Article révisé par les pairs
| Résumé : | A questionnaire consisting of eleven dichotomous questions was sent to the members of the French-speaking Ergonomics Society (S.E.L.F.). Nearly one half replied. Cluster and binary analyses yield the following results. Three factors which are called ergonomics as science or application of science, ergonomics as an activity at the service of the worker, and ergonomics as involvement in social problems and social conflicts account for nearly the whole of non-specific content. The sample can be divided into two equal groups; in the first one, ergonomics is seen as Human Engineering, in the second as a Social Science. The first group can be split up in two : ergonomics as a social technique, and ergonomics as engineering, independent of social problems. The second group can be split up in three, giving three shades : ergonomics as social practice, ergonomics as committed social activity, and ergonomics as body of knowledge at the service of the worker. Natural groups formed on the basis of field of training or of profession have on the whole a similar conception of ergonomics; psychologists are the group most distant from the general mean. Industrial M.Ds., physiologists and engineers tend to see ergonomics as Human Engineering; physiologists and engineers see it rather as social technique, and industrial M.D.s as engineering, independent of social problems and social conflicts. Psychologists on the other hand see ergonomics as a social science, consisting of a body of knowledge at the service of the worker. |
