Tag Archives: Research methods

Government Report on Risk Released

Posted on by

Last week, the UK Government Chief Scientific Advisor launched the first of his annual themed reports, entitled ‘Innovation: Managing Risk, Not Avoiding It’. It is significant that Sir Mark Walport has chosen to focus the report on risk, recognising the significance of the topic for contemporary British society.

 

Mike has contributed a short case study to the report, using an historical example – the introduction of driverless trains on the Docklands Light Railway in London in the 1980s – as a means of thinking about the ways in which risks and perceptions of risks have been managed in the past, and what this might suggest for the introduction of new technologies in the future.

 

Writing the case study presented Mike with some challenges. Usually historians have the luxury of several thousand words in which to develop an extended argument, going into the nuances and complexities in some detail. In this case, though, the word limit was significantly tighter – only 500 words. It meant focusing in on the absolute essentials, as well as identifying what might be of most benefit for the contemporary user – important, given the report will be read by government staff and policy-makers in Britain and beyond in order to shape their decisions and frame debates in the future.

 

Mike’s case study identified a number of factors that influenced perceptions of safety and risk in relation to the DLR’s driverless trains, including proactive communication, public testing and the role of state regulation. He has suggested that these areas might all usefully be considered when introducing new technologies that might be perceived as in some way risky – but also that far from a knee-jerk reaction that feared driverless technologies, the public’s risk perception was more sophisticated, including a more open-minded approach to new technologies.

 

You can find the report and the associated evidence and case studies here.

Talking About the Past – the key stakeholder interview process

Posted on by

One of the central components of the research project is a series of interviews with key actors from the field of health and safety over the last fifty years. These began in August 2014, and we are approximately halfway through the process of talking to 40 people from a wide variety of backgrounds about their lives in the health and safety world. Each of these interviews to date has proved to be fascinating and enjoyable, and many new ideas and useful observations have emerged so far. And while it may be premature to jump the gun on discussing the findings, there are a number of interesting points to make about the process of interviewing itself.

Our first challenge has been deciding who to interview. We had identified a broad range of categories (regulators; H+S professionals; trade union actors; employer and business representatives; politicians; scientists and other observers). Some names were immediately obvious; others were recommended by either our helpful steering group, our existing contacts in the field, or by previous interviewees; and a few have been targeted following research into a specific topic or issue. This has allowed us to populate our categories (some more so than others!) and get a really broad spread of interesting interviewees.

The second challenge has been deciding what to ask – because this is a diverse pool of interviewees, we could not design a standard template of questions to ask in every case. But standardisation is not the goal of oral history interviewing – providing an authentic and personal account of the past is. With this in mind, we have worked from a ‘skeleton’ template, which sets out a chronological structure, and then populated each individual interviewee’s schedule with person-specific questions and areas to discuss. This has worked really well, allowing us to inform each interview with bespoke research on the person, and pointing attention at the key matters that each interviewee might want to discuss.

It must be said that our interviewees have proved to be a great resource – open and forthcoming, sometimes outspoken or revealing, and often insightful, reflective, and generous in their reminiscences. From Peers of the realm to professional managers, and from scientists to civil servants, they have all been able to pull apart the context of regulation in this area over the last fifty years. And all have given their own voice – which is exactly what we want the oral history methodology to capture for posterity!

The hardest part of the process is likely to be one of analysis – pulling out the material that matters and seeing the links between the different interviews. Many people have touched on similar topics from different angles, or given contrasting views on specific points. Some of these (like Piper Alpha, the Robens Report, Asbestosis, and the EU/6-Pack) will likely form the basis of case studies within our reports. We still have spaces for interviews and would particularly value some in key areas (trade union safety reps/policymakers; people working on safety issues prior to the 1974 Act; safety actors in the fields of occupational health and/or Local Authority enforcement) so please do draw this to the attention of anyone who would be suitable!

An introduction to archival research

Posted on by

In the middle of July, the project’s ongoing archival research programme turned its attention to the holdings at the Museum of English Rural Life at the University of Reading, which include some relevant and interesting materials, particularly relating to the National Union of Agricultural Workers (NUAW). Mike and Laura, who have been conducting the archival work to date, booked in for a day at MERL, and this provided a chance for Paul and Carmen to head down the hill from Whiteknights to learn more about the process of archival research at first hand.

The single most striking observation that Carmen and I made, as novice archive-miners, was the degree of discernment/intuition/expertise needed to search through the catalogues to work out exactly what it is you want to look at. It sounds obvious, but when there are large holdings, and much that is available only via request from the archive (so the friendly local archivist must locate the boxes in storage and deliver them to you), a good deal of decision-making is required to ensure that efforts are focused on the right materials, or at least in the directions that are most likely to be productive. The value of this became apparent as we began sifting through the contents of the first boxes – the Minutes of the Health Safety and Welfare Committee of the NUAW. Each bundle of documents took some time to read for relevant material, and this made that initial search and sort task even more important.

merl

The MERL Reading Room.

The second observation was about the needs and conventions of the particular research context. Many of the materials we were dealing with were more than fifty years old and needed careful handling; the reading room at MERL was full of researchers working on their own projects, making it important for us to be quiet and considerate to others; and the rules of the archive (sign in and provide ID; no pens, only pencils!) must be respected. We also learned the methods involved in using a digital SLR camera to photograph copies of documents for future reference, and the need for careful recording of what you had looked at and in what order!

But the most important lesson learned was the value and insight that comes from engaging with historical materials at first hand. Like a sleuth from a detective novel, finding a snippet of info in a document, snapping a picture, and then following the lead as it develops felt like a real thrill. As an example, I was lucky enough to get the box containing the NUAW H+S Committee minutes from 1970-75 – so contemporary with the Robens Report of 1972 and the passing of the HSWA 1974. It was exciting to track the initial concerns raised by the NUAW about the exclusion of agricultural workers from the scope of the Robens Report, through to evidence of the to-and-fro with government over this issue, and then to the efforts to understand the implications of the general duties contained in HSWA 1974 ss.2-3 (which apply to all employees and others affected by business activities) for farm workers.

It was even more exciting to cross-reference these concerns to contemporaneous evidence from Hansard, to see when and how these issues were raised within the legislative process, including by a youthful Neil Kinnock during Commons debate on 21/05/1973. We also located evidence as to controversies during the post-1974 implementation of the new law, including the ongoing argument (1974-6) between the NUAW and the Country Landowners Association about whether agricultural workplaces should be excluded from the scope of the new unified inspectorate (the HSE) and, by 1978, the emergence of disquiet about the limitations of tripartite working within Industry Advisory Committees.

Overall, the real benefit of going back to the archives is that the sources force us not to take for granted any of our contemporary assumptions about the Robens era. Consensual and tripartite working was shaky in practice; unified inspection and legislation was never a foregone conclusion; and the implications and meanings of the broad duties within the HSWA 1974 took time to be recognised and understood. Reform was thus an ongoing process, not a single event, and that is a crucial realisation for the rest of this project.

Paul

 

Focus groups

Posted on by

The contemporary public attitudes component of the project, co-ordinated by the University of Reading, is now well underway, with Paul Almond and Carmen D’Cruz having run focus groups across the country over the past month.  The last of the eight focus groups (each lasting ninety minutes and with roughly eight participants) was carried out just over a week ago week in Bath, with the others being held in Leeds, Manchester, London, Reading, Windsor, Southampton, and Bristol.

We largely focused on the following:

  • Media coverage about occupational health and safety (OHS), looking into participants’ awareness of and reaction to ‘regulatory myths’ and ‘health and safety gone mad’ cases;
  • Personal experiences, examining participants’ knowledge of and opinions about the legal/regulatory framework of OHS, their experiences of OHS in the workplace and elsewhere, and their perceptions of change in this area over time;
  • Trust and values, assessing how far participants support/ identify with the concept of health and safety regulation and the values underpinning it, as well as the factors influencing this support; and
  • Key concerns, asking about participants’ reservations and concerns regarding this area of the law (e.g. independence, public interest) and the things they would like changed.

Each focus group shed new light on key issues and we gathered crucial information about the motivations, processes, and understandings that inform and shape public attitudes, as well as their substantive form and direction. Following transcription, we are excited to begin an in-depth analysis of our findings. Stay tuned for more!

Archive research update

Posted on by

The historical part of the project (based at the University of Portsmouth) is now well underway, and over the past three weeks Mike Esbester and Laura Mayne have been visiting archives and collecting information on relevant collections across the UK.

In particular we’re looking for sources which will show how social, political and economic factors have influenced perceptions of the legitimacy of Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) in Britain since 1960. In essence, have attitudes changed? If they have, how and why? And how do we go about investigating this?

One of the main points of interest for the project will be the Modern Records Centre at the University of Warwick. Collections held at Warwick include the records of the Trade Union Congress, papers of many trade unions (Including, for example, the Transport and General Workers Union) as well as records of labour organisations and employment welfare bodies like the Industrial Welfare Society.

The National Archives also hold a wealth of relevant information like the records of the Health and Safety Executive (1969-2006) and the papers of the Factory Inspectorate. We’re also particularly interested in practitioner organisations concerned with OHS in Britain, and the archives of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents promise a number of exciting sources.

Media sources are invaluable for examining popular opinion and discourses about health and safety and how this changes over time. The British Library Newspaper Archive will be useful for discussion of OHS in the media, whilst a number of press archives have been digitised, such as the Times Digital Archive and UK Press Online.

A number of TV, film and radio archives are also available online, and so far Laura’s been involved in identifying these and in sourcing programmes discussing OHS (such as current affairs programmes like Panorama). Other moving image/audiovisual archives like British Pathe Newsreels will also be useful, and material is being sourced from the British Film Institute.

Hopefully this brief post provides an idea of how the Portsmouth-based aspect of the project is developing, and we’ll aim to keep the blog updated with more information as research continues and we get further into the archival research.