Facing the Limits of the Natural Science Paradigm
As the 21st century begins, work in industrialised and post-industrialised societies is physically less arduous and dangerous than before. Other less tangible factors, largely concerning the design, management and organisation ofwork, nowrepresent the mostcommonthreats to workers’ health (Griffiths, 1998; Sauter et al., 1999). It is widely recognised that improving the design, management and organisation of work (often referred to as the “psychosocial” work environment) may be an important step in improving employee health and organisational productivity (World Health Organization, 1999). Broadly speaking, we are dealing here with the study object of work and health psychology.
This post reviews some issues in the conceptualisation and research methodology in the field of work and health psychology. It traces the origins of the discipline and examines well-being and health as objects of study that can be studied at various levels. Work and health psychology is conceived as an applied and pragmatic science primarily focused on maintaining and improving well-being and health, preferably by prevention. This post also addresses some problems inherent in the dominant experimental and quasi-experimental paradigm of the occupational health research establishment. It argues that the experimental paradigm, with its emphasis on identifying causal connections, focuses attention on outcome at the expense of process. However, we argue that interventions should be examined in terms of their conceptualisation, design and implementation and the theoretical mediating mechanisms involved. These latter processes are likely to be more generaliseable than outcomes. Their examination may require the use of qualitative as well as quantitative methodologies. It is suggested that this approach holds promise for the healthier design, management and organisation of future work.
ORIGINS AND CONTRIBUTORY DISCIPLINES
The study of well-being and health in work and organisations is represented by a conglomeration of many disciplines without a tradition of close interdisciplinary cooperation. A short, and necessarily incomplete, overview of the main disciplines involved is presented below.
First, there are the contributions of the different branches of psychology that, history has shown, maintain a preference to remain as discrete sub-disciplines. General psychology has provided us with insights into psychological phenomena and processes such as emotion, cognition, perception, learning, personality, individual differences, fatigue, stress and coping , as well as with methodological principles for research and measurement purposes. Clinical psychology has focused on matters such as trauma and post-traumatic stress , burnout and therapeutic interventions for individuals and groups. Social psychology has taught us about group dynamics, social support and person–environment fit. Developmental psychology has contributed knowledge about life stages and career-related issues . And finally, industrial, organisational and work psychology has examined matters such as work stress and fatigue, job characteristics , and organisational issues and HRM interventions.
There are also considerable influences from other disciplines such as engineering, management, administrative and business science, sociology, political science, cultural anthropology and, of course, biology and medical science. Engineering has contributed several systems designed to accomplish an optimal integration of technical systems on the one hand and individual workers and their social system on the other. Examples of such systems are ergonomics (focusing on the design of furniture, tools and machinery, attempting to accomplish optimal use for employees), occupational hygiene (focusing on the long-term health risks of jobs and work environments) and safety technology (focusing on the acute safety risks of tools, machines and other aspects of jobs and work environments). A major early contribution was provided by sociotechnical systems theory (an influential system, focusing on an optimal integration of the complete production system, consisting of a technical subsystem on the one hand and a social subsystem on the other), which gave rise to the development of so-called “autonomous task groups” . In addition, “action psychology” (Handlungspsychologie), a more individually oriented system with similar claims as sociotechnics, but less democratic in nature, devised in the former East Germany (Hacker, 1973), offers a goal-directed behaviourist approach reminiscent of the ideas in Tolman’s book Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men (1932), which has been influential during the past decade in Germany and the Netherlands.
Managerial, administrative and business science have played an important role in shaping the study of work and organisations. As such, they have been very influential in issues of occupational health and well-being, both in positive and negative senses. Many of these approaches have not concerned themselves explicitly with occupational well-being and health. However, some of them, such as the “human relations” approach, have done and were highly significant in the development of work and health psychology. Sociology, political science and cultural anthropology produced insights into the concept of “roles”, particularly important in the Michigan school the structural aspects of organisations and their surrounding societies, the dynamics of power, and the role of culture .Finally, biological and medical science have provided us with many insights into the physiology of health, well-being, stress, breakdown and illness, and medical treatments. In particular, biology contributed ethology, the study of animal behaviour, which taught us to study behavioural phenomena within their natural context and with minimum preconceptions.
All these approaches have resulted in a vast amount of information, methods and procedures. Though there has been some integration and cooperation, the resulting synergy has not been particularly impressive. There still is no generally accepted “unifying theory” of work and health psychology; the perspectives, concepts and practices of these different disciplines continue to be too different. Much of this is a result of the different levels at which these various sciences operate. Work and health psychology should feel at home at the levels of (i) individual employees and their differences, (ii) jobs and task characteristics, (iii) teams and groups, (iv) departments and (v) organisations (Schabracq, 1999). Moreover, it should also consider economical, juridical, political, technological, cultural and environmental influences (Gordon, 1991) and, at the other extreme physiological processes (Sapolsky, 1994). Of course, no one scientist can operate at all these levels and it is only logical that researchers in this area tend to become specialists. Nonetheless, questions about how to monitor developments at all levels, how to examine their effects on both individual and organisational health, and how, when necessary, to intervene, loom large in the horizons of researchers, practitioners and policy makers. Some of the answer lies in developing better ways of identifying trends and analysing problems, particularly in a climate of constant change. Another part of the solution lies in the careful design and thorough evaluation of interventions and in the education and training of relevant professional groups. In the Netherlands for instance, work and health psychologists should have been trained, and must have worked, in at least two of these levels for their professional certification.
THE STUDY OF MALFUNCTION, FUNCTION AND CHANGE
Work and health psychology has traditionally occupied itself predominantly with malfunction in work-related health and well-being, usually under the overall umbrella of stress. It has paid considerably less attention to normal functioning, well-being and health. This is not to deny that the study of malfunction is important. Stress phenomena, for instance, and their undesired consequences are not only important as such, but can teach us much about what goes wrong in organisations. However, there is currently an upsurge in interest in positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). We suggest that work and health psychology would also do well to focus more on positive well-being and health. This avoids the trap of the classical medical model, focusing on curing manifest afflictions and illnesses rather than on prevention and proactivity (Illich, 1976). Further, focusing solely on acting against a phenomenon can inadvertently reinforce and reify that phenomenon, as people generally have difficulty dealing with negatives (Ofman, 1995). But more importantly, it is generally more rewarding for managers and entrepreneurs, many of whom sponsor research in this discipline, to invest money and effort in realising positive goals, such as greater effectiveness, motivation, and individual and organisational development. In its concern for health and well-being, work and health psychology should ask, for instance, the following questions. What are the main characteristics of normal functioning? What does the ecology of normal functioning, well-being and health look like? Which environmental contingencies play an important part? Howdoes organisational culture affect normal functioning and well-being? It is clear that we know far less about such matters than we should.
In such cases, because we have no clear theoretical framework or hypotheses, we should initially observe these phenomena and ask working people themselves for their views. We should use open questions about the status quo, its background, causes, opportunities for personal influence and possible improvements (Schabracq et al., 1996). Asking employees for their on views is based on several important assumptions. First, it is reasonable to assume that employees are the best experts on their own predicaments. They are the ones who have the greatest interest in improvements. They know best how they feel, what they want, what they are able and allowed to do, as well as what constitutes an improvement. Moreover, as experts in their own work, it is highly likely that they have valid ideas about the way improvements might be brought about. Of course, it is possible that they do not know the answers to such questions. And some have argued that they may not represent their views honestly. But experienced researchers have demonstrated convincingly that once employees are afforded opportunities to talk about their working situation and possible improvements, even given the methodological issues presented by aggregating “subjective” data from interviews or questionnaires, the general direction of these improvements is useful and feasible (Cox et al., 2000, 2002; Schabracq et al., 2000).
This is not to deny the role of researchers and consultants in this process—asking questions of any nature will influence respondents—and traditionally all efforts are used to minimise the enquirers’ contribution and maximise the role of employees and their managers in efforts towards improving working conditions. But although such issues remain in applied research (Rosenthal&Rosnow, 1969), they need not always be “problems”. Perhaps influencing the object of study may not always be undesirable: in itself, it can be an object of study. As a pragmatic and applied discipline, work and health psychology can also focus on ways to establish common meanings among those who study and those who are studied. These meanings may become common ground for working on improvements, a basis for newdevelopments. As such, research inwork and health psychology actively may contribute to signification, help to overcome resistance and facilitate the construction of a new reality, following the best traditions of constructionism (Davis, 1988; Gergen & Davis, 1985). Work and health psychology, as an applied and pragmatic science, should strive towards understanding of the genesis, maintenance and development of its object—well-being and health in work and organisations—and produce applicable methods and techniques for continuous improvement. Therefore, the ultimate test of its worth lies in the effectiveness of its applications. Change might be designed and evaluated against the following criteria: effectiveness and efficiency, pleasure and motivation, creativity, individual and organisational development, social relations and organisational climate. In this sense, work and health psychology should be as the proverbial tree that is known by its fruits.
Tags: Facing the Limits of the Natural Science Paradigm, HRM interventions, ORIGINS AND CONTRIBUTORY DISCIPLINES, psychological phenomena and processes, sociotechnics