A gender perspective on work-related accidents Sune Qvotrup Jensen a,⇑ , Morten Kyed a , Ann-Dorte Christensen a , Lotte Bloksgaard b , Claus D. Hansen a , Kent Jacob Nielsen c a Department of Sociology and Social Work, Aalborg University, Kroghstraede 5, DK-9220 Aalborg East, Denmark b Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, Kroghstraede 3, DK-9220 Aalborg East, Denmark c Department of Occupational Medicine, Regional Hospital Herning, Gl.Landevej 61, DK-7400 Herning, Denmark article info Article history: Received 12 December 2012 Received in revised form 18 November 2013 Accepted 15 December 2013 Available online 20 January 2014 Keywords: Gender Masculinity Safety Accidents Organizations abstract The key argument in the article is that a perspective on gender and masculinity could be beneficial to safety research. The aim is to outline a theoretical framework for combining gender research and safety research. In the first part of the article four strands of gender and masculinity theory relevant to safety researchers are introduced: The first position outlined is the theory of hegemonic masculinity which highlights the privileged position of men who represent dominant and legitimate form of masculinity. The next two positions outlined represent a classic distinction in gender theory between an approach conceptualizing gender as a relatively stable category and an approach underlining that gender is con- stantly produced and reproduced. Finally the notion of intersectionality which emphasizes the mutual interaction between different categories such as gender, class, age, and ethnicity is outlined. The second part of the article re-interprets two examples of existing outstanding safety research which have all been published in Safety Science. The two contributions are re-interpreted through a gender lens illustrating how gender and masculinity perspectives can be crucial for understandings of safety and the practices that lead to work-related accidents. The article concludes that the gender perspective is useful to expand the knowledge about safety and work-accidents in relation to for instance pride and bodily strength as well as the struggles between different masculinities. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Over the last 30 years, a promising ‘cultural turn’ in safety research 1 has brought social context, interaction and practice to the fore (Gherardi et al., 1998a,b; Gherardi, 2006; Gherardi and Nic- olini, 2000a,b; Baarts, 2009; Haukelid, 2008; Knudsen, 2009; Richter and Koch, 2004). Yet some aspects of culture seem to be under the- orized. Gender is one such aspect. This article suggests that gender and in particular masculinity could be considered central concerns for the further development of safety research. The relevance of gender in this research field is illustrated by the fact that more men than women die or are severely injured in work-related accidents. For instance, in the period 2006–2011, men accounted for 93% of all fatal occupational accidents in Den- mark even though men only make up 52% of the work force. In addition, the incidence rate ratio of serious accidents at work was 1.72 in disfavor of men (Arbejdstilsynet, 2012). The same tendency is found on the average European level where ‘men ac- count for 95% of fatal accidents and 76% of non-fatal accidents in the workplace’ (Oortwijn et al., 2011). Admittedly there are prob- lems in comparisons of men’s and women’s accident ratios: Gen- der-segregated labor markets rarely allow for all-other-things- being-equal type comparisons and some official statistics only al- low for comparison on a crude aggregate level (Taiwo et al., 2009). However, the statistics do indicate (taking the segregation of the labor market into account) a relation between being a man and an increased risk of a work-related accidents (Smith and Mustard, 2004). Still, theoretical reflections on gender and masculinity are rare in safety research. 2 To the extent they occur they are often limited to regarding being a man as a risk factor, and gender is only analyzed as a binary dichotomous variable (i.e. man and woman). The absence 0925-7535/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.12.004 ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 9940 7384. E-mail addresses: qvotrup@socsci.aau.dk (S.Q. Jensen), mkyed@socsci.aau.dk (M. Kyed), adc@socsci.aau.dk (A.-D. Christensen), bloksgaard@cgs.aau.dk (L. Bloks- gaard), clausdh@socsci.aau.dk (C.D. Hansen), kent.nielsen@vest.rm.dk (K.J. Nielsen). 1 This development which begun in the 1980s has been called ‘the third age of safety’ (Hale and Hovden, 1998). 2 A search for the term ‘‘masculinity’’ in two flagship journals on safety research, Safety Science and Journal of Safety Research, in August 2011 turned up 8 articles in Safety Science and 3 in Journal of Safety Research. In most articles the notion is only used once, and neither contemporary gender nor masculinity literature is mentioned. In only one case (Granié, 2009) is masculinity understood by emplying Hofstede’s (1991) somewhat crude version of the notion. The notion of ‘‘gender’’ is admittedly employed more often. It prompts 219 hits in Safety Science and 368 hits in Journal of Safety Research. A screening implied, however, that most studies simply controlled for gender through the variable biological sex (male/female) but without including a theoretical gender perspective in the analysis. Safety Science 64 (2014) 190–198 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Safety Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci