Recent qualitative studies have investigated some of the hazards affecting women in non-traditional trades such as construction. However, one-time interactions among researcher participants, and between researchers and participants, in standard settings such as focus groups and interviews, cannot provide the time, space, and relationships to fully explore tradeswomen's in-depth knowledge of their work environment. This study applied a Scandinavian method called the Research Circle to convene a group of experienced women construction workers repeatedly over a period of two years so they could collaborate with researchers in explaining workplace issues. The results both validated and expanded upon previous findings about health and safety for women in construction, including gender discrimination, lack of access to sanitary facilities, retaliation for reporting hazards and injuries, and inadequate training and equipment. Especially important, findings illustrate some of the complex hierarchical social structures involved in both female and male construction workers responding to hazardous conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MoirS. and BuchholzB., Emerging Participatory Approaches to Ergonomic Interventions in the Construction Industry. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29, pp. 425–430, 1996.
2.
DwyerT. and RafteryA. E., Industrial Accidents are Produced by Social Relations of Work: A Sociological Theory of Industrial Accidents. Applied Ergonomics, 22(3), pp. 167–178, 1991.
3.
HagbergM., Broadening the View of Exposure Assessment. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 27(5), pp. 354–357, 2001.
4.
LevensteinC., Policy Implications of Intervention Research: Research on the Social Context of Intervention. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29, pp. 258–261, 1996.
5.
WegmanD. and FineL., Occupational Health in the 1990's. Annual Review of Public Health, 11, pp. 89–103, 1990.
6.
Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health,. Women in the Construction Workplace: Providing Equitable Safety and Health Protection. Washington, DC: ACCSH Health and Safety of Women in Construction Workgroup (HASWIC). Submitted to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), June 1999. Available at http://www.osha.gov/doc/accsh/haswicformal.html, accessed November 1, 2006.
7.
MoirS., Boston's Big Dig: Lessons from Efforts to Integrate Occupational Health Goals into a Large Highway Development Project. Occupational Health and Development, 4, pp. 3–11, 2002.
8.
LevensteinC.WoodingJ., and RosenbergB., The Social Context of Occupational Health, The Social Context of Occupational Health. In LevyB. and WegmanD. (eds.), Occupational Health, Boston, MA: Little and Brown, pp. 25–53, 1994.
9.
EisenbergS., We'll Call You If We Need You: Experiences of Women Working Construction. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1999.
10.
GoldenharL. M.SwansonN. G.HurrellJ. J.RuderA., and DeddensJ., Stressors and Adverse Outcomes for Female Construction Workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(1), pp. 19–32, 1998.
11.
LatourJ., Live! From New York: Women Construction Workers in Their Own Words. Labor History, 42(2), pp. 179–189, 2001.
12.
EldenM., Democratization and Participative Research in Developing Local Theory. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 4, pp. 21–33, 1983.
13.
GranstedtA. and KjellenbergL., Long-Term Field Experiment in Sweden: Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Soil Fertility and Crop Quality. Paper presented at the International Conference on Agricultural Production and Nutrition, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, 1997.
14.
HärnstenG., The Research Circle—Building Knowledge on Equal Terms. Stockholm: The Swedish Trade Union Federation, 1994.
15.
HärnstenG., Autonomy and Hospital Cleaners. The Research Circle, Autonomy and Hospital Cleaners. The Research Circle. In DanielP. (ed.), Women, Literacy and Power (Equal Opportunities International S.). Patrington, East Yorkshire: Barmarick Publications, 2000.
16.
HolmstrandL., The Research Circle—A Way of Cooperating, The Research Circle—A Way of Cooperating. In ForresterK. and ThorneC. (eds.), Trade Unions and Social Research. Aldershot, England: Avebury Press, pp. 106–114, 1993.
17.
KruegerR. A., Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.
18.
StewartD. W. and ShamdasaniP. N., Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1990.
19.
ArnoldR.BurkeB.JamesC.MartinD. A., and ThomasB., Educating for a Change. Toronto, Ontario: Doris Marshall Institute for Education and Action, 1991.
20.
HopeA. and TimmelS., Training for Transformation: A Handbook for Community Workers. London: Intermediate Technology Development Group Publishing, 1996.
21.
BurkeB.. Evaluating for a Change: Reflections on Participatory Methodology. New Directions for Evaluation, 80, pp. 43–56, 1998.
22.
PattonM. Q.. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.
23.
MujicaJ., Coloring the Hazards: Risk Maps Research and Education to Fight Health Hazards. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 22, pp. 767–770, 1992.
24.
UCLA-LOSH, Risk Mapping: A Group Method for Improving Workplace Health and Safety. Los Angeles: Regents of the University of California, 1996.
25.
GoldenharL. M. and SweeneyM. H., Tradeswomen's Perspectives on Occupational Health And Safety: A Qualitative Investigation. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29(5), pp. 516–520, 1996.
26.
WelchL. S.GoldenharL. M., and HuntingK. L., Women in Construction: Occupational Health and Working Conditions. Journal of the American Women's Medical Association, 55(2), pp. 89–92, 2000.
