Advertisement

Methodologies and Observation Tools in the Practical Exercise of Research-Intervention in Ergonomics. Impressions from Chile

  • Fabiola Maureira
  • Felipe Meyer
  • Jorge Espinoza
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

The text explains the context in which Ergonomics is developed in Chile and how this context has influenced the observation about the work that the Ergonomist has. The text mentions successful cases, product of a good observation and the raise of problems with a comprehensive and participatory approach. However, the greatest influence has been linked to the development of legal regulations linked with health and safety conditions. These regulations have been orienting the focus of attention regarding the observation of the Ergonomist. This, according to the authors, has meant deviations, which should be the approach of the ergonomist to a problem. Five biases were identified. These have to do with the loss of the focus of the analysis, where health and safety issues predominate, and diminishing attention for the functioning of the system in general. The Ergonomist’s limited opportunity for intervention in his environment, since his role is very limited to achieve legal issue. The scarce possibility of choosing evaluation tools, since the normative issue also determines that aspects. The validity of the instruments and the reliability of the results was another bias. Finally, both a low precision and poor integration during the analysis of the data was also detected as an aspect to be improved. It is concluded that the role of the ergonomist needs to be reinforced as an observer of the environment in a contextualized way, in order to achieve a more complete identification during the analyzed and therefore develop better and integral proposals.

Keywords

Ergonomics in Chile Methodology Observation approach 

References

  1. 1.
    Apud E (2013) El aporte de la Universidad de Concepcion al desarrollo de la ergonomia en Chile y America Latina. Prevención de Riesgos, 95, pp 11–14Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Laville A (2004) Repères pour une histoire de l’ergonomie francophone, In: Ergonomie, Falzon P (ed) Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp 37–50Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Acevedo M (2006) Ergonomía en los sistemas de salud ocupacional en Chile. In: VIII Congreso Internacional de la Sociedad de Ergonomistas de México. Ciudad de Juárez, Chiguagua, México, p 20Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pinto R (2015) Programa de ergonomía participativa para la prevención de trastornos musculoesqueléticos: Aplicación en una empresa del Sector Industrial. Ciencia & trabajo 17(53):128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    SUSESO (2013) Protocolo de Vigilancia de Riesgos Psicosociales en el trabajo, S.d.S. Social, Editor. 2013: Santiago, Chile, p 68Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    SUSESO (2016) Circular No 3243: Imparte instrucciones a los organismos administradores del seguro de la Ley 16.744 sobre la metodología de evaluación e intervención en riesgo psicosocial laboral, in 3243. Superintendencia de Seguridad Social: Santiago, Chile, p 7Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Douillet P (2013) Prévenir les risques psychosociaux: outils et méthodes pour réguler le travail. AnactGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Puentes-Lagos DE, García-Acosta G (2012) Tecnología y pensamiento futuro del trabajo desde la ergonomía en momentos de crisis global. Revista de Salud Pública 14:122–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carrasquero E, Seijo C (2009) La ergonomía organizacional y la responsabilidad social inclusiva y preactiva: Un compromiso dentro de los objetivos de la organización. Clío América 3(6):183Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Falzon P (2013) Pour une ergonomie constructive, in Ergonomie Constructive. In: Falzon P (ed) Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, p 1–15Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Apud E et al (1999) Manual de Ergonomía Forestal. 1999, Concepción, Chile, Fundación Chile - Universidad de ConcepciónGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Apud E, Valdés S (1995) Ergonomics in forestry: the chilean case. Geneve, International Labour OfficeGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Apud E, Maureira F, Meyer F (2002) Ergonomia en el combate de incendios forestales. Universidad de Concepción, ConcepciónGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Apud E, Meyer F (2009) Criterios ergonómicos constructivos para un desarrollo sustentable orientado a mejorar la calidad de vida laboral. Laboreal 5(1)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arbejdsmiljøinstituttet (2000) Questionnaire on psychosocial work environment. Arbejdsmiljøinstituttet (AMIS), Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Castellucci I (2018) Advierten errores en norma técnica que busca disminuir traumatismos en trabajadores. http://www.uv.cl/pdn/?id=9532

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ConcepcionConcepcionChile

Personalised recommendations