Content uploaded by Peter Farrell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Farrell on Oct 23, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcme20
Download by: [Bolton University] Date: 23 October 2015, At: 15:04
Construction Management and Economics
ISSN: 0144-6193 (Print) 1466-433X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20
UK construction site safety: discourses of
enforcement and engagement
Fred Sherratt , Peter Farrell & Rod Noble
To cite this article: Fred Sherratt , Peter Farrell & Rod Noble (2013) UK construction site safety:
discourses of enforcement and engagement, Construction Management and Economics, 31:6,
623-635, DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2012.747689
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.747689
Published online: 20 Dec 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 514
View related articles
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
UK construction site safety: discourses of enforcement
and engagement
FRED SHERRATT
1
*, PETER FARRELL
1
and ROD NOBLE
2
1
Faculty of Advanced Engineering and Sciences, University of Bolton, Bolton, UK
2
Faculty of Well-Being and Social Sciences, University of Bolton, Bolton, UK
Received 27 April 2012; accepted 2 November 2012
Developments in safety management on large UK construction sites have seen a paradigm shift from
enforcement-based systems to safety-culture programmes, which seek to engage with the workforce to create
fully cooperative and safety-conscious sites. Founded in social constructionism, recent research sought out
the master discourses of safety on large UK construction sites through the examination of safety signage, talk
around safety and safety documentation. Two of the most prominent discourses of safety on sites were
found to be safety as enforcement and safety as engagement, reflecting the change in safety management
strategies. These discourses were found to be interrelated in their constructions of safety, yet also varied in
their associations with practice, responsibility, social interactions and the management hierarchy of the sites.
These findings develop the current understanding of safety found on sites, with relation to the hierarchical
structures of safety management and the discourses of enforcement and engagement in practice. The find-
ings have significance for the safety practices of large UK contractors in developing and improving their
safety-culture programmes, as well as suggesting potential new directions in the academic research of safety
in construction.
Keywords: Construction sites, discourse analysis, safety, social constructionism, UK.
Introduction
The UK construction industry is one of the most
dangerous in which to work in terms of health and
safety; 28% of all fatal workplace accidents in the
period 2011/12 occurred in construction, making it
account for almost a third of all deaths at work
(Health and Safety Executive, 2012a). In addition, in
the period 2011/12, 10% of major injuries and 6% of
over three-day absence injuries to workers were also to
those working within the construction industry
(Health and Safety Executive, 2012b). These statistics
remain a fundamental contributor to the common per-
ception that construction sites are dangerous places to
work (Jordan et al., 2004; Chan and Connolly, 2006).
They are considered places of un-safety. Indeed, it
could be argued the industry labels itself un-safe; the
common sign ‘Danger! Construction Site’ defines
construction sites as inherently dangerous at their
entrance gates and perimeter hoardings.
Unsurprisingly, this situation is not tolerated by
government, the construction industry and academia,
united in the belief that even ‘one death is too many’
(Donaghy, 2009). Constant efforts are employed to
reduce accidents and incidents, alongside legislation
and regulations developed to improve safety on sites.
Most recently, developments in safety management
on large construction sites have seen the imple-
mentation of safety-culture programmes, which have
become a regular feature of site life under main con-
tractors in the UK (Health and Safety Executive,
2008; Rawlinson and Farrell, 2010).
This paper is drawn from wider research which
explored safety, and un-safety, on large UK construc-
tion sites. The aim of the research was to provide dee-
per insight for practitioners of safety management as
to how ‘safety’ was understood and related to by
the site-based workforce. A social constructionist
approach enabled explorations of safety and un-safety
within this context, through talk on site, documents
*Author for correspondence. E-mail: f.sherratt@bolton.ac.uk
Construction Management and Economics, 2013
Vol. 31, No. 6, 623–635, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.747689
Ó2013 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [Bolton University] at 15:04 23 October 2015
and signage, to seek out the master discourses of
safety. This paper focuses on two of the most promi-
nent emergent discourses of safety, those of ‘safety as
enforcement’ and ‘safety as engagement’. These two
closely linked discourses are considered highly
relevant because of their contextual associations with
recently developed cultural safety programmes.
Context: safety management on UK
construction sites
Safety requirements for UK construction sites are
controlled by a hierarchy of legislative elements:
European law, UK statutory law, including the Health
and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and UK safety reg-
ulations (Howarth and Watson, 2009). In addition to
these legal requirements, many larger companies have
also established a systematic approach to safety man-
agement within their organizations and on their sites
(Health and Safety Executive, 2009). Safety manage-
ment systems (SMSs) comprise several key compo-
nents, as prescribed by the Health and Safety
Executive in its guidance documentation, Successful
Health and Safety Management (Health and Safety
Executive, 2006), for example clear site rules, site
inductions, permits to work and communication
systems such as site safety notice boards and safety
committee meetings (Howarth and Watson, 2009).
Effective communication and worker involvement
strategies and processes are often seen as critical for
successful SMSs (Fryer et al., 2004; Health and
Safety Executive, 2007) and a characteristic of organi-
zations with good safety performance (Lingard and
Rowlinson, 2005). Management commitment has also
been seen as essential, in order to receive similar com-
mitment from the workforce (Lingard and Rowlinson,
2005; Health and Safety Executive, 2007).
However, more recently ‘safety culture’ has come to
the forefront of proactive safety management in the
UK construction industry. Since the government’s
safety summit of 2001 there has been a change among
larger contractors, and the concept of a ‘safety culture’
has been adopted on a significant scale by those seeking
to improve safety on their construction sites (Dingsdag
et al., 2008; Ridley and Channing, 2008). Seen by
industry as a natural progression after the implementa-
tion of SMSs within an organization, safety manage-
ment develops to focus on the ‘safety culture’
(Hudson, 2007; Meldrum et al., 2009). Such develop-
ment is supported by the Health and Safety Executive,
which actively encourages the development of a proac-
tive ‘safety culture’ on sites, and sees it as essential for
the improvement of the safety record of the construc-
tion industry (Health and Safety Executive, 2000).
‘Safety culture’ manifested itself in practice in the
implementation of what can be termed safety-culture
programmes (SCPs), the very first of which were
implemented in the late 1990s (Health and Safety
Executive, 2008). Fundamental to SCPs is the
employment of a top-down change model to alter the
norms, values and attitudes of organizations as a
whole, leading to an improved ‘safety culture’ on sites
(Dingsdag et al., 2006). In order to achieve this, the
programmes seek to win the ‘hearts and minds’
(Worthington, 2007) of organizations including site
management and operatives, through worker engage-
ment (Wamuziri, 2011). SCPs ‘make safety personal’
(Balfour Beatty, 2012) and ask people to take respon-
sibility for their own safety, encouraging the desire to
choose to work safely, rather than compelling safe
working by enforcement and policing. The SCP
approach relies not on rules or paperwork, but on
respect and expectations, and is based on effective
communication, worker engagement and creating a
cooperative environment which challenges the way
work is undertaken on sites (Worthington, 2007).
Risk-taking behaviour is targeted by reminding opera-
tives of the consequences a serious accident or even
death can have, not only to themselves, but also fam-
ily and friends. SCPs use training programmes to pass
their message on (Cooper and Cotton, 2000) as well
as focused media and advertising campaigns on sites;
the use of safety propaganda (Hughes and Ferrett,
2007), such as posters, leaflets or other information;
and branding, as evidenced by Balfour Beatty’s
(2012) Zero Harm programme with its highly distinc-
tive orange logo. Forms of communication such as
safety newsletters (Health and Safety Executive,
2005) and posters are also common on sites (Hartley
et al., 2011). Frequently, such communications are
personalized, adopting the notion that workers will
engage at a greater level with safety messages if they
understand the consequences of poor safety at the
personal level (Biggs et al., 2005).
The branded SCP, Incident and Injury Free (IIF)
programme, originally from the USA, was adopted in
the UK by both Laing O’Rourke and LendLease, two
of the UK’s largest contractors. As Laing O’Rourke
(2012) stated on its website, ‘IIF represents a step
change in attitudes to safety … underlining the per-
sonal responsibility we each have to ourselves and
each other’, a philosophy echoed by LendLease
(2012), who comment that they ‘ … operate Incident
and Injury Free wherever we have a presence’. An
alternative approach has been made in Balfour
Beatty’s (2012) Zero Harm campaign, an example of
a combined safety programme. In ‘identifying and
planning out hazards’ and establishing ‘behavioural
protocols … to eliminate fatal risks’ the programme
624 Sherratt et al.
Downloaded by [Bolton University] at 15:04 23 October 2015
looks to behavioural aspects of safety management,
but in ‘making safety personal’ the fundamentals of
SCPs are also apparent.
However, it must be remembered that these
programmes are positioned within the operational
construction site environment; indeed it has been
stated that the very nature of the construction indus-
try has to date inhibited the development of a proac-
tive ‘safety culture’ (Cipolla et al., 2006). Industry
characteristics have been cited again and again as
the root cause of many safety accidents and inci-
dents: competitive tendering for work winning (Mor-
ton and Ross, 2008), the use of subcontracting and
long supply chains (Donaghy, 2009), the transient
and fragmented workforce (Biggs et al., 2005; Dona-
ghy, 2009), bonus and payment schemes that
encourage speed and risk taking behaviours (Fellows
et al., 2002; Spanswick, 2007) and the constant
demand for progress and production (Lingard and
Rowlinson, 2005).
It is within this turbulent environment that SCPs,
supported by adherence to legislation and structured
SMSs, seek to manage, and indeed fundamentally
change the process of management of safety on sites.
There has been a paradigm shift to personalization,
engagement and participation, a shift in the responsi-
bility for and the ownership of safety; safety has been
‘made personal’ through the active engagement of the
workforce. These developments are in sharp contrast
to the traditional approaches of safety management,
which relied on the implementation of mechanistic
regulations and vigorously enforced compliance
(Langford et al., 2000; Haupt, 2004). However, old
management styles may have long shadows; the
fundamental need for legislative compliance may
necessitate some level of enforcement, if only to
establish the standards and protocols to be met.
Indeed, the personalization of safety must be juxta-
posed with the personalization of work and other
influential factors that will contribute to individuals’
understandings and prioritizations of safety within the
site environment. The potentially infinite variety of
these prioritizations challenges the contextual logic of
the individualistic engagement as prescribed by the
SCP philosophy, and may also necessitate a level of
reliance on the traditional methods of enforcement in
practice.
Methodology: the social constructionism of
the construction sites
The objective, scientific approach made by the major-
ity of construction management research to social
issues such as safety (Love et al., 2002), has arguably
led to a body of work that is focused on the tangible
and measurable. An illustrative example is the high
risk tolerance found on construction sites (Cooper
and Cotton, 2000; Rawlinson and Farrell, 2009).
Traditional, objectivist research has provided ‘reasons’
for this phenomenon; contractors and operatives are
often prepared to take risks to get the job done, for
money, for production, or just to keep their employ-
ment secure (Langford et al., 2000; Cipolla et al.,
2006; Choudhry and Fang, 2008). However, while
these contextual reasons are indeed likely to be signif-
icant factors, they themselves cannot explain how and
why individuals employ them within their practices
concerning safety. Traditional construction manage-
ment approaches have led to research concerned with
explanations of behaviour rather than understandings
(Dainty, 2008) and to a discipline eminently aware of
what the industry does, but with little understanding
of why it does it, or indeed how to change it (Harty,
2008). This study therefore looked to the social
sciences to inform and illuminate alternative methods
of approach, to establish, and indeed establish what
can actually be established, about the construction
site workforce and its understandings and attitudes
towards safety.
Such an approach was found within social
constructionism. Social constructionism considers the
entire world itself to be socially constructed by the
people within it through systems and practices, to
form a variety of social relations, and for various rea-
sons such as self-interest (Gergen and Gergen, 2004;
Shotter, 2007). These interactions and shared prac-
tices result in shared versions of knowledge within
particular communities (Gergen and Gergen, 2003;
Filmer et al., 2004), and the ‘truth’ is seen as the cur-
rent accepted way of understanding the world (Burr,
2003). Consequently, ‘safety’, when considered within
the context of construction sites, can itself be seen as
a social construction; the site workforce will construct
‘safety’ throughout their working day, through inter-
actions with each other, which vary with context and
circumstance. There will necessarily be a ‘truth’ about
safety, yet with the constant reconstruction of this
‘truth’ through the various social interactions, the
truth about safety will itself be changeable and in a
constant state of flux (Gergen, 1999). Indeed,
variability in the ‘understandings’ of safety in the
construction site environment is already an emergent
phenomenon, identified through alternative methods
of enquiry (Choudhry and Fang, 2008; Rawlinson
and Farrell, 2009).
People construct their social realities, and the vari-
ous truths of their lives through the use of discourses,
which are central to all human activity (Potter and
Hepburn, 2008). Discourse is neither language nor
Site safety discourses 625
Downloaded by [Bolton University] at 15:04 23 October 2015
linguistics, rather it emphasizes the language-in-use
aspect of social constructionism and seeks how it is
used within everyday activities and settings (Augousti-
nos et al., 2006; Potter, 2007). Based in the work of
Wittgenstein (Gergen and Gergen, 2004), a discursive
approach seeks understandings and explanations of
the world through linguistic exchange, undertaken in
specific patterns of human relationships and contexts.
Realities and truths are therefore constructed by lan-
guage in the form of discourses, which include talk
and text, or indeed any situation involving interaction
(Potter and Wetherell, 1992). Construction sites will
inevitably contain a variety of master discourses of
‘safety’, created and developed through the variety of
texts, both verbal and visual, produced by people as
they develop and construct safety within the site envi-
ronment.
The methodological tool of examination of these
discourses within social constructionism is discourse
analysis (DA) (Augoustinos et al., 2006). DA is itself
very hard to define, as it is still a growing methodol-
ogy within many different disciplines in the social
sciences (Pera¨kyla¨ , 2005). However, fundamentally,
DA does not seek to examine motives, intentions or
other cognitive processes that reside within people
(Pera¨kyla¨, 2005; Edwards et al., 2009). The dis-
courses form the sole exploratory tool and topic of
research; there is no attempt to ‘move beyond’ them
to the topic or subject of the discourse (Potter and
Hepburn, 2008). Fundamentally, DA is the study of
talk and texts, and constitutes a set of methods and
theories for investigating language in use within social
contexts (Wetherell et al., 2001). The approach
employed for this research was that developed by
Potter et al. (2007), with focus on the function of
discourse, emphasizing the outcome orientation,
alongside inherent variations as discourses are created
during different activities.
A social constructionist approach was considered
highly relevant due to its frequent employment within
the social sciences to provide detailed insight into
everyday life within specific contexts and situations
(Taylor, 2001a). Although the epistemological position
of such studies dictates that findings are not
generalizable in the traditional sense, they have pro-
vided the foundation for recommendations of different
practices and interventions to produce change and
solve problems within the social sphere (Gergen and
Gergen, 2004; Wiggins and Potter, 2008). A relevant
example can be found in the discourse analysis of
workplace interactions and practices undertaken to
make recommendations for training and in the design
of work environments and equipment (Taylor, 2001b).
Therefore, building on precedent, this approach
will be able to provide a unique perspective, through
the application of social constructionism and dis-
course analysis, of safety within the construction site
environment. Analysis of how people construct safety
within their working lives through their interactions
and discourses on sites will provide insight and
understanding which can then be utilized by practi-
tioners to inform interventions for change. An
improved understanding of how safety is constructed
through the interactions of those on sites, and the
‘truths’ of safety in the developing safety manage-
ment context, has the potential to illuminate areas of
harmony or conflict within the differing social con-
structions and discourses of the different hierarchical
groups: working operatives, site management and
strategic management.
Such an approach does not negate the validity of
other methodologies within construction safety
research; rather it seeks to contribute to the estab-
lishment of a range of approaches and epistemologies
within the discipline (Cairns, 2008). It is not sug-
gested that the social constructionist perspective
forms the unique foundation for the development of
interventions, which would seriously limit application
to practice; instead it is proposed that it provides
insight and understanding for practitioners when
considering the wider context and knowledge base
already established within construction safety man-
agement. Such an inclusive approach is ultimately
recommended to develop the opportunity for more
effective safety initiatives to be undertaken, for
example with consideration of cognitive research as
already employed on site through the IIF pro-
grammes, to bring about positive change.
Method: seeking the discourses of safety
The research drew on a small sample size, common
within discursive research (Taylor, 2001a) because of
the highly intensive nature of the analytical process
(Wetherell et al., 2001), and an approach directed
towards situated and local phenomena, rather than
wider contexts. Data were collected from six sites
within North West England, the regional criterion
employed for logistical reasons. All the sites were oper-
ated by main contractors included in Building Maga-
zine’s ‘Top 30 contractors of 2006’ in terms of national
work won (Building, 2007) and were over £20m in
value. This criterion was imposed to ensure that a cer-
tain standard in terms of health and safety was likely to
be found on the sites, including the use of safety-cul-
ture programmes, and a high level of commitment to
health and safety would be in place (Donaghy, 2009).
Three types of data associated with safety manage-
ment were collected from the sites: documentary data
626 Sherratt et al.
Downloaded by [Bolton University] at 15:04 23 October 2015
in their original form, be this hard or electronic copy,
digital visual images of signage and digital audio
recordings of conversations. Safety documentation,
such as site inductions and safety booklets, have been
created by a specific author for a certain audience and
for a specific purpose (Flick, 2007), and therefore
such documents will contain the discourses used to
socially construct specific versions of safety within
that particular context (Macdonald, 2008; Flick,
2009). Safety signage was collected and recorded as
digital images. Such signs form a significant discursive
contribution to the social construction of safety.
Through prohibitions, warnings, directions, adviso-
ries, alerts and watches, signage not only invokes a
common underlying discursive framework incorporat-
ing an implied reader, an implied object and an
implied author exercising authority (Hermer and
Hunt, 1996), but is also highly revealing of the con-
structed attributes of these participants and their
motivations (Kellehear, 1993). A holistic approach to
the data collection process was employed on the sites
for these two sources; all available safety documenta-
tion was collected, and all safety signage within the
site boundary was photographed and recorded.
The talk data were collected in the form of conversa-
tions between the lead researcher and site operatives,
supervisors and managers, held as informal ‘inter-
views’. The underlying epistemology of the research
was significant here; rather than seeking descriptions of
‘fact’, the interviews became interactional, active
engagements (Potter and Hepburn, 2005) with the
researcher and participants actively engaged in con-
structing meaning in the course of the conversations.
Critical within these interactions was a high level of
emic understanding on the part of the researcher of the
field and social world the participant was constructing
(Fetterman, 2010). The lead researcher for this study
has over 10 years’ recent experience of working on
large UK construction sites, and was able to talk
‘safety’ in the language of the site, using the conversa-
tion to explore the participants’ constructions of safety
in their own versions of the social world (Potter and
Mulkay, 2007). Without such interviews, the difficul-
ties in obtaining naturally occurring talk around safety
on construction sites would be considerable—relevant
talk would be scattered throughout the working day.
This method allowed for talk to be constructed and
recorded around a topic that would otherwise remain
inaccessible (Pera¨kyla¨, 2005).
Analysis of the data was made through a constant
comparison method, which ensured that the data
from each site visit were examined and analysed with
reference to all previous data collected. Therefore the
development of the master discourses of safety on
sites, including those of ‘safety as engagement’ and
‘safety as enforcement’, was an emergent process that
spanned all three of the categories of data source:
signs, talk and documents. However, in order to
facilitate clarity and enable the developmental process
to be in some way explicated to the reader, the data
have been explored here utilizing these various
sources as a framework to demonstrate the emergence
of the discourses in context.
The product of the DA was an exploration and expli-
cation of the master discourses which contributed to the
social constructions of safety on construction sites, and
is usually presented in such a way as to allow readers to
assess the interpretations made during the analytical
process itself (Wetherell and Potter, 1992). However,
owing to constraints of space, unpacking of the texts has
here been limited only to illustrative examples, those
which facilitate understanding of the development of the
discourses of ‘safety as engagement’ and ‘safety as
enforcement’ within the wider construction site context.
These discourses will be further explored and examined
through later discussion, which draws on the data and
analysis from the study as a whole.
Unpacking the texts
Talking about safety
The talk within Extract 1, that of a subcontractor’s site
foreman, initially commenced in a debate around the
construction of safety itself, the speaker unsure of respon-
sibility, influence or indeed what constructs safety on
sites. However he does ultimately ground the construc-
tion of safety within a specific location, that of ‘the site’,
which firmly places safety in practice:
Extract 1: Sub-contractor’s site foreman
225. R: I think (0.4) I think it’s more sort of erm (0.2)
driven from
226. management isn’t it ""whether it’s because of
the [safety
227. programme] I’m not one hundred percent sure .
hhhh I think it’s
228. more to do with whoever’s running (0.2) the
site. (0.6) if
229. they’re (.) health and safety conscious (0.6) then
I think it
230. drives everybody else to be health and safety
conscious. If
231. they’re giving out yellow cards and red cards and
people see
232. they’re doing that then (.) I think it makes them
more aware
233. (0.4) that people are (0.2) you know coming
down hard on health
234. and safety.
Site safety discourses 627
Downloaded by [Bolton University] at 15:04 23 October 2015
The speaker then further developed his own
constructions of safety through a discourse of safety
as enforcement. Rather than looking to management
practices that may have supported or encouraged safe
actions on site, the speaker drew on the practice of
enforcement as illustrated through the common site
process of a card-based punishment system, to
develop his talk around safety. By its very nature, the
discourse of safety as enforcement constructed a real-
ity where enforcement was seen as an inherent part of
the practice of safety itself. By drawing on the prac-
tices of enforcement in the talk of safety, the speaker
constructed a reality where people need enforcement
in order to positively participate in safety in practice.
The need for enforcement as an integral part of
safety in practice was also constructed by a subcon-
tractor’s site supervisor within Extract 2:
Extract 2: Sub-contractor’s site supervisor
49. R: I’ve always sa-"they’ve always been good the lads
who work with
50. us and like (.) they don’t really break the rules but
(.) just
51. to enforce them cos sometimes .hhhh you do a lot
like the odd
52. thing or like they might not put the barriers round
the machine
53. proper but now .hhhhh I tend to go out now and
reinforce it a
54. bit more.
Here, the speaker again constructed safety through
the discourse of safety as enforcement within the con-
text of site practice. In contrast to Extract 1 above, the
speaker positioned himself as the enforcer within the
talk, although this positioning was located within a
reality where people did not always fully participate in
safety in practice. The speaker as enforcer did not posi-
tion the enforcement process in a practice or process
framework, and in contrast to Extract 1, the enforce-
ment was not linked to punishment, rather safety as
enforcement was seen as the means to its own end.
Within Extract 2, minor status was accorded to the
violation of safety used as the illustrative need for
enforcement. This minor status was actually con-
structed through the use of a common linguistic
phrasing found within the data as a whole, with the
speaker of Extract 2’s violation described as an ‘odd
thing’. The construction of a violation as ‘odd’
reduced its impact in both frequency and severity,
and revealed a reality where violations (which in prac-
tice could be very serious in terms of consequences)
were themselves minimized through relatively casual
talk and linguistic associations.
Indeed, in contrast to the discourse of safety as
enforcement and punishment constructed in Extract
1, and safety as enforcement within and of itself
found within Extract 2, the talk of a main contractor’s
site manager in Extract 3 constructed a further
alternative, although still positioned within a reality of
violation of safety in practice:
Extract 3: Main contractor’s site manager
88. R: a::nd it’s basically not about punishing them
necessarily for
89. doing something wrong but re-educating them
and bringing them
90. into the right way of thinking (0.4) and er: even
things like
91. (.) #give them reasons why not >whilst your
talking to them<
92. pick up on things if it’s an older bloke .hhhh you
might have
93. family (0.8) if you "weren’t paying attention you
might not be
94. seeing them tonight
As in Extract 2, the speaker of Extract 3 positioned
himself in the role of the enforcer. Here, safety as
enforcement was inherently tied to practice, under-
taken in a reality where violations of the safety rules
and safety in practice were constructed as common-
place. Rather than establishing a scenario or specific
violation within the talk as a commencement point for
the discursive development of safety as enforcement,
the speaker focused on his own interaction with the
participant during an assumed violation.
Yet in contrast to the talk within Extract 1, the
speaker of Extract 3 deliberately avoided the con-
struction of punishment in association with safety as
enforcement; rather the enforcement in Extract 3 was
one of social interaction and communication, drawing
on an alternative discourse, that of ‘safety as engage-
ment’. The speaker of Extract 3 employed role play
within the talk, envisaging himself during the interac-
tion, and constructed the talk accordingly. The use of
role play as a trope within the talk created a highly
active and indeed interactive construct within the dis-
courses of safety as enforcement and engagement,
and one common within the data as a whole.
Within Extract 3, safety was constructed in the
same contextual reality as in Extracts 1 and 2, devel-
oped to the point where violation was constructed as
such an inherent part of site life it requires no explica-
tion, and it was the subsequent enforcement interac-
tion, albeit developed through the discourse of ‘safety
as engagement’, that became the focus of the talk.
Again the reality of the site was one where safety as
628 Sherratt et al.
Downloaded by [Bolton University] at 15:04 23 October 2015
enforcement was necessary for compliance with safety
as part of everyday practice; however, there was
significant variation in the associated constructs of
this enforcement in terms of punishment, practice
and engagement.
Voices of the site signage
These two master discourses were developed through
the signage data, which enabled further associations
to be made to the ‘voices’ found to be most promi-
nent within the two discourses. As identified within
the talk data, safety as enforcement was a prominent
discourse of the safety signage, associated with rules
and prohibition, violation and subsequent punish-
ment. However, also prominent within the signage
was the discourse of safety as engagement, which
sought to ‘sweeten’ the relationship between text
author and recipient, and appeal to autonomous indi-
viduals to comply with the requirements of the signs,
which were themselves often founded on the dis-
course of safety as enforcement. The development of
safety as engagement was also associated with the
voices of the sites, with the managerial hierarchy
becoming influential in the balance of the discourses
drawn upon for the signs. Two signs that exemplify
this are described below, but not illustrated for rea-
sons of confidentiality.
Within the signage addressing the management of
safe walking routes, two alternate voices become clear.
Example Sign 1 was a ‘corporate’ sign, professionally
produced, fully plasticized and issued from the con-
tractor’s head office, positioned on the walking route
from the welfare facilities to the site. Example Sign 1
asked its audience to ‘choose … to work safely … not
to enter segregated areas … not to enter lifting zones
… not to jump barriers’. In making these statements,
the sign was itself operating within a reality where peo-
ple performed these behaviours, acted unsafely and
specifically violated the access provisions. The sign
first employed a discourse of safety as engagement,
and sought to develop safe practice through appeal to
the individual’s autonomy, although this was subse-
quently juxtaposed with the contradictory discourse of
safety as enforcement, with prohibitive ‘not to …’
rules also located within the text.
The texts of Example Sign 1 can be compared to
those of Example Sign 2, a sign produced in the site
office, by the site managerial team, laminated and
fixed to a barrier with cable ties. Example Sign 2 was
also operating in a reality where people had violated
the access provisions, although its function was to
manage a specific problem in relation to the walking
route. As it stated, ‘Barriers and yellow walkways are
their [sic] for your safety and protection and should
not be moved … anyone found to be moving barriers
or walkways will be subject to … [main contractor]
disciplinary procedures! … if you require barriers or
walkways to be moved contact block managers first!’
This text was very much bound up in addressing a
specific previous action by others and establishing
future control. The need to construct and display
such signs by site management clearly indicated past
non-compliance with site rules, and the threat of ‘…
disciplinary procedures!’ implied the need to reinforce
compliance and addressed the audience in straightfor-
ward terms of punishment avoidance. This sign was
operating from the discourse of safety as enforcement,
drawing on rules, violation and punishment to under-
take the safety management function.
Example Sign 2 constructed its text from the voice
of the supervisors, and used company disciplinary pro-
cedures as the threat for non-compliance. Defining the
procedures as ‘the company’s’, and not the supervisors’
own methods of punishment constructed a hierarchy
within the overall site management, and positioned the
supervisors closer to operatives, and likely offenders,
than the senior or project management. This use of a
‘local’ management voice supported the likely longevity
of this issue within this area of the site, and constructed
a reality where the block management were themselves
under criticism from more senior management for their
own non-compliance in the provision of continuous or
safe walking routes. This construction was reinforced
by the final text of the sign, which did not prohibit the
moving of barriers, and rather implored the audience
to contact the block management first. Here, the
discourse of safety as engagement was again positioned
alongside that of safety as enforcement, appealing to
individuals to participate in the safety management of
their own volition.
When compared to Example Sign 1, the discourse
of Example Sign 2 appears harsh in its approach to
managing the violating behaviours. While Example
Sign 2 made statements and issued threats, construct-
ing ‘safety as enforcement’, Example Sign 1 asked its
audience to choose their behaviour to comply with
the site access strategy, with no threat of punishment
or repercussions, and drew on cognitive theories of
volition to stimulate avoidance of these violations, the
discourse of safety as engagement. The formal
construction and company voice, supported by the
safety programme logo, also gave a level of authority
to Example Sign 1’s requests.
Both signs operated within the reality espoused by
the talk data, where violation of safety rules is
commonplace. Within these two signs, illustrative of
the common approaches of management in their
interaction with the workforce through this particular
Site safety discourses 629
Downloaded by [Bolton University] at 15:04 23 October 2015
medium, the discourses of both safety as engagement
and safety as enforcement are evident and indeed
closely associated. Differences in ‘voice’ and discur-
sive prioritization can be seen between the two signs
produced by different managerial levels, with any
association with punishment and discipline only
evident within the voice of the site management.
The written word
The site safety documents also contained resources
produced at the site level and at the corporate level,
and consequently similar variations in these discursive
employments of engagement and enforcement were
also evident. Three examples are used to illustrate
this; the documents are described here but not illus-
trated for reasons of confidentiality.
Example Document 1 was a professionally produced,
corporate issued site safety guide handed to all opera-
tives at site inductions, which addressed specific site
hazards, such as the page concerned with ‘Electricity’.
Within this text, safety was itself constructed through a
‘safe system of work’, which was directly associated with
practice and positioned as descriptive of the process of
work. Although not directly expressed as such, the text
contained rules and the addresser explicitly told the
addressee ‘do not …’, such prohibitions placing the text
within the discourse of safety as enforcement. However,
despite the communication of rules regarding certain
behaviours around safety in practice, no mention of
punishment was located at any point within the guide.
Despite the presence of prohibitions and rules, which
establish a benchmark for violation, no reality of
enforcement or punishment was further developed and
indeed it was notable by its absence.
Within Example Document 1 the discourse of safety
as enforcement was employed in a constrained man-
ner; while rules were set, the consequential actions for
their violation were not explicated. This could have
been a conscious omission by the authors, to construct
a reality where violation did not occur and therefore
made punishment unnecessary. However the reality of
this suggestion is contradicted by data, such as Exam-
ple Sign 2, which specifically focused on violation and
punishment. Example Document 1 was professionally
produced by the corporate management, yet Example
Sign 2 was the product of the site itself. This indicated
the potential for the level of management undertaking
the role of addresser to play an influential role in the
discourse of safety as enforcement, as identified
through the shift in the discursive rhetoric in the pro-
fessionally produced site safety guides towards safety
as enforcement, and a growing association with the dis-
course of safety as engagement.
For example, the professionally produced, corporate
issued, site safety guide Example Document 2 con-
tained a page entitled ‘Incident and Injury Free (IIF)’.
Within this text ‘behaviours’ were ‘encouraged’, yet the
final bullet point still drew on the discourse of safety as
enforcement through its identification and establish-
ment of the ‘safety rules’. However, the rules were posi-
tioned within a discourse of choice and engagement
rather than the traditional rhetoric of compliance and
enforcement. Although the text still constructed a real-
ity of regulation which must be adhered to by the
addressee, whether the individual followed the sug-
gested behavioural approach or not, the discourse was
one of engagement in association with enforcement,
which are intertwined. The suggestion remains that
there was a need for such regulation within the site
environment, rather than a reality which would accept
a shift, for example, to safety ‘processes’ which would
encompass the same information without the tradi-
tional connotations of enforcement and punishment.
This text also developed a personalization of safety;
indeed the text directly addressed ‘you’ and even explic-
itly asked ‘you’ to ‘take personal responsibility for your
own safety and the safety of your colleagues’. Yet, this
personalization inevitably also constructed a segregated
position: the reader as ‘you’, an individual, and the
main contractor as the voice of instruction and manage-
ment. Therefore, the discourse of safety as engagement
was found to have inherent segregation through the lin-
guistic constructions necessary to develop personal and
individual messages within the texts.
An alternative development of this concept was
found in a slide of Example Document 3, a site induc-
tion presentation entitled ‘Our commitment to your
safety on this site’. Within the text of this slide, the dis-
course of safety as engagement was prominent. Several
identities were established within the text, including
that of viewer, as in the case of a presentation, and the
author. Other roles further developed safety as engage-
ment by the assignment of managerial and organiza-
tional positions, specifically entitled ‘safety’, to named
members of the site team. Yet through these role
assignments, two separate camps were again estab-
lished within the reality of the site, the inevitable segre-
gation of engagement. However, through its final text
the engagement process within this particular text did
seek to construct a link between the two segregated
parties, and positioned the ‘workforce safety commit-
tee’ as a potential bridge between the two. Although
this text constructed a reality where segregation did
exist between the main contractor and subcontractors
on the site, it also developed, through explicated
awareness of that segregation, an implementation of
practice in order to overcome the segregation/engage-
ment ‘paradox’.
630 Sherratt et al.
Downloaded by [Bolton University] at 15:04 23 October 2015
Management of safety: engagement and
enforcement
Breaking the rules
The prominence of the discourses of safety as engage-
ment and safety as enforcement can be associated with
the constructed realities in which they were operating.
Safety management, by necessity, sets rules, practices
and processes at the very minimum to meet the legis-
lative requirements of the UK (Howarth and Watson,
2009). Rules and regulations are part of a much wider
social paradigm which advocates compliance and rule-
following, and contextualizes site rules within the
much wider concept of the legal framework of gover-
nance in which society operates as UK citizens. How-
ever, within the site environment compliance with the
rules was not as commonplace as the wider social dis-
course would suggest, and violation of safety rules was
found to be an inherent and accepted aspect of con-
struction site realities. Indeed, violations were con-
structed as such everyday occurrences that the
detailed development of such instances was minimal
within the data; they were seen as bending rather than
breaking the rules and were consequently constructed
with a lack of any associated danger or the potential
for any real incident or injury.
Alongside acceptance of safety violation as the nat-
ural state of affairs, punishment, or some other form
of redress for such violations, was actually expected.
Although violations were constructed without conse-
quences of personal injury or accidents, they were
constructed within a context where punishment was
the correct course of action, should the perpetrator be
caught. Construction site people expect safety rules to
be bent as a matter of course, and if the perpetrators
are caught, punishment is due.
A further aspect of the acceptance of punishments
for performed safety violations was the suggestion that
the site workforce actually need enforcement in order
to positively participate in safety in practice. This
reinforced the realities of violation within the site con-
text. The workforce, through their ‘natural’ behav-
iours of bending and breaking site rules, constructed
themselves as needing enforcement and punishment
to enable the development of a level of safety manage-
ment on sites. This has associations with the responsi-
bility for safety. In positioning themselves as violators,
minimizing the potential repercussions of these viola-
tions and accepting punishment as it is meted out,
this discourse of safety as enforcement also enables
the site workforce to absolve themselves of any
responsibility for their own safety or that of others on
sites. They need to be punished and managed in
order to achieve safe working, reducing themselves to
the level of children who need to be controlled, yet
contradictorily only accepting this control if it is
delivered in a ‘fair’ and respectful fashion.
Site tribes
These elements of the construction site reality devel-
oped the discourse of safety as enforcement through
the everyday safety management practices of the sites,
in terms of the rules and regulations governing man-
agement in practice, the process of prohibition and
the establishment of rules, the subsequent violation of
these rules and the ultimate punishments for these
actions. These management practices necessitate the
construction of a framework of responsibility, and a
hierarchy of management within site society to
actually enforce safety, which was reflected within the
social constructions and identifiable through the dis-
courses of safety within all of the data sources.
Most prominent was the clear identification of main
contractor management as the voice of authority for
safety on the sites through formal, branded texts. Yet
more informal safety signs and documents, con-
structed by the onsite management teams, were at
times employed to segregate themselves from the cor-
porate level of management. This sought to shift the
responsibility for management and control of safety to
higher echelons, while simultaneously developing col-
laborative associations between the lower levels, align-
ing the main contractor’s onsite supervisors with the
subcontractor’s onsite supervisors and operatives.
This transfer of control and the setting of the rules to
a higher power than onsite management could be
symptomatic of the need to maintain a level of har-
mony within the social environment of the site in
order to facilitate the other necessary processes of the
sites such as production. Such a construction gener-
ates a ‘them-and-us’ at a tangent to the more tradi-
tional main contractor/subcontractor divide, and
positions it at an onsite supervisory/office level
management instead. However, the main contractor/
subcontractor divide was also evident within construc-
tions of safety management and enforcement, and as
would be expected, these dichotomies were certainly
not without change, dependent on context.
Tribal views of reality
A more complete construction of ‘them-and-us’ was
identified between site management/supervisors and
corporate management of main contractors. Within
the corporate data, acknowledgement of the occur-
Site safety discourses 631
Downloaded by [Bolton University] at 15:04 23 October 2015
rence of safety violations and the need for punish-
ments was minimal. Safety-culture programmes, such
as IIF, actively positioned violations that result in
safety incidents within a ‘no-blame’ culture; there was
no punishment to be meted out. This lack of punish-
ment is one of the key methods employed in seeking
to improve the safety culture of sites (Health and
Safety Executive, 2005); however, here it had been
extrapolated to a preceding stage, corporate manage-
ment constructing a reality that did not accept or even
acknowledge violation that could lead to blame. Yet
this contrasts sharply with the more informal construc-
tions of safety through the documentation and signage
produced by site management. Here, protracted and
highly detailed texts could be found, detailing the pun-
ishment mechanisms for violation of certain safety
rules. Such documents were also accepting of the
potential for violations, directly addressing the work-
force to persuade them of compliance with site rules.
This dissonance was found throughout the data.
While those at the higher corporate level sought to
develop and position safety only positively, through
no-blame cultures and realities intolerant of violation
to the point of denial, those who managed and partic-
ipated in construction site practices on a daily basis at
site level constructed safety within a reality of rules,
violations, enforcements and punishments. Indeed the
acceptance of a site hierarchy as necessary to provide
such enforcement by the workforce themselves was a
further incongruity within this aspect of the site real-
ity. That the two constructions are in operation
concurrently also suggests the potential for conflict
and dissonance in practice and process, not least the
potential for exploitation of engagement through the
reality of enforcement.
Continued emergence of the philosophies and lan-
guage of the safety-culture programmes within the
discourse of safety as enforcement led to the close
association with the discourse of safety as engage-
ment. Indeed, the two became interwoven at times,
dressing enforcement in the clothes of engagement.
The corporate constructions of safety as enforcement
drew on this blended discourse in order to develop
enforcement from the implementation of rules
through punishment to the encouragement of individ-
uals to follow the rules of their own volition.
Although the rules remain the same, the constructions
surrounding them have changed. This leads to the
assumed realities of the sites of the safety-culture
programmes as places of an obedient and willingly
participative workforce in the safety management of
the sites. Yet this is at odds with the reality of site
level management, which has alternatively been
constructed as one of violation, discipline and segre-
gation between main contractors and subcontractors,
something that does not necessarily also support
engagement and interaction.
Responsibility and ownership of safety
The discourse of safety as engagement also developed
beyond that associated with enforcement to seek out
workforce compliance through personalization, and
the suggestion can be made that this may have begun
to manifest with the social constructions of the sites.
In keeping with the literature around IIF, which seeks
to ‘make safety personal’ (Balfour Beatty, 2012), the
personalization of safety was indeed frequently identi-
fied within both the talk and documentary data.
Through individuals’ talk, safety was frequently
positioned in direct relation to the speaker, through
personal associations of family and the wider reper-
cussions of un-safety. The individual was also identi-
fied within the written data, directly addressed
through repeated use of ‘you’ as the reader of the text
and consequent identification as the participant in the
associated safety processes and practices on site.
These constructions are potentially symbiotic; the
personalization of safety at the formal corporate level
has developed safety for individuals as personal,
which through talk further develops safety within the
site context as a personal ‘truth’.
Further associations with the approach to safety
management through the discourse of safety as
engagement have potential repercussions of a more
practical nature for the engaged individual. Engage-
ment and participation are necessarily bound up with
consequential personal responsibility. In enabling
individuals to ‘make safety personal’, a level of
engagement also gives them a role of safety in prac-
tice, co-opting them into the safety management of
sites and assigning personal responsibilities for safety.
This is in direct contrast to the developments of
responsibility identified through the discourse of
safety as enforcement. While the workforce have con-
structed a reality in which they are absolved of all
responsibility, to be managed and punished when
necessary to deliver ‘safety management’ within the
sites, the safety-culture programmes directly challenge
this through their constructions of personalization.
That the discourse of safety as engagement also
constructs an inherent segregation, similar to that of
safety as enforcement, could be tempered by the
workforce’s desire for hierarchical control and man-
agement of safety. The natural segregation of engage-
ment in terms of the main contractor/subcontractor
roles needed to seek and respond to engagement
practices has been suggested to construct dissonance
within the process of engagement around safety. The
632 Sherratt et al.
Downloaded by [Bolton University] at 15:04 23 October 2015
texts of engagement and interaction around safety
were frequently positioned within a segregated/
engaged context, potentially developing incoherence
around this aspect of safety, as personalization and
engagement were associated with the site hierarchy
and its mechanistic framework. However, an alterna-
tive reading of these segregated realities, considered
within the context of this management hierarchy,
actually constructs segregation as a positive aspect of
site reality. Alongside the acceptance of management
for the enforcement of safety, management was posi-
tioned as necessary for the practice of safety manage-
ment. The enabling and facilitating of work practice
approvals, safety rules and process were identified
within the data, further developing the pattern of
acceptance for management in relation to the
positioning of safety on sites. Indeed through these
various constructions positioning of the responsibility
for safety was made clear, supporting notions that
good management is essential for the safe running of
sites (Health and Safety Executive, 2006).
This can be related to the discourses of safety as
both enforcement and engagement. Although safety is
being constructed by the safety-culture programmes
through the language of engagement, directly chal-
lenging the ‘old’ realities and practices of the sites,
there is still retention of management control.
Although the workforce is asked to follow the rules,
the rules themselves remain. Where engagement and
participation are sought, there is frequently still more
a monologue than a dialogue of safety developed.
Despite the interweaving of enforcement and engage-
ment, there are still constructions within the society
of safety on sites which retain the traditional enforce-
ment approach to safety management, albeit clad in
the discourse dominant within modern safety-culture
programmes.
Conclusions
A social constructionist approach to safety on large
UK construction sites revealed several master dis-
courses of safety. Two of the most prominent, those
of safety as engagement and safety as enforcement,
were directly associated with the management of
safety within the site environment, reflecting recent
developments in management interventions to a safety
cultural approach.
These discourses closely associated constructed
realities with the management hierarchies of sites, and
illuminated the potential for dissonance and ineffectu-
ality in the approaches made from the corporate level
in their engagement with site level realities. The lack
of acknowledgement of the realities in which the
safety culture programmes are seeking to operate
could develop barriers to their success, incompatible
and incoherent within a reality of violation and the
minor status afforded to such rule-breaking. Indeed
the development of the discourse of safety as enforce-
ment within the social constructions of the site level
may suggest that hierarchical engagement and man-
agement are expected and welcomed by the work-
force, indicating that ironically a more ‘command’
driven approach to safety as engagement would meet
with success.
This alternative perspective of safety management
on sites could assist construction safety professionals
in the production and development of practical
safety interventions within existing safety manage-
ment systems and safety-culture programmes, devel-
oped to harmonize with existing safety practices and
processes. For example, it could be suggested that
safety violations must be accepted as everyday occur-
rences in order to ultimately eliminate them. Con-
temporary safety-culture programmes seeking to shift
responsibility for safety to the personal could find
dissonance with a workforce who feel control and
punishment a necessary factor in their own safe
working. Formal disciplinary processes and a zero
tolerance approach are likely to still be required or
at least acknowledged with safety-culture
programmes in order to create a paradigm shift in
current thinking, and ultimately develop a mature
site context which can then manage safety within a
more violation-intolerant reality.
The emergence of these two master discourses, and
their close association with safety management on
sites, developed within a much wider research project
which sets out to simply examine ‘safety’ through its
discursive constructions on sites. This suggests oppor-
tunities for further research in this area; a more struc-
tured methodology, with specific focus on the data
collection process, could facilitate exploration of this
particular phenomenon in greater depth. This could
ultimately produce more detailed practical recommen-
dations for interventions, and a deeper understanding
of the social constructions of safety on sites, with the
intention of assisting in the ongoing improvement of
the existing safety management systems of large UK
contractors.
References
Augoustinos, M., Walker, I. and Donaghue, N. (2006)
Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction, 2nd edn, Sage,
London.
Balfour Beatty (2012) Zero Harm, available at http://bit.ly/
TgBtSu (accessed 2 November 2012).
Site safety discourses 633
Downloaded by [Bolton University] at 15:04 23 October 2015
Biggs, H., Dingsdag, D., Sheahan, V.L., Cipolla, D. and
Sokolich, L. (2005) Utilising a safety culture management
approach in the Australian construction industry. Paper
presented at the QUT Research Week, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, 3–7 July.
Building (2007) Top contractors yearly work won 1 Jan–31
Dec 2006. Building Magazine, Issue 04, 21.
Burr, V. (2003) Social Constructionism, 2nd edn, Routledge,
Hove, East Sussex.
Cairns, G. (2008) Advocating an ambivalent approach to
theorizing the built environment. Building Research &
Information,36(3), 280–9.
Chan, P. and Connolly, M. (2006) Combating skills short-
ages: examining careers advice in schools. Construction
Information Quarterly,8(3), 131–7.
Choudhry, R.M. and Fang, D. (2008) Why operatives
engage in unsafe work behavior: investigating factors on
construction sites. Safety Science,46(4), 566–84.
Cipolla, D., Sheahan, V.L., Biggs, H. and Dingsdag, D.
(2006) Using safety culture to overcome market force
influence on construction site safety. Paper presented at
the Second International Conference of the CRC for
Construction Innovation: Clients Driving Innovation:
Moving Ideas into Practice, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, 12–14 March.
Cooper, M. and Cotton, D. (2000) Safety training—a
special case? Journal of European Industrial Training,24
(9), 481–90.
Dainty, A.R.J. (2008) Methodological pluralism in con-
struction management research, in Knight, A. and Rud-
dock, L. (eds) Advanced Research Methods in the Built
Environment, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1–13.
Dingsdag, D., Biggs, H. and Sheahan, V.L. (2006) Safety
culture in the construction industry: changing behaviour
through enforcement and education? Paper presented at
the Second International Conference of the CRC for
Construction Innovation: Clients Driving Innovation:
Moving Ideas into Practice, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, 12–14 March.
Dingsdag, D., Biggs, H. and Sheahan, V.L. (2008) Under-
standing and defining OH&S competency for construc-
tion site positions: worker perceptions. Safety Science,46
(4), 619–33.
Donaghy, R. (2009) One Death Is Too Many—Inquiry into
the Underlying Causes of Construction Fatal Accidents, The
Stationery Office, Norwich.
Edwards, D., Hepburn, A. and Potter, J. (2009) Psychol-
ogy, sociology and interaction: disciplinary allegiance or
analytic quality? A response to Housley and Fitzgerald.
Qualitative Research,9(1), 119–28.
Fellows, R., Langford, D., Newcombe, R. and Urry, S.
(2002) Construction Management in Practice, 2nd edn,
Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Fetterman, D.M. (2010) Ethnography Step by Step, 3rd edn,
Sage, London.
Filmer, P., Jenks, C., Seale, C., Thoburn, N. and Walsh,
D. (2004) Developments in social theory, in Seale, C.
(ed.) Researching Society and Culture , Sage, London, pp.
33–46.
Flick, U. (2007) Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
Flick, U. (2009) An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 4th
edn, Sage, London.
Fryer, B., Egbu, C., Ellis, R. and Gorse, C. (2004) The Practice
of Construction Management, 4th edn, Blackwell, Oxford.
Gergen, K.J. (1999) An Invitation to Social Construction,
Sage, London.
Gergen, K.J. and Gergen, M. (2004) Social Construction:
Entering the Dialogue, Taos Institute Publications, Chagrin
Falls, OH.
Gergen, M. and Gergen, K.J. (2003) Social Construction: A
Reader, Sage, London.
Hartley, R., Finneran, A., Cheyne, A. and Gibb, A. (2011)
Health and safety communication at Olympic Park—
emerging findings. Paper presented at the CIB W099
Conference. Prevention—Means to the End of Construc-
tion Injuries, Illnesses and Fatalities, Washington, DC,
24–26 August.
Harty, C. (2008) Sociology and construction management
research: issues, approaches and implications, in Dainty,
A.R.J. (ed.) Proceedings of the 24th Annual ARCOM
Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction
Management, Reading, pp. 697–706.
Haupt, T.C. (2004) Attitudes of construction managers
to the performance approach to construction worker
safety, in Rowlinson, S. (ed.) Construction Safety
Management Systems, Spon Press, London, pp.
117–32.
Health and Safety Executive (2000) Construction Health and
Safety for the New Millennium, HSE Books, Sudbury.
Health and Safety Executive (2005) A Review of Safety
Culture and Safety Climate Literature for the Development
of the Safety Culture Inspection Toolkit, HSE Books,
Sudbury.
Health and Safety Executive (2006) Successful Health and
Safety Management, HSE Books, London.
Health and Safety Executive (2007) Managing Health and
Safety in Construction—Construction (Design and Manage-
ment) Regulations 2007 (CDM) Approved Code of Practice,
HSE Books, Sudbury.
Health and Safety Executive (2008) Behaviour Change and
Worker Engagement Practices within the Construction Sector,
HMSO, Norwich.
Health and Safety Executive (2009) Underlying Causes of
Construction Fatal Accidents—A Comprehensive Review of
Recent Work to Consolidate and Summarise Existing Knowl-
edge, HMSO, Norwich.
Health and Safety Executive (2012a) Statistics on fatal inju-
ries in the workplace 2011/12, available at http://bit.ly/
PKRjIb (accessed 2 November 2012).
Health and Safety Executive (2012b) Construction work
related injuries and ill health, available at http://bit.ly/
Sgu84d (accessed 2 November 2012).
Hermer, J. and Hunt, A. (1996) Official graffiti of the
everyday. Law & Society Review,30(3), 455–80.
Howarth, T. and Watson, P. (2009) Construction Safety
Management, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.
Hudson, P. (2007) Implementing a safety culture in a major
multi-national. Safety Science,45(6), 697–722.
634 Sherratt et al.
Downloaded by [Bolton University] at 15:04 23 October 2015
Hughes, P. and Ferrett, E. (2007) Introduction to Health and
Safety in Construction, 2nd edn, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Jordan, G., Surridge, M., Mahoney, D., Thomas, S. and
Jones, B. (2004) Mucky, Macho World? The Identification,
Exploration and Quantification of Barriers to the Participa-
tion of Women in the Construction Industries in Staffordshire,
Report Prepared for Staffordshire LSC through the ESF
Co-financed ‘Women in Construction’ Project, available
at http://bit.ly/STJuLK (accessed 2 November 2012).
Kellehear, A. (1993) The Unobtrusive Researcher: A Guide to
Methods, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, Australia.
Laing O’Rourke (2011) Health and safety, available at
http://bit.ly/Yc3nms (accessed 21 July 2011).
Langford, D., Rowlinson, S. and Sawacha, E. (2000) Safety
behaviour and safety management: its influence on the
attitudes of workers in the UK construction industry.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,7
(2), 133–40.
LendLease (2012) Environment, health and safety, available
at http://bit.ly/QauCgm (accessed 2 November 2012).
Lingard, H. and Rowlinson, S. (2005) Occupational Health
and Safety in Construction Project Management, Spon Press,
London.
Love, P.E.D., Holt, G.D. and Heng, L. (2002) Triangula-
tion in construction management research. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management,9(4), 294–303.
Macdonald, K. (2008) Using documents, in Gilbert, N.
(ed.) Researching Social Life, 3rd edn, Sage, London.
Meldrum, A., Hare, B. and Cameron, I. (2009) Road test-
ing a health and safety worker engagement tool-kit in the
construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Archi-
tectural Management,16(6), 612–32.
Morton, R. and Ross, A. (2008) Construction UK: Introduc-
tion to the Industry, 2nd edn, Blackwell, Oxford.
Pera¨kyla¨, A. (2005) Analyzing talk and text, in Denzin, N.
K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualita-
tive Research, Sage, London, pp. 869–86.
Potter, J. (ed.) (2007) Discourse and Psychology Volume 2:
Discourse and Social Psychology, Sage, London.
Potter, J. and Hepburn, A. (2005) Qualitative interviews in
psychology: problems and possibilities. Qualitative
Research in Psychology,2, 281–307.
Potter, J. and Hepburn, A. (2008) Discursive construction-
ism, in Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium, J.F. (eds) Handbook
of Constructionist Research, Guilford Press, New York, pp.
275–93.
Potter, J. and Mulkay, M. (2007) Scientist’s interview talk:
interviews as a technique for revealing participant’s inter-
pretive practices, in Potter, J. (ed.) Discourse and Psychol-
ogy Volume 1: Theory and Method, Sage, London.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1992) Discourse and
Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour, Sage,
London.
Potter, J., Wetherell, M., Gill, R. and Edwards, D. (2007)
Discourse: noun, verb or social practice?, in Potter, J.
(ed.) Discourse and Psychology Volume 1: Theory and
Method, Sage, London.
Rawlinson, F. and Farrell, P. (2009) The vision of zero
risk tolerance in craft workers and operatives: an unat-
tainable goal?, in Dainty, A.R.J. (ed.) Proceedings of the
25th Annual ARCOM Conference, Association of
Researchers in Construction Management, Reading, pp.
1203–12.
Rawlinson, F. and Farrell, P. (2010) UK construction
industry site health and safety management: an examina-
tion of promotional web material as an indicator of cur-
rent direction. Construction Innovation: Information,
Process, Management,10(3), 435–46.
Ridley, J. and Channing, J. (2008) Safety at Work, 7th edn,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Shotter, J. (2007) Bakhtin and Billig: monological versus
dialogical practices, in Potter, J. (ed.) Discourse and Psy-
chology Volume 1: Theory and Method, Sage, London.
Spanswick, J. (2007) Dangerous drop. Building, Issue 06.
Taylor, S. (2001a) Locating and conducting discourse ana-
lytic research, in Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S.J.
(eds) Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis, Sage and
The Open University, London, pp. 5–48.
Taylor, S. (2001b) Evaluating and applying discourse ana-
lytic research, in Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S.J.
(eds) Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis, Sage and
The Open University, London, pp. 311–30.
Wamuziri, S. (2011) Factors that contribute to positive and
negative health and safety cultures in construction. Paper
presented at the CIB W099 Conference. Prevention—
Means to the End of Construction Injuries, Illnesses and
Fatalities, Washington, DC, 24–26 August.
Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1992) Mapping the Language
of Racism—Discourse and the Legitimation of Exploitation,
Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S.J. (eds) (2001) Dis-
course as Data: A Guide for Analysis, Sage and The Open
University, London.
Wiggins, S. and Potter, J. (2008) Discursive psychology, in
Willig, C. and Stainton-Rogers, W. (eds) The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, Sage,
London.
Worthington, M. (2007) The Behavioural Change Worker
Engagement Forum. Paper for the Health and Safety
Commission, available at http://bit.ly/RyHs38 (accessed
11 September 2011).
Site safety discourses 635
Downloaded by [Bolton University] at 15:04 23 October 2015
