Advertisement

Challenges to Change Laboratory Learning in a Dynamic and Complex Civil Construction Project

  • Manoela Gomes Reis LopesEmail author
  • Rodolfo Andrade de Gouveia Vilela
  • Marco Antonio Pereira Querol
  • Ildeberto Muniz de Almeida
Chapter

Abstract

The chapter presents a Change Laboratory (CL) intervention in the construction airport activity. After the occurrence of two severe accidents in a brief time interval, the Labor Prosecution Office sought the School of Public Health to assist at the second accident analysis. The application of Analysis and Prevention of Accidents’ Model (MAPA) and CL appeared as a proposal. During the implementation process, the activity was in a crisis phase. The participants identified the problems, but they felt paralyzed in some moments. The CL allowed the participants to formulate hypotheses of the main problems and their relation with historical changes in the activity. The CL allowed the creation of solutions, but with the shutdown of the construction site, it was not possible to have continuity in the implementation of solutions. In the chapter will be presented the results achieved, the difficulties faced, and proposition of suggestions for actions to improve and continue the development of the activity.

Keywords

Work accidents Occupational health and safety Expansive learning Airport construction 

References

  1. Almeida, I. M., & Vilela, R. A. G. (2010). Modelo de análise e prevenção de acidente de trabalho – MAPA. Piracicaba, Brazil: CEREST.Google Scholar
  2. Almeida, I. M., Vilela, R. A. G., Silva, A. J. N., & Beltran, S. L. (2014). Modelo de Análise e Prevenção de Acidentes – MAPA: Ferramenta para a vigilância em Saúde do trabalhador. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 19(12), 4679–4688.  https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320141912.12982014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brasil. Ministério do Planejamento. Sobre o PAC. 2013. http://www.pac.gov.br/sobre-o-pac. Acessed 4 Jun 2018.
  4. Costa, L. R. (2013). Trabalhadores em construção: Mercado de trabalho, redes sociais e qualificações na construção civil. Curitiba, Brazil: Editora CRV.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dien, Y., Dechy, N., & Guillaume, E. (2012). Accident investigation: From searching direct causes to finding in-depth causes – problem of analysis or/and of analyst? Safety Science, 50(6), 1398–1407.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.12.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  7. Engeström, Y. (2007). In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. M. Wertsch (Eds.), Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation (pp. 363–425). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). The change laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in European, 1(2), 10–17.Google Scholar
  10. Ferreira, L. L. (1993). Análise Coletiva do Trabalho. Revista Brasilera de Saúde Ocupacional, 78(21), 7–19.Google Scholar
  11. Gibb, A., Lopes, M. G. R., Vilela, R. A. G., & Almeida, I. M. (2018). The successful safety and health experience in the London 2012 Olympic Park construction: An interview with Alistair Gibb. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional, 43(supl 1), 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6369000020218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackson Filho, J. M., Vilela, R. A. G., Garcia, E. G., & Almeida, I. M. (2013). Sobre a “aceitabilidade social” dos acidentes do trabalho e o inaceitável conceito de ato inseguro. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional, 38(127), 6–8.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0303-76572013000100001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Llory, M., & Montmayeul, R. (2010). L’accident et l’organisation. Bordeaux: Préventique.Google Scholar
  14. Lopes, M. G. R., Vilela, R. A. G., & Querol, M. A. P. (2018a). Anomalies and contradictions in an airport construction project: A historical analysis based on Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 34, ePub 00130816.  https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00130816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lopes, M. G. R., Vilela, R. A. G., & Querol, M. A. P. (2018b). Agency for a systemic comprehension of work accidents and organizational anomalies. Trabalho, Educação e Saúde, 16(2), 1–26.  https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-7746-sol00128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Véras, R. (2014). Brasil em obras, peões em luta, sindicatos surpreendidos. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, (103), 111–136.  https://doi.org/10.4000/rccs.5559.
  17. Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manoela Gomes Reis Lopes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rodolfo Andrade de Gouveia Vilela
    • 2
  • Marco Antonio Pereira Querol
    • 3
  • Ildeberto Muniz de Almeida
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences and HealthFederal University of AmapáMacapáBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Environmental HealthSchool of Public Health, University of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Agronomic EngineeringFederal University of SergipeSão CristóvãoBrazil
  4. 4.Department of Public HealthBotucatu School of Medicine, São Paulo State University “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”BotucatuBrazil

Personalised recommendations