Important parallels can be made between the realist inquiry and the ergonomic approach, notably regarding the premise that stakeholders are regarded as key sources for eliciting mechanisms and providing data on how a program works (or how a given task needs to be done) in a given context. Within their intervention, ergonomists commonly use a specific type of reflexive interview, called “self-confrontation”, which allow participants to see themselves in action and explain the underlying cognitive processes, for instance, by discussing a recording of their work activity. This type of interview has been used as part of an evaluation to assess the implementation of four ergonomic interventions. In other words, as researchers we used an adaptation of the self-confrontation technique with ergonomists performing themselves an intervention, to understand their own strategies and the choices they made in consideration of the context of the organization in which they performed their intervention. The goal of this communication is thus to present how this type of interview could be used in a research process.
The case of an on-going evaluation of four complex ergonomic interventions will serve as an illustrative example. A logbook kept by the ergonomists was used as the recording of their work activity, as it offered a rich and in-depth description of every action performed, including activity type, duration and objectives, stakeholder(s) involved, results and decisions taken. In the research process, a compilation of each logbook was performed in preparation for the self-confrontation interviews. Quantitative data was used to generate charts and graphs to illustrate the different actions and stakeholders met by the ergonomist over time. During the individual interview, these charts and graphs were presented to the ergonomist to obtain explanations regarding the contextual factors which influenced his/her actions. Probes on contextual factors were formulated beforehand following the qualitative logbook compilation and by comparing charts and graphs with the other cases.
Each intervention evaluated took place in a different organization (A: food processing, B: pharmaceutical, C: manufacturing, D: transportation), was spread over 32 (case B) to 67 (D) days and involved between 96 (B) and 271 (D) different actions. Preliminary results indicate that several hypotheses regarding the contextual factors which influenced either specific actions or the intervention as a whole were validated in each interview. New mechanisms and contextual factors emerged. Examples of findings from each case will be provided. The logbook in itself is a reflexive tool, but our evaluation showed that its potential is maximised when an external reviewer interrogates the professional regarding the strategies put forward and decisions taken according to specific contextual factors, as they are not always readily apparent for professionals in action. Nevertheless, these contextual factors can neither be exclusively deduced by the reviewer based on the information contained in the logbook. Thus, our findings points out that the interaction between the reviewer and the professional, based on a concrete medium, in our case the charts and graphs representing the whole intervention or specific aspects of it, generates novel hypotheses on mechanisms and context.
Please select one of the following:: Realist evaluation , Please select a maximum of two themes from the following list:: Innovation in Realist Inqu , Please select a maximum of two themes from the following list:: Realist Methodology in Und