| Summary: | The construction industry produces a high rate of accident statistics. Constructors are exposed to a range of construction hazards and risks which manifest themselves in accidents and lead to a high incidence of illnesses, injuries and fatalities. Despite evidence that up to 50 percent of construction accidents can be avoided through mitigation of hazards and risks in the design phase of construction projects, architectural designers do not adequately engage in designing for construction health, safety, and ergonomics. The research localises the problem in the context of South Africa and sets out to develop an architectural design oriented model toward a reduction of construction hazards and risks, which can be engendered through optimisation of tertiary architectural education and through continuing professional development (CPD) programmes. The ultimate aim is to realise a paradigm shift in architectural design relative to construction health, safety, and ergonomics as architectural designers in South Africa still view it as the constructor’s responsibility. The research intertwined a range of secondary data with four provisional studies undertaken in the Eastern Cape Province considered representative of South Africa. This involved both quantitative and qualitative methodologies and were directed at architectural designers registered with the South African Council for the Architectural Profession (SACAP). The provisional studies were published in international conference proceedings and served to gradually provide local insight, and ultimately provided a line of structured questions for use in the main study. The main study was positioned in the action research (AR) paradigm and used focus group (FG) methodology to solicit a vast richness of qualitative data from SACAP registered architectural designers who participated in the FG proceedings. Synthesis of data with literature and the provisional studies gave rise to a provisional model comprising six main model components and a range of sub-components. The provisional model was validated and refined while simultaneously testing the research hypotheses by means of questionnaires directed at the SACAP registered FG participants. The evolved model includes a core model embedded in a greater process model, and implementation and use of the core model relies on appropriate knowledge of architectural designers. It is ultimately recommended that tertiary architectural education institutions and those involved in architectural CPD programmes take ‘upstream design ownership’ and use the model as a basis for designing and implementing appropriate tertiary architectural programmes and architectural CPD offerings. Ultimately the model is not considered as a complete means to an end, and further investigation is needed in order to design and implement the recommended programmes. Only then can we begin to realise a paradigm shift in architectural thinking and practice.
|
|---|
