Search results1 – 2 of 2
Factors for successful workplace health promotion (WHP) are well described in the literature, but often sourced from evaluations of wellness programmes. Less well…
Factors for successful workplace health promotion (WHP) are well described in the literature, but often sourced from evaluations of wellness programmes. Less well understood are the features of an organisation that contribute to employee health which are not part of a health promotion programme. The purpose of this paper is to inform policy on best practice principles and provide real life examples of health promotion in regional Victorian workplaces.
Individual case studies were conducted on three organisations, each with a health and wellbeing programme in place. In total, 42 employers and employees participated in a face to face interview. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and the qualitative data were thematically coded.
Employers and senior management had a greater focus on occupational health and safety than employees, who felt that mental/emotional health and happiness were the areas most benefited by a health promoting workplace. An organisational culture which supported the psychosocial needs of the employees emerged as a significant factor in employee's overall wellbeing. Respectful personal relationships, flexible work, supportive management and good communication were some of the key factors identified as creating a health promoting working environment.
Currently in Australia, the main focus of WHP programmes is physical health. Government workplace health policy and funding must expand to include psychosocial factors. Employers will require assistance to understand the benefits to their business of creating environments which support employee's mental and emotional health.
This study took a qualitative approach to an area dominated by quantitative biomedical programme evaluations. It revealed new information about what employees really feel is impacting their health at work.
Purpose – This chapter presents a preliminary conceptualisation of the effects that unequal power relationships have on the integrity of social science research and the…
Purpose – This chapter presents a preliminary conceptualisation of the effects that unequal power relationships have on the integrity of social science research and the safety of researchers.Methodology/approach – We begin by presenting a review of the current literature on risk to research outputs and researcher safety. In this review, we offer a conceptual framework of the factors of safety and autonomy of researchers developed in conjunction with extent stakeholder theory scholarship.Findings – We argue that, in the event of a threat to researchers’ autonomy while complying with university ethics committee requirements, or when faced with uneven power differentials between the researcher and various stakeholders, one of two actions may occur: (1) the researcher may alter the project in order to comply or (2) the researcher may feel so compromised that the research project is abandoned. In both of these instances, research that addresses power/structural inequalities is avoided. In the event of a threat to the researcher’s physical and emotional safety, three actions can result if the researcher is harmed: (1) the incident may not be reported, which in turn may result in further harm to the researcher; (2) counselling may be undertaken to resolve and debrief emotional stress; or (3) a worker’s compensation claim may be lodged.Social implications – As academics, research is the core business of the organisations of which we are members. The issues introduced and discussed in this chapter are serious; however, our conceptualisation requires further research. We outline why this set of issues is significant and deserving of more study than it has previously received.Originality/value of chapter – Previous research that links research in the area of protection for researchers and research autonomy is very limited in Australia, and therefore our conceptualisation provides value to the research agenda on this topic. We also propose that the issue of researcher safety and autonomy is common to most academic environments and merits further academic study.