“ If You Don’t See the Dog, What Can You Do?” Using Procedures to Negotiate the Risk of Dog Bites in Occupational Contexts

Sara C. Owczarczak-Garstecka, Robert M. Christley, Francine Watkins, Huadong Yang and Carri Westgarth
Additional contact information
Sara C. Owczarczak-Garstecka: Department of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool L69 7BE, UK
Robert M. Christley: Department of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool L69 7BE, UK
Francine Watkins: Public Health, Policy & Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Waterhouse Building, Block B, Brownlow Street, Liverpool L69 3GL, UK
Huadong Yang: Management School, University of Liverpool, Chatham Street, Liverpool L69 7ZH, UK
Carri Westgarth: Department of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool L69 7BE, UK

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 14, 1-20

Abstract: Dog bites are a health risk in a number of workplaces such as the delivery, veterinary and dog rescue sectors. This study aimed to explore how workers negotiate the risk of dog bites in daily interactions with dogs and the role of procedures in workplace safety. Participants who encounter dogs at work were recruited using snowball sampling. Ethnographic methods (interviews, focus group discussions, participant-observations) were used for data collection. All data were coded qualitatively into themes. Six themes describing dog bite risk management were identified: ‘Surveillance of dogs’; ‘Communicating risk; ‘Actions taken to manage perceived risk’; ‘Reporting bites and near-misses’, ‘Investigating bites and near-misses’, and; ‘Learning and teaching safety’. While the procedures described dog bite risk as objective, when interacting with dogs, participants drew on experiential knowledge and subjective judgment of risk. There was a discrepancy between risks that the procedures aimed to guard against and the risk participants were experiencing in the course of work. This often led to disregarding procedures. Paradoxically, procedures generated risks to individual wellbeing and sometimes employment, by contributing to blaming employees for bites. Dog bite prevention could be improved by clarifying definitions of bites, involving at risk staff in procedure development, and avoiding blaming the victim for the incident.

Keywords: dog bites; interviews; risk management; safety procedures; qualitative methods; workplace safety (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7377/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7377/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:14:p:7377-:d:591821

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().