Department of Safety, Health and Environmental Engineering, HungKuang University, 34 Chung-Chie Road, Shalu District, Taichung City, 43302, Taiwan, R.O.C.
J Safety Res. 2011 Oct;42(5):399-407. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2011.09.002. Epub 2011 Oct 6.
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.
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.
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.
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.
在制定安全课程时，必须考虑内部和外部成员的观点。本研究讨论了安全教育者（SE）和安全专业人员（SP）对 SP 功能的感知差异。研究结果将为确定 SP 的核心安全能力和开发安全课程提供参考框架。
248 名受访者，包括 SE 和 SP，完成了自我管理问卷，其中包括 45 项安全功能量表（SFS）。使用探索性因素分析（EFA）从量表中提取了 9 个因素，分别为检查和研究、监管任务、应急程序和损害解决、管理和财务事务、文化变革、问题识别和分析、制定和实施解决方案、知识管理以及培训和沟通。
描述性统计结果表明，SP 和 SE 对安全功能频率的排名有不同的看法。MANOVA 结果表明，SP 对制定和实施解决方案、培训和沟通、检查和研究以及管理和财务事务的看法明显高于 SE。另一方面，SE 对参与监管任务的看法明显高于 SP。基于这些结果，作者建议在大学和行业之间建立明确的沟通渠道，以缩小 SE 和 SP 之间的看法差距。
研究结果在统计和实践上都具有重要意义。除了为安全课程的开发提供参考外，研究结果还有利于确定 SP 的角色和职能。最终，开发更适合的安全课程将为安全相关专业的毕业生开辟就业竞争。另一方面，SP 可以正确认识自己的角色和职能，从而实现组织对他们的安全期望。
