Institutions and institutional logics in construction safety management: the case of climatic heat stress
Institutions and institutional logics in construction safety management: the case of climatic heat stress
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/01446193.2017.1296171
复制
发表时间：
2017-01-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Gibb, Alistair
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jia, Andrea Yunyan;Rowlinson, Steve;Gibb, Alistair
我们采用了一种基于扎根理论的方法来探讨行为安全与其不令人满意的结果之间的差距。本研究透过民族志研究，收集香港及重庆三十六个建筑工地热应激管理的资料。两个核心概念，制度和制度逻辑，产生和定义，以解释为什么安全规则不一定产生安全行为。在社会层面，我们阐释了两对制度逻辑：宗教逻辑（儒家与实用主义）和市场逻辑（理性市场与个人主义）。在项目组织层次上，阐述了两种加工安全生产逻辑：重庆背景下的保护逻辑和香港背景下的生产逻辑。这些概念和子概念与现有的商业文献进行了比较，以澄清范围。该研究的实证结果表明，安全干预需要重新调整其重点，从促进安全本身，以解决整个组织的制度逻辑和社会背景下实行的多层次的行为者。我们的结论是，安全研究将受益于从话语，访谈或调查的分析重点，以认证的情况下重建通过三角测量的演员的话语在多个层次的组织，第三方观察，生理数据和客观测量的工作环境。在方法论上，本文为以概念化为重点的扎根理论研究提供了详细的指导。
We employed a Glaserian grounded theory approach to explore the gap between behavioural safety and its unsatisfactory outcomes. Data were collected through ethnographic studies on the practice of managing heat stress on thirty-six construction sites in Hong Kong and Chonqing in mainland China. Two core concepts, institutions and institutional logics, are generated and defined to explain why safety rules do not necessarily produce safety behaviours. At society level, we explicated two pairs of institutional logics: the religion logics (Confucianism vs. pragmatism) and the market logics (rational market vs. individualism). At project organizational level, two logics of processing safety in production are explicated: a protection logic in the Chongqing context and a production logic in the Hong Kong context. The concepts and sub-concepts are compared to existing business literature for clarification of scopes. Empirical findings of the study suggest safety intervention needs to redirect its focus from promoting safety alone to addressing the institutional logics of the entire organization and its societal context practised by multiple levels of actors. We conclude that safety research would benefit from redirecting its focus of analysis from discourses, interviews or surveys to authenticated cases reconstructed through triangulation of actors' discourses at multiple levels of an organization, third-party observation, physiological data and objective measurement of the work environment. Methodologically, this paper provides a detailed guidance for conducting grounded theory research with a focus of conceptualization.