American Journal of Industrial Medicine 22:767-770 (1992)
Short Takes Introduction This section highlights specific educational methods and activities which have been utilized successfully for empowerment education. Methods are described in some detail to encourage experimentation in other settings. 0
0 0
0
Risk Mapping (Mujica) is a participatory method in which workers collectively draw a graphic representation of their workplace and the health and safety hazards which affect them. These maps are used to develop action strategies to reduce or eliminate the hazards. Ginzberg describes trigger videos which use dramatic vignettes to encourage active participation of the audience in discussing and analyzing workplace problems Fleishman presents three participatory methods which have been used with unions to satisfy a variety of objectives: to encourage hazard recognition and sharing of experiences among workers; to understand worker apathy; and to explore issues of racism and sexism which can affect both classroom environments and health and safety in the workplace. Cromley describes a participatory method used in asbestos training to provide information and encourage active problem-solving. This method is easily adaptable to other hazardous substance training. Obstacles to using empowerment and participatory approaches are also examined.
Coloring the Hazards: Risk Maps Research and Education to Fight Health Hazards Jorge Mujica Key words: health and safety training, labor education, empowerment education, occupational hazards
1. DEPICTING WORKPLACE HAZARDS: THE RISK MAP
At the beginning of the 1960s, workers in the Fiat factory in Italy started their own research on workplace hazards, by drawing circles of different colors and sizes over a blueprint of the factory which followed the production line. When the union presented its findings to the company, these drawings were taken as “non-scientific,” and therefore “invalid” as arguments to eliminate the hazards. The union called a group of sympathetic scientists that, fortunately, based their research on the
Chicago Area Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, Chicago, IL. Address reprint requests to J. Mujica, 6735 N. Maplewood, Chicago, IL 60645. Accepted for publication March 23, 1992.
0 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
768
Mujica
worker’s drawings and finally corroborated the empirical evidence. Workers were right. Without complicated instruments, those workers had pointed out the presence, intensity, harmfulness and frequency of the main hazards in their workplace. II. SCIENCE FOR WORKERS-KNOWLEDGE
FOR SCIENTISTS
The Risk Map (see Fig. 1) is a participatory method in which workers draw a representation of their work process and can then actually visualize health and safety hazards affecting them, These drawings allow workers to more easily pinpoint ways to correct these problems. For scientists, health activists,and educators, Risk Maps are a concrete approach to the day-to-day reality in the workplace, and a method for learning how workers perceive and face such hazards. Risk Maps are a change from the object-subject relationship used currently in workplace health research. This change allows workers and technicians to mesh science and worker experience. 111. PRINCIPLES OF RISK MAPPING
The creation of Risk Maps involves principles for both technicians and workers. A:) Direct Participation: Workers change their traditional role as “objects of the study” and become its active subjects. When directly participating in hazard evaluation, workers not only watch white-robed technicians use complicated instruments which are far from their understanding, but give their own opinion on when, where, and how often hazards affect them. When the research is finished, workers are more likely to get involved in further activities to correct problems or to demand their correction from management or government agencies like Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). B) Coming to Agreement: Because of the way Risk Maps are created (see below) workers come to an agreement as to what the health hazards are in the workplace, and how hazards affect them individually as well as collectively. Thus, C) Sharing knowledge and experience of the workplace becomes a major issue, one that is not talked about under other research methodologies. Workers and technicians exchange and share their knowledge in common language, and both understand each other’s role in eliminating health hazards in the workplace. Unlike other research, the creation of a Risk Map is not possible on the basis of working with individual workers. Risk Maps are created by groups of workers belonging to the same production line, office or shop. The same “team,” created by the way the work process is organized, makes basic decisions on the presence, intensity and gravity of workplace hazards. Using this collective approach avoids statistical deviations in the results by possible dominant “super-healthy” worker or the “hypochondriac” one. Instead, the overall results assess the well- being of the majority, rather than the individual symptoms caused by possible hazards. Working with groups of workers not only creates an accurate view of workplace hazards but also reflects how strenuously workers want to pursue changes. Participation in the research, and change in the relationship between the “all-knowledgeable scientist” and the “dumb-worker’’ also change the roles in the solution of the problems. Instead of workers delegating the resolution of their problems to industrial hygienists, workers decide when, how, and what should be changed. In this situation,
Risk Maps by Workers
1991
-
-
P R O W
1 Heat stroke in melting 1 heat stroke in drying 2 injuries in packing 1 cvase of hearing loss in cutting
improved ventilation more frequent breaks requested gloves requested noise reduction steps: agreed by company: will comply as of 04/92
Fig. 1.
Risk Map.
769
770
Mujica
health and safety improvements are returned to the hands of workers, and away from the hands of scientists deciding for the workers. IV. CREATING RISK MAPS The creation of a Risk Map goes through a series of steps. The first one is the administration of a questionnaire, in which the health hazards in the workplace have been divided not in the traditional way, by their chemical and physical properties, but by the way workers perceive them with their own senses and without instruments. The questionnaire asks for the identification of hazards in five groups, their individual and group relationship with symptoms and health effects, their frequency and intensity, the number of workers affected by them and, finally, worker’s proposals to eliminate them. The five groups are: 1) noise, heat, ventilation, illumination, humidity, and vibrations; 2) dusts, liquids, gases, mists, vapors, and radiations; 3) ergonomic factors, such as positions, loads, effort, and any element producing physical fatigue; 4) stressors, including swing shifts, supervision, responsibility, control over the process, and others; and 5 ) accidents and injuries, both due to equipment, tools, machinery, stairs, and other physical conditions of the workplace and to the first four groups, in the sense that noise or heat or some chemical substances or position or stress can produce both injury and illnesses. Once the problems have been identified, the information is drawn on a chart that represents the work process. The hazard groups are represented by colored circles, squares, or any other figure. The intensity is represented by the size of the symbols and the frequency by the number of workers exposed to such hazards. On the side of the “map,” technical and legal information is noted, like symptoms, long-term hazards, existence of TLVs or availability of material safety data sheets (MSDSs), and finally, the proposals for changes in the origin of the hazard to avoid its production. This last part may be an engineering control or the change in shifts or the substitution of a chemical substance for a less hazardous one. Unlike scientific results coming from a laboratory, whose implications can only be understood by other scientists, the Risk Map is accessible to all workers, whether or not they participate in its creation. V. AFTER THE RISK MAP ... WHAT? Contrary to other scientific research methods, Risk Mapping does not end when the last hazard is noted on a chart. Legal and practical information complement the Risk Map in an ongoing process; the effort to change working conditions is continuous, and so is designing the Risk Map. Based on the changes in the workplace, the Risk Map is updated to reflect changing designs, speeds, shifts, machinery and technology, new chemicals and, of course, changes favorable to workers that have been won in the process. Since hazards are not likely to be eliminated in a short period of time, workers will have a permanent instrument on which they can base their demands. Hopefully, technicians will keep assessing their problems, but without taking the initiative away from the factory, to well-illuminated scientific laboratories. Until the last hazard is eliminated, workers will keep pointing out, drawing and redrawing, updating and adding, and therefore, fighting for themselves against unfavorable working conditions in the workplace.
Short Takes Introduction This section highlights specific educational methods and activities which have been utilized successfully for empowerment education. Methods are described in some detail to encourage experimentation in other settings. 0
0 0
0
Risk Mapping (Mujica) is a participatory method in which workers collectively draw a graphic representation of their workplace and the health and safety hazards which affect them. These maps are used to develop action strategies to reduce or eliminate the hazards. Ginzberg describes trigger videos which use dramatic vignettes to encourage active participation of the audience in discussing and analyzing workplace problems Fleishman presents three participatory methods which have been used with unions to satisfy a variety of objectives: to encourage hazard recognition and sharing of experiences among workers; to understand worker apathy; and to explore issues of racism and sexism which can affect both classroom environments and health and safety in the workplace. Cromley describes a participatory method used in asbestos training to provide information and encourage active problem-solving. This method is easily adaptable to other hazardous substance training. Obstacles to using empowerment and participatory approaches are also examined.
Coloring the Hazards: Risk Maps Research and Education to Fight Health Hazards Jorge Mujica Key words: health and safety training, labor education, empowerment education, occupational hazards
1. DEPICTING WORKPLACE HAZARDS: THE RISK MAP
At the beginning of the 1960s, workers in the Fiat factory in Italy started their own research on workplace hazards, by drawing circles of different colors and sizes over a blueprint of the factory which followed the production line. When the union presented its findings to the company, these drawings were taken as “non-scientific,” and therefore “invalid” as arguments to eliminate the hazards. The union called a group of sympathetic scientists that, fortunately, based their research on the
Chicago Area Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, Chicago, IL. Address reprint requests to J. Mujica, 6735 N. Maplewood, Chicago, IL 60645. Accepted for publication March 23, 1992.
0 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
768
Mujica
worker’s drawings and finally corroborated the empirical evidence. Workers were right. Without complicated instruments, those workers had pointed out the presence, intensity, harmfulness and frequency of the main hazards in their workplace. II. SCIENCE FOR WORKERS-KNOWLEDGE
FOR SCIENTISTS
The Risk Map (see Fig. 1) is a participatory method in which workers draw a representation of their work process and can then actually visualize health and safety hazards affecting them, These drawings allow workers to more easily pinpoint ways to correct these problems. For scientists, health activists,and educators, Risk Maps are a concrete approach to the day-to-day reality in the workplace, and a method for learning how workers perceive and face such hazards. Risk Maps are a change from the object-subject relationship used currently in workplace health research. This change allows workers and technicians to mesh science and worker experience. 111. PRINCIPLES OF RISK MAPPING
The creation of Risk Maps involves principles for both technicians and workers. A:) Direct Participation: Workers change their traditional role as “objects of the study” and become its active subjects. When directly participating in hazard evaluation, workers not only watch white-robed technicians use complicated instruments which are far from their understanding, but give their own opinion on when, where, and how often hazards affect them. When the research is finished, workers are more likely to get involved in further activities to correct problems or to demand their correction from management or government agencies like Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). B) Coming to Agreement: Because of the way Risk Maps are created (see below) workers come to an agreement as to what the health hazards are in the workplace, and how hazards affect them individually as well as collectively. Thus, C) Sharing knowledge and experience of the workplace becomes a major issue, one that is not talked about under other research methodologies. Workers and technicians exchange and share their knowledge in common language, and both understand each other’s role in eliminating health hazards in the workplace. Unlike other research, the creation of a Risk Map is not possible on the basis of working with individual workers. Risk Maps are created by groups of workers belonging to the same production line, office or shop. The same “team,” created by the way the work process is organized, makes basic decisions on the presence, intensity and gravity of workplace hazards. Using this collective approach avoids statistical deviations in the results by possible dominant “super-healthy” worker or the “hypochondriac” one. Instead, the overall results assess the well- being of the majority, rather than the individual symptoms caused by possible hazards. Working with groups of workers not only creates an accurate view of workplace hazards but also reflects how strenuously workers want to pursue changes. Participation in the research, and change in the relationship between the “all-knowledgeable scientist” and the “dumb-worker’’ also change the roles in the solution of the problems. Instead of workers delegating the resolution of their problems to industrial hygienists, workers decide when, how, and what should be changed. In this situation,
Risk Maps by Workers
1991
-
-
P R O W
1 Heat stroke in melting 1 heat stroke in drying 2 injuries in packing 1 cvase of hearing loss in cutting
improved ventilation more frequent breaks requested gloves requested noise reduction steps: agreed by company: will comply as of 04/92
Fig. 1.
Risk Map.
769
770
Mujica
health and safety improvements are returned to the hands of workers, and away from the hands of scientists deciding for the workers. IV. CREATING RISK MAPS The creation of a Risk Map goes through a series of steps. The first one is the administration of a questionnaire, in which the health hazards in the workplace have been divided not in the traditional way, by their chemical and physical properties, but by the way workers perceive them with their own senses and without instruments. The questionnaire asks for the identification of hazards in five groups, their individual and group relationship with symptoms and health effects, their frequency and intensity, the number of workers affected by them and, finally, worker’s proposals to eliminate them. The five groups are: 1) noise, heat, ventilation, illumination, humidity, and vibrations; 2) dusts, liquids, gases, mists, vapors, and radiations; 3) ergonomic factors, such as positions, loads, effort, and any element producing physical fatigue; 4) stressors, including swing shifts, supervision, responsibility, control over the process, and others; and 5 ) accidents and injuries, both due to equipment, tools, machinery, stairs, and other physical conditions of the workplace and to the first four groups, in the sense that noise or heat or some chemical substances or position or stress can produce both injury and illnesses. Once the problems have been identified, the information is drawn on a chart that represents the work process. The hazard groups are represented by colored circles, squares, or any other figure. The intensity is represented by the size of the symbols and the frequency by the number of workers exposed to such hazards. On the side of the “map,” technical and legal information is noted, like symptoms, long-term hazards, existence of TLVs or availability of material safety data sheets (MSDSs), and finally, the proposals for changes in the origin of the hazard to avoid its production. This last part may be an engineering control or the change in shifts or the substitution of a chemical substance for a less hazardous one. Unlike scientific results coming from a laboratory, whose implications can only be understood by other scientists, the Risk Map is accessible to all workers, whether or not they participate in its creation. V. AFTER THE RISK MAP ... WHAT? Contrary to other scientific research methods, Risk Mapping does not end when the last hazard is noted on a chart. Legal and practical information complement the Risk Map in an ongoing process; the effort to change working conditions is continuous, and so is designing the Risk Map. Based on the changes in the workplace, the Risk Map is updated to reflect changing designs, speeds, shifts, machinery and technology, new chemicals and, of course, changes favorable to workers that have been won in the process. Since hazards are not likely to be eliminated in a short period of time, workers will have a permanent instrument on which they can base their demands. Hopefully, technicians will keep assessing their problems, but without taking the initiative away from the factory, to well-illuminated scientific laboratories. Until the last hazard is eliminated, workers will keep pointing out, drawing and redrawing, updating and adding, and therefore, fighting for themselves against unfavorable working conditions in the workplace.
