Why Diving Research Still Focuses on Accidents, Not Divers

The scuba industry talks endlessly about safety, but are we actually studying the right things?

A recent analysis published in the journal International Maritime Health offers a surprisingly honest look at the state of maritime medical research, and it raises a question many divers may not have considered before.

If diving is becoming more accessible, more social, and more integrated into wellness culture, why does so much research still revolve around accidents and physical risk instead of the people doing the diving?

The study reviewed years of research trends across maritime medicine, the academic field that includes divers alongside seafarers and offshore workers. According to the analysis published in International Maritime Health, the vast majority of studies cluster around occupational health topics such as injuries, illness, and emergency response rather than behavioural or psychological wellbeing.

For an industry that prides itself on community and adventure, that imbalance is worth paying attention to.

A field shaped by its past

Maritime medicine did not grow out of recreational diving. It evolved from occupational safety, naval operations, and commercial shipping. That history still shapes what gets studied today.

Researchers examining the scope of International Maritime Health identified six dominant research themes, including healthcare access at sea, telemedicine, physical disease, infectious illness, mental health, and accident prevention. The strongest focus sits firmly on operational risk and workplace safety, reflecting the industry’s roots in protecting workers in challenging environments. 

For divers, this explains why decompression illness statistics, incident reports, and equipment failures receive far more scientific attention than topics like decision-making, motivation, or long-term wellbeing.

In short, diving research has inherited a framework designed for ships and industry, not necessarily for modern recreational communities.

The mental health gap nobody talks about

One of the most striking insights from maritime health literature is how often psychological wellbeing is acknowledged but not deeply explored.

The analysis highlights mental health as a recognised category, yet it remains comparatively under-developed compared to physical risk research. 

This mirrors a growing conversation inside the diving world. Many divers speak openly about the emotional and therapeutic benefits of time underwater, yet scientific literature still tends to approach divers primarily as risk profiles rather than human experiences.

Outside studies of maritime workers have already shown that stress, fatigue, and isolation can significantly affect wellbeing at sea, reinforcing the need for more behavioural research across maritime environments. 

For liveaboard crews, instructors, and technical divers operating in remote locations, the parallels are obvious.

We know the physics of diving. We know far less about diver behaviour.

Ask any diver what research dominates training manuals and safety briefings, and the answers are predictable.

Decompression models. Gas management. Equipment redundancy.

These are essential foundations, but they only tell part of the story.

Maritime health research suggests that the industry’s scientific lens has historically been reactive. Studies tend to emerge after incidents, analysing what went wrong rather than exploring why divers make certain decisions in the first place.

This leaves major questions unanswered:

• Why do experienced divers push limits?
• What keeps some people diving for life while others quietly walk away?
• How does community influence risk perception underwater?

None of these questions are purely theoretical. They shape real-world safety outcomes, yet they rarely sit at the centre of formal research.

Telemedicine, technology, and the changing reality of remote diving

One area where maritime medicine is evolving quickly is remote healthcare.

Telemedical support systems have transformed how medical advice reaches vessels far from shore, allowing real-time consultations through satellite communication and video links. 

For divers, this trend is particularly relevant to expedition travel and liveaboards operating in remote regions such as the Red Sea, Indonesia, or the Pacific.

The technology exists, but the research focus again leans heavily toward emergency response rather than preventative psychology or long-term health patterns.

It reflects a wider truth. The industry still tends to react to problems rather than study the deeper cultural forces that shape diver behaviour.

Why this matters now more than ever

The scuba world is changing.

New divers arrive through social media inspiration rather than traditional club structures. Many approach diving as a wellness activity rather than a technical pursuit. Others view it as a way to escape stress or reconnect with nature.

Yet the scientific narrative remains rooted in risk management.

The maritime health analysis suggests that this gap between culture and research may limit how the industry evolves. When studies prioritise incident data over human experience, the result is a narrow understanding of why people dive and how they interact with risk.

And that has consequences.

Training agencies struggle to address diver burnout. Operators navigate changing expectations around mental health and community. Meanwhile, the research landscape often remains decades behind the realities of modern recreational diving.

Are we asking the wrong questions?

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from the maritime health review is not what it tells us, but what it exposes.

We have decades of research explaining how to avoid decompression illness. We have fewer studies exploring how divers build confidence, form habits, or respond to social pressure underwater.

That imbalance does not make existing research wrong. It simply reveals a blind spot.

If the next era of diving is going to focus on sustainability, mental wellbeing, and long-term participation, the science behind the sport may need to evolve alongside it.

The real question for the industry is not whether safety research should continue. It absolutely should.

The question is whether diving science is ready to move beyond accidents and start studying divers themselves.