Contributions of Ergonomics to the Development of Prevention Projects: The Role of Intermediate Prevention Objects

  • Alain Garrigou
  • Nathalie Judon
  • Louis Galey
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)


In a context where preventive measures are developed in a functionalist and technological way, the aim of this work is to set up general principles and methods for new preventive solutions that will enrich these existing measures.

We propose an approach centered on the association of workers at all hierarchical levels around “intermediary objects” of prevention in order to support a collective debate. Observational data with physical and physiological measurements has been coupled. We have developed, reworked and enriched the notion of risk representation, which promotes the visibility and recognition of the knowledge built, developed and carried by workers on their activities and on ways to protect themselves from dangers or hazards.

Implementation of the method raises detailed knowledges of chemical risks build by workers. These knowledges made possible by the experience of the body and the senses become accessible from references to the domestic and professional sphere in reflexive activities. Actors get involved and mobilize their individual, collective and organizational resources to propose prevention solutions. Use of intermediate prevention objects in “intermediate space for dialogue” allows to produce and support dialogues. These spaces are ultimately circulating entities for the co-production of knowledge for action: to generate knowledge and to collectively generate innovative prevention solutions.


Reflexive activities Intermediate objects Intermediate space of dialogue 


  1. Béguin P (2004) Monde, version des mondes et mondes commun. Bulletin de psychologie 57(1/469):45–59Google Scholar
  2. Béguin P (2007) Prendre en compte l’activité de travail pour concevoir. @ctivités 4(2).
  3. Béguin P (2013) La conception des instruments comme processus dialogique d’apprentissages mutuels. In: Falzon P (ed) Ergonomie constructive. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp 147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolis I, Sznelwar LI (2016) A case study of the implementation of an ergonomics improvement committee in a Brazilian hospital – challenges and benefits. Appl Ergon 53:181189. Scholar
  5. Broberg O, Andersen V, Seim R (2011) Participatory ergonomics in design processes: the role of boundary objects. Appl Ergon 42(3):464–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchmann W, Landry A (2010) Intervenir sur les TMS. Un modèle des troubles musculo-squelettiques comme objet intermédiaire entre ergonomes et acteurs de l’entreprise. @ctivités 7(2). Disponible sur:
  7. Garrigou A, Peeters S, Jackson M, Sagory P, Carballeda G (2004) 30. Apports de l’ergonomie à la prévention des risques professionnels. Dans Ergonomie. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp 497–514. Scholar
  8. Garrigou A, Peissel-Cottenaz G (2008) Reflexive approach to the activity of preventionists and their training needs: results of a French study. Saf Sci 46(8):1271–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garrigou A, Baldi I, Le Frious P, Anselm R, Vallier M (2010) Ergonomics contribution to chemical risks prevention: an ergotoxicological investigation of the effectiveness of coverall against plant pest risk in viticulture. Appl Ergon 42(2):321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Judon N, Hella F, Pasquereau P, Garrigou A (2015) Vers une prévention intégrée du risque chimique lié à l’exposition cutanée au bitume des travailleurs de la route. Élaboration d’une méthodologie dans le cadre de l’ergotoxicologie. Perspectives Interdisciplinaires Sur le Travail et la Santé 17(2)Google Scholar
  11. Judon N (2017) Rendre possible un espace intermédiaire de dialogue pour co-construire de nouvelles solutions de prévention dans un contexte d’incertitude - Cas des travaux de revêtements routiers. Thèse de doctorat d’ergonomieGoogle Scholar
  12. Mohammed-Brahim B, Garrigou A (2009) Une approche critique du modèle dominant de prévention du risque chimique. L’apport de l’ergotoxicologie. @ctivités 6(1):49–67.
  13. Mollo V, Falzon P (2004) Auto-and allo-confrontation as tools for reflective activities. Appl Ergon 35(6):531e540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rabardel P, Béguin P (2005) Instrument mediated activity: from subject development to anthropocentric design. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 6(5):429–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rocha R, Mollo V, Daniellou F (2015) Work debate spaces: a tool for developing a participatory safety management. Appl Ergon 46:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rosén G et al (2005) A review of video exposure monitoring as an occupational hygiene tool. Ann Occup Hyg 49(3):201–217Google Scholar
  17. Schon DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York (Reprinted in 1995)Google Scholar
  18. Trompette P, Vinck D (2009) Revisiting the notion of boundary object. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 3(1):a–vCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vinck, D (2009) De l’objet intermédiaire à l’objet-frontière. Vers la prise en compte du travail d’équipement. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 3(1):51–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, team EPICENE, UMR 1219BordeauxFrance
  2. 2.Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité (INRS)Vandoeuvre Les NancyFrance

Personalised recommendations