“The Educational Transition from Technical Expertise to Management Systems Understanding is Beneficial to the Profession”
This Myth is not as straightforward as some of the others that I have previously presented and requires some discussion to explain the premise prior to defining the “Myth” quality. In addition, this particular Myth may go both ways as I do believe there are hosts of reasons to believe in it. However, as with all of these articles, the point isn’t always to debunk popular beliefs. The point is often to present a discussion on a controversial topic and to illustrate points of view other than those that are popularly held.
THE MYTH
In recent decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of persons who have entered the safety profession deliberately. In decades past, the role and function of safety was often delegated to supervisors, an hourly safety coordinator, or the human resources department. Starting in the 1960’s and 1970’s the Safety Professional became recognized as a valid career and vocation. This occurred in large part because of the signing of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act and the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1970 and 1971 respectively. Domestic companies in the United States found themselves with an urgent need to take workplace safety seriously. In order to feed the growing demand for capable safety practitioners, colleges and universities began developing curriculum in the OSH disciplines.
For the first 20 or more years of their existence, these programs typically focused on the technical aspects of the safety profession. Programs were usually centered on topics of engineering, industrial hygiene, and regulatory compliance. The result was that a huge cadre of technically proficient and well-educated safety professionals entered the workplace and had profound effects on their workplaces. As their crafts became the norm of workplace safety, the results achieved showed that this methodology was working. The number of workplace fatalities dropped to 5,214 in 2008 (most recent available information) from 7,405 in 1980 (the earliest available statistics). However, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), from 1980 through 1994, a total of 88,622 civilian workers died in the United States from occupational injuries, an average of 16 work-related deaths per day. The continued presence of workplace accidents, injuries, and deaths, combined with a growing sense that safety professionals were continually left out of the upper layers of organizational management, lead to a change in the educational approach to Occupational Safety.
In the 1980’s and 1990’s, and continuing into the new millennium, educational programs that focus on workplace safety and health have been shifting the focus from the technical aspects of safety to a greater emphasis on business management. An excellent example of this academic foundational shift is the Master’s of Science in Safety Management program at Michigan’s own Oakland University. The author completed this program in 2009 and found that it balanced a technical approach to safety with an even greater emphasis on management systems. 50% of the classes in the program were MBA core classes and 50% were safety classes. In years past, it would be reasonable to expect that the curriculum for this program would be primarily engineering principles, safety program elements, or Industrial Hygiene.
Other graduate programs in OSH have taken a similar track and many now either present a balance of safety and management classes or focus even more on the management side of the program. Intuitively, this approach makes a lot of sense, as safety professionals do need to have the ability to speak the language of business. In order for safety practitioners to have ability to make the most significant impact on workplace safety and health, they must be able to relate information back to other critical business activities. It is also likely that safety professionals develop greater credibility within their respective organizations when they are able to explain the fiduciary exposure that could result from uncontrolled losses and make the translation from risk, to loss, to eventual additional production that must be undertaken to pay for losses. Some safety professionals have even created analyses that show how many days must be worked to pay for losses, how many widgets must be produced or customers serviced, and how much additional salary could be employed if losses were controlled.
There is no doubt that when safety professionals develop these abilities, it will likely serve their careers in a very positive and productive manner. Dr. Aaron Bird, an associate professor at Oakland University was interviewed for this article. He expressed an additional set of reasons why an educational approach that favors a management heavy curriculum against an educational program of primarily technical safety content is the preferred model.
Dr. Bird cited a number of examples of why a shift in post-secondary education is beginning to favor a shift from technical content to Safety Management Curriculum. Primarily, regarding many topics covered by technical education, the risks have already been clearly defined and are understood. Examples include Industrial Hygiene related exposure levels where the tolerances and appropriate exposure amounts are known and clearly defined. Indeed, there has been a discernable shift from primarily hygiene related careers to careers in other areas of workplace safety and health as is evidenced by declines in membership in organizations such as the ACGIH or AIHA. Other technical disciplines may also be experiencing similar reductions in membership, but this information was not attainable for this article.
What is clear is that the number of students enrolling in post-secondary educational safety programs with an emphasis on Safety Management is continuing to increase. One well-known local example is Oakland University, where enrollment in both the undergraduate and graduate programs has increased over the last few years. It is a fair consideration echoed by Dr. Bird, that educational institutions will capitalize on opportunities to provide education and training where there is both a need and an interest.
Dr. Bird states that most undergraduate programs offering Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) degrees are growing. He also states that graduates are more coveted and that the field of safety is becoming more and more professional. Even though educational programs are focusing more and more on management systems, many to most ensure they still cover the fundamentals of science and engineering. The basic premise of workplace safety, prevention through design, is still a cornerstone tenet in reputable educational programs, such as those found at Oakland University.
Dr. Bird stated that Safety has evolved beyond just problem solving and is much less likely to be associated with putting out fires. The safety management focus now is more concerned with defining and managing risk within the larger context of the workplace; this can best be accomplished by understanding the operations of business rather than relying on the same old methodologies. Dr. Bird is adamant that the loss of technical ability must be avoided and that it can be controlled if undergraduate students receive a well rounded education that exposes them to the empirical side of safety.
Dr. Bird has taken this philosophy to a very high level by recently co-authoring a college text book titled Applied Quantitative Methods for Occupational Safety and Health (with Dr. Jan Wachter). After the publication of this book, I had an opportunity to speak with Dr. Bird a second time to further clarify his thoughts on the need to ensure that OSH Practitioners have a solid background in the more technical side of the business. I also was presented with the opportunity to review this text and after reading it found the entire content to be VERY well written and to provide the Safety Undergraduate at Oakland University with a rich background in Quantitative Methods. A full discussion of the content of the book will be forthcoming in a future article. At this time it is sufficient to state that all safety professionals could benefit from a reading of this text and that the content delivered within is logical, easy to understand, and completely germane to the field of Occupational Safety and Health.
Indeed, Dr. Bird is passionate to ensure that graduates of the Oakland University Program have the ability to understand and apply statistical analysis, quantified reviews of Industrial Hygiene related information, and financial calculations that are critical for being successful in any professional field. During the follow-up interview, Dr. Bird also stated that the level of proficiency required for graduates to possess is directly proportional to the requirements of industry, and that Oakland University strives to ensure that all graduates from the Bachelor’s Program possess the needed technical skills in abundance.
I agree with Dr. Bird’s conclusions. I do believe it is incumbent upon the safety professional, who wants to be thoroughly effective in the field, to be able to “speak the language of business” and to understand the need for looking at most aspects from the profession in an empirical perspective. Educationally, it does make sense to support this point of view. Further, I can fully embrace and endorse the passion that Dr. Bird has to ensure that students at Oakland University are well versed in the technical, quantitative, and empirical aspect of the OSH Profession. Finally, I do whole heartedly accept that the focus on ensuring that Safety and Health Practitioners have a solid general understanding of all aspects of the profession is driven by the demands of industry. With regard to the paradigm shift in the higher educational process for OSH from technical specialties to a more generalist approach, Dr. Bird also provided some very good insight.
Specifically, he stated that, given the fundamental premise of educational institutions to, either deliberately or naturally, craft their programs to meet the demands of industry, it is not too surprising that more and more educational programs are focusing on developing solid safety generalists. Further, as Dr. Bird clearly, and emphatically pointed out, a general educational background in OSH can be technically very well rounded and supported with coursework that provides an excellent background in the quantitative side of the profession. By ensuring the OSH Management approach to education allows students to understand data and interpret results, they are likely to be successful in the field. Specifically, as safety professionals, they will be able to identify when interventions beyond their individual abilities are needed, and will have the skill to find the technical expertise to remediate the problems identified. It is more important that most organizations employee safety professionals who can identify a wide range of opportunities for improvement, rather than having a greater number of safety engineers who can completely remediate a very narrow swath of risks or hazards.
The resident safety professional needs to be able to identify hazards and must have the technical expertise to be able to interpret and understand a wide variety of variables within the workplace. Once hazards are noted, the safety professional must then know where to go to find individuals with the specific technical expertise to control or eliminate the hazard.
The last point that Dr. Bird made that I am also in agreement with is that if new industries arise that have new, and unidentified risks, it is likely that educational programs will quickly shift to provide graduates who have the specific technical skills necessary to address these new risks. The ability to develop technical skills in a short period of time has become the hallmark of adaptive higher education, and it must strive to maintain this ability to appeal to potential students in a highly competitive educational marketplace.
I want to be very clear. Dr. Bird NEVER expressed that the dilution of technical talent within the safety field was beneficial. Indeed he was very adamant that the place of technical expertise must remain foundational to the profession and that this must be continued to be supported within the higher educational process. As mentioned earlier, he has co-authored a text-book, Quantitative Methods for Occupational Safety and Health – Applied Quantitative Methods for Occupational Safety and Health with Dr. Jan Wachter, or Indiana University of Pennsylvania. This text very strongly supports the need for Safety Professionals to have technical knowledge in OSH and clearly demonstrates that not having these skills is detrimental to both the OSH Professional and their employer.
My interview with Dr. Bird was an attempt to obtain the point of view of an educator who has experience in providing both the technical side of safety education as well as extensive experience practicing and educating on the side of safety management. In an attempt to get an additional and diverse perspective, I interviewed Dr. Sarunas Mingela, Associate Professor in the Department of Occupational and Environmental Health Sciences at Wayne State University.
The safety program at Wayne State is well known for its industrial hygiene focus and emphasis on helping students develop the technical skills needed for safety. Dr. Mingela made numerous points regarding the ongoing need for technical expertise and educational support; these needs and many of his views were very congruent with those expressed by Dr. Bird. Dr. Mingela did acknowledge that many industrial hygiene related issues have been identified, addressed, and appropriate action levels have been identified. He further agreed that under current standard requirements, much Industrial Hygiene work involves hanging pumps in areas where exposures are suspected or known as well as reading reports once results are obtained. It is not necessary to have an extensive background or technical expertise in Industrial Hygiene for many of the activities required under this scenario. However, this does not mean that other situations still exist where technical expertise is not required.
According to Dr. Mingela, a number Industrial Hygiene concerns still remain to be defined. Specifically, items with sub-clinical manifestations, items relating to nano-technologies, and items with long-term latencies all remain areas for intensive research and exploration. It is likely that some exposures may reduce life expectancy by a short duration and will come to light as life expectancies continue to lengthen. This means that there is still much work left to be done with, as yet, unknown exposures. It will require safety and health professionals with a high degree of knowledge and understanding of many aspects of the field including chemistry, biology, physiology, physics, math, statistics, and epidemiology, to name a few.
The need to address long-term safety and health exposures creates one of the most compelling arguments for the continuation of technical educational programs. If employees experience negative effects from latent exposures or dormant conditions that do not manifest for many years, then it is incumbent on both industry and the safety community to ensure that all efforts possible are undertaken to identify and remediate these additional exposures. This necessitates the continued availability of technical educational opportunities for practitioners and future practitioners of occupational safety and health. Indeed, it is likely that with new industrial processes and new products entering the marketplace that new exposures to injury and health will arise continually. This will require not only the continuation of technical education, but an expansion from the current offerings into fields which may not yet even be known. Either way, Dr. Mingela is very clear in his belief that Safety Education must continue to emphasize technical knowledge and that a shift to a focus primarily on Safety Management Systems may not be as beneficial as some believe.
I want to thank both Dr. Bird and Dr. Mingela for taking their time to answer questions about the current role of advanced safety education. It was very kind of these professors to take time from their busy schedules to provide me with their thoughts about this very important topic.
OTHER EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
A review of other OSH curricula seems to support that a balanced approach is still being offered. For example, the graduate program at Murray State, one of the most well-known Safety Programs in the country, has a Master of Science program in occupational safety and health with options in safety management, industrial hygiene, and environmental; with a technical minor in occupational safety and health. This allows students the opportunity to select a management track or an Industrial Hygiene or Environmental concentration. Likewise, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, also a renowned school in the field of Occupational Safety and Health has a Master’s Program in Safety Science that provides both technical offerings and safety management offerings which combine to form a well-rounded approach for an advanced OSH Degree.
MY CONCLUSIONS
This article has become much larger than I originally envisioned. At the outset, my objective was to give a large dose of personal opinion, supported only from one person’s experience. Granted, in the interest of full disclosure, I have a Master’s of Safety Management Degree that was earned at Oakland University. Personally, I found the program very enriching and extremely helpful from a practical standpoint. The degree provided a heavy focus on management and the content related to safety systems was excellent. I also found the business classes to be insightful, relevant, and very much grounded in reality. The safety classes challenged even a seasoned veteran like myself and helped to broaden my horizons in a very significant manner. I am very, very pleased with the Oakland Master of Safety Management Program and I give it my full endorsement.
My professional experience has left me with the feeling that many of the perspectives mentioned by both Dr. Bird and Dr. Mingela closely mirror my own. I do see significant benefits to ensuring that a proportion of educational programs in OSH include a safety management track. I also see the absolute need to ensure that all OSH Students receive the fundamentals about the technical side of safety management.
I also firmly believe that the field of occupational safety and health is being populated by persons who have a solid educational background in both safety theory and management practices; but that a deficit of those practitioners with technical skills is beginning to occur. I have seen firsthand that the technical skills can be acquired after the formal educational process has been completed. I have personal experience obtaining a very deep technical background in both individual and organizational psychology, of which only a small part was developed in academia, with the greater skills being self-taught. I am not certain that this is the optimal paradigm for the safety profession.
However, the counter to this perspective was well described by Dr. Bird. Specifically, that if an overt need for technical skills in the safety profession again arises, higher educational programs are well positioned to meet that need quickly and effectively. Further, solid undergraduate safety programs, such as those at Oakland University, are already positioning their students to have a very solid background in technical skills and abilities that will make them both well rounded, and able to identify and respond to the vast majority of situations that they will experience.
That said, I still believe that as fully-technical safety educational programs continue to become more and more infused with management curriculum, it seems likely that high-functioning technical skills will erode further within the safety profession. It is quite true that higher-education programs are subject to the same pressures (fiscal/economic) as found in society in general. At the moment, the educational trend is moving strongly toward programs that focus on developing general skills in the field of Occupational Safety, Health, and Environment, away from the more technical disciplines such as Ergnomics, Industrial Hygiene, or Engineering.
The most prominent safety organization in the United States, the American Society of Safety Engineers, was originally founded to be an association of engineers who focused on safety as the key component of their discipline. Over the decades it has evolved into the entity it is today, a broad umbrella that accepts the membership and perspectives of many different specialties within the field of safety. However, it is interesting to note that only 1,200 members are active in the current Engineering Practice Specialty of ASSE. This is compared to over 3,000 in the Risk Management group.
What does it really mean to the safety profession if there are many more persons who are versed in management systems versus having technical abilities relating to engineering, industrial hygiene, or ergonomics? Ultimately, I believe the profession will be somewhat challenged to handle emerging risks or be able to address new or, as yet, unidentified loss causal factors. The gradual loss of technical expertise will not create an immediately perceptible gap in the ability of the safety profession to respond, but over time this compromised ability may result in the creation of inordinate risk.
One possibility that comes to mind is the recent entry of industry into the use of nano-materials. Although I will admit there are some experts in the field of safety for nano-materials, I do postulate that the average safety practitioner, in the absence of a greater breadth of technical knowledge, may not be positioned to have enough appreciation for the risks to handle them effectively. Another up and coming concern may be the aging of the workforce. As American employees live longer lives and put off formal retirement later and later, a greater suite of ergonomic related risk factors that are specific to the elderly are likely to arise. If the number of Ergonomists decreases as the need for their talents increases, a situation of increases injuries and illnesses is likely to result. Finally, the propensity for some of the best and brightest upcoming minds in the field to Occupational Safety and Health to gravitate to safety management based education systems rather than fully technical educational programs, may further inhibit the ability of the safety profession to respond to new risks in as timely a manner as it might have.
I believe that it behooves both educators and safety professionals both to ensure that enough emphasis continues to be placed on technical skills for both current and future safety related disciplines. I also firmly believe that Oakland University has positioned itself to be at the forefront of this need for flexibility. The commitment and involvement of educators like Dr. Bird, to ensure that students receive the background to understand fundamental quantified methods will help moderate the otherwise inevitable gap in the profession. I am equally certain that programs like those found at Wayne State University will also make certain that some fully technical talent remains within the OSH field.
For the safety profession and the safety professional, developing the ability to function within business is critical, but if the educational pendulum swings too to a general safety educational track, to the point of neglecting technical capability, then I believe that the profession will suffer a loss of credibility and may be in danger of sliding into mediocrity. However, I could be wrong.
{ 0 comments… add one now }