Sunday, 12 September 2010
Sunday, 7 March 2010
Methods in Human Geography
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Research diary
Although unhappy about ethics section, but can find no specific refs to incorporate. Will review Flowerdew and Martin tomorrow.
Must read: http://www.eauc.org.uk/file_uploads/emsiu-v5_1.pdf
John Adams' book "Risk"
At the humdrum end of H&S we are dealing with less complex situations (tripping, scalding, electrocuting) where the outcomes are reasonable established, the causes limited and therefore assessable. However risk compensation (and less intangible, or difficult to tange factors) make calculation relatively useless.
Adams also distinguishes between personal and transferred risk - drivers vs cyclists, which could be developed into managers vs employees.
Combining the above could produce a model whereby accurate information (of which there is a lot available, although very often not in a form usable by decision-makers) will improve the targetting of cost and benefit, i.e. individual risk-taker is approaching the position of gambler from that of victim subject to pure chance. From society't point of view no change (avoiding some lucky escapes and other unfortunate fatalities), but allows the individualist to make a choice, the egalitarian to see others able to protect and the hierarchist to be accurate. Adams appears to me to have little respect for the fatalist (including himself as fatalist in illness), and this should reduce their number by making it more apparrent that 'something can be done and achieved'.
One interpretation of Adams (probably not intended, quite possible not valid as developed through a single rapid read before the library demanded the book back) is that there is risk compensation from individual to others. My personal experience is that this is unlikely, and possibly reversed: those who are in control of their personal safety but for whom a mistake would have major consequences tend to be more careful not to put other people at risk too. My example comes from work on high TV transmitter masts where, in the 1990s, where access was normally achieved without any specialist safety equipment, and work undertaken with positionging equipment (that would prevent falling) but no safety equipment in case that failed. Workers were highly alert to their own safety, and took great care that their tools could not fall onto those below. Risk compensation was embedded within the control of the person causing and subject to the most serious risk, and my observations indicated that this extended to team risk compensation, too. Adjustments to new levels of risk are, however, slow to achieve: experienced rigger descending from high mast and suffereing head injury walking into half-open garage door that was obvious to everyone else. Twice on successive days.
By improving the knowledge and understanding of personal risk-takers concerning both sides of the balance (consequences, and benefits) we can improve their opportunity to apply their free will. But then comes a need to ensure that the pressures placed on people (do the job, or be sacked) are 'acceptable'. I dont wish to define acceptable at this juncture.
Many decisions afecting the risks that individuals are subject to are made by others, the most obvious and relevant (to me) example being managers. Using the truck driver placing cyclists at risk example, how can we 'improve' their risk analysis. Currently this is attempted by threatening penalties to compensate for the fact that the manager will not suffer the consequences but often will reap the benefits of a decision. Such a relatively fixed approach which is so different from the consequences of the accident itself inevitably lead to decisions that appear poor, in both extremes: the Director who instructs staff to break through asbestos-containing materials because the likelihood of getting caught is thought to be slimmer than the likelihood of getting ill (there are many less prosecutions for asbestos offences than cases of disease), or the risk-averse manager who will impede an important job if there is any risk of his getting blamed for any accident. All through my career I have been concerned when people say 'if there is an accident, I will be blamed, so I must do something (put out a sign, write to somebody else to transfer the responsibility to them)'. This is said much more frequently in safety circles than 'if someone dies as a result of my decision I will not be able to sleep at night for regret' which I consider a more appropriate response.
But, based on the above, my ideas seem to lean towards mixing approaches; making the worker (often fataists at work, in my experience) into an individualist; the hierarchical manager into an egaitarianist whose job is to increase the individualtiy of the worker through choice. Hear be dragons, according to Adams, and I believe him.
Enough of this ramble for now, but I need to come back to ths book in a few months time
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Options Synopsis
Submitted synopsis of options to my OU forum. Submitted 4 instead of one, with apology. Copy here:
Dear David
I am working towards the EDM MSc, but am still undecided re topic; I have reviewed a variety of options, but I’m not sure which will be the most appropriate. I hope you don’t my posting 4 options – Options 1 and 2 scored equal-top in my suitability analysis. Of course I would greatly appreciate advice, or reference to somebody to work through these options with.
Option 1
Key Question: How can FE Colleges effectively manage their environmental performance? Considers application of EMS to an FE College, examining the choices to be made, accreditation, costs and benefits, pressures (stakeholders), systematic vs systemic (messy) approaches. Consider accreditation schemes (ISO 14001, EMAS, BS 8555) and implementation schemes (Acorn). Propose modifications or enhancements to the Acorn model to better suit the FE Sector (or possibly FE / HE Sectors, depending on the availability of data). Examine how formal EMS both forces decision making, and inhibits it. I am implementing EMS at work; risk that MSC and implementation will not be synchronised.
Option 2
Key question: how to improve the application of 'risk assessment' in environmental management and health and safety. Builds on the ‘valuing and policy’ work of D831, and papers on risk (e.g. Adams). Reviews CBA approaches and considers ethics of pricing safety / environmental damage. Includes communication / consultation on risk – democratising decision making. Opportunities for more systemic processes (as opposed to the systematic normally espoused). I find this interesting, and I believe many risk assessments to produce sub-optimal results, but concerned whether too much research already done. Envisage wide use of questionnaires in research.
Option 3
Investigate the successful and unsuccessful features of travel plans in academic / FE college institutions. Opportunity to use current college / staff / students as guinea pigs. Travel plans involve decisions by many stakeholders. There appear to be some papers, and quite a lot of info from EAUC. Possible to experiment with views and monitoring changed behaviour. Relevant to all orgs considering or implementing travel plans - which nowadays is almost all orgs. It is unlikely that existing research fully covers multi-site FE colleges. Risk: my employer may not progress with its travel plan, limiting my room for experimentation.
Option 4
How to educate students in environmental (or sustainability) issues, empowering people to make decisions. Includes informal as well as formal education. Initially not too interesting idea, but potential to develop. Highly relevant as I prepare new courses and revamp old ones. This is highly likely to continue. As this influences decisions, it is relevant. Plenty of research, and there seem to be papers as well as text books (which appear to be more essays than research). Relevant throughout sector. Research competing methods.
