Why Do We Often Forget Gender During Ergonomic Interventions?

  • Karen MessingEmail author
  • Mélanie Lefrançois
  • Johanne Saint-Charles
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 826)


The Université du Québec à Montréal has signed agreements with community groups providing access to help with research and training initiatives. In this context, a union-university partnership performed research aimed at improving occupational health and gender equality. Over its 17-year lifetime, researchers responded to twenty union requests for action-oriented ergonomics research on jobs marked by a gender division of tasks and health and safety risks. However, during several interventions, gender was “forgotten” and ergonomists concentrated on general health and safety issues, at least initially. Reasons for this blindness arise from workplace constraints but also from the very nature of ergonomics. Integrating observations of gender and other dimensions of social relations into ergonomic analysis and intervention is necessary, but not simple, and fraught with obstacles.


Gender Ergonomic intervention Social relations 


  1. 1.
    Messing K (1999) La pertinence de tenir compte du sexe des “opérateurs” dans les études ergonomiques: Bilan de recherches. Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé (PISTES) 1(1).
  2. 2.
    Vézina N, Chatigny C, Calvet B (2016) L’intervention ergonomique: que fait-on des caractéristiques personnelles comme le sexe et le genre? Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé (PISTES) 18(2).
  3. 3.
    Laberge M, Caroly S (2016) Prendre en compte le sexe et le genre dans le choix des situations à analyser: un enjeu pour l’intervention ergonomique. Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé (PISTES) 18(2).
  4. 4.
    Chappert F, Théry L (2016) Égalité entre les femmes et les hommes et santé au travail: Comment le genre transforme-t-il l’intervention sur les conditions de travail? Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé (PISTES) 18(2).
  5. 5.
    Messing K (2014) Pain and prejudice: what science can learn about work from the people who do it. BTL Books, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blanc M, Fontaine C, Kurtzman L, Lizée M, Vanier C, van Schendel V (2011) L’UQAM dans la Cité : la contribution du Service aux collectivités. Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Canada. Consulted 17 December 2017
  7. 7.
    Messing K, Lippel K (2013) L’invisible qui fait mal: Un partenariat pour le droit à la santé des travailleuses. Travail Genre Sociétés 29:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Riel J, Saint-Charles J, Messing K (2017) Women’s occupational health: resisting when we can. New Solutions J Environ Occup Health Policy 27(3):279–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    St-Vincent M, Vézina N, Bellemare M, Denis D, Ledoux É, Imbeau D (2014) Ergonomic intervention. Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail (IRSST), MontréalGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Teiger C, Bernier C (1992) Ergonomic analysis of work activity of data entry clerks in the computerized service sector can reveal unrecognized skills. Women Health 18(3):67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Major M-E, Vézina N (2017) The organization of working time: developing an understanding and action plan to promote workers’ health in a seasonal work context. New Solutions J Environ Occup Health Policy 27(3):403–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seifert AM, Messing K, Chatigny C, Riel J (2007) Precarious employment conditions affect work content in education and social work: results of work analyses. Int J Law Psychiatry 30(4–5):299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Premji S, Lippel K, Messing K (2008) “We work by the second!” Piecework remuneration and occupational health and safety from an ethnicity- and gender-sensitive perspective Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé 10(1).
  14. 14.
    Premji S, Duguay P, Messing K, Lippel K (2010) Are immigrants, ethnic and linguistic minorities over-represented in jobs with a high level of compensated risk? results from a Montréal, Canada study using census and workers’compensation data. Am J Ind Med 53(9):875–885Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Messing K (2017) A feminist intervention that hurt women: biological differences, ergonomics and occupational health. New Solutions J Occup Environ Health Policy 27(3):304–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Philipps S (2011) Including gender in public health research. Publ Health Rep 126, supp. 3:16–21Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Messing K, Lefrançois M, Tissot F (2016) Genre et statistiques: Est-ce que l’analyse de grappes peut nous aider à comprendre la place du genre dans la recherche de solutions pour l’articulation travail-famille? Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé 18(2).
  18. 18.
    Lacomblez M, Ollagnier E, Teiger C (2016) Les ergonomes peuvent-ils rester borgnes? À propos de la relation intervention-formation-genre. Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé 18(2).
  19. 19.
    Riel J, Major M-E (2017) The challenges of mobilizing workers on gender issues. lessons from two studies about the occupational health of teachers in Québec. New Solutions J Environ Occup Health Policy 27(3):284–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chappert F, Messing K, Peltier E, Riel J (2014) Conditions de travail et parcours dans l’entreprise: vers une transformation qui intègre l’ergonomie et le genre? Revue multidisciplinaire sur l’emploi, le syndicalisme et le travail (REMEST) 9(2).

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CINBIOSEUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations