Aranda-Mena, G (2003) Mapping workers' cognitive structures of construction site hazards. PhD thesis, University of Reading, UK.
Abstract
This thesis aims to validate a psychological model to explain how construction workers modify their risk-taking behaviour when safety schemes are implemented. This thesis demonstrates that the introduction of safety schemes through design (architectural/engineering), management (project/construction) and ergonomics (training/protective equipment) do not necessarily improve construction safety, due to the ensuing compensatory changes in risk-taking behaviour among construction workers. The thesis illustrates how construction workers modify their risk-taking behaviour when a safety scheme is implemented. Hazard categories emerged from the data to reveal a framework which explains the underlying compensatory phenomena. This framework brings a psychological input into Gerald S. Wilde's accident compensation - or homeostatic - theory (Wilde, 1988). This thesis proposes a constructivist model to explain risk-taking behaviour. The model is founded on George A. Kelly's theory of personal constructs (Kelly 1955). It employs the homeostatic model as a means to explain human reactions to system modifications. It aims to bring a psychological input into design, planning and management practices in construction. This is achieved by revealing workers' cognitive structures of construction site hazards. An action research approach was undertaken to investigate how construction workers react to system modifications. The study was carried out under case study conditions taking three new building projects of similar characteristics. Workers' of ten various trades, planners, designers, surveyors, managers and client representative took part in the study. In situ use of immersive photographic scenes (panoramic virtual reality) projected in a portakabin's room was the setting for the investigation. Repertory grid technique was the method underpinning the investigation. It is anticipated that the risk-compensatory phenomena will have an impact on the design and implementation of safety policies for project planning, design and management in the construction industry. Increasing awareness of the nature and degree of behavioural modifications when introducing, or assessing, safety schemes will achieve improvements in construction health & safety.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | health & safety; building design; ergonomics; human resource management; risk; risk homeostasis theory; hazard perception |
| Index terms: | ergonomics, mapping, management practice, construction safety, project planning, risk taking, manager, action research, construction site, human resource management, in-situ, virtual reality, planner, investigation, compensation, construction worker, protective equipment, implementation, construction industry, building design, case study, repertory grid technique, designer |
| Subjects: | spatial and geospatial analysis, decision-making and reasoning, management, building construction, occupational health and safety management, environmental health, industry analysis, virtual reality, profession, data collection methods, practitioner, dispute resolution, control systems, work location, architectural design, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Site Management, Human Resources, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Legal Issues, Procurement, Sustainability, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here