In a context where preventive measures are developed via a functionalist and technological approach, the aim of this work is to set out general principles and methods for new preventive solutions that will enrich these existing measures.
OBJECTIVE:
We propose an approach centered on the involvement of workers at all hierarchical levels around “intermediary objects” of prevention in order to foster a collective debate. This might provide empowered workers to be actors into their own prevention of risk faced.
METHODS:
Observational data was coupled with chemical and physiological measurements. We developed, reworked and enriched the notion of risk representation, which promotes the visibility and recognition of the knowledge built, developed and held by workers on their activities and on ways to protect themselves from dangers or hazards.
RESULTS:
Implementation of the method generates detailed knowledge of chemical risks, knowledge that is constructed by the workers. This knowledge is made possible by the experience of the body and senses, and becomes accessible via references to the domestic and professional sphere in reflexive activities. The actors get involved and make use of their individual, collective and organizational resources to propose prevention solutions
CONCLUSIONS:
Use of intermediate prevention objects in an “intermediate space for dialogue” allows dialogues to be produced and fostered. Ultimately, these spaces are circulating entities for the co-production of knowledge for action: to generate knowledge and innovative prevention solutions collectively.
DaniellouF. The French-speaking ergonomists’ approach to work activity: cross-influences of field intervention and conceptual models. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. 2005;6(5):409–27.
2.
DaniellouF, RabardelP. Activity-oriented approaches to ergonomics: Some traditions and communities. Theoretical issues in Ergonomics science. 2005;6(5):353–7.
3.
DelgouletC, Cau-BareilleD, ChatignyE, GaudartC, SantosM, Vidal-GomelC. Ergonomic analysis on work activity and training. Work. 2012;41(2):111–4.
4.
SznelwarL. Analyse ergonomique de l’exposition de travailleurs agricoles aux pesticides : Essai ergotoxicologique. Thèse de doctorat en ergonomie. Laboratoire d’ergonomie du CNAM, Paris; 1992.
5.
Mohammed-BrahimB, GarrigouA. Une approche critique du modèle dominant de prévention du risque chimique. L’apport de l’ergotoxicologie.@ctivités. 2009;6(1):49–67.
6.
GarrigouA, BaldiI, Le FriousP, AnselmR, VallierM. Ergonomics contribution to chemical risks prevention: An ergotoxicological investigation of the effectiveness of coverall against plant pest risk in viticulture. Applied Ergonomics. 2011;42(2):321–30.
7.
Mohammed-BrahimB. Concept and methods in ergotoxicology. In KarwowskiW. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors. Taylor & Francis: London, UK; 2000.
8.
GarrigouA, VallierM, PasquereauP, CarballedaG, FaureA, FerencT, CarayonB. An ergotoxicological approach of the shipbuilding workers exposition to solvents. In Proceedings of the 17th Congress of the IEA, Beijing, August 9-14; 2009.
9.
GarrigouA, BaldiI, JacksonM. The use of pesticides in French viticulture: A badly controlled technology transfer!Work. 2012;41(0):19–25.
10.
GarrigouA, PeetersS, JacksonM, SagoryP, CarballedaG. Apports de l’ergonomie à la prévention des risques professionnels. In Ergonomie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; 2004, p. 497-514.
11.
GarrigouA, DaniellouF, CarballedaG, RuaudS. Activity analysis in participatory design and analysis of participatory design activity. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1995;15(5):311–27.
12.
TrompetteP, VinckD. Revisiting the notion of boundary object. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances. 2009;3(1):3–25.
13.
SchonDA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books; 1983 (Reprinted in 1995).
14.
ClotY. La fonction psychologique du travail. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, Collection “Le Travail Humain” 1999.
15.
MolloV, FalzonP. Auto-and allo-confrontation as tools for reflective activities. Applied Ergonomics. 2004;35(6):531–40.
16.
RosénG, AnderssonI-M, WalshPT, ClarkRDR, SäämänenA, HeinonenK, RiipinenH, PääkkönenR. A review of video exposure monitoring as an occupational hygiene tool. Annals of Occupational Hygiene. 2005;49(3):201–17.
17.
MartinP, BrandF, ServaisM. Correlation of the Exposure to a Pollutant with a Task-Related Action or Workplace: The CAPTIV™ System. The Annals of Occupational Hygiene. 1999;43(4):221–33.
18.
JudonN, HellaF, PasquereauP, GarrigouA. Vers une prévention intégrée du risque chimique lié à l’exposition cutanée au bitume des travailleurs de la route. Élaboration d’une méthodologie dans le cadre de l’ergotoxicologie, Perspectives Interdisciplinaires Sur le Travail et la Santé. 2015;17(2).Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/pistes/4586
19.
GaleyL, JudonN, JollyC, GoutilleF, MorelotS, AlbertM, LhospitalO, MartinP, Noel-SubervilleC, PasquereauP, Aublet-CuvelierA, Mohammed-BrahimB, GarrigouA. Proposition méthodologique en ergotoxicologie pour révéler les expositions à des produits chimiques. 2019; Activités 16-1. http://journals.openedition.org/activites/4103
20.
ClotY. Travail et pouvoir d’agir. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; 2008.
21.
JudonN. Rendre possible un espace intermédiaire de dialogue pour co-construire de nouvelles solutions de prévention dans un contexte déincertitude – Cas des travaux de revêtements routiers. [these] de doctorat d’ergonomie. Université de Bordeaux; 2017.
22.
GaleyL, AudignonS, WitschgerO, LacourtA, GarrigouA. Toward a Better Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Nanoparticles Taking into Account Work Activities. In: Bagnara S, Tartaglia R, Albolino S, Alexander T, Fujita Y, editors. Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). Springer International Publishing; 2019, p. 465-78.
23.
VinckD. De l’objet intermédiaire à l’objet-frontière. Vers la prise en compte du travail d’équipement. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances. 2009;3(1):51–72.
24.
BuchmannW, LandryA. Intervenir sur les TMS. Un modèle des troubles musculo-squelettiques comme objet intermédiaire entre ergonomes et acteurs de l’entreprise. @ctivités. 2010;7(2). Available at: https://activites.revues.org/2418
25.
CruD. “Aucun risque !” Travail, représentation du risque et prévention. Éducation Permanente. 1993;117(4):75–83.
26.
DouglasM, WildavskyA. Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1982.
27.
DuclosD. La construction sociale du risque: le cas des ouvriers de la chimie face aux dangers industriels. Revue Française de Sociologie. 1987;28(1):17–42.
28.
GarrigouA. Le développement de l’ergotoxicologie: une contribution de l’ergonomie à la santé au travail. Habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2, Bordeaux; 2011, 141 p.
29.
GarrigouA, CarballedaG, DaniellouF. Know-how in maintenance activities and reliability, in a high-risk process control plant. Applied Ergonomics. 1998;29(2):127–32.
30.
Mohammed-BrahimB. Travailler en présence de substances toxiques: Un corps à corps au quotidien. Corps au Travail. 2009;6(1):53–9.
31.
BéguinP. Monde, version des mondes et mondes commun. Bulletin de psychologie. 2004;57(469):45–59.
32.
DagiralÉ, JouzelJ-N, MiasA, PeerbayeA. Mesurer pour prévenir?Terrains & travaux. 2016;(28):5–20.
33.
BrobergO, AndersenV, SeimR. Participatory ergonomics in design processes: The role of boundary objects. Applied Ergonomics. 2011;42(3):464–72.
34.
RochaR, MolloV, DaniellouF. Work debate spaces: A tool for developing a participatory safety management. Applied Ergonomics. 2015;46:107–14.
35.
BolisI, SznelwarL. A case study of the implementation of an ergonomics improvement committee in a Brazilian hospital – Challenges and benefits. Applied Ergonomics. 2016;53:181–9.
36.
RabardelP, BéguinP. Instrument Mediated Activity: from Subject Development to Anthropocentric Design. Theoricals Issues In Ergonomics Science. 2005;6(5):429–61.
37.
BéguinP. Prendre en compte l’activité de travail pour concevoir @ctivités. 2007;4(2). Available at: http://activites.revues.org/1719
38.
BéguinP. La conception des instruments comme processus dialogique d’apprentissages mutuels. In
FalzonP. (Ed.), Ergonomie constructive. 2013, p. 147–60. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
