Organizational interventions - Facing the limits of the natural science paradigm
Organizational interventions - Facing the limits of the natural science paradigm
复制标题
DOI：
10.5271/sjweh.485
复制
发表时间：
1999-12-01
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
Griffiths, B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Griffiths, B
本文回顾了目前在概念化、设计和评估组织干预措施以改善职业健康方面的挑战。它认为，试图确认因果关系和允许预测（最大限度地提高内部有效性）往往是以牺牲概括性（外部有效性）为代价的。目前，在职业健康研究机构中占主导地位的实验范式强调确定因果关系，将注意力集中在结果上，而忽略了过程。干预措施应从(i)概念化、设计和实施（宏观过程）和（ii）所涉及的理论调解机制（微过程）两方面进行审查。这些过程可能比结果更具普遍性。它们的审查可能需要使用定性和定量方法。有人建议，这种方法为未来工作的更健康的设计、管理和组织带来了未知的希望。
This paper reviews current challenges in the conceptualization, design, and evaluation of organizational interventions to improve occupational health. It argues that attempts to confirm cause-and-effect relationships and allow prediction (maximize internal validity) are often made at the expense of generalizability (external validity). The current, dominant experimental paradigm in the occupational health research establishment, with its emphasis on identifying causal connections, focuses attention on outcome at the expense of process. Interventions should be examined in terms of (i) conceptualization, design and implementation (macroprocesses) and (ii) the theoretical mediating mechanisms involved (microprocesses). These processes are likely to be more generalizable than outcomes. Their examination may require the use of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. It is suggested that such an approach holds unexplored promise for the healthier design, management, and organization of future work.