Commentary emphasizes the need to refocus human factors and ergonomics on policy, advocacy, and AI research methods.
This commentary is inspired by two recent articles in the journal Ergonomics that seem to call in question the purposes and necessity of our discipline of human factors and ergonomics (HF/E). I would like to counter with the argument that there is nothing new under the sun, that the operating environment of HF/E has not changed since foundation of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) in 1957, and that we, as members of HFES and researchers and practitioners of HF/E, have much to contribute as advocates for humans in the increasingly technological society. This, however, will require refocusing our mission to human (emphasis added) factors, away from technique. Three areas in particular should be addressed: Research methods to keep up with developments in artificial intelligence, policy and advocacy, and broader perspectives to include also philosophical questions about human flourishing and ultimate purpose.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Esa M. Rantanen (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: