Search

Vulnerable groups are found to be over-represented in fire fatalities statistics. In official Norwegian documents vulnerability is described as related to factors such as old age, reduced mobility or cognitive abilities, mental health problems, and substance abuse. As vulnerability to fatal fire is frequently related to residents’ health and life situations, prevention work often exceeds the competencies and responsibilities of the fire department. Cross-sector collaboration is therefore required in order to reach the groups that are at risk. This paper reports from a qualitative interview study with representatives from municipal fire services, property management, housing administration, health and social care. The study explores the challenges experienced by service providers in achieving cross-sector collaboration on fire prevention for vulnerable groups. The findings describe challenges at three levels: 1) the national regulatory level represents an obstacle to local cross-sector collaboration, 2) the municipal level lacks strategies and arenas for cross-sector collaboration for fire safety, and 3) the professional level experiences conflicting values and norms, including uncertainties about professional boundaries. Organizational measures that support the fire services in their efforts to reach vulnerable groups must be targeted to all three levels and go beyond the boundaries of the fire services. The study contributes with a social scientific approach to fire prevention and contributes with new perspectives on fire safety for vulnerable residents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The paper reviews the literature from 1986 on the management of those safety rules and procedures which relate to the workplace level in organisations. It contrasts two different paradigms of how rules and their development and use are perceived and managed. The first is a top-down classical, rational approach in which rules are seen as static, comprehensive limits of freedom of choice, imposed on operators at the sharp end and violations are seen as negative behaviour to be suppressed. The second is a bottom-up constructivist view of rules as dynamic, local, situated constructions of operators as experts, where competence is seen to a great extent as the ability to adapt rules to the diversity of reality. The paper explores the research underlying and illustrating these two paradigms, drawn from psychology, sociology and ethnography, organisational studies and behavioural economics. In a separate paper following on from this review (Hale and Borys, this issue) the authors propose a framework of rule management which attempts to draw the lessons from both paradigms. It places the monitoring and adaptation of rules central to its management process. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The disasters of the past years in different high risk industries (e.g. aviation, offshore, nuclear) push for a moment of reflexivity about learning from accidents. In the aftermath of these events, one wonders whether learning from accidents remains a viable endeavour for companies and states or whether recurring technological disasters such as these seriously and definitely undermine any attempt to prove the feasibility of learning. Progress has certainly been made in the past, but apparently not enough so to be able to reach the highest safety levels, even in systems with dedicated resources. As a result of the current situation, some have been able to argue that ‘we don’t learn about disasters’. Although appealing and right, this is a very generic statement. There are many studies addressing aspects of learning from accidents which are in a position to bring insights about the drawbacks of learning. But this wealth of research is also part of the problem. When one wants to step back and to look broadly at the topic, to understand the reason why ‘we don’t learn’, one is left with a fragmented scientific literature covering a very large spectrum of interests and views on the subject. This paper tackles this problem by first designing a framework to organise the diversity of studies and second, by extracting four lessons on learning from accidents, putting together for this purpose works in psychology, sociology and political science. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This theoretical paper demonstrates how music therapy—and more specifically, community music therapy (CoMT)—can contribute to social justice. CoMT is a creative approach that the liberates expression, potentially empowering people of all ages, races, and statuses to build a better society. It also reveals how the leadership literature presents the concept of service in addressing social justice and how the fields of psychology and sociology of music shed some light on the use of music for social justice. Finally, future implications for training music therapists for social justice are explored. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: There is substantial evidence in the psychology and sociology literature that social relationships promote happiness for the individual. Yet the size of their impacts remains largely unknown. This paper explores the use of shadow pricing method to estimate the monetary values of the satisfaction with life gained by an increase in the frequency of interaction with friends, relatives, and neighbours. Using the British Household Panel Survey, I find that an increase in the level of social involvements is worth up to an extra £85,000 a year in terms of life satisfaction. Actual changes in income, on the other hand, buy very little happiness. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In 1894, Wilhelm Dilthey published an article in which he formulated a critique of what he called ‘explanatory psychology’, contrasting it with his own conception of ‘descriptive psychology’. Dilthey’s descriptive psychology, in turn, was to provide the basis for Dilthey’s specific philosophy of the human sciences (Geisteswissenschaften). In this paper, I contextualize Dilthey’s critique of explanatory psychology. I show that while this critique comes across as very broad and sweeping, he in fact had specific opponents in mind, namely, scholars who, like him, attempted to theorize about the relationship between the individual and society, between psychology and the other human sciences. Dilthey’s critique of explanatory psychology is the flipside of his critique of sociology, which he had already formulated. He challenged both because he felt that they gave the wrong kind of answer to the task of overcoming metaphysics within the human sciences. In particular, I identify the founders of Völkerpsychologie, Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal, and (more importantly) their student, Georg Simmel, as Dilthey’s targets. I provide textual and historical evidence for this thesis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]