The ironies of occupational safety and health (OSH)

Within my own field of research (human factors and ergonomics – HFE), one of the most well cited and important papers is Lisanne Bainbridge’s ‘The ironies of automation’ (Bainbridge, 1983). In the paper Bainbridge discusses the ways in which automation of industrial processes may expand rather than eliminate problems with the human operator. Bainbridge argued that a common irony of introducing automation into the workplace (e.g. email systems, computerized manufacturing systems) was that often rather than reducing the need for workers, it actually resulted in more people being employed in organizations. Automated systems regularly breakdown and need to be regularly maintained and updated, hence the need for extra staff. This is not to say that automation always results in increased employment. There are a huge range of examples where automation has resulted in increases in productivity and the need for fewer workers (e.g. the production of many forms of metal including steel). Likewise, new technologies have often resulted in safer workplaces and led to the replacement of a range of otherwise unpleasant, dangerous and hazardous jobs. The point is that Bainbridge’s ironies underline the need for caution in evaluating the impact of automation in the workplace and elsewhere. The debate continues today and can be seen in numerous headlines which are more or less variations on a theme of ‘the robots are coming’ or some other threat posed by new technology (e.g., autonomous vehicles – Hancock, 2019; Waterson, 2019; virtual workplaces – Eason, 2001). The reason for mentioning Bainbridge’s paper in this editorial is that in the course of editing PPHS I frequently come across what might be called some of the ‘ironies of OSH’. Some of these I have already mentioned in previous editorials (e.g. the gap between research and practice – PPHS, 14, (1), 97–98; the imbalanced focus of OSH research on high-risk safety and less on occupational health – PPHS, 16, (1), 1–3). Another irony is that the majority of papers which appear in the journal come from countries which might be said to be in the developed world. Articles from authors in North America and Europe make up the bulk of papers not only appearing in PPHS, but also those which are submitted to the journal for peer review. It strikes me as a shame that we receive much fewer papers from developing countries from continents such as Africa, the Far East and South America. The point was struck home to me by a recent research visit to Johannesburg in South Africa. I accompanied my host back and forth from the University of Witswaterland on most of the days of my visit. During our car journeys I saw among other things, many examples of hazardous driving, pedestrians wandering in the road, dented and broken down cars. At one stage during my time in South Africa, I experienced a power cut which lasted for the best part of a day. None of the workers that I saw repairing the overhead electricity lines used safety harnesses or other forms of personal protective equipment. In many respects this is not surprising; South Africa has for example, one of the highest rates of road accidents in the world (Parliamentary Monitoring Group South Africa, 2011) and faces a multitude of other social and political problems. At the same time, my host told me the number of people who worked in human factors/ergonomics in South African companies is far outweighed by the number of OSH practitioners. The upshot from these examples is that alongside some of the other goals I have set out in previous PPHS editorials (e.g. encouraging practitioners to write for the journal) one of the goals for the journal in the next few years will be to reach out to potential authors in some of the more economically challenged parts of the world.