The need for dialogue between the vocational psychological and organisational perspectives on career

As editors of the recently published Vocational psychological and organisational perspectives on career: Towards a multidisciplinary dialogue (Collin & Patton, 2009), we have considerable interest in this particular issue of the Australian Journal of Career Development. This short piece will first present the purpose and thesis of that book and, in the light of them, will then comment on the four papers. The book suggests that to understand the multidimensional and multilayered nature of career, “it has to be studied in a similarly multilayered and multi-perspectival way, and, indeed, it has been” (p. 3). Scholars have pointed out that there is a wide array of disciplines including economics, sociology, anthropology, geography, political science, various branches of psychology (e.g. industrial/organisational (I/O), vocational, counselling), psychiatry, education, organisation studies, organisational behaviour, personnel/human resource management, industrial relations, and more, all of which have something to say about career. Of these, the most influential, according to Peiperl and Arthur (2000), have been psychology, sociology, education and management. These many disciplinary perspectives on career constitute the rich field of career studies.

An activity theory framework for industrial design

Ethnography has gained wide acceptance in the industrial design profession and curriculum as a means of understanding the user. However, there is considerable confusion about the particularities of its practice accompanied by the absence of an interoperable vocabulary. The consequent interdisciplinary effort is a power play between disciplines whereby the methodological view of ethnography marginalises its theoretical and analytical components. In doing so, it restricts the potential of ethnography suggesting the need for alternative methods of informing the design process. This article suggests that activity theory, with an emphasis on human activity as the fundamental unit of study, is an appropriate methodology for the generation of user requirements. The process is illustrated through the adaptation of an ethnographic case study, for the design of classroom furniture in India.

Cyberbullying : the new face of workplace bullying?

While the subject of cyberbullying of children and adolescents has begun to be addressed, there has been less attention or research on cyberbullying in the workplace. Whilst male-dominated workplaces such as manufacturing settings have been found to have an increased risk of workplace bullying, the prevalence of cyberbullying in this sector is not known. This exploratory study investigated the prevalence and methods of face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying of males at work. One hundred and three surveys (a modified version of the NAQ-R1), were returned from randomly selected members of the Australian Manufacturing Worker’s Union (AMWU). The results showed that 34% of the respondents were bullied face-to-face, and 10.7% were cyberbullied. All victims of cyberbullying also experienced face-to-face bullying. The implications for organisations of their “duty of care” in regards to this new form of bullying are indicated.

Safety culture research, lead indicators, and the development of safety effectiveness indicators in the construction sector

Construction sector application of Lead Indicators generally and Positive Performance Indicators (PPIs) particularly, are largely seen by the sector as not providing generalizable indicators of safety effectiveness. Similarly, safety culture is often cited as an essential factor in improving safety performance, yet there is no known reliable way of measuring safety culture. This paper proposes that the accurate measurement of safety effectiveness and safety culture is a requirement for assessing safe behaviours, safety knowledge, effective communication and safety performance. Currently there are no standard national or international safety effectiveness indicators (SEIs) that are accepted by the construction industry. The challenge is that quantitative survey instruments developed for measuring safety culture and/ or safety climate are inherently flawed methodologically and do not produce reliable and representative data concerning attitudes to safety. Measures that combine quantitative and qualitative components are needed to provide a clear utility for safety effectiveness indicators.