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, M., M. Maspero, D. Golightly, D. Sheffield, V. Staples, and
R. Lumber. this issue. “Nature: A New Paradigm for Well-being and
Ergonomics.” Ergonomics.
Salmon, P. M. 2016a. “Bigger, Bolder, Better? Methodological Issues in
Science.” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 17 (4): 337–344.
Salmon, P. M. 2016b. “Bridging the Gap between Research and Practice in
Ergonomics Methods: Methodological Issues in Ergonomics Science
Part II.” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. 17 (5–6): 459–467.
Salmon, P., G. Walker, G. Read, N. Goode, and N. A. Stanton. this issue.
“Fitting Methods to Paradigms: Are Ergonomics Methods Fit for
Systems Thinking?” Ergonomics.
Sawyer, B., W. Karwowski, P. Xanthopoulos, and P. Hancock. this issue.
“Detection of Error-related Negativity in Complex Visual Stimuli: A
New Neuroergonomic Arrow in the Practitioner’s Quiver.” Ergonomics.
Sharples, S., and R. Houghton. this issue. “The Field Becomes the
Laboratory? The Impact of the Contextual Digital Footprint on the
Discipline of E/HF.” Ergonomics.
Stanton, N. A. 2014. “Representing Distributed Cognition in Complex
Systems: How a Submarine Returns to Periscope Depth.” Ergonomics
57 (3): 403–418.
Stanton, N. A., A. Dunoyer, and A. Leatherland. 2011. “Detection of New
in-path Targets by Drivers Using Stop & Go Adaptive Cruise Control.”
Applied Ergonomics 42 (4): 592–601.
Stanton, N. A., and C. Harvey. this issue. “Beyond Human Error Taxonomies
in Assessment of Risk in Sociotechnical Systems: A New Paradigm with
the EAST ‘broken-links’ Approach.” Ergonomics.
Stanton, N. A., P. M. Salmon, L. A. Rafferty, G. H. Walker, C. Baber, and
D. Jenkins. 2013. Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for
Engineering and Design. 2nd ed. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Stanton, N. A., G. H. Walker, D. P. Jenkins, P. M. Salmon, K. Revell, and
L. Rafferty. 2009. Digitising Command and Control: Human Factors and
Ergonomics Analysis of Mission Planning and Battlespace Management.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Stanton, N. A., G. H. Walker, and L. J. Sorensen. 2012. “It’s a Small World
after All: Contrasting Hierarchical and Edge Networks in a Simulated
Intelligence Analysis Task.” Ergonomics 55 (3): 265–281.
Taylor, F. W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York:
Harper & Brothers.
156   EDITORIAL

Vicente, K. 1999. Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Paul M. Salmon
Healthy Computer-based Work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Centre for Human Factors and Sociotechnical Systems, Faculty
Associates.
of Arts, Business and Law, University of the Sunshine Coast,
Walker, G., P. Salmon, M. Bedinger, and N. A. Stanton. this issue.
“Quantum Ergonomics: Shifting the Paradigm of the Systems Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia
Agenda.” Ergonomics.
Walker, G. H., N. A. Stanton, P. M. Salmon, D. P. Jenkins, and L. A. Rafferty. Guy H. Walker
2010. “Translating Concepts of Complexity to the Field of Ergonomics.” School of Energy, Geosciences, Infrastructure and Society,
Ergonomics 53 (10): 1175–1186.
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
Neville A. Stanton
Transportation Research Group, Civil, Maritime, Environmental
Engineering and Science Unit, Faculty of Engineering and
the Environment, Bouldrewood Innovation Campus, Burgess
Road, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
n.stanton@soton.ac.uk   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8562-3279