Morrow, S (2012) Balancing a safer and healthier frame to designing: A grounded theory. PhD thesis, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK.
Abstract
Designers are considered to be in a unique position to make a significant contribution to the health and safety of those involved in construction work. However, despite the introduction of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations-almost two decades ago, there appear to be no clear indication which point to a marked improvement in health and safety through design. Existing research has, in the main, concentrated on how designers should think about what they do rather than looking at how designers actually work. This thesis is written from the viewpoint of the designer and aims to enter into their world to discover what issues they face and how they look to resolve or process ~I .A these issues when faced with the demand to consider health and safety during the design process. This study is based on a collection of primary and secondary data. Primary data in the form of interviews were collected from design engineers-those, considered to be a homogenous group fitting the description of designers, as defined under the CDM regulations. Secondary data in the form of literature was used to develop and nest the grounded theory. The Grounded Theory research method has been used to identify the main concern of the substantive population under study and to develop a theory of explanation that describes the processing of health and safety aspects during the design process. The output from this study is a theory that describes the basic social process of Balancing as the prime mover for the design engineer's behaviour where there are two main elements involved in this process: Limiting and Framing. The notion of the design microcosm helps to explain why different design engineers will produce different design options, even when the same processes are being undertaken by individual design engineers. It also acts as the stabilising force during the balancing process and is core to the creation of the WobBall- the product or consequence of Balancing. Three group types of design engineers are identified: the Giver, the Receiver and the Doer. These group types exhibit particular tendencies towards the Balancing of health and safety during the design process. This study offers a new way of looking at how health and safety is being perceived and dealt with by designers; and suggests new ways of designing for and managing the framing of health and safety. It offers a conceptual theory of Balancing for a healthier and safer frame to designing with which to extend current understanding.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | grounded theory; health and safety; improvement; regulation; safety; designer; design process; interview |
| Index terms: | population, regulation, interview, design process, health and safety, face, framing, social process, construction work, option, grounded theory, engineer, secondary data, designer |
| Subjects: | conceptual models, operations management, psychology, communities and social development, demography, health safety and environment, theoretical framing, design methods, profession, data collection methods, political science, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Governance, Health and Safety, Project Management, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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