Lingard, H; Zhang, R P; Blismas, N; Wakefield, R and Kleiner, B (2015) Are we on the same page? Exploring construction professionals' mental models of occupational health and safety. Construction Management and Economics, 33(1), pp. 73-84. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Photographic Q-methodology was used to explore construction professionals' mental models of occupational health and safety (OHS). Sixty Australian construction professionals participated in the research, including 15 architects, 15 engineers, 15 constructors and 15 OHS professionals. Participants were asked to sort photographs depicting different building systems into a grid based upon their judgement of the likelihood of accidental injury resulting from the construction of each of the building systems depicted. Responses ranged from Rare (-2) to Almost certain (+2). Sorting patterns relating to eight photographs of different façade systems were analysed using Q factor analysis. Three distinct sorting pattern types were identified in the data, representing clusters of participants whose sorting patterns were similar. These sorting pattern types cut across occupational/professional groups. Interpretation of the factors revealed substantial differences between the OHS judgements made by participants in the three clusters. Qualitative explanatory information revealed participants in the three clusters used different attributes when considering the likelihood of accidental injury. These attributes shaped their sorting patterns. The results suggest shared mental models (SMMs) are unlikely to exist in construction project teams, as each individual uses their own frame of reference to understand OHS. Opportunities exist to understand these different frames of reference and create more consistent team mental models of OHS. However, incorporating a diversity of viewpoints into project decision-making is recommended in order to produce effective decision-making in the choice or specification of building systems.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | distributed teams; façade systems; occupational health and safety; q-methodology; shared mental models |
| Index terms: | mental model, engineer, construction project team, architect, factor analysis, construction professional, building system, occupational health and safety, injury, specification, methodology, decision-making |
| Subjects: | professional development, contractual condition, research methods, statistical analysis, decision analysis, cognitive psychology, health conditions and diseases, occupational health and safety management, engineering systems, profession, project delivery |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Contract Administration |
| 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