Lingard, H; Pink, S; Hayes, J; McDermott, V and Harley, J (2016) Using participatory video to understand subcontracted construction workers' safety rule violations. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
Traditional approaches to managing occupational health and safety (OHS) adopt a top-down approach in which (often detailed) rules prescribing safe work procedures are written and enforced. However, these rules are sometimes broken. Violations are actions taken by workers that are contrary to rules or procedures. Violations are a causal mechanism in some accidents and understanding why violations occur is important. Researchers investigating the causes of violations have begun to frame them as system problems rather than actions taken by deviant workers. In some cases, rules are broken because workers are not aware of them. In other cases rules are broken because the rules themselves are not practical given situational constraints, or because working to rule would impact the ability to meet production targets. In some instances the managers are complicit in rule-breaking, quietly ignoring routine violations in the interests of getting the work done. An observational study of workers engaged in the installation of insulation was undertaken in the Australian construction industry. The study used participatory video to explore workers' perspectives on rules and ways to work safely. Interview and video recordings reveal how the installers unintentionally violated some rules because they were not aware of them, having not understood or remembered the content of complex written procedures. Other routine violations were necessitated by simply not having the correct equipment. However, the video data also revealed how the (sub-contracted) insulation installers are routinely expected to violate safe work procedures by general contractors, placing them at significant risk of coming into contact with live electricity or falling from roofs. The participatory video process provided a feed-back opportunity to understand rule violations and learn from situated practices, as well as a feed-forward opportunity to engage workers in the design of better rules. The video and interview data suggests this reflexive learning process also equipped the insulation installers with the knowledge and confidence to refuse to work in unsafe ways.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | violations; rules; procedures; participatory video; learning |
| Index terms: | installer, placing, refuse, violation, insulation, roof, construction worker, construction industry, routine, interview, manager, occupational health and safety, general contractor |
| Subjects: | concrete and cementitious materials, design practice, occupational health and safety management, sociology, regulatory law, industry analysis, data collection methods, waste management, practitioner, building materials |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Construction Materials, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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