Major Factors Influencing Safety Communication of Construction Field Workers = 건설 현장 근로자 간의 안전 커뮤니케이션에 영향을 미치는 주요 요인|RISS 상세보기

국문 초록 (Abstract)

건설업은 다른 산업에 비해 산업재해 발생률이 높은 것으로 알려져 있다. 따라서 건설 현장 근로자 간의 안전 커뮤니케이션은 산업재해를 예방하는 데 매우 중요하다. 건설 현장은 역동적이고 끊임없이 변화하는 환경으로, 잦은 조정과 일시적인 공사 기간이 특징이다. 따라서 건설 작업은 근로자가 끊임없이 변화하는 현장과 위험요소 속에서 작업을 수행해야 하므로 다른 산업 분야의 작업보다 더 위험하다. 이처럼 급변하는 작업 환경에서는 건설 현장 근로자 간 안전 커뮤니케이션이 필수적이며, 이를 통해 근로자가 동료로부터 위험 및 안전 정보를 전달받아 위험요소들과 위험을 즉시 인지할 수 있어야 한다.
안전 관리자 및 경영진이 제공하는 안전 교육 등 공식적인 안전 관련 정보도 중요하지만, 함께 일하는 동료는 작업 현장에서 가장 가깝고 안정적인 단위이기 때문에 안전 지식 및 정보의 전달에 있어서 더욱 효율이 높다. 따라서 작업그룹 내 근로자들 간의 안전 커뮤니케이션은 산업재해 예방에 큰 영향을 미친다.
기존 연구에서는 건설 안전 커뮤니케이션이 안전 행동, 안전 성과, 안전 분위기 등 개념에 미치는 긍정적인 영향에 대해 잘 파악되어 있다. 그러나 안전 커뮤니케이션을 개선하는 데에 영향을 미치는 요인 파악에 초점을 맞춘 연구는 거의 없으며, 수행된 선행 연구들의 상당수가 건설 현장의 다양한 직급과 직무를 가진 근로자 간 등 폭넓은 수준의 커뮤니케이션을 조사했다. 반면 본 연구는 건설 안전 커뮤니케이션의 범위를 좁혀 건설 현장의 작업그룹 내 근로자 간 커뮤니케이션에 초점을 맞춘다.
본 연구에서 건설현장 근로자 간의 안전 커뮤니케이션을 개선하는 데에 영향을 미치는 주요 요인을 파악하는 것이 첫번째 목표이다. 파악된 주요 요인들이 언어 장벽 등으로 소통에 취약한 외국인 건설현장 근로자 집단의 경우 어떤 차이가 있는지를 확인하는 것이 본 연구의 두번째 목표이다.
본 연구는 건설근로자 간의 안전 커뮤니케이션에 영향을 미치는 주요 요인들을 구체적으로 파악하기 위해 건설현장에서 육체노동 업무를 수행하는 건설 현장 근로자를 대상으로, 언어적 소통에 문제없는 일반 근로자와 언어적 장벽이 있는 외국인 근로자로 연구대상을 구분하여 연구를 진행하였다. 먼저 체계적인 문헌 검토를 통해 안전 커뮤니케이션에 영향을 미치는 4가지의 주요 요인을 선정했다. 다음 이론적 고찰 결과와 선정된 요인들을 기반으로 연구모형 구축 및 연구 가설을 세웠으며 데이터는 설문조사와 반구조화 인터뷰를 통해 수집했다. 안전 커뮤니케이션에 영향을 미치는 요인을 파악하기 위해 소셜 네트워크 분석과 구조방정식 모델링 방법론을 활용했다. 추출된 주요 요인들이 언어적 장벽이 있는 외국인 건설현장 근로자에게 어떤 영향을 주는지 현상학적 질적 연구를 통해 확인하여 요인들의 차이를 파악했다. 소통 취약자인 외국인 근로자 집단의 경우 안전 커뮤니케이션에 영향을 미치는 요인들이 일반 근로자보다 요인별 특성 차이가 있었으며 분석적 계층구조 프로세스를 통해 추가된 요인들을 비교함으로써 건설현장 근로자들에게 영향을 미치는 주요 요인들이 구체적으로 파악되었다.

번역하기

건설업은 다른 산업에 비해 산업재해 발생률이 높은 것으로 알려져 있다. 따라서 건설 현장 근로자 간의 안전 커뮤니케이션은 산업재해를 예방하는 데 매우 중요하다. 건설 현장은 역동적이...

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Major Factors Influencing Safety Communication of Construction Field Workers Saruul Ishdorj Department of Architecture & Architectural Engineering The Graduate School Seoul National University The construction industry is known to have a higher rate of occupational injuries compared to many other industries. Therefore, safety communication among construction field workers (CFWs) in construction work crew is crucial in preventing occupational accidents. Construction sites are dynamic and ever-changing environments, characterized by frequent adjustments and temporary durations. This makes construction work more hazardous than work in other industries, as workers must contend with constantly changing conditions and risks. In such a fast-paced environment, safety communication within work crews is essential for ensuring that CFWs are immediately aware of hazards and safety information from their crewmates. While safety training and safety-related information from safety managers and leaderships are important, coworkers who work together are the closest and most stable unit on the job site. Therefore, safety communication between CFWs within a crew has a significant impact on preventing industrial accidents. Previous researches have well-established the positive impact of safety communication on safety behavior, performance, and climate. However, few studies have focused on identifying factors that improve safety communication, and those that have been conducted have examined communication among workers in various position levels and job roles across construction sites. This study narrows the scope of safety communication to focus specifically on worker-to-worker communication within work crews on construction sites. The main objective of this research is to identify the core factors that influence the improvement of safety communication among CFWs. The secondary objective of this study is to determine whether the identified factors differ for a population of foreign construction field workers (FCFWs) who are vulnerable to communication due to language barriers. In order to specifically identify the core factors affecting safety communication among the workers, this study was conducted on workers performing physical labor at construction sites, dividing the study population into general workers without language communication problems and foreign workers with language barriers. First, a systematic literature review was conducted to select four potential major factors that influence safety communication. Then, based on the results of the theoretical review and the selected factors, a research model was constructed and research hypotheses were formulated, and data were collected through surveys and semi-structured interviews. Social network analysis and structural equation modeling methodologies were used to identify factors influencing the safety communication. A phenomenological qualitative study was conducted to determine whether the core factors identified were the same or different for FCFWs, and to identify differences in the factors. The factors were found to have different characteristics in the case of FCFWs with communication vulnerabilities than in the population of CFWs, and the major factors were specifically identified by comparing the factors added through the analytical hierarchy process.

번역하기

목차 (Table of Contents)

ABSTRACT
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 18

ABSTRACT
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 18
1.1 Research Background 18
1.1.1 Importance of Enhancing Worker-to-Worker Construction Safety
Communication 18
1.1.2 Necessity of Identifying Differences in Factors Influencing Safety
Communication 22
1.1.2.1 Foreign Workforce in the Construction Industry . 22
1.1.2.2 FCFWs: Vulnerable to Communication and Occupational
Accidents 23
1.2 Problem Description . 27
1.3 Research Objectives and Scope . 28
1.4 Dissertation Outline 31
CHAPTER 2. PRELIMINARY RESEARCH 34
& KNOWLEDGE GAP 34
2.1 Overview of Communication and Safety Communication 34
2.1.1 Communication Theory . 34
2.1.2 Theoretical Models of Communication. 35
2.2 Safety Communication in the Construction Industry. 37
2.2.1 Tacit and Explicit Construction Safety Knowledge. 38
2.2.2 Modes and Levels of Construction Safety Communication 39
2.2.1.1 Formal Safety Communication . 39
2.2.1.2 Informal Safety Communication 41
2.2.1.3 Levels of Construction Safety Communication 41
2.3 Gaps in Current Knowledge 43
2.3.1 Factors Influencing Safety Communication*43
2.3.2 Differences in Influential Factors of Safety Communication . 45
2.4 Summary 47
CHAPTER 3. THEORETICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 48
3.1 Theoretical Background 48
3.1.1 Key Theories on Human Behavior and Decision-Making 48
3.1.2 Operationalizing the TRA: Constructing a Theoretical Framework 51
3.1.3 Extension of TRA: Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) 53
3.2 Selection of Major Factors Influencing Worker-to-Worker Safety
Communication 55
3.2.1 Overview of the Systematic Literature Review Process 55
3.2.2 Results of the Literature Review: Major Influential Factors 56
3.3 Development of Research Model and Hypotheses* 53
3.3.1 Relationships between Latent Variables 53
3.3.2 Structure of Research Model and Formulation of Hypotheses 54
3.4 Summary . 53
CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . 54
4.1 Research Framework 54
4.2 Research Methods . 53
4.2.1 Questionnaire Survey 53
4.2.1.1 Development of Measurement Tools . 55
4.2.1.2 Data Ethics 71
4.2.2 Semi-structured Interviews 71
4.3 Statistical Data Analysis Methods 74
4.3.1 Descriptive analysis . 74
4.3.2 Social Network Analysis* 75
4.3.3 Structural Equation Modeling and Path Analysis . 77
4.3.3.1 Reliability Analysis . 78
4.3.3.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 80
4.3.3.3 Model Fit Assessment 81
4.4 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) . 82
4.4.1 Pairwise Comparison 83
4.4.2 Consistency Ratio . 84
4.4.3 Aggregation of Local and Global Weights . 85
4.5 Summary . 86
CHAPTER 5. IDENTIFYING MAJOR FACTORS INFLUENCING
SAFETY COMMUNICATION 87
5.1 Results of Descriptive Analysis 88
5.2 Reliability and Validation . 90
5.2.1 Verification of Reliability . 90
5.2.2 Discriminant Validation . 91
5.2.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) . 92
5.3 Results of Path Analysis and Hypothesis Testing 93
5.4 Summary . 90
CHAPTER 6. IDENTIFYING DIFFERENCES IN THE FACTORS
INFLUENCING SAFETY COMMUNICATION OF FCFWS . 92
6.1 Overview of Factors Variance Identification Process . 92
6.2 Reliability Test: Analytic Hierarchy Process . 102
6.2.1 Hierarchy Structure of Influential Factors . 102
6.2.2 Results of Multi-attribute Analysis 104
6.2.2.1 Pairwise Comparison of The Factors 104
6.2.2.2 Consistency Analysis 106
6.2.2.3 Aggregation of Factor Weights 108
6.3 Summary 110
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS 111
7.1 Discussions 111
7.1.1 Major Influencing Factors for Enhancing Safety Communication*
. 111
7.1.2 Differences in the Factors Influencing Safety Communication of
FCFWs . 113
7.2 Contributions . 116
7.3 Limitations and Future Research . 119
BIBLIOGRAPHY . 120
LIST OF APPENDICES 134
국 문 초 록 . 149

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. The logic of tacit inference, Polanyi, M., 41(155), 1-18. doi:https://doi. org/10.1017/S0031819100066110, , 1966

2. The theory of reasoned action, Hale, J. L., Householder, B. J., & Greene, K. L., 14(2002), 259-286, , 2002

3. The theory of planned behavior, Ajzen, I, 50(2), 179-211. doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T, , 1991

4. 'Analysis of industrial accident status, KOSHA, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency, , 2020

5. A social influence model of technology use, Steinfield, C. W., Schmitz, J., Fulk, J., 117, 140. doi:10.4135/9781483325385. n6, , 1990

6. Social Identity Theory and the Organization, Ashforth, B. E., Mael, F., 14(1), 20-39. doi:https://doi. org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999, , 1989

7. A Reasoned Action Approach to Health Promotion, Fishbein, M., 28(6), 834-844. doi:10.1177/0272989X08326092, , 2008

8. Explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge sharing., Chen, G. L., Yang, S. C., Ling, W. Y., Wu, W. C., Tang, S. M. and, 2011 Int. Conf. on Management and Service Science (MASS), IEEE, New York, 1–4, , 2011

9. Knowledge sharing behaviour and its predictors., Tohidinia, Z. and, M. Mosakhani, 110 (4): 611–631. https://doi. org/10.1108/02635571011039052, , 2010

10. Social construction of communication technology, Fulk, J., 36(5), 921-950. doi:https://doi. org/10.5465/256641, , 1993