Реферат по дисциплине «Иностранный язык» по монографии «Occupational Health Psychology»

Письменный перевод с английского на русский язык монографии «

Скачать 472.36 Kb.
Размер472.36 Kb.
1   2   3   4

2. Письменный перевод с английского на русский язык монографии «Occupational Health Psychology»


An Introduction to

Occupational Health


Jonathan Houdmont and Stavroula Leka
This chapter introduces occupational health psychology by defining the subject

matter and exploring the features that make it distinct from other related areas.

The influence of key research groups and studies, characteristics of the changing

world of work, and legislative developments that have contributed to the

development of the discipline, are considered. The chapter closes by introducing

the bodies that represent and support research, training, and professional

practice in occupational health psychology on the international stage.
There are numerous descriptors for subject specialties that concern the application of

psychology in the workplace: industrial and organizational psychology, work and

organizational psychology, work and health psychology, vocational psychology, and

occupational psychology to name but a few. Each of these specialties has a distinct

perspective on the dynamic relationship between work and the worker (although some

overlap is inevitable), and exists as a formalized entity supported, to varying degrees, by

representative bodies, academic and practitioner journals, international conferences,

and professional training pathways. To this collection there is a new entrant that since

the early 1990s has attracted interest, but about which little has been written for the

student embarking upon study of the specialty: occupational health psychology.

In this chapter we set out the nature and definition of this specialty, and trace its

emergence by selectively highlighting a series of influential research groups and studies,

characteristics of the changing world of work, and legislative developments that have


materialized during the twentieth century in Europe and North America. We conclude

with an examination of the contemporary character of occupational health psychology

in which consideration is given to structures that exist to support the research, training,

and practitioner activities of an expanding international constituency.
What is Occupational Health Psychology?
Where did the term ‘occupational health psychology’ originate?

What is the vision of occupational health psychology?

Why is occupational health psychology important?
Occupational health psychology (OHP) is a youthful discipline with much to offer

the aspiring practitioner. This book is designed to facilitate the knowledge development

of those who wish to develop a career in OHP: individuals with a curiosity and

enthusiasm for the application of psychological theory and evidence to bring about

improvements in the health of workers. Theterm ‘occupational health psychology’

was coined in 1990 at the University of Hawaii by a team of academics who observed

unfulfilled potential for psychologists to support the development of healthy work

environments (Raymond,Wood, & Patrick, 1990). OHP has grown at a rapid rate in

the two decades that have passed since Raymond and colleagues set in motion a new

specialty. This can be seen in, among other things, the ongoing rise in the submission

rate of scientific articles to the discipline’s dedicated academic journals (Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress), and the influence of these

journals within the broader applied psychology field; the growth in researcher,

educator, practitioner, and student attendance at international OHP conferences;

the expansion of OHP training provision in Europe and North America; the growth

in employment opportunities for OHP practitioners; and the expansion of outlets

for practitioners to publish and share best practice.

Alongside these activities, debate on the nature and scope of OHP has crystallized

and consensus has developed among academics and practitioners on its aims and

objectives. This has allowed for the advancement of a shared vision whereby OHP is

understood to have its focus on the creation of ‘healthy workplaces in which people

may produce, serve, grow, and be valued’ (Quick et al., 1997, p. 3). Within this

vision, healthy workplaces are understood to be ones ‘where people use their talents

and gifts to achieve high performance, high satisfaction, and well-being’ (ibid.).

The appeal of OHP can be found in the important and unique role it plays in the

management of challenges to safety and health in the organizational context. For

many decades, prior to the advent of OHP, occupational safety and health professionals

had at their disposal a knowledge- and skill-set that was fit for purpose in

respect of the control and prevention of exposures to traditional work-related

hazards such as physical, biological, or chemical agents (Sauter&Hurrell, 1999).

The practitioner’s professional toolkit was robust and effective in so far as it was

designed to deal with the prevalent work-related hazards of the time. The adequacy

of the toolkit was, however, called into question towards the end of the twentieth



The OHP moniker was coined in 1990, since which time the discipline has flourished

in Europe and North America. Agreement can be found on the vision for OHP, and

the discipline now plays an important role in the prevention of occupational illness

and injury, and promotion of occupational health and well-being.

The Definition of Occupational Health Psychology
How is occupational health psychology defined?

What commonalities and differences exist between European and North

American definitions?
With any youthful discipline it takes time for consensus to develop around a

precise definition in respect of its key ingredients or features. OHP is no exception;

although there is agreement among the discipline’s protagonists on its aims and

objectives, evidence of divergence can be found between North American and

European perspectives on its definition (Cox, 2000). This is specifically so in

relation to the specialties that inform and comprise OHP. At one level it could

be argued that divergence is a mere matter of semantics because OHP protagonists

the world over adhere to a universal understanding of the discipline. However,

because the definitions adhered to by academics will determine, in part, the

content of training programmes, divergence may have the unfortunate consequence

of conspiring against the creation of programme accreditation procedures

and professional training pathways that are required to sustain the discipline in the

long term.

For this reason, it is imperative that international consensus is ultimately

achieved on the definition of OHP. Fortunately, despite the absence of a shared

heritage across the international OHP community, broad agreement on the nature

of the discipline can be found in the definitions advanced by the discipline’s

European and North American representative bodies. In Europe, the generally

accepted definition is that advanced by the European Academy of Occupational

Health Psychology (EAOHP). This is based on the definition posited by Cox,

Baldursson, and RialGonza´lez (2000), whereby OHP is considered ‘the contribution

of applied psychology to occupational health’ (p. 101). This definition locates

OHP at the interface between occupational health and psychology. Cox and

colleagues suggest that the areas of psychology that might be applied in addressing

occupational health issues include health psychology, work and organizational

psychology, and social and environmental psychology. This perspective is illustrated

in Figure 1.1. The contribution of these areas of psychology implies that

OHP practitioners have their focus on the psychological, social, and organizational


Social and Environmental


Work and Organizational

Health Psychology

Psychology Occupational Health Psychology

Figure 1.1 Foundations of European occupational health psychology.

aspects of occupational health questions. The European perspective recognizes that

occupational health is a multidisciplinary area and that OHP practitioners offer a

focused specialization that they may usefully apply within multidisciplinary teams.

In this way, it ‘requires that European occupational health psychologists are aware

of and recognize the contributions that can be made by others, and can appreciate

their intellectual positions, knowledge and practical skills’ (ibid., p. 103).

The North American perspective on OHP is in large part consistent with the

European approach. Nevertheless, differences can be identified. Whereas the

European tradition draws on procedures, practices, and methodologies from various

fields of applied psychology, North American definitions encompass psychological

perspectives alongside those from other occupational sciences such as occupational

and environmental health, organizational behaviour, human factors,

sociology, industrial engineering, ergonomics, and economics (Adkins, 1999;

Chen, Huang, &DeArmond, 2005). This perspective gives rise to the definition

advanced by the North American representative body for the discipline – the

Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP) – whereby OHP is viewed as


The interdisciplinary partnerships of psychological and occupational health science

professionals seeking to improve the quality of working life, and enhance the safety,

health and well-being of workers in all occupations. Because it exists at the intersection

of behavioral science and occupational health disciplines, OHP is inclusive

of knowledge and methods from psychology, public/occupational health, organizational

studies, human factors, and allied fields (such as occupational sociology,

industrial engineering, economics, and others). (Society for Occupational Health

Psychology, 2008)

This multidisciplinary perspective, illustrated in Figure 1.2, was established at

the outset of the discipline’s existence in North America. In their seminal

article, Raymond, Wood, and Patrick (1990) called for training in a discipline

that ‘would integrate and synthesize insights, frameworks and knowledge from a

diverse number of specialties, principally health psychology and occupational


Public Health


Occupational Health and




Occupational Health Psychology

Figure 1.2 Foundations of North American occupational health psychology (adapted

from Adkins, 1999).
(public) health but also preventative medicine, occupational medicine, behavioral

medicine, nursing, political science, sociology and business’ (p. 1159).


Work Organization and Health
Michael P. O’Driscoll and Paula Brough


The previous chapter in this volume (by Cox and Griffiths) has provided

a valuable review of various theoretical accounts of work-related stress and

well-being. The present chapter builds upon their conceptual overview by

describing some of the key relationships among work/organization factors

and workers’ health and well-being outcomes. The chapter specifically examines

psychosocial hazards or stressors which have been demonstrated by

research to have a bearing on either individual well-being or organizational

productivity-related variables (such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

job performance, absenteeism, and turnover). Our aim is not to

present an exhaustive review of the vast literature on these topics, but rather

to provide representative evidence and discussion of relationships between

workplace hazards and health, along with suggestions for future research

developments in this field.

The potential impact of work-related factors on the psychological and physical

health and well-being of workers has been clearly established in research spanning

more than 50 years, along with the notion that individuals and organizations

share a responsibility to optimize well-being. To achieve this optimization, it is

essential to examine the range of factors which may significantly contribute to

physical health and psychological well-being, to determine the influence which


these exert and, most importantly, to ascertain how work-related factors may be

manipulated to ensure that at the very least they are not harmful to individual

workers, and ideally that they make a positive contribution to their health and

well-being. The aim of the present chapter is to provide an overview of some of

the more common work-related predictors of physical health and psychological

well-being and to summarize conclusions which have been drawn from research

on these variables.

Above we introduced the concepts of ‘hazards’ and ‘stressors’, both of which

have been used in the stress and well-being literature. These terms refer to

occurrences or events which individuals are exposed to which may threaten their

health or well-being. The concept of hazard derives from the literature on risks and

risk management, whereas the term stressor is more closely aligned with theoretical

models of stress and stress management (including coping). For present purposes,

however, they are functionally equivalent and (for simplicity) we will use the

expression ‘stressors’ when describing stimuli which have the potential to generate

negative outcomes for individuals.

The chapter focuses on two major issues: types of stressors and types of people

who are likely to experience these stressors. First we discuss research on a selection

of stressors which have figured prominently in the literature on work-related

health and well-being. Specifically, we describe seven types of stressor which have

been frequently researched. As noted above, our intention is not to offer an

exhaustive review of research, but rather to summarize the major findings and

their implications. Following this overview, we examine specific groups of

workers who are more likely to have exposure to these stressors, in particular

high-risk occupations (such as police officers and corrections employees), female

workers, and employees with dependants (who are more prone to experience

work-to-family conflict). The chapter concludes with some general observations

about the impact of work stressors or hazards, along with suggestions for future

research and practice.

Workplace Psychosocial Stressors
What are the major types of work-related stressors?

How do psychosocial stressors at work affect health and well-being?

What is the role of personal control in reducing stress and enhancing well-being?

Does social support alleviate psychological strain and improve well-being?
There have been several efforts to develop taxonomies of work-related stressors

(or hazards). These taxonomies are valuable in that they provide a set of categories

of different types of stressor which may have a substantial impact on health

and well-being at work. Cooper and Marshall (1976) made an early attempt to

categorize job stressors, which was updated by Cartwright and Cooper (1997).


Workplace Health

Andrew J. Noblet and John J. Rodwell
This chapter focuses on the concept of workplace health promotion (WHP).

Much of the current thinking on what it means to promote health at work

is based on contemporary definitions of ‘health’ and ‘health promotion’;

hence this chapter will begin with a discussion of these background concepts.

We will then examine the two dominant approaches to promoting health at

work – the individually-oriented lifestyle approach and the more holistic

settings-based approach – and will use the literature to emphasize the need

for practitioners to make a shift from the former to the latter. The extent to

which WHP initiatives actually protect and promote health rests heavily on

howprogrammes are planned, implemented, and evaluated. The final section

will therefore focus on a programme-planning framework that can be used

to guide the development of comprehensive WHP programmes that respond

to the needs of both employees and employers. As workplace health professionals,

organizations will expect that occupational health psychologists

(OHPs) will play leading roles in the development of comprehensive,

settings-based WHP initiatives. With this in mind, it is critical that OHPs

have a sound understanding of the processes, methods, and resources

involved in developing settings-based programmes.

A friend of one of the authors recently recounted his first experience as a participant

in a company-sponsored ‘workplace health promotion’ programme. The friend

(hereafter referred to as John) was a senior sales consultant with an international


information technology firm, as well as being a devoted husband and father of three

school-aged children. The company was widely considered a market leader and, in

his time at the company at least, had experienced consistently solid growth in both

market share and overall profitability. However, like most companies operating in

an increasingly globalized, cost-conscious marketplace, customer loyalty was harder

to maintain and competition between companies was fierce. Sales had dropped

markedly over the previous 12 to 18 months and everyone was under pressure to sell

more, but of course to do this with increasingly tighter budgets. To make matters

worse, a new manager had been appointed to lead the sales department and whilst

being an outright genius when it came to winning new accounts, he was way out of

his depth when it came to managing and leading people. Not only did he try to

micro-manage seasoned sales staff, scrutinizing their every move, but he also

introduced a series of performance incentives that effectively pitted colleague against

colleague. John had approached his new manager on a number of occasions over

these and other issues but, with their relationship rapidly deteriorating, he decided

that the best course of action was to avoid the manager as much as possible.

John spent considerably more time visiting clients and, in an effort to boost his

flagging sales figures, was working in excess of 60 hours a week, trying to drum up

new business whilst maintaining his existing client base.

John was not on his own in terms of his response to the situation and, being

acutely aware of the declining morale within the department, the manager encouraged

sales staff to take part in the company’s new workplace health promotion

programme. John knew little about why the programme had been introduced but,

given the pressure he was under, was attracted to the menu of health checks that

were on offer. He was particularly keen to take part in a one-on-one stress

counselling session, if only as a temporary release from the constant grind of

everyday work-life. However, John’s enthusiasm for the programme quickly turned

to frustration when confronted with the reality of what was actually involved.

John’s responses to a 20-question stress test indicated that he was in the ‘highly

stressed’ category. When asked what was contributing to the stress, John’s quick

but candid summary not only covered what was happening at work, but also

included how the demands of work were impacting on his home-life, especially

the quality of his relationships with his partner and children. It was at this point

that John expected that the counsellor would show sympathy and compassion,

perhaps acknowledge the difficulties he faced or even enquire about the strategies

he was using to deal with the pressures. Instead, the counsellor seemed preoccupied

with the time that had elapsed since their session began and quickly went into a

pre-programmed, patronizing spiel about how John needed to relax more, perhaps

go for a walk before or after work or join the local gym (and consume less coffee

and alcohol!). The final insult came when the counsellor said that these steps could

benefit everyone – himself, his family and the company – and that he was looking

forward to seeing John in 6 months’ time when they were scheduled to complete

another round of health checks. If John could commit himself to a general strategy

of ‘working smarter, not harder’, his results were sure to improve.


Future Directions in

Occupational Health

Jonathan Houdmont and Stavroula Leka

This chapter examines the direction that activity in occupational health

psychology might take as the discipline matures into its third decade.

It begins by considering what has been achieved in the discipline’s early

years before discussing important areas for development across the interdependent

domains of research, education, and professional practice.

The chapters of this book have illustrated various facets of contemporary theory,

evidence, and professional practice in occupational health psychology (OHP).

Collectively, they paint a picture of a thriving discipline characterized by a vision

to protect and promote worker health; one that is replete with theoretically and

empirically grounded processes and procedures by which that vision might be

realized. The quantity and quality of OHP activity that has emerged in the 20 years

since Raymond, Wood, and Patrick (1990) coined the term ‘occupational health

psychology’ is testament to the efforts of a dedicated international cohort

of individuals and institutions. Impressive progress has been made across the

research, education, and professional practice domains. The ever-growing body

of scientific OHP research finds support from numerous funding bodies that place

value on studies which seek to apply psychological principles and practices towards

facilitating our understanding and ability to effectively manage the dynamic

relationship between work and health. This research finds its voice in the pages

of two respected journals that are explicitly dedicated to the discipline (Journal of


Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress) alongside a host of supplementary

publication outlets. Graduate education and training in OHP has been offered

since the mid 1990s, and students continue to navigate towards the numerous

programmes in ever increasing numbers. Finally, it is possible to identify a growing

constituency of OHP graduates that is offering its services to organizations and, in

doing so, establishing the foundations of an OHP career pathway and professional


Yet despite these successes, activity across the three domains remains unequal,

and each has not always informed and influenced the others as could and should be

the case. While research output has developed at a rapid rate, educational opportunities

have expanded only gradually despite student demand. The slow rate at

which universities have introduced OHP programmes has no doubt also contributed

to the paucity of efforts to establish professional career pathways and

governance structures for practitioners which, in turn, has limited opportunities

for OHP graduates to develop a practice-oriented career. Given the inconsistent

rate of progress on research, education, and practice in this young specialty it is

worthwhile considering what needs to be done in respect of each to maximize

OHP’s contribution to meeting contemporary occupational health challenges.

Thus, the following sections consider possible future directions in these interdependent

areas of activity.

Поделитесь с Вашими друзьями:
1   2   3   4

База данных защищена авторским правом ©vossta.ru 2019
обратиться к администрации

    Главная страница