Constructing Meaning from Safety Obervations

CONSTRUCTING MEANING FROM SAFETY OBSERVATIONS

By Student Name

Name of Tutor

Course Title

Institution

Date  

Constructing Meaning from Safety Observations

“Construction is among the most dangerous industries in the country” (Michaels 2011, p.1). In Dr. Michaels’ testimony, he offered a series of statistical and empirical evidence to support this claim. Later in the same testimony he stated, “We know OSHA enforcement and regulations save lives” (Michaels 2011, p.1). It is within this foundational assumption of knowledge that both safety professionals and leadership of construction organizations base their strategies and initiatives designed to minimize or contain injury on work sites. Simply stated, clear rules and processes combined with enforcement for non-compliance with those set of laws result in the elimination of workplace injuries (Curtis and Carter 2012; Bourrier 1996). Without doubt, statistical evidence supports the claim that the frequency of severe accidents at construction projects correctly classifies the industry as dangerous. However, the claim that enforcement and regulations reduces those cases validated by the same statistical evidence is worth exploring. This empirical approach rationalizing apparent knowledge with objective evidence is dominant in management journals across the United States (Johnson &Duberly 2000).  

Applying this foundational knowledge posits actions aimed at strict regulatory compliance. It is reasonable to infer that if regulations and enforcement from the perspective of regulators has resulted in improved safety performance, equipping workers with knowledge of these requirements, combined with qualified enforcement the trend of improvement would continue (Simpson 1996; Sewell; 1992; Schulman 1996). In my role as the senior safety executive for one of the largest construction companies in the world, combined with my 30 years of experience in the industry I can attest that training and enforcement have been the normative response of the industry. This foundational epistemology has also resulted in defining the primary role of the safety professional as that of technical expert and trainer to enforcer and disciplinarian.  

Through both challenging and understanding the history of these foundational epistemologies there is opportunity to gain insight regarding alternative thought and how the science of loss prevention could be altered to provide new and improved results. Although Michaels (2011) is quick to credit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regarding the merits of their strategic imperatives, it is also true that there has been relatively little if any improvement over the past decade (NIOSH 2009). From OSHA’s perspective, it is simply that some organizations wish to take shortcuts and not implement these known successful strategies (Michaels 2011).