Introduction

Who belongs to The breadth of interest and issue covered by

ergonomics? An the term ergonomics has been expanded over
examination of the the last few decades to cover many areas, but
it has focused on those areas that can loosely
human factors be referred to as occupational health and
community safety. This has been as a result of increasing
legislation and regulation relating to health
and safety in the workplace, and the need to
Rabiul Ahasan and pay attention to protecting workers from
Daniel Imbeau work-related disorders. However, to regard
ergonomics as only relating to health and
safety would be to limit the effective work
done by ergonomists in areas such as usability
testing and design, or in efficiency and
The authors productivity improvement.
This blurring of the term ergonomics to
Rabiul Ahasan is a Research Associate and
cover an increasingly wide range of areas
Daniel Imbeau is a Full Professor, both in
means that it becomes increasingly difficult to
the Department of Industrial Engineering,
define the term, or to define the ``profession''.
Ecole de Polytechnique, Montreal, Canada.
The boundaries of that ``profession'' overlap
with those of a number of other specialisms
Keywords
such as engineering. This lack of professional
Ergonomics, Professions, Occupational health/safety focus and coherence means that some
practitioners may not achieve full professional
Abstract satisfaction; they suffer a feeling of isolation
from their peers.
Examines the nature of the evolving practice of
So ergonomists have a balancing act to
ergonomics and its aspirations to the status of profession.
perform. Do they take the time and effort to
Identifies some of the confusions and tensions that
refine and define the breadth and depth of
prevent more coherent development and clear promotion
activity and interest covered by the term
of ergonomics.
``ergonomics'' ± allowing them to more clearly
define support processes, education and
Electronic access
training routes, continuous professional
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is development paths, etc. Or do they allow
available at ergonomics to develop and evolve, much as at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister present, recognising that it will continue to
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is spread and remain unfocused. Is there really
available at no choice? Will the world simple take from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0043-8022.htm ergonomics whatever it needs as it needs it,
not caring about whether a ``profession'' exists
to protect and support the interests of
practitioners?
Ahasan and Benincasa (1999) cited
developing technology as a factor that both
promotes interest in ergonomics, but also
causes changes to the practice of ergonomics.
As ergonomists have to develop their
expertise to deal with changing issues and
problems, they pick up or develop knowledge
from wherever is appropriate. Thus, subjects
from psychology through sociology to
Work Study
medicine are appropriated to the
Volume 52 . Number 3 . 2003 . pp. 123-128
# MCB UP Limited . ISSN 0043-8022 development of the body of knowledge that
DOI 10.1108/00438020310471917 constitutes modern ergonomics. Little of this
123
 Who belongs to ergonomics?
Rabiul Ahasan and Daniel Imbeau
is planned; knowledge and expertise from
these subjects are simply absorbed as and
when required.
At the same time ± and perhaps because of
this evolutionary development ± the general
lay public has little understanding of what
constitutes ergonomics, or what an
ergonomist might do. Ergonomics does not
penetrate into general consciousness
(Graham, 1999).
Of course, there have been ± indeed are
± attempts to ``professionalise'' ergonomics.
The Board of Certification in Professional
Ergonomics (see www.bcpe.org) has
attempted to classify elements of the
``profession'' and its underpinning
educational requirements but others question
whether such a classification is possible in
such a wide area of activity.
One problem that arises from this general
lack of focus, and the lack of awareness in the
general world about what ergonomics is, is
that ergonomics often fails to be applied in
situations where:
. it is absolutely necessary or could make a
significant difference to effective design
or operational efficiency; and
. it could be easily applied.
It is becoming clear that if ergonomics is
having difficulty in establishing itself as a
coherent, clearly-defined set of professional
activities, it must be a multi-disciplinary
approach that cuts across a set of other
scientific and professional disciplines. The
corollary of this is also true. The field of
ergonomics is sometimes a battlefield (or at
least a sparring ring) between rival
professional groups who all want to partition
ergonomics and claim all or part of it for
themselves.
There are also overlaps between various
theories and methods lying within the broad
ergonomics domain. This is hardly surprising
when one considers the various backgrounds
and disciplines that comprise this
multi-disciplinary field. Because of the lack of
strong professional focus, there is often no
suitable forum for full and frank discussion,
and resolution of differences. Some of the
traditional attributes and values of
long-standing professional bodies (such as
prestige, honour and respect) are used to
confer appropriate status and develop
hierarchies which help to resolve disputes and
debates in structured and organised ways
124
Work Study
Volume 52 . Number 3 . 2003 . 123-128
± across different cultures and value sets.
Such routes are not often open to ergonomists
(Kohn et al., 1999). This is also self-fulfilling;
the situation fails to strengthen the
``profession''. A common ideology and
approach is not refined and promulgated.
Of course, the real problem with this
situation is not that the profession of
ergonomics fails to meet the needs of
ergonomists (for community, for
development, etc.) but that ergonomists may
fail to maximise their contribution to the
health, safety and well-being of others.
Axelsson (1994) identifies such a sub-set of
problems relating to human
factors/ergonomics in areas such as
developing quality performance, enhancing
productivity and improving economy. Similar
points have been made in a range of studies
(Ahasan 2001a, b; Chris, 1999; Gadd, 1999;
Eklund, 1997). Post (2001) argues that
ergonomics professionals should be motivated
fundamentally by a desire to make the world a
better place; it is therefore necessary to
identify and deploy mechanisms that will
generate systematic and continuous
improvement in the profession (Wallis, 2001;
Levine, 2001; Mahone, 2000; Toft et al.,
1999). Within this context, Hendrick (1995)
argues for some particular directions for the
development of macro-ergonomics. Similarly,
Griffith (1999) outlines some measures to be
taken for a successful future for the
profession.
Summarising the various approaches and
recommendations seems to suggest that
``maturity'' of the professions will be reached
when ergonomic principles are effectively
implemented in all appropriate
circumstances, and when responsibility,
accountability and transparency are key
attributes of the practice of ergonomics.
However, academic programmes leading to
initial accreditation or re-accreditation
following the guidelines of the International
Ergonomics Association or the Human
Factors & Ergonomics Association are not yet
in place. It is rare to find a leading curriculum
in ergonomics in either technical or
non-technical universities. Work-related
issues appear to be a ``step too far'' in the
translation of theory to practice for many
educational institutions.
This seems strange when one realises the
growth of legislation and regulation relating to
the workplace. In many cases, ergonomics
 Who belongs to ergonomics?
Rabiul Ahasan and Daniel Imbeau
issues are at the centre of conflict and
bargaining between employers and trades
unions.
There is a belief at large that ergonomics
interventions are costly, and when the
benefits are themselves ``fuzzy'', ergonomics
does not immediately seem to be ``good
value''.
Conjectures and contrasts within the
profession
Ergonomics is a relatively new area of study,
and, as we have seen, is the subject of ongoing
evolution and change. It is therefore not
surprising that there are sometimes tensions
between the different ``camps'' involved
within the broad spread that is modern
ergonomics. Industrial psychologists do not
always agree with user-interface designers.
Sometimes those practising from ``within''
ergonomics do not agree with those practising
from without, even though they use similar
approaches and expertise. Public health
officials, for example, may not consider
themselves to be ergonomists, whereas
occupation health experts may do so.
The broad spread of ergonomics raises
other problems. It is difficult for any one
``expert'' to cover all the necessary elements of
work, health and safety. Even within a subset
of this field, there may be differences ± and
tensions between those approaching from a
technical standpoint and those from a
personnel standpoint.
These tensions arise within the various
bodies that represent some part of the
ergonomics spectrum ± and there are many of
them. In turn, this means that those that wish
to engage with the profession have no clear
point of reference. The EU, for example, will
only work directly with European
organisations but these do not map on to or
coincide with the various national or
inter-national bodies. Again, this limits the
real effectiveness of ergonomics.
It is perhaps easy to write a paper extolling
ergonomics success stories (Shahnavaz, 1996)
but questions remain about the ability of the
profession to convince governments and
industries about the importance of
ergonomics to business success. Such
organisations and individuals continue to
regard ergonomics as a ``theoretical'' concept
with occasional practical application. When
125
Work Study
Volume 52 . Number 3 . 2003 . 123-128
did you last (ever?) see a paper on quality
enhancement that referred to ergonomics as a
contributing factor?
Yet there are debates currently ongoing
about very important issues such as the
quality of working life and work-life balance.
Ergonomics has a vital role to play in such
debates, yet is not often called to the podium.
It has been argued that the two most
important areas for the profession of
ergonomics are the analysis of job/task
content (Das, 1985) and the minimising of
work injuries. The profession must be seen to
balance economic and social benefit, its
concern for both business performance
improvement and the well-being of workers.
The role of the ergonomist is to ensure that
both are addressed, to facilitate discussion on
the inter-relationships of these two benefits
and to make it clear that they are inseparable.
It is this level of responsible disinterest that is
the hallmark of a true profession.
Public image
One of the important items on the agenda of
all the professional bodies and societies that
represent some part of the ergonomics
spectrum is the promotion of the profession to
the outside world. Public relations has not
been a strong point for the profession up to
now, but there is a growing realisation of its
importance and a steady stream of ideas is
being generated as to how it might be
accomplished. There is a need to establish the
capacity to react quickly to public relations
opportunities that emerge.
Here the broad spread of ergonomics is
both a help and a hindrance. It is a help in
that the number of opportunities is widened
by the very breadth of ergonomics activity;
ergonomists can react properly to situations
involving occupational health, operating
efficiency, user-interface design, product
usability, product safety, safety of working
practices, etc. However, the breadth also
means that it may be difficult to promote an
``ergonomics view'' since different
components of ergonomics may exhibit some
of the tensions and differences referred to
earlier. Of course, in public relations terms, it
might be more important to establish a rapid
response than a consensus view. There is
even, of course, the view that a controversial
view might generate more interest than a
 Who belongs to ergonomics?
Rabiul Ahasan and Daniel Imbeau
``bland'', consensual one. So ergonomics
needs a mechanism to delegate rapid response
authority.
Above and beyond particular initiatives
such as the improvement of the public
relations of the profession, the profession
needs a strategic development plan. This plan
should be clearly articulated and
well-promoted to provide a common focus
and direction for the members (and aspiring
members) of the profession. The plan must
represent a coherent, and preferably a
consensus, view, and must be reviewed over
time to keep it current.
The HFES/IEA is the main focus of current
debate on a ``strategy'' for the profession, and
in debating this it calls upon its friends in the
engineering, social sciences and other
overlapping professions. In addressing
forward planning, it must, of course, review
the structures that link together the many
disparate groups within the profession and the
societies involved. To outsiders, these look to
be complex and confusing but there may be
more rationality to this structure than meets
the eye. This perceived complexity means that
potential members may be inhibited from
joining because they fail to see immediate
logic in the structure and the resulting
activities. The various technical groups may
be seen as ``conservative'', protecting and
developing the current body of knowledge but
failing to recognise the essential
multi-disciplinary nature of much ergonomics
activity.
Some background research is necessary
before attempting to make too many changes
to the professional bodies that govern the
profession. There is a natural tendency to
suggest that ``things should be done'' and that
the structure of the profession should be
changed to reflect the growing pool of
interests that might ``belong to ergonomics''.
However, the stability of the current ```pool''
needs to be understood; it may be that the
breadth of interest has now stabilised and that
growth will come from increasing penetration.
Attempting to re-define the pool at such a
time might create more problems than it
solves (Chris, 1999).
In terms of raising the profile and increasing
the influence of the profession, this might be
better achieved by increasing the
power/influence base through international
co-operation and collaboration (Wilson,
1991; 1995).
126
Work Study
Volume 52 . Number 3 . 2003 . 123-128
Employment prospects of ergonomists
Ergonomists have the same personal desires
and drives as anyone else; they thus want
employment that is rewarding ± financially
and intellectually. They want to feel they are
carrying out useful work and making a
contribution to the society in which they live.
They know that such a contribution is
possible. Factors that seem to be important in
achieving satisfaction are the use of scientific
method and an opportunity to translate
theory into practical solutions. Additionally,
ergonomists need to be able to communicate
well using a variety of methods and media.
However, it is rare to see jobs advertised for
``ergonomists'' or even ``human factors
professionals'', with a specific requirement for
such abilities. There are opportunities but
they may be ``disguised'' or promoted in other
ways. The US National Research Council
panel has identified three specific
opportunities relating to:
(1) the design of human-equipment
interfaces;
(2) the preparation of product warnings; and
(3) performing reliability analyses.
The job market changes with the
advancement of technology and the increased
focus on human-computer interaction.
However, if the market for ergonomists is to
improve and increase, there needs to be a
better understanding in the business world of
what ergonomists do, and ergonomists need
to better explain the benefits that can accrue
to businesses from the practice of ergonomics.
In many countries, the majority of new jobs
are created by ``micro enterprises'' ± start up
firms and small to medium enterprises
(SMEs). SMEs are notoriously bad at taking
± and especially paying for ± advice, and so
consultancy work is not a viable proposition
within this segment. Neither, of course, is
full-time employment; these organisations
tend to employ generalists rather than
specialists. So the market for employment
tends to lie with larger, even multi-national
organisations, and with larger support (often
governmental) agencies. This may change as
the penalties associated with the infringement
of legislation and regulation relating to
health and safety increase to the point
where investment in prevention is seen as
being more cost effective than the risk of
high penalty.
 Who belongs to ergonomics?
Rabiul Ahasan and Daniel Imbeau
So mid-sized organizations may employ
mechanical engineers, process engineers and
other technical experts, who are seen as being
more directly concerned with the ``core
business''. If such an organization has the
need for some ``ergonomic intervention'' they
are likely to rely on the peripheral knowledge
of those existing experts.
The ``hidden'' nature of ergonomics as a
profession is shown by the fact that
ergonomics does not feature in the
immigration regulations/requirements for:
. Australia (www.immi.gov.au);
. New Zealand (www.new-zealand-
immigration.com/assessmain.htm); and
. Canada (www.canada.org.uk/visa-info).
Discussion
We have seen that the level of ergonomics
application and the level of general awareness
of ergonomics are low in many countries. Yet,
we have also seen that ergonomics has a lot to
offer in improving working practices, and the
health and safety of workers. Additionally, the
process of job change through the
introduction of ergonomic considerations has
been shown to lead both to improved job
content and to improved job satisfaction
(Das, 1985). Such positive feedback is
important both to convince industry of the
value of ergonomics and to ergonomists
themselves in terms of improving their
self-esteem and contributing to their
self-development. Industry, of course, looks
for ``hard-edged'' benefits; this requires
evidence to show that, for example,
ergonomic intervention reduces the cost
impact of work-related injury and illness, or
improves the quality of the finished product.
In this context, there are criteria against which
ergonomics may be judged. These include the
reduction of variability, support for just in
time practices, cost reductions and customer
benefits.
It is now time for the profession to promote
the practice of ergonomics in terms of both its
economic contribution and its social benefit.
In so doing, there are questions to be asked
about the relationship of the profession (and
practitioners within it) to employers,
managers, workers and communities. An
approach to professional development which
enables the participation of such groups may
127
Work Study
Volume 52 . Number 3 . 2003 . 123-128
be a contribution to a forward strategic plan
for the profession.
Ergonomics must develop at the level of
theory and at the level of practice. Both
empirical research and derivative principles
and practices for application must continue to
develop.
Protectionism should play no part in
professional development. It has been argued
that the profession should campaign for a
situation whereby ergonomics can only be
practised by those with appropriate levels of
certification. However, this would restrict and
constrain development ± and probably force
real practice into some of the overlapping
professions where such restriction does not
apply.
Incremental development of the profession
involves reactive as well as proactive
strategies. Thus there is a need to recognise
± in advance ± those situations that might
require a contribution from the profession ± so
that ``reaction'' is proactively managed.
Of course we first have to convince
ergonomists themselves to involve themselves
in their own professional development and in
the development of their profession. This is a
win-win situation. The more the profession is
enhanced, promoted and recognised, the
better will be the response of industry and
commerce to ergonomists as individuals.
Participation in development of the
profession by the members of the profession
will enhance their own motivation, improve
their skills, develop them as individuals, and
achieve the first aim of actually developing the
profession (Wilson, 1991; 1995).
Conclusion
The views of the profession of ergonomics
included in this paper are those of the authors
± though we have attempted to use references
from the literature to back up some of our
personal assertions. It is clear that there are
tensions and confusions ± such as the tension
between those who want to codify, clarify and
then effectively ``freeze'' the profession so that
it can be effectively promoted, and those that
see the necessity of recognising the evolution
that continues to change the profession, even
though this makes its promotion more
difficult. A debate is needed within the
profession to reconcile these differences and
determine effective ways forward. At the same
 Who belongs to ergonomics?
Rabiul Ahasan and Daniel Imbeau
time we need to enhance the dialogue with
members of overlapping professions, not in a
protectionist way but in a spirit of
co-operation and collaboration.
Important issues ± such as national and
regional health and safety policies ± should be
identified and targeted by ergonomics
professionals so that the genuine interests of
ergonomics are afforded attention by the
world at large.
Above all individuals practising within the
broad sphere of ergonomics must do so in
ways that demonstrate their commitment to
personal integrity and to personal
development, and demonstrate their
commitment to the profession of ergonomics
as a means of improving both business
performance and the well-being of workers.
Only then can ergonomics be considered a
true profession.
References
Ahasan, M.R. (2001a), ``Ergonomic research, education
and training ± is it a false promise for LDCs?'', in
Ray, G.G. and Ganguli, A.K. (Eds), Proceedings of
the International ErgoAsia Congress, Humanizing
Work and Work Environment, Indian Institute of
Technology, Bombay.
Ahasan, M.R. (2001b), ``Legacy on implementing industrial
health and safety in developing countries'', Journal
of Physiological Anthropology, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 311-19.
Axelsson, J. (1994), ``Ergonomic aspects on design and
quality'', Proceedings of the 12th Triennial Congress
of the International Ergonomics Association,
IEA Press, Vol. 4, pp. 18-21.
Ahasan, M.R. and Benincasa, T. (1999), ``Technology,
society and human factors'', in Straker, L., Pullock,
S. and Smith, R. (Eds), Second Cyber Conference on
Ergonomics, Virtual Proceedings, available at:
http://cyberg.curtin.edu.au/program.shtml
Chris, J.J. (1999), ``The future of ergonomics and
everything!'', in Straker, L., Pullock, S. and Smith, R.
(Eds), Second Cyber Conference on Ergonomics,
Virtual Proceedings, available at:
http://cyberg.curtin.edu.au/program.shtml
128
Work Study
Volume 52 . Number 3 . 2003 . 123-128
Das, B. (1985), ``The impact of combining performance
standard and feedback on productivity and
satisfaction'', in Brown, I.D., Goldsmith, R.,
Coombes, K. and Sinclair, M. (Eds), Ergonomics
International, Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 247-9.
Eklund, J. (1997), ``Ergonomics, quality and continuous
improvement ± conceptual and empirical
relationship in industrial context'', Ergonomics,
Vol. 40 No. 10, pp. 982-1001.
Gadd, J. (1999), ``Who's got the jobs from hell?'',
The Globe and Mail (Canada), 13 January.
Graham, S. (1999), ``Ergonomics around the world: sorting
it all out, Safety + Health, February, pp. 40-5.
Griffith, D. (1999), ``Human factors/ergonomics: some
suggestions for a successful future'', in Straker, L.,
Pullock, S. and Smith, R. (Eds), Second Cyber
Conference on Ergonomics, Virtual Proceedings,
available at: http://cyberg.curtin.edu.au/
program.shtml
Hendrick, H.W. (1995), ``Future directions in
macro-ergonomics'', Ergonomics, Vol. 38,
pp. 1617-24.
Kohn, L.T., Corrigan, J.M. and Donaldson, M.S. (1999),
To Err Is Human: Building A Safer Health System,
National Academy Press, Washington, DC,
pp. 140-9.
Levine, S.P. (2001), ``The most important things for the
profession'', The Synergist, Vol. 12 No. 9, pp. 29-39.
Mahone, D.B. (2000), ``We, ergonomists'', Ergonomics in
Design, Vol. 40 No. 40.
Post, D.L. (2001), ``Another day of infamy'', Human Factors
& Ergonomics Society Bulletin, Vol. 44 No. 10,
pp. 1-3
Shahnavaz, H. (1996), ``Making ergonomics a world-wide
concept: the ergonomics society lecture 1995'',
Ergonomics, Vol. 39 No. 12, pp. 1391-403.
Toft, Y., Jorgensen, D. and Howard, P. (1999), ``Human
centred engineers: a model for holistic
interdisciplinary communication and professional
practice'', in Straker, L., Pullock, S. and Smith, R.
(Eds), Second Cyber Conference on Ergonomics,
Virtual Proceedings, available at:
http://cyberg.curtin.edu.au/program.shtml
Wallis, G. (2001), ``Turning our backs on our most
effective ally'', The Synergist, September.
Wilson, J.R. (1991), ``Participation ± a framework and
foundation for ergonomics?'', Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 67-80.
Wilson, J.R. (1995), ``Ergonomics and participation'', in
Wilson, J.R. and Corbett, E.N. (Eds), Evaluation of
Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics Methodology,
2nd ed., Taylor & Francis, London.