Gibb, A; Lingard, H; Behm, M and Cooke, T (2014) Construction accident causality: Learning from different countries and differing consequences. Construction Management and Economics, 32(5), pp. 446-459. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Fundamental questions remain about the practical value and generalizability of accident causation frameworks for explaining construction accidents. Relevant causality literature is reviewed; three research projects compared and implications of accident causation theories for accident investigation and analysis discussed, particularly for accidents with differing consequences and in different national contexts. The effectiveness of the UK accident causality framework ConAC (Construction Accident Causality) in identifying occupational accident causes in different industry contexts (Australia and the USA) is evaluated; and the implications of the choice of theoretical framework in the analysis of construction accident causation considered. The ConAC framework was developed from a real-time analysis of 100 relatively minor construction accidents. The Australian study used this framework to analyse the National Coroners reports of 258 construction fatalities and the USA study used it to develop research instruments for interviews regarding 27 construction accidents of varying consequences. The results suggest that the ConAC framework is helpful for the analysis of the causes of accidents with outcomes of differing severity. The studies also suggest that it has international applicability despite differing occupational health and safety legislative contexts and industrial arrangements. Furthermore, significant learning can be obtained from considering underlying causes of accidents.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accident investigation; causation frameworks; international; underlying accident causes |
| Index terms: | fatalities, occupational accident, accident investigation, construction accident, occupational health and safety, interview, Australia, effectiveness |
| Subjects: | occupational health and safety management, performance management, Geography, environmental health, health risk and incident analysis, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Sustainability, Quality Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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