The roles and functions of safety professionals in Taiwan

Comparing the perceptions of safety professionals and safety educators

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: The perspectives of both internal and external members have to be considered when developing safety curricula. This study discusses perceptional differences between safety educators (SEs) and safety professionals (SPs) regarding the function of SPs. The findings will serve as a reference framework for the establishment of core safety competencies and the development of safety curricula for SPs. Method: 248 respondents, including both SEs and SPs, completed self-administered questionnaires, which included the 45-item safety function scale (SFS). Nine factors were extracted from the scale using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), namely inspection and research, regulatory tasks, emergency procedures and settlement of damage, management and financial affairs, culture change, problem identification and analysis, developing and implementing solutions, knowledge management, and training and communications. Results: Descriptive statistical results indicated that SPs and SEs hold differing views on the rank of the frequency of safety functions. MANOVA results indicated that SPs' perceptions of developing and implementing solutions, training and communications, inspection and research, and management and financial affairs were significantly higher than that of SEs. On the other hand, SE's perceptions regarding participation in regulatory tasks were significantly higher than those of SPs. Based on these results, the author suggests that a clear communication channel should be established between universities and industry to reduce the gap between the perceptions of SEs and SPs. Impact on industry: The results of the study are statistically and practically significant. In addition to serving as a reference for the development of safety curricula, the results are also conducive to the establishment of SP roles and functions. Ultimately the development of more suitable safety curricula would open up employment competition for students who graduate from safety-related programs. SPs, on the other hand, can correctly recognize their roles and functions so as to realize the safety expectations invested in them by organizations.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)399-407
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Safety Research
Volume42
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Curricula
Inspection
Communication
Factor analysis
Knowledge management
Industry
Students

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality

Cite this

@article{548022ff241e4d75bf07747a646a39aa,
title = "The roles and functions of safety professionals in Taiwan: Comparing the perceptions of safety professionals and safety educators",
abstract = "Introduction: The perspectives of both internal and external members have to be considered when developing safety curricula. This study discusses perceptional differences between safety educators (SEs) and safety professionals (SPs) regarding the function of SPs. The findings will serve as a reference framework for the establishment of core safety competencies and the development of safety curricula for SPs. Method: 248 respondents, including both SEs and SPs, completed self-administered questionnaires, which included the 45-item safety function scale (SFS). Nine factors were extracted from the scale using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), namely inspection and research, regulatory tasks, emergency procedures and settlement of damage, management and financial affairs, culture change, problem identification and analysis, developing and implementing solutions, knowledge management, and training and communications. Results: Descriptive statistical results indicated that SPs and SEs hold differing views on the rank of the frequency of safety functions. MANOVA results indicated that SPs' perceptions of developing and implementing solutions, training and communications, inspection and research, and management and financial affairs were significantly higher than that of SEs. On the other hand, SE's perceptions regarding participation in regulatory tasks were significantly higher than those of SPs. Based on these results, the author suggests that a clear communication channel should be established between universities and industry to reduce the gap between the perceptions of SEs and SPs. Impact on industry: The results of the study are statistically and practically significant. In addition to serving as a reference for the development of safety curricula, the results are also conducive to the establishment of SP roles and functions. Ultimately the development of more suitable safety curricula would open up employment competition for students who graduate from safety-related programs. SPs, on the other hand, can correctly recognize their roles and functions so as to realize the safety expectations invested in them by organizations.",
author = "Tsung-Chih Wu",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jsr.2011.09.002",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "399--407",
journal = "Journal of Safety Research",
issn = "0022-4375",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The roles and functions of safety professionals in Taiwan

T2 - Comparing the perceptions of safety professionals and safety educators

AU - Wu, Tsung-Chih

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - Introduction: The perspectives of both internal and external members have to be considered when developing safety curricula. This study discusses perceptional differences between safety educators (SEs) and safety professionals (SPs) regarding the function of SPs. The findings will serve as a reference framework for the establishment of core safety competencies and the development of safety curricula for SPs. Method: 248 respondents, including both SEs and SPs, completed self-administered questionnaires, which included the 45-item safety function scale (SFS). Nine factors were extracted from the scale using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), namely inspection and research, regulatory tasks, emergency procedures and settlement of damage, management and financial affairs, culture change, problem identification and analysis, developing and implementing solutions, knowledge management, and training and communications. Results: Descriptive statistical results indicated that SPs and SEs hold differing views on the rank of the frequency of safety functions. MANOVA results indicated that SPs' perceptions of developing and implementing solutions, training and communications, inspection and research, and management and financial affairs were significantly higher than that of SEs. On the other hand, SE's perceptions regarding participation in regulatory tasks were significantly higher than those of SPs. Based on these results, the author suggests that a clear communication channel should be established between universities and industry to reduce the gap between the perceptions of SEs and SPs. Impact on industry: The results of the study are statistically and practically significant. In addition to serving as a reference for the development of safety curricula, the results are also conducive to the establishment of SP roles and functions. Ultimately the development of more suitable safety curricula would open up employment competition for students who graduate from safety-related programs. SPs, on the other hand, can correctly recognize their roles and functions so as to realize the safety expectations invested in them by organizations.

AB - Introduction: The perspectives of both internal and external members have to be considered when developing safety curricula. This study discusses perceptional differences between safety educators (SEs) and safety professionals (SPs) regarding the function of SPs. The findings will serve as a reference framework for the establishment of core safety competencies and the development of safety curricula for SPs. Method: 248 respondents, including both SEs and SPs, completed self-administered questionnaires, which included the 45-item safety function scale (SFS). Nine factors were extracted from the scale using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), namely inspection and research, regulatory tasks, emergency procedures and settlement of damage, management and financial affairs, culture change, problem identification and analysis, developing and implementing solutions, knowledge management, and training and communications. Results: Descriptive statistical results indicated that SPs and SEs hold differing views on the rank of the frequency of safety functions. MANOVA results indicated that SPs' perceptions of developing and implementing solutions, training and communications, inspection and research, and management and financial affairs were significantly higher than that of SEs. On the other hand, SE's perceptions regarding participation in regulatory tasks were significantly higher than those of SPs. Based on these results, the author suggests that a clear communication channel should be established between universities and industry to reduce the gap between the perceptions of SEs and SPs. Impact on industry: The results of the study are statistically and practically significant. In addition to serving as a reference for the development of safety curricula, the results are also conducive to the establishment of SP roles and functions. Ultimately the development of more suitable safety curricula would open up employment competition for students who graduate from safety-related programs. SPs, on the other hand, can correctly recognize their roles and functions so as to realize the safety expectations invested in them by organizations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=81355127320&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=81355127320&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jsr.2011.09.002

DO - 10.1016/j.jsr.2011.09.002

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 399

EP - 407

JO - Journal of Safety Research

JF - Journal of Safety Research

SN - 0022-4375

IS - 5

ER -