Strategies for construction hazard recognition
Download 2.75 Mb. View original pdf
|
- Navigate this page:
- Figure 5. Schematic comparison of pedagogy and andragogy based safety training methods.
| L F L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L I IF L RECOMMENDED FUTURE RESEARCH Because hazard recognition is fundamental to any safety management process, further research in hazard recognition is essential. To ensure hazards are properly identified and managed, it is important to use a multilayered approach. Therefore, firstly, we suggest researching and proposing additional hazard recognition strategies for planning, training and execution. For example, current training methods are not particularly designed for adult trainees (Albert and Hallowel 2013). Past research indicates that training programs are usually instructor-centric, rather than being trainee-centric (see Figure 1). Therefore, integrating trainee-centric andragogical principles which are more effective for adult learners may improve the effectiveness of hazard recognition training. Figure 5. Schematic comparison of pedagogy and andragogy based safety training methods. Secondly, we suggest research to understand the relationship between hazard recognition and safety performance. Understanding how hazard recognition levels of specific work crews translate to safety and injury patterns will make significant contributions to both theory and practice. For example, this understanding can be used as a leading indicator or predictor of future safety performance (Hallowell et al. 2013). Such an understanding will allow the : Instructor : Facilitator : Learner Pedagogy based safety training Andragogy based safety training 170 implementation of more proactive safety management strategies and can effectively reduce injury frequency and severity. Thirdly, social network analyses can be undertaken to understand the hazard communication patterns and dynamics within work crews (Alsamadani et al. 2012). Because hazard communication is necessary for injury prevention, the analysis will help identify key barriers to proper hazard communication. Thereafter, effective solutions to improve hazard communication can be identified and proposed. For example, in Figure 5 compares the social network diagram of two crews that partook in this hazard recognition study. As can be seen crew 10 reveals higher network density (i.e. the ratio between the actual number of ties or links in a network and the maximum number of ties or links theoretically possible) than crew 2. Interestingly, crew 10 over six work periods identified 54% of hazards on average, whereas crew 2 identified only 39% of hazards Download 2.75 Mb. Share with your friends:
|