Morrow, S (2011) Health and safety: A designer's perspective. In: Egbu, C and Lou, E C W (eds.) Proceedings of 27th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2011, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
Most would agree that design is a difficult and demanding process. And, with the ever increasing demands placed on designers ranging from; client aspirations, professional and statutory obligations, sustainability and environmental impact, to name but a few, designing with greater emphasis on health and safety aspects is just one more demand which the designer is expected to meet. Much of the previous research carried out on design and health and safety has been written from the viewpoint of the health and safety professional or academics with little practical design experience. As a result, these viewpoints tend to raise issues which place focus on the designer's output and its' effect on health and safety in the construction process rather than wondering what the designer views as being the main issues and how they seek to resolve these issues. In other words, a problem is only a problem if the person perceives it to be a problem. This paper forms part of a 3 year PhD research project which aims to enter into the world of the consulting design engineer. This paper will outline early preliminary findings from an investigation of wondering how design engineers view health and safety; their approach to health and safety during the design process and how they seek to resolve any difficulties faced. The methodology approach used in this research is the Grounded Theory method.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design engineer; design process; grounded theory; health and safety |
| Index terms: | grounded theory, engineer, designer, design process, health and safety, methodology, construction process, investigation, environmental impact |
| Subjects: | health safety and environment, theoretical framing, research methods, building construction, environmental impact, design methods, data collection methods, profession |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Design Practice, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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