Tertiary education in ergonomics and human factors: quo vadis?

The barriers and opportunities to support the early career academics and professionals in human factors/ergonomics - revisiting reflections from IEA2015, IEA2018 & IEA2021

BACKGROUND: The Early-Career Community (ECC) comprises researchers, practitioners, and professionals in their “early-career” stages in the Human Factors/Ergonomics (HFE) profession. Early-career HFE professionals are essential to both current industry decision making and future growth of our profession. OBJECTIVE: This paper provides detailed insights into the barriers and suggestions to support engagement with ECC within the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) and its Federated Societies. METHODS: This report integrates key findings from the formal and informal discussions that occurred with diverse groups of stakeholders (n > 100) at IEA2015, IEA2018 and IEA2021 guided by the participatory inquiry paradigm, cooperative action-inquiry and participatory ergonomics approaches. RESULTS: Barriers to support ECC include: a lack of employment opportunities, poor general awareness and integration of HFE in existing university-courses, financial constraints, inclusivity challenges and a lack of Influence in decision-making. While some of the more systemic challenges are context-specific and cannot be overcome, ECCs suggested that: the IEA and its Federated Societies include ECC members as part of their boards; a Standing Committee for the ECCs be established as part of the IEA; make use of social-media more effectively to engage the ECC. More mentorship, networking, knowledge sharing, training and education, combined with financial-support will ensure that the ECC can participate. CONCLUSION: ECC members experience complex and dynamic challenges that affect their development and involvement in the broader HFE profession. It is therefore critical that appropriate, global, national and local strategies are developed to continue to support and develop the ECC to ensure the continued growth of and demand for HFE.

The problem with "ergonomics injuries": What can ergonomists do?

Effects of psychosocial hazards on risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are often very substantial, but workplace risk management practices focus largely on biomechanical hazards, as do the risk assessment methods used by ergonomists. Translation of research evidence into more effective workplace practices demands a more holistic risk management framework that encompasses both types of hazard. In this context, we evaluate the validity of different MSD risk assessment methods for different purposes, focusing particularly on requirements for routine workplace risk management. These include choice of fit-for-purpose assessment methods, prioritisation of hazards that are most affecting risk, and control actions as high as possible in the risk control hierarchy. Ergonomists could facilitate more effective workplace risk management by promoting: awareness of the need for change; improvements to guidance from OHS regulators; research on MSD-related workplace management issues; and professional development programs on this topic for ergonomists and other OHS practitioners.

Using cognitive work analysis to identify competencies for human factors and ergonomics practitioners

While several competency frameworks have been proposed for Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) practitioners, these are not commonly based on structured analyses. The aim of this research was to develop a sociotechnical systems model of the HFE practitioner role in Australia and identify the competencies required to fulfil the role. Study One applied the Work Domain Analysis phase of cognitive work analysis (CWA) to model the HFE practitioner role. Model refinement was undertaken with seven subject matter experts. In Study Two, the model was used to elicit the competencies (knowledge, skills, abilities, other characteristics) required for successful performance, via a survey of 28 HFE practitioners. Most competencies related to skills (i.e. communication skills) and knowledge (i.e. domain knowledge). Gaps in competencies were also identified, linked to a lack of HFE education pathways in Australia. The findings have practical utility for designing HFE practitioner roles and educational programs. Practitioner summary: Cognitive work analysis provided a structured analysis of the role of the Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) practitioner and to support the identification of competencies. The results suggest that HFE practitioners are generalists rather than specialists and have implications for the job design and education of HFE practitioners. Abbreviations: BCPE: board of certification in professional ergonomics; CIEHF: chartered institute of ergonomics and human factors; CWA: cognitive work analysis; HFE: human factors and ergonomics; HFESA: human factors and ergonomics society of Australia; IEA: International Ergonomics Association; KSAO: knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics; O*NET: occupation information network; SME: subject matter expert; SRK: skills, rules, knowledge; UK: United Kingdom; USA: United States of America; WDA: work domain analysis.