Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-htx7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-08T08:23:29.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inclusion Through Action: A Participatory Approach to Return-to-Work Policy Change Processes in Organisations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2013

U. Gensby  and
M. Husted
U. Gensby*
Affiliation:
Roskilde University, Denmark International Research Institute of Stavanger, Norway
M. Husted
Affiliation:
Roskilde University, Denmark
*
Address for correspondence: Ulrik Gensby, PhD fellow, Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, Building 08.2, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark. E-mail: ugensby@ruc.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many organisations strive to make disability management (DM) responses to prevent work disability and promote return-to-work (RTW). However, a deeper appreciation of methods that can ensure equitable worker participation in the development and change of RTW policy and practice is needed. Using an action research approach, this study expands the concept of participation in disability management (DM) creating new insights into the resources, dilemmas and aspirations of RTW policies in organisations. Empirical data was gathered from a development and change process conducted together with managers and workers at a large health care workplace. A series of workshops were conducted, studying the common history of RTW policy evolvement and configuration, and encouraging the creation of worker-driven proposals for alternative actions to current management. Action research protocols were used to document knowledge creation. Analysis of action research processes reveals how workers insisted on discussing their work environment as an important factor for maintenance of RTW, and how consistent participatory possibilities and team oriented RTW coordination among all levels of the organisation are perceived as critical features for supportive and sustained job retention. Participatory processes created relevant knowledge of the importance of work environments in coordination of stay at work, which may strengthen RTW capacity building and advance DM in organisations.

Keywords

disability managementreturn-to-work policyaction researchorganisational change

Information

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Disability Management , Volume 8 , 2013 , e4
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Australian Academic Press Pty Ltd 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akabas, S.H., Gates, L.B., & Galvin, D.E. (1992). Disability Management: A complete system to reduce costs, increase productivity, meet employee needs, and ensure legal compliance. New York, NY: American Management Association.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1996). Making sense of management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Amick, B.C. 3rd., Habeck, R.V., Hunt, A., Fossel, A.H., Chapin, A., Keller, R.B., & Katz, J.N. (2000). Measuring the impact of organizational behaviors on work disability prevention and management. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 10 (1)21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annett, M. (2008). Disability management in organizations: Antecedents and consequences of programs and manager behaviours. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta).Google Scholar
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II – theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41 (6)977–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunstan, D., & MacEachen, E. (2012). Bearing the brunt: Co-workers experiences of injury management and early return to work policy. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation [Published online] 1–11.Google Scholar
Franche, R.L., Baril, R., Shaw, W., Nicholas, M., & Loisel, P. (2005). Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15 (4), 525–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gensby, U. (in press). Assessing the present in perspective of the past — Experiences from a chronicle workshop on company level work disability management. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies.Google Scholar
Gensby, U., Labriola, M., Irvin, E., Amick, B.C. 3rd. & Lund, M. (2013). A classification of components around workplace disability management programs — a systematic review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
Greenwood, D.J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research — social research for social change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzman, J., Yassi, A., Baril, R., & Loisel, P. (2008). Decreasing occupational injury and disability: The convergence of systems theory, knowledge transfer and action research. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 30, 229–239.Google ScholarPubMed
Habeck, R.V., & Hunt, A.H. (1999). Disability management perspectives – developing accommodating work environments through disability management. American Rehabilitation, 25 (1), 18–25.Google Scholar
Habeck, R.V, Scully, S.M., Hunt, H.A., & VanTol, B. (1998). Successful employer strategies for preventing and managing disability. Rehabilitation counseling bulletin. 42 (2)144–161.Google Scholar
Heller, F., Pusic, E., Strauss, G., & Wilpert, B. (1998). Organizational participation — myth and reality. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunt, A.H., & Habeck, R.V. (1993). The Michigan disability prevention study — research highlights (pp. 93–18). Upjohn Institute working paper.Google Scholar
Husted, M., & Tofteng, D. (2010). Theatre and action research: How drama can empower action research processes in the field of unemployment. Action Research, 9 (1)27–41.Google Scholar
Hvid, H., & Hasle, P. (Eds.). (2003). Human development and working life. Work for welfare. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Jungk, R., & Müllert, N. (1996). Future workshops: How to create desirable futures. London, England: Institute for Social Inventions.Google Scholar
Kirsh, B., & McKee, P. (2003). The needs and experiences of injured workers: a participatory research study. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 21 (3), 221–231.Google ScholarPubMed
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. In Lewin, G.W. (Ed.) Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science. London, England: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Limborg, H., & Hvenegaard, H. (2010). The chronicle workshop: The use of narratives to reveal the story of a work community and understand its culture. In Rasmussen, L. (Ed.) Facilitating change: using interactive methods in organizations, communities and networks. Lyngby, Denmark: Polyteknisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Loisel, P., Buchbinder, R., Hazard, R., Keller, R., Scheel, I., van Tulder, M., & Webster, B. (2005). Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: The challenge of implementing evidence. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15, 507–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAnaney, D., & Williams, B. (2010). Internalizing disability management: Using action research to explore organisational change processes. International Journal of Disability Management, 5 (2), 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacEachen, E., Clarke, J., Franche, R.L., & Irvin, E. (2006). Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return-to-work after injury. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 32 (4), 257–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, K.Å., & Svensson, L. (Eds.). (2006). Action and interactive research — beyond practice and theory. Maastricht, the Netherlands: Shaker Publishing BV.Google Scholar
Nielsen, K.Å, & Nielsen, B.S. (2006). Methodologies in action research — Action research and critical theory. In , K.Å. Nielsen & Svensson, L. (Eds.) Action and interactive research — beyond practice and theory. Maastricht, the Netherlands: Shaker Publishing BV.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Olsén, P., Nielsen, K.Å., & Nielsen, B.S. (1993). Industrial work, instrumentalism, learning processes: An old debate in a utopian perspective. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 14, 487–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasmore, W. (2010). Action research in the workplace: The socio-technical perspective. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) The handbook of action research: Concise paperback edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (2001). Toward common ground and action on repetitive strain injuries: An assessment of a future search conference. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37 (4), 465–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M., & Cole, D. (2003). Stakeholder engagement in the control of repetitive strain injury. In Sullivan, T. & J, J. Frank (Eds.), Preventing and managing disabling injury at work. London, England: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M., McIntosh, T., & Kosny, A. (2005). Understanding and improving the health of workers in the new economy: A call for a participatory dialogue-based approach to work-health research. Critical Public Health, 15 (2)103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pransky, G., Gatchel, R., Linton, S.J., & Loisel, P. (2005). Improving return-to-work research. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15 (4)453–474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Randall, C., & Buys, N. (2011). Using action research methods to develop effective disability management programs. In , T. Geisen & H. Harder (Eds.). Disability management and workplace integration — International research findings. Burlington, VT: Gower Applied Research.Google Scholar
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2010). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In , P. Reason & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) The handbook of action research: Concise paperback edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Reason, P., & McArdle, K.T. (2008). Action research and organizational development. In Cummings, T.C. (Ed.) Handbook of organization development. London, England. Sage.Google Scholar
Reed, M.I. (2009). Critical realism in critical management studies. In Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T., & Willmott, H. (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of critical management studies. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, L., & Lindsay, R. (2008). Renewing focus and building capacity for enacting authentic collaboration in work rehabilitation. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 30, 215–218.Google ScholarPubMed
Schein, E.H. (1996). Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Systems Practice, 9 (1)27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrey, D.E. (1996). Disability management in industry: the new paradigm in injured worker rehabilitation. Disability & Rehabilitation, 18, 408–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrey, D.E., Hursh, N., Gallina, P., Slinn, S., & White, A. (2006). Disability management best practices and joint labor-management collaboration. International Journal of Disability Management, 1 (1), 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrey, D.E., & Lacerte, M. (Eds.). (1995). Principles and practices of disability management in industry. London, England. GR Press.Google Scholar
Svensson, L., Eklund, J., Randle, H., Aronsson, G. (2007). Interactive research — an attempt to analyze change programs. International Journal of Action Research, 3 (3)250–277.Google Scholar
Svensson, L., Ellstrøm, P.E., Brulin, G. (2007). Introduction — on interactive research. International Journal of Action Research, 3 (3)233–249.Google Scholar
Tjulin, Å., Stiwne, E.E., Ekberg, K. (2009). Experience of the implementation of a multi-stakeholder return to work programme. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19 (4), 409–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tjulin, Å., MacEachen, E., Ekberg, K. (2010) Exploring workplace actors experiences of the social organization of return to work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20 (3)311–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walters, V., & Haines, T. (1988). Workers use and knowledge of the internal responsibility system: limits to participation in occupational health and safety. Canadian Public Policy, 14 (4), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westlander, G. (2006). Researcher roles in action research. In Nielsen, K.Å. & , L. Svensson (Eds.). Action and interactive Research — beyond practice and theory. Maastricht, the Netherlands: Shaker Publishing BV.Google Scholar