Occupational Health and Safety: Critical Review.
The authors (Vivienne Walters, Wayne Lewchuk, R. Jack Richardson, Lea Anne Moran, Ted Haines, and Dave Verma are the authors of the article being reviewed, when I say authors I will be referring to these names) of the article begin by making a few statements on risk and definitions of pathology, as well as occupational hazards. The authors then clarify that previous studies done on social construction of occupational health and safety have been focused on the processes that are involved in the definition of hazards. As well as shifts in definitions of acceptable and unacceptable working conditions, linking of symptoms with work place exposure and the recognition of new diseases. .
The article then gives example of social constructions at societal level which then gives the reader of the article incite as to why the authors of the article did this study. This is that the authors in the article know very little about the social construction of hazards in the workplace itself. Reasons are given for why this is so, such as difficulty in gaining access to a range of workplaces, limited understanding of how occupational health and safety are defined, changing definitions over time and how new problems are recognised.
So because of this lack of information this article explores the elements of social construction of hazards in the workplace, with the argument that such definition of hazards are generally phrased in negative terms, limiting what is considered risks at work as well as work related injury or illness. The article also argues that there is a strong ideology in regard to individual responsibility, with no importance being placed on the labour process and social relations of production. Vague definitions, together with the pattern of individual attribution shifts attention away from control of workplace risk. .
The article makes it's exploration by drawing on interviews from managers, worker representatives and nurses from a larger research project.
