Methods and Research Design

  • Tom Dwyer
Part of the Plenum Studies in Work and Industry book series (SSWI)


In the previous chapter, it was theorized that industrial accidents are produced at three levels of social reality—rewards, command, and organization—and at the nonsocial individual member level. At each social level employers and workers struggle for control and enter into agreement over the management of relationships to work, and as a consequence, goods and services as well as accidents are produced.


Social Relation Night Shift Management Style Sociological Theory Sociological Perspective 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Schutz. 1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. R. Kouabenan. 1985. L’analyse des attributions causales des accidents. Le Travail Humain 48 (1): 1–17.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Denzin. 1970. The Research Act. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schutz, 1967, p. 224.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Schutz. 1979. Fenomenologia e Relacoes Sociais, p. 311. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar (compiled by H. R. Wagner).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Dwyer. 1981 Hit and miss. Industrial Relations Review (New Zealand) 1 (6): 24–30.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.-M. Faverge. 1967. Psychosociologie des Accidents du Travail, pp. 51–52. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. G. Deveze. 1979. Representation du risque. Revue Médicale Miniére special issue: 29–39 (p. 37 ).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schutz, 1967, p. 231. My interpretation of the notions of causal and meaning adequacy is one of the earliest reflections in this book. Throughout the course of 1990 my research was directed at producing a sociological basis for limited interdisciplinary dialogues in the area of work studies. This research examines relationships between engineering, medicine, psychology, ergonomics, and sociology. It has brought about modifications in my understanding of the contribution that phenomenology in general, and Schutz’s writings in particular, can make to interdisciplinary dialogues.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Crozier. 1981. Comparing structures and comparing games, in C. Lemert (ed.), French Sociology-Rupture and Renewal since 1968, pp. 97–110. New York: Columbia University Press. (Originally published in English in 1976.)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dwyer. T. 1978. Une Conception Sociologique des Accidents du Travail. Paris: L’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (PhD thesis).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Beaumont. 1980. An analysis of the problem of industrial accidents in Great Britain. International Journal of Manpower 1(1):28–32, quotes the Chief Inspector of Factories estimate of a 15–25 percent rate of underreporting in Britain. J. B. Gordon, A. Ackman, and M. L. Brooks. 1971. Industrial Safety Statistics: A Re-examination,p. 10. New York: Praeger. Gordon et al. estimate underreporting at 90 percent if a “more meaningful measure of the relative hazardousness of employment were adopted.” C. Gersuny. 1981. Work Hazards and Industrial Conflict. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, discusses the employers’ “Chicopee method” of reducing accident report rates.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deveze, 1979, p. 37; the author relates that workers who describe dangerous acts do so by questioning work organization, while experts refer to the imprudence or shortcomings of workers.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Dubet, O. Cousin, and J.-P. Guillemet. 1989. Mobilisation des etablissements et performances scolaires. Revue Française de Sociologie 30:235–256. S. Barley. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from the observation of C.T. scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 78108.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Denzin, 1970, pp. 149ff.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Nelson. 1984. Le taylorisme dans l’industrie Americaine, 1900–1930, in M. de Montmillion and O. Pastre (eds.), Le Taylorisme, pp. 51–66. Paris: Decouverte.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Wrench and G. Lee. 1982. Piecework and industrial accidents: Two contemporary case studies. Sociology 16(4): 512–525 (p. 514 ).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. L. Trist, G. I. Susman, and G. R. Brown. 1977. An experiment in autonomous working in an American underground coal mine. Human Relations 30 (3): 210–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. J. Smith, M. J. Colligan, I. J. Frockt, and D. J. Tasto. 1979. Occupational injury rates among nurses as a function of shift schedule. Journal of Safety Research 11(4): 181–187 (p. 181 ).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Andlauer and B. Metz. 1953. Variations nyctemerales de la frequence horaire des accidents du travail. Archives des Maladies Professionelles, de Médécine du Travail et de Sécurité Sociale 14 (6): 613.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. M. Hill and E. L. Trist. 1955. Changes in accidents and other absences with length of service. Human Relations 8 (May): 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Touraine. 1972. An historical study of the evolution of industrial skills, in L. Davis and J. C. Taylor (eds.), Design of Jobs, pp. 52–61. Harmondsworth: Penguin. (Originally published in English in 1962.)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. McGregor. 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. A. L. Friedman. 1977. Industry and Labour, chaps. 7 and 8. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Salpukas. 1990. Difficulties at Eastern traced to pressure to avoid delays. New York Times, July 31, pp. Alff. The degree of popularity of these notions, and the linkage to the production of danger were discussed recently in this article. Eastern Airlines officials had been indicted on various charges of allowing false maintenance reports to be issued, which placed the public at risk. A pilot is quoted as seeing the risk as linked to the installation of a “carrot-and-stick approach”. For example, a “manager of maintenance at Kennedy [airport] who met the company’s goals for getting airplanes out on time would get extra money. If the supervisors and managers failed… they would face enormous pressure from above, including threat of transfer.”Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. S. Shannon. 1980. Differences between lost-time and non-lost-time industrial accidents: Journal of Occupational Accidents 2: 256–272 (p. 272 ).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    In New Zealand companies pay the first week’s compensation to workers, after which period the state run accident compensation scheme becomes responsible.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    W. Baldamus. 1979. Alienation, anomie and industrial accidents, in M. Wilson (ed.), Social and Educational Research in Action, pp. 104–140. London: Longman and Open University Press. J. M. Hill and E. L. Trist. 1953. Industrial accidents as a means of withdrawal from work situations. Human Relations 6: 357–380.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    T. Nichols. 1975. The sociology of accidents and the social production of industrial injury, in G. Esland et al. (eds.), People and Work, pp. 217–229 (p. 221 ). Edinburgh and Milton Keynes: Holmes McDougal and Open University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Dwyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Estadual de CampinasSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations