Monday, 14 March 2011 20:33

Cultural Differences

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Culture and technology are interdependent. While culture is indeed an important aspect in technology design, development and utilization, the relationship between culture and technology is, however, extremely complex. It needs to be analysed from several perspectives in order to be considered in the design and application of technology. Based on his work in Zambia, Kingsley (1983) divides technological adaptation into changes and adjustments at three levels: that of the individual, of the social organization and of the cultural value system of the society. Each level possesses strong cultural dimensions which require special design considerations.

At the same time, technology itself is an inseparable part of culture. It is built, wholly or in part, around the cultural values of a particular society. And as part of culture, technology becomes an expression of that society’s way of life and thinking. Thus, in order for technology to be accepted, utilized and acknowledged by a society as its own, it must be congruent to the overall image of that society’s culture. Technology must complement culture, not antagonize it.

This article will deal with some of the intricacies concerning cultural considerations in technology designs, examining the current issues and problems, as well as the prevailing concepts and principles, and how they can be applied.

Definition of Culture

The definition of the term culture has been debated at length amongst sociologists and anthropologists for many decades. Culture can be defined in many terms. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) reviewed over a hundred definitions of culture. Williams (1976) mentioned culture as one of the most complicated words in the English language. Culture has even been defined as the entire way of life of people. As such, it includes their technology and material artefacts—anything one would need to know to become a functioning member of the society (Geertz 1973). It may even be described as “publicly available symbolic forms through which people experience and express meaning” (Keesing 1974). Summing it up, Elzinga and Jamison (1981) put it aptly when they said that “the word culture has different meanings in different intellectual disciplines and systems of thought”.

Technology: Part and Product of Culture

Technology can be considered both as part of culture and its product. More than 60 years ago the noted sociologist Malinowsky included technology as part of the culture and gave the following definition: “culture comprises inherited artefacts, goods, technical processes, ideas, habits and values.” Later, Leach (1965) considered technology as a cultural product and mentioned “artefacts, goods and technical processes” as “products of culture”.

In the technological realm, “culture” as an important issue in the design, development and utilization of technical products or systems has been largely neglected by many suppliers as well as receivers of technology. One major reason for this neglect is the absence of basic information on cultural differences.

In the past, technological changes have led to significant changes in social life and organization and in people’s value systems. Industrialization has made deep and enduring changes in the traditional lifestyles of many previously agricultural societies since such lifestyles were largely regarded as incompatible with the way industrial work should be organized. In situations of large cultural diversity, this has led to various negative socio-economic outcomes (Shahnavaz 1991). It is now a well-established fact that simply to impose a technology on a society and believe that it will be absorbed and utilized through extensive training is wishful thinking (Martin et al. 1991).

It is the responsibility of the technology designer to consider the direct and indirect effects of the culture and to make the product compatible with the cultural value system of the user and with its intended operating environment.

The impact of technology for many “industrially developing countries” (IDCs) has been much more than improvement in efficiency. Industrialization was not just modernization of the production and service sectors, but to some extent Westernization of the society. Technology transfer is, thus, also cultural transfer.

Culture, in addition to religion, tradition and language, which are important parameters for technology design and utilization, encompasses other aspects, such as specific attitudes towards certain products and tasks, rules of appropriate behaviour, rules of etiquette, taboos, habits and customs. All these must be equally considered for optimum design.

It is said that people are also products of their distinctive cultures. Nevertheless, the fact remains that world cultures are very much interwoven due to human migration throughout history. It is small wonder that there exist more cultural than national variations in the world. Nevertheless, some very broad distinctions can be made regarding societal, organizational and professional culture-based differences that could influence design in general.

Constraining Influences of Culture

There is very little information on both theoretical and empirical analyses of the constraining influences of culture on technology and how this issue should be incorporated in the design of hardware and software technology. Even though the influence of culture on technology has been recognized (Shahnavaz 1991; Abeysekera, Shahnavaz and Chapman 1990; Alvares 1980; Baranson 1969), very little information is available on the theoretical analysis of cultural differences with regard to technology design and utilization. There are even fewer empirical studies that quantify the importance of cultural variations and provide recommendations on how cultural factors should be considered in the design of product or system (Kedia and Bhagat 1988). Nevertheless, culture and technology can still be studied with some degree of clarity when viewed from different sociological viewpoints.

Culture and Technology: Compatibility and Preference

Proper application of a technology depends, to a large extent, on the compatibility of the user’s culture with the design specifications. Compatibility must exist at all levels of culture—at the societal, organizational and professional levels. In turn, cultural compatibility can have strong influence on a people’s preferences and aptness to utilize a technology. This question involves preferences relating to a product or system; to concepts of productivity and relative efficiency; to change, achievement and authority; as well as to the manner of technology utilization. Cultural values can thus affect people’s willingness and ability to select, to use and to control technology. They have to be compatible in order to be preferred.

Societal culture

As all technologies are inevitably associated with sociocultural values, the cultural receptivity of the society is a very important issue for the proper functioning of a given technological design (Hosni 1988). National or societal culture, which contributes to the formation of a collective mental model of people, influences the entire process of technology design and application, which ranges from planning, goal setting and defining design specifications, to production, management and maintenance systems, training and evaluation. Technology design of both hardware and software should, therefore, reflect society-based cultural variations for maximum benefit. However, defining such society-based cultural factors for consideration in the design of technology is a very complicated task. Hofstede (1980) has proposed four dimensional framework variations of national-based culture.

  1. Weak versus strong uncertainty avoidance. This concerns a people’s desire to avoid ambiguous situations and to what extent their society has developed formal means (such as rules and regulations) to serve this purpose. Hofstede (1980) gave, for example, high uncertainty avoidance scores to countries like Japan and Greece, and low scores to Hong Kong and Scandinavia.
  2. Individualism versus collectivism. This pertains to the relationship between individuals and organizations in the society. In individualistic societies, the orientation is such that each person is expected to look after his or her own interests. In contrast, in a collectivist culture, social ties between people are very strong. Some examples of individualistic countries are the United States and Great Britain while Colombia and Venezuela can be considered as having collectivist cultures.
  3. Small versus large power distance. A large “power distance” characterizes those cultures where the less powerful individuals accept the unequal distribution of power in a culture, as well as the hierarchies in the society and its organizations. Examples of large power distance countries are India and the Philippines. Small power distances are typical of countries like Sweden and Austria.
  4. Masculinity versus femininity. Cultures that put more emphasis on material achievements are regarded as belonging to the former category. Those giving more value to quality of life and other less tangible outcomes belong to the latter.

         

        Glenn and Glenn (1981) have also distinguished between “abstractive” and “associative” tendencies in a given national culture. It is argued that when people of an associative culture (like those from Asia) approach a cognitive problem, they put more emphasis on context, adapt a global thinking approach and try to utilize association among various events. Whereas in the Western societies, a more abstractive culture of rational thinking predominates. Based on these cultural dimensions, Kedia and Bhagat (1988) have developed a conceptual model for understanding cultural constraints on technology transfer. They have developed various descriptive “propositions” which provide information on different countries’ cultural variations and their receptivity with regard to technology. Certainly many cultures are moderately inclined to one or the other of these categories and contain some mixed features.

        Consumers’ as well as producers’ perspectives upon technological design and utilization are directly influenced by the societal culture. Product safety standards for safeguarding consumers as well as work-environment regulations, inspection and enforcement systems for protecting the producers are to a large extent the reflection of the societal culture and value system.

        Organizational culture

        A company’s organization, its structure, value system, function, behaviour, and so on, are largely cultural products of the society in which it operates. This means that what happens within an organization is mostly a direct reflection of what is happening in the outside society (Hofstede 1983). The prevailing organizations of many companies operating in the IDCs are influenced both by the characteristics of the technology producer country as well as those of the technology recipient environment. However, the reflection of the societal culture in a given organization can vary. Organizations interpret the society in terms of their own culture, and their degree of control depends, among other factors, on the modes of technology transfer.

        Given the changing nature of organization today, plus a multicultural, diverse workforce, adapting a proper organizational programme is more important than ever before to a successful operation (an example of a workforce diversity management programme is described in Solomon (1989)).

        Professional culture

        People belonging to a certain professional category may use a piece of technology in a specific fashion. Wikström et al. (1991), in a project aimed to develop hand tools, have noted that despite the designers’ assumption of how plate shares are to be held and used (i.e., with a forward holding grip and the tool moving away from one’s own body), the professional tinsmiths were holding and using the plate share in a reversed manner, as shown in figure 1. They concluded that tools should be studied in the actual field conditions of the user population itself in order to acquire relevant information on the tools characteristics.

        Figure 1. The use of plate share tools by professional tinsmiths in practice (the reversed grip)

        ERG260F1

        Using Cultural Features for Optimum Design

        As implied by the foregoing considerations, culture provides identity and confidence. It forms opinions about the objectives and characteristics of a “human-technology system” and how it should operate in a given environment. And in any culture, there are always some features that are valuable with regard to technological progress. If these features are considered in the design of software and hardware technology, they can act as the driving force for technology absorption in the society. One good example is the culture of some southeast Asian countries largely influenced by Confucianism and Buddhism. The former emphasizes, among other things, learning and loyalty, and considers it a virtue to be able to absorb new concepts. The latter teaches the importance of harmony and respect for fellow human beings. It is said that these unique cultural features have contributed to the provision of the right environment for the absorption and implementation of advanced hardware and organizational technology furnished by the Japanese (Matthews 1982).

        A clever strategy would thus make the best use of the positive features of a society’s culture in promoting ergonomic ideas and principles. According to McWhinney (1990) “the events, to be understood and thus used effectively in projection, must be embedded in stories. One must go to varying depths to unleash founding energy, to free society or organization from inhibiting traits, to find the paths along which it might naturally flow. . . . Neither planning nor change can be effective without embedding it consciously in a narrative.”

        A good example of cultural appreciation in designing management strategy is the implementation of the “seven tools” technique for quality assurance in Japan. The “seven tools” are the minimum weapons a samurai warrior had to carry with him whenever he went out to fight. The pioneers of “quality control circles”, adapting their nine recommendations to a Japanese setting, reduced this number in order to take advantage of a familiar term—“the seven tools”—so as to encourage the involvement of all employees in their quality work strategy (Lillrank and Kano 1989).

        However, other cultural features may not be beneficial to technological development. Discrimination against women, the strict observation of a caste system, racial or other prejudice, or considering some tasks as degrading, are a few examples that can have a negative influence on technology development. In some traditional cultures, men are expected to be the primary wage-earners. They become accustomed to regarding the role of women as equal employees, not to mention as supervisors, with insensitivity or even hostility. Withholding equal employment opportunity from women and questioning the legitimacy of women’s authority is not appropriate to the current needs of organizations, which require optimum utilization of human resources.

        With regard to task design and job content, some cultures consider tasks like manual labour and service as degrading. This may be attributed to past experiences linked to colonial times regarding “master-slave relationships”. In some other cultures, strong biases exist against tasks or occupations associated with “dirty hands”. These attitudes are also reflected in lower-than-average pay scales for these occupations. In turn, these have contributed to shortages of technicians or inadequate maintenance resources (Sinaiko 1975).

        Since it usually takes many generations to change cultural values with respect to a new technology, it would be more cost-effective to fit the technology to the technology recipient’s culture, taking cultural differences into consideration in the design of hardware and software.

        Cultural Considerations in Product and System Designing

        By now it is obvious that technology consists both of hardware and software. Hardware components include capital and intermediary goods, such as industrial products, machinery, equipment, buildings, workplaces and physical layouts, most of which chiefly concern the micro-ergonomics domain. Software pertains to programming and planning, management and organizational techniques, administration, maintenance, training and education, documentation and services. All these concerns fall under the heading of macro-ergonomics.

        A few examples of cultural influences that require special design consideration from the micro- and macro-ergonomic point of view are given below.

        Micro-ergonomic issues

        Micro-ergonomics is concerned with the design of a product or system with the objective of creating a “usable” user-machine-environment interface. The major concept of product design is usability. This concept involves not only the functionality and reliability of the product, but issues of safety, comfort and enjoyment as well.

        The user’s internal model (i.e., his or her cognitive or mental model) plays an important role in usability design. To operate or control a system efficiently and safely, the user must have an accurate representative cognitive model of the system in use. Wisner (1983) has stated that “industrialization would thus more or less require a new kind of mental model.” In this view, formal education and technical training, experience as well as culture are important factors in determining the formation of an adequate cognitive model.

        Meshkati (1989), in studying the micro- and macro-ergonomic factors of the 1984 Union Carbide Bhopal accident, highlighted the importance of culture on the Indian operators’ inadequate mental model of the plant operation. He stated that part of the problem may have been due to “the performance of poorly trained Third World operators using advanced technological systems designed by other humans with much different educational backgrounds, as well as cultural and psychosocial attributes.” Indeed, many design usability aspects at the micro-interface level are influenced by the user’s culture. Careful analyses of the user’s perception, behaviour and preferences would lead to a better understanding of the user’s needs and requirements for designing a product or system that is both effective and acceptable.

        Some of these culture-related micro-ergonomic aspects are the following:

        1. Interface design. Human emotion is an essential element of product design. It is concerned in such factors as colour and shape (Kwon, Lee and Ahn 1993; Nagamachi 1992). Colour is regarded as the most important factor to do with human emotions with regard to product design. The product’s colour treatment reflects the psychological and sentimental dispositions of the users, which differ from country to country. The symbolism of colour may also differ. For example, the colour red, which indicates danger in Western countries, is an auspicious token in India (Sen 1984) and symbolizes joy or happiness in China. 
        2. Pictorial signs and symbols that are used in many different applications for public accommodations are strongly culture related. Western pictorial information, for example, is difficult to interpret by non-Western people (Daftuar 1975; Fuglesang 1982).
        3. Control/display compatibility. Compatibility is a measure of how well spatial movements of control, display behaviour or conceptual relationships meet human expectations (Staramler 1993). It refers to the user’s expectation of the stimulus-response relationship, which is a fundamental ergonomic issue for safe and efficient operation of a product or system. A compatible system is one which considers people’s common perceptual-motor behaviour (i.e., their population-stereotype). However, like other human behaviour, perceptual-motor behaviour may also be influenced by culture. Hsu and Peng (1993) compared American and Chinese subjects regarding control/burner relationships in a four-burner stove. Different population-stereotype patterns were observed. They conclude that population stereotypes regarding control/burner linkages were culturally different, probably as a result of differences in reading or scanning habits.
        4. Workplace design. An industrial workstation design aims to eliminate harmful postures and improve user performance in relation to the user’s biological needs, preferences and task requirements. People from different cultures may prefer different types of sitting posture and work heights. In Western countries, work heights are set near the seated elbow height for maximum comfort and efficiency. However, in many parts of the world people sit on the floor. Indian workers, for example, prefer squatting or sitting cross-legged to standing or to sitting on a chair. In fact it has been observed that even when chairs are provided, the operators still prefer to squat or sit cross-legged on the seats. Daftuar (1975) and Sen (1984) have studied the merits and implications of the Indian sitting posture. After describing the various advantages of sitting on the floor, Sen stated that “as a large population of the world market covers societies where squatting or sitting on the ground predominate, it is unfortunate that up to now no modern machines have been designed to be used in this way.” Thus, variations in preferred posture should be considered in machine and workplace design in order to improve the operator’s efficiency and comfort.
        5. Design of protective equipment. There exist both psychological and physical constraints with regard to wearing protective clothing. In some cultures, for example, jobs requiring the use of protective wear may be regarded as common labour, suitable only for unskilled workers. Consequently, protective equipment is usually not worn by engineers at workplaces in such settings. Regarding physical constraints, some religious groups, obliged by their religion to wear a head covering (like the turbans of Indian Sikhs or the head covers of Muslim women) find it difficult to wear, for example, protective helmets. Therefore, special designs of protective wear are needed to cope with such cultural variations in protecting people against work-environmental hazards.

         

        Macro-ergonomic issues

        The term macro-ergonomics refers to the design of software technology. It concerns the proper design of organizations and management systems. Evidence exists showing that because of differences in culture, sociopolitical conditions and educational levels, many successful managerial and organizational methods developed in industrialized countries cannot be successfully applied to developing countries (Negandhi 1975). In most IDCs, an organizational hierarchy characterized by a down-flow of authority structure within the organization is a common practice. It has little concern for Western values such as democracy or power sharing in decision-making, which are regarded as key issues in modern management, being essential for proper utilization of human resources as regards intelligence, creativity, problem solving potential and ingenuity.

        The feudal system of social hierarchy and its value system are also widely practised in most industrial workplaces in the developing countries. These make a participatory management approach (which is essential for the new production mode of flexible specialization and the motivation of the workforce) a difficult endeavour. However, there are reports confirming the desirability of introducing autonomous work systems even in these cultures Ketchum 1984).

        1. Participatory ergonomics. Participatory ergonomics is a useful macro-ergonomics approach for solving various work-related problems (Shahnavaz, Abeysekera and Johansson 1993; Noro and Imada 1991; Wilson 1991). This approach, mostly used in industrialized countries, has been applied in different forms depending on the organizational culture in which it has been implemented. In a study, Liker, Nagamachi and Lifshitz (1988) compared participatory ergonomics programmes in two US and two Japanese manufacturing plants which were aiming to reduce physical stress on workers. They concluded that an “effective participatory ergonomics programme can take many forms. The best programme for any plant in any culture may depend on its own unique history, structure and culture.”
        2. Software systems. Societal and organizational culture-based differences should be considered in designing a new software system or introducing a change in the organization. With respect to information technology, De Lisi (1990) indicates that networking capabilities will not be realized unless the networks fit the existing organizational culture.
        3. Work organization and management. In some cultures, the family is so important an institution that it plays a prominent role in work organization. For example, among some communities in India, a job is generally regarded as a family responsibility and is collectively performed by all family members (Chapanis 1975).
        4. Maintenance system. Design of maintenance programmes (both preventive and regular) as well as housekeeping are other examples of areas in which work organization should be adapted to cultural constraints. The traditional culture among the sort of agricultural societies predominant in many IDCs is generally not compatible with the requirements of industrial work and how activities are organized. Traditional agricultural activity does not require, for example, formal maintenance programming and precision work. It is for the most part not carried out under time pressure. In the field, it is usually left to the recycling process of nature to take care of maintenance and housekeeping work. The design of maintenance programmes and housekeeping manuals for industrial activities should thus take these cultural constraints into account and provide for adequate training and supervision.

         

        Zhang and Tyler (1990), in a case study related to the successful establishment of a modern telephone cable production facility in China supplied by a US firm (the Essex Company) stated that “both parties realize, however, that the direct application of American or Essex management practices was not always practical nor desirable due to cultural, philosophical, and political differences. Thus the information and instructions provided by Essex was often modified by the Chinese partner to be compatible with the conditions existing in China.” They also argued that the key to their success, despite cultural, economic and political differences, was both parties’ dedication and commitment to a common goal as well as the mutual respect, trust, and friendship which transcended any differences between them.

        Design of shift and work schedules are other examples of work organization. In most IDCs there are certain sociocultural problems associated with shift work. These include poor general living and housing conditions, lack of support services, a noisy home environment and other factors, which require the design of special shift programmes. Furthermore, for female workers, a working day is usually much longer than eight hours; it consists of not only the actual time spent working, but also the time spent on travelling, working at home and taking care of children and elderly relatives. In view of the prevailing culture, shift and other work design requires special work-rest schedules for effective operation.

        Flexibility in work schedules to allow cultural variances such as an after-lunch nap for Chinese workers and religious activities for Muslims are further cultural aspects of work organization. In the Islamic culture, people are required to break from work a few times a day to pray, and to fast for one month each year from sunrise to sunset. All these cultural constraints require special work organizational considerations.

        Thus, many macro-ergonomic design features are closely influenced by culture. These features should be considered in the design of software systems for effective operation.

        Conclusion: Cultural Differences in Design

        Designing a usable product or system is not an easy task. There exists no absolute quality of suitability. It is the designer’s task to create an optimum and harmonic interaction between the four basic components of the human-technology system: the user, the task, the technological system and the operating environment. A system may be fully usable for one combination of user, task and environmental conditions but totally unsuitable for another. One design aspect which can greatly contribute to the design’s usability, whether it is a case of a single product or a complex system, is the consideration of cultural aspects which have a profound influence on both the user and the operating environment.

        Even if a conscientious engineer designs a proper human-machine interface for use in a given environment, the designer is often unable to foresee the effects of a different culture on the product’s usability. It is difficult to prevent possible negative cultural effects when a product is used in an environment different from that for which it was designed. And since there exist almost no quantitative data regarding cultural constraints, the only way the engineer can make the design compatible with regard to cultural factors is to actively integrate the user population in the design process.

        The best way to consider cultural aspects in design is for the designer to adapt a user-centred design approach. True enough, the design approach adapted by the designer is the essential factor that will instantly influence the usability of the designed system. The importance of this basic concept must be recognized and implemented by the product or system designer at the very beginning of the design life cycle. The basic principles of user-centred design can thus be summarized as follows (Gould and Lewis 1985; Shackel 1986; Gould et al. 1987; Gould 1988; Wang 1992):

          1. Early and continual focus on user. The user should be an active member of the design team throughout the whole product development life cycle (i.e., predesign, detail design, production, verification and product improvement phase).
          2. Integrated design. The system should be considered as a whole, ensuring a holistic design approach. This means that all aspects of the system’s usability should be evolved in parallel by the design team.
          3. Early and continuous user testing. User reaction should be tested using prototypes or simulations while carrying out real work in the real environment from early development stage to the final product.
          4. Iterative design. Designing, testing and redesigning are repeated in regular cycles until satisfactory usability results are achieved.

                 

                In the case of designing a product on a global scale, the designer has to consider the needs of consumers around the world. In such a case, access to all actual users and operating environments may not be possible for the purpose of adopting a user-centred design approach. The designer has to use a broad range of information, both formal and informal, such as literature reference material, standards, guidelines, and practical principles and experience in making an analytical evaluation of the design and has to provide sufficient adjustability and flexibility in the product in order to satisfy the needs of a wider user population.

                Another point to consider is the fact that designers can never be all-knowing. They need input from not only the users but also other parties involved in the project, including managers, technicians, and repair and maintenance workers. In a participatory process, people involved should share their knowledge and experiences in developing a usable product or system and accept collective responsibility for its functionality and safety. After all, everyone involved has something at stake.

                 

                Back

                Read 3172 times Last modified on Friday, 15 November 2019 16:38

                " DISCLAIMER: The ILO does not take responsibility for content presented on this web portal that is presented in any language other than English, which is the language used for the initial production and peer-review of original content. Certain statistics have not been updated since the production of the 4th edition of the Encyclopaedia (1998)."

                Contents

                Preface
                Part I. The Body
                Part II. Health Care
                Part III. Management & Policy
                Part IV. Tools and Approaches
                Biological Monitoring
                Epidemiology and Statistics
                Ergonomics
                Goals, Principles and Methods
                Physical and Physiological Aspects
                Organizational Aspects of Work
                Work Systems Design
                Designing for Everyone
                Diversity and Importance of Ergonomics
                Occupational Hygiene
                Personal Protection
                Record Systems and Surveillance
                Toxicology
                Part V. Psychosocial and Organizational Factors
                Part VI. General Hazards
                Part VII. The Environment
                Part VIII. Accidents and Safety Management
                Part IX. Chemicals
                Part X. Industries Based on Biological Resources
                Part XI. Industries Based on Natural Resources
                Part XII. Chemical Industries
                Part XIII. Manufacturing Industries
                Part XIV. Textile and Apparel Industries
                Part XV. Transport Industries
                Part XVI. Construction
                Part XVII. Services and Trade
                Part XVIII. Guides

                Ergonomics References

                Abeysekera, JDA, H Shahnavaz, and LJ Chapman. 1990. Ergonomics in developing countries. In Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety, edited by B Das. London: Taylor & Francis.

                Ahonen, M, M Launis, and T Kuorinka. 1989. Ergonomic Workplace Analysis. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.

                Alvares, C. 1980. Homo Faber: Technology and Culture in India, China and the West from 1500 to Present Day. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

                Amalberti, R. 1991. Savoir-faire de l’opérateur: aspects théoriques et pratiques en ergonomie. In Modèle en analyse du travail, edited by R Amalberti, M de Montmollin, and J Thereau. Liège: Mardaga.

                Amalberti, R, M Bataille, G Deblon, A Guengant, JM Paquay, C Valot, and JP Menu. 1989. Développement d’aides intelligentes au pilotage: Formalisation psychologique et informatique d’un modèle de comportement du pologage de combat engagé en mission de pènètration. Paris: Rapport CERMA.

                Åstrand, I. 1960. Aerobic work capacity in men and women with special reference to age. Acta Physiol Scand 49 Suppl. 169:1-92.

                Bainbridge, L. 1981. Le contrôleur de processus. B Psychol XXXIV:813-832.

                —. 1986. Asking questions and accessing knowledge. Future Comput Sys 1:143-149.

                Baitsch, C. 1985. Kompetenzentwicklung und partizipative Arbeitsgestaltung. Bern: Huber.

                Banks, MH and RL Miller. 1984. Reliability and convergent validity of the job component inventory. J Occup Psychol 57:181-184.

                Baranson, J. 1969. Industrial Technology for Developing Economies. New York: Praeger.

                Bartenwerfer, H. 1970. Psychische Beanspruchung und Erdmüdung. In Handbuch der Psychologie, edited by A Mayer and B Herwig. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

                Bartlem, CS and E Locke. 1981. The Coch and French study: A critique and reinterpretation. Hum Relat 34:555-566.

                Blumberg, M. 1988. Towards a new theory of job design. In Ergonomics of Hybrid Automated Systems, edited by W Karwowski, HR Parsaei, and MR Wilhelm. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

                Bourdon, F and A Weill Fassina. 1994. Réseau et processus de coopération dans la gestion du trafic ferroviaire. Travail Hum. Numéro spécial consacré au travail collectif.

                Brehmer, B. 1990. Towards a taxonomy for microworlds. In Taxonomy for an Analysis of Work Domains. Proceedings of the First MOHAWC Workshop, edited by B Brehmer, M de Montmollin and J Leplat. Roskilde: Riso National Laboratory.

                Brown DA and R Mitchell. 1986. The Pocket Ergonomist. Sydney: Group Occupational Health Centre.

                Bruder. 1993. Entwicklung eines wissensbusierten Systems zur belastungsanalytisch unterscheidbaren Erholungszeit. Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag.

                Caverni, JP. 1988. La verbalisation comme source d’observables pour l’étude du fonctionnnement cognitif. In Psychologie cognitive: Modèles et méthodes, edited by JP
                Caverni, C Bastien, P Mendelson, and G Tiberghien. Grenoble: Presses Univ. de Grenoble.

                Campion, MA. 1988. Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: A constructive replication with extensions. J Appl Psychol 73:467-481.

                Campion, MA and PW Thayer. 1985. Development and field evaluation of an inter-disciplinary measure of job design. J Appl Psychol 70:29-43.

                Carter, RC and RJ Biersner. 1987. Job requirements derived from the Position Analysis Questionnaire and validity using military aptitude test scores. J Occup Psychol 60:311-321.

                Chaffin, DB. 1969. A computerized biomechanical model-development of and use in studying gross body actions. J Biomech 2:429-441.

                Chaffin, DB and G Andersson. 1984. Occupational Biomechanics. New York: Wiley.

                Chapanis, A. 1975. Ethnic Variables in Human Factors Engineering. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

                Coch, L and JRP French. 1948. Overcoming resistance to change. Hum Relat 1:512-532.

                Corlett, EN and RP Bishop. 1976. A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics 19:175-182.

                Corlett, N. 1988. The investigation and evaluation of work and workplaces. Ergonomics 31:727-734.

                Costa, G, G Cesana, K Kogi, and A Wedderburn. 1990. Shiftwork: health, sleep and performance. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

                Cotton, JL, DA Vollrath, KL Froggatt, ML Lengnick-Hall, and KR Jennings. 1988. Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Acad Manage Rev 13:8-22.

                Cushman, WH and DJ Rosenberg. 1991. Human Factors in Product Design. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

                Dachler, HP and B Wilpert. 1978. Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Adm Sci Q 23:1-39.

                Daftuar, CN. 1975. The role of human factors in underdeveloped countries, with special reference to India. In Ethnic Variable in Human Factor Engineering, edited by Chapanis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

                Das, B and RM Grady. 1983a. Industrial workplace layout design. An application of engineering anthropometry. Ergonomics 26:433-447.

                —. 1983b. The normal working area in the horizontal plane. A comparative study between Farley’s and Squire’s concepts. Ergonomics 26:449-459.

                Deci, EL. 1975. Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

                Decortis, F and PC Cacciabue. 1990. Modèlisation cognitive et analyse de l’activité. In Modèles et pratiques de l’analyse du travail, edited by R Amalberti, M Montmollin, and J Theureau. Brussels: Mardaga.

                DeGreve, TB and MM Ayoub. 1987. A workplace design expert system. Int J Ind Erg 2:37-48.

                De Keyser, V. 1986. De l’évolution des métiers. In Traité de psychologie du travail, edited by C Levy- Leboyer and JC Sperandio. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

                —. 1992. Man within the Production Line. Proceedings of the Fourth Brite-EuRam Conference, 25-27 May, Séville, Spain. Brussels: EEC.

                De Keyser, V and A Housiaux. 1989. The Nature of Human Expertise. Rapport Intermédiaire Politique Scientifique. Liège: Université de Liège.

                De Keyser, V and AS Nyssen. 1993. Les erreurs humaines en anesthésie. Travail Hum 56:243-266.

                De Lisi, PS. 1990. Lesson from the steel axe: Culture, technology and organizational change. Sloan Manage Rev 32:83-93.

                Dillon, A. 1992. Reading from paper versus screen: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics 35:1297-1326.

                Dinges, DF. 1992. Probing the limits of functional capacity: The effects of sleep loss on short-duration tasks. In Sleep, Arousal, and Performance, edited by RJ Broughton and RD Ogilvie. Boston: Birkhäuser.

                Drury, CG. 1987. A biomechanical evaluation of the repetitive motion injury potential of industrial jobs. Sem Occup Med 2:41-49.

                Edholm, OG. 1966. The assessment of habitual activity. In Physical Activity in Health and Disease, edited by K Evang and K Lange-Andersen. Oslo: Universitetterlaget.

                Eilers, K, F Nachreiner, and K Hänicke. 1986. Entwicklung und Überprüfung einer Skala zur Erfassung subjektiv erlebter Anstrengung. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft 40:215-224.

                Elias, R. 1978. A medicobiological approach to workload. Note No. 1118-9178 in Cahiers De Notes Documentaires—Sécurité Et Hygiène Du Travail. Paris: INRS.

                Elzinga, A and A Jamison. 1981. Cultural Components in the Scientific Attitude to Nature: Eastern and Western Mode. Discussion paper No. 146. Lund: Univ. of Lund, Research Policy Institute.

                Emery, FE. 1959. Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems. Document No. 527. London: Tavistock.

                Empson, J. 1993. Sleep and Dreaming. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

                Ericson, KA and HA Simon. 1984. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports As Data. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

                European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 1990. Ergonomic Principles of the Design of Work Systems. EEC Council Directive 90/269/EEC, The Minimum Health and Safety Requirements for the Manual Handling of Loads. Brussels: CEN.

                —. 1991. CEN Catalogue 1991: Catalogue of European Standards. Brussels: CEN.

                —. 1994. Safety of Machinery: Ergonomic Design Principles. Part 1: Terminology and General Principles. Brussels: CEN.

                Fadier, E. 1990. Fiabilité humaine: méthodes d’analyse et domaines d’application. In Les facteurs humains de la fiabilité dans les systèmes complexes, edited by J Leplat and G De Terssac. Marseilles: Octares.

                Falzon, P. 1991. Cooperative dialogues. In Distributed Decision Making. Cognitive Models for Cooperative Works, edited by J Rasmussen, B Brehmer, and J Leplat. Chichester: Wiley.

                Faverge, JM. 1972. L’analyse du travail. In Traité de psychologie appliqueé, edited by M Reuchlin. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

                Fisher, S. 1986. Stress and Strategy. London: Erlbaum.

                Flanagan, JL. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psychol Bull 51:327-358.

                Fleishman, EA and MK Quaintance. 1984. Toxonomies of Human Performance: The Description of Human Tasks. New York: Academic Press.

                Flügel, B, H Greil, and K Sommer. 1986. Anthropologischer Atlas. Grundlagen und Daten. Deutsche Demokratische Republik. Berlin: Verlag tribüne.

                Folkard, S and T Akerstedt. 1992. A three-process model of the regulation of alertness sleepiness. In Sleep, Arousal and Performance, edited by RJ Broughton and BD Ogilvie. Boston: Birkhäuser.

                Folkard, S and TH Monk. 1985.  Hours of work: Temporal factors in work scheduling . Chichester: Wiley.

                Folkard, S, TH Monk, and MC Lobban. 1978. Short and long-term adjustment of circadian rhythms in “permanent” night nurses. Ergonomics 21:785-799.

                Folkard, S, P Totterdell, D Minors and J Waterhouse. 1993. Dissecting circadian performance rhythms: Implications for shiftwork.  Ergonomics  36(1-3):283-88.

                Fröberg, JE. 1985. Sleep deprivation and prolonged working hours. In Hours of Work: Temporal Factors in Work Scheduling, edited by S Folkard and TH Monk. Chichester: Wiley.

                Fuglesang, A. 1982. About Understanding Ideas and Observations on Cross-Cultural
                Communication. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation.

                Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

                Gilad, I. 1993. Methodology for functional ergonomic evaluation of repetitive operations. In Advances in Industrial Egonomics and Safety, edited by Nielsen and Jorgensen. London: Taylor & Francis.

                Gilad, I and E Messer. 1992. Biomechanics considerations and ergonomic design in diamond polishing. In Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety, edited by Kumar. London: Taylor & Francis.

                Glenn, ES and CG Glenn. 1981. Man and Mankind: Conflict and Communication between Cultures. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

                Gopher, D and E Donchin. 1986. Workload—An examination of the concept. In Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, edited by K Boff, L Kaufman, and JP Thomas. New York: Wiley.

                Gould, JD. 1988. How to design usable systems. In Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, edited by M Helander. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

                Gould, JD and C Lewis. 1985. Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Commun ACM 28:300-311.

                Gould, JD, SJ Boies, S Levy, JT Richards, and J Schoonard. 1987. The 1984 Olympic message system: A test of behavioral principles of the design. Commun ACM 30:758-769.

                Gowler, D and K Legge. 1978. Participation in context: Towards a synthesis of the theory and practice of organizational change, part I. J Manage Stud 16:150-175.

                Grady, JK and J de Vries. 1994. RAM: The Rehabilitation Technology Acceptance Model as a Base for an Integral Product Evaluation. Instituut voor Research, Ontwikkeling en Nascholing in de Gezondheidszorg (IRON) and University Twente, Department of Biomedical Engineering.

                Grandjean, E. 1988. Fitting the Task to the Man. London: Taylor & Francis.

                Grant, S and T Mayes. 1991. Cognitive task analysis? In Human-Computer Interactionand Complex Systems, edited by GS Weir and J Alty. London: Academic Press.

                Greenbaum, J and M Kyng. 1991. Design At Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

                Greuter, MA and JA Algera. 1989. Criterion development and job analysis. In Assessment and Selection in Organizations, edited by P Herlot. Chichester: Wiley.

                Grote, G. 1994. A participatory approach to the complementary design of highly automated work systems. In Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management, edited by G Bradley and HW Hendrick. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

                Guelaud, F, M-N Beauchesne, J Gautrat, and G Roustang. 1977. Pour une analyse des conditions du travail ouvrier dans l’entreprise. Paris: A. Colin.

                Guillerm, R, E Radziszewski, and A Reinberg. 1975. Circadian rhythms of six healthy young men over a 4-week period with night-work every 48 h and a 2 per cent Co2 atmosphere. In Experimental Studies of Shiftwork, edited by P Colquhoun, S Folkard, P Knauth, and J Rutenfranz. Opladen: Westdeutscher Werlag.

                Hacker, W. 1986. Arbeitspsychologie. In Schriften zur Arbeitpsychologie, edited by E Ulich. Bern: Huber.

                Hacker, W and P Richter. 1994. Psychische Fehlbeanspruchung. Ermüdung, Monotonie, Sättigung, Stress. Heidelberg: Springer.

                Hackman, JR and GR Oldham. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. J Appl Psychol 60:159-170.

                Hancock, PA and MH Chignell. 1986. Toward a Theory of Mental Work Load: Stress and Adaptability in Human-Machine Systems. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference On Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. New York: IEEE Society.

                Hancock, PA and N Meshkati. 1988. Human Mental Workload. Amsterdam: North Holland.

                Hanna, A (ed.). 1990. Annual Design Review ID. 37 (4).

                Härmä, M. 1993. Individual differences in tolerance to shiftwork: a review.  Ergonomics  36:101-109.

                Hart, S and LE Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Human Mental Work Load, edited by PA Hancock and N Meshkati. Amsterdam: North Holland.

                Hirschheim, R and HK Klein. 1989. Four paradigms of information systems development. Commun ACM 32:1199-1216.

                Hoc, JM. 1989. Cognitive approaches to process control. In Advances in Cognitive Science, edited by G Tiberghein. Chichester: Horwood.

                Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Univ. Press.

                —. 1983. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. J Int Stud :75-89.

                Hornby, P and C Clegg. 1992. User participation in context: A case study in a UK bank. Behav Inf Technol 11:293-307.

                Hosni, DE. 1988. The transfer of microelectronics technology to the third world. Tech Manage Pub TM 1:391-3997.

                Hsu, S-H and Y Peng. 1993. Control/display relationship of the four-burner stove: A reexamination. Hum Factors 35:745-749.

                International Labour Organization (ILO). 1990.The hours we work: new work schedules in policy and practice. Cond Wor Dig 9.

                International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 1980. Draft Proposal for Core List of Anthropometric Measurements ISO/TC 159/SC 3 N 28 DP 7250. Geneva: ISO.

                —. 1996. ISO/DIS 7250 Basic Human Body Measurements for Technological Design. Geneva: ISO.
                Japan Industrial Design Promotion Organization (JIDPO). 1990. Good Design Products 1989. Tokyo: JIDPO.

                Jastrzebowski, W. 1857. Rys ergonomiji czyli Nauki o Pracy, opartej naprawdach poczerpnietych z Nauki Przyrody. Przyoda i Przemysl 29:227-231.

                Jeanneret, PR. 1980. Equitable job evaluation and classification with the Position Analysis Questionnaire. Compens Rev 1:32-42.

                Jürgens, HW, IA Aune, and U Pieper. 1990. International data on anthropometry. Occupational Safety and Health Series. Geneva: ILO.

                Kadefors, R. 1993. A model for assessment and design of workplaces for manual welding. In The Ergonomics of Manual Work, edited by WS Marras, W Karwowski, and L Pacholski. London: Taylor & Francis.

                Kahneman, D. 1973. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

                Karhu, O, P Kansi, and I Kuorinka. 1977. Correcting working postures in industry: A practical method for analysis. Appl Ergon 8:199-201.

                Karhu, O, R Harkonen, P Sorvali, and P Vepsalainen. 1981. Observing working postures in industry: Examples of OWAS application. Appl Ergon 12:13-17.

                Kedia, BL and RS Bhagat. 1988. Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across nations: Implications for research in international and comparative management. Acad Manage Rev 13:559-571.

                Keesing, RM. 1974. Theories of culture. Annu Rev Anthropol 3:73-79.

                Kepenne, P. 1984. La charge de travail dans une unité de soins de médecine. Mémoire. Liège: Université de Liège.

                Kerguelen, A. 1986. L’observation systématique en ergonomie: Élaboration d’un logiciel d’aide au recueil et à l’analyse des données. Diploma in Ergonomics Thesis, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris.

                Ketchum, L. 1984. Sociotechnical design in a third world country: The railway maintenance depot at Sennar in Sudan. Hum Relat 37:135-154.

                Keyserling, WM. 1986. A computer-aided system to evaluate postural stress in the workplace. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 47:641-649.

                Kingsley, PR. 1983. Technological development: Issues, roles and orientation for social psychology. In Social Psychology and Developing Countries, edited by Blacker. New York: Wiley.

                Kinney, JS and BM Huey. 1990. Application Principles for Multicolored Displays. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

                Kivi, P and M Mattila. 1991. Analysis and improvement of work postures in building industry: Application of the computerized OWAS method. Appl Ergon 22:43-48.

                Knauth, P, W Rohmert and J Rutenfranz. 1979. Systemic selection of shift plans for continuous production with the aid of work-physiological criteria. Appl Ergon 10(1):9-15.

                Knauth, P. and J Rutenfranz. 1981. Duration of sleep related to the type of shift work, in  Night and shiftwork: biological and social aspects , edited by A Reinberg, N Vieux, and P Andlauer. Oxford Pergamon Press.

                Kogi, K. 1982. Sleep problems in night and shift work. II. Shiftwork: Its practice and improvement . J Hum Ergol:217-231.

                —. 1981. Comparison of resting conditions between various shift rotation systems for industrial workers, in  Night and shift work. Biological and social aspects , edited by A Reinberg, N Vieux, and P Andlauer. Oxford: Pergamon.

                —. 1985. Introduction to the problems of shiftwork. In Hours of Work: Temporal Factors in Work-Scheduling, edited by S Folkard and TH Monk. Chichester: Wiley.

                —. 1991. Job content and working time: The scope for joint change. Ergonomics 34:757-773.

                Kogi, K and JE Thurman. 1993. Trends in approaches to night and shiftwork and new international standards. Ergonomics 36:3-13.

                Köhler, C, M von Behr, H Hirsch-Kreinsen, B Lutz, C Nuber, and R Schultz-Wild. 1989. Alternativen der Gestaltung von Arbeits- und Personalstrukturen bei rechnerintegrierter Fertigung. In Strategische Optionen der Organisations- und Personalentwicklung bei CIM Forschungsbericht KfK-PFT 148, edited by Institut für Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung. Karlsruhe: Projektträgerschaft Fertigungstechnik.

                Koller, M. 1983. Health risks related to shift work. An example of time-contingent effects of long-term stress. Int Arch Occ Env Health 53:59-75.

                Konz, S. 1990. Workstation organization and design. Ergonomics 32:795-811.

                Kroeber, AL and C Kluckhohn. 1952. Culture, a critical review of concepts and definitions. In Papers of the Peabody Museum. Boston: Harvard Univ.

                Kroemer, KHE. 1993. Operation of ternary chorded keys. Int J Hum Comput Interact 5:267-288.

                —. 1994a. Locating the computer screen: How high, how far? Ergonomics in Design (January):40.

                —. 1994b. Alternative keyboards. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Scientific Conference WWDU ‘94. Milan: Univ. of Milan.

                —. 1995. Ergonomics. In Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene, edited by BA Ploog. Chicago: National Safety Council.

                Kroemer, KHE, HB Kroemer, and KE Kroemer-Elbert. 1994. Ergonomics: How to Design for Ease and Efficiency. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

                Kwon, KS, SY Lee, and BH Ahn. 1993. An approach to fuzzy expert systems for product colour design. In The Ergonomics of Manual Work, edited by Maras, Karwowski, Smith, and Pacholski. London: Taylor & Francis.

                Lacoste, M. 1983. Des situations de parole aux activités interprétives. Psychol Franç 28:231-238.

                Landau, K and W Rohmert. 1981. AET-A New Job Analysis Method. Detroit, Mich.: AIIE Annual Conference.

                Laurig, W. 1970. Elektromyographie als arbeitswissenschaftliche Untersuchungsmethode zur Beurteilung von statischer Muskelarbeit. Berlin: Beuth.

                —. 1974. Beurteilung einseitig dynamischer Muskelarbeit. Berlin: Beuth.

                —. 1981. Belastung, Beanspruchung und Erholungszeit bei energetisch-muskulärer Arbeit—Literaturexpertise. In Forschungsbericht Nr. 272 der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Unfallforschung Dortmund. Bremerhaven: Wirtschaftsverlag NW.

                —. 1992. Grundzüge der Ergonomie. Erkenntnisse und Prinzipien. Berlin, Köln: Beuth Verlag.

                Laurig, W and V Rombach. 1989. Expert systems in ergonomics: Requirements and an approach. Ergonomics 32:795-811.

                Leach, ER. 1965. Culture and social cohesion: An anthropologist’s view. In Science and Culture, edited by Holten. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

                Leana, CR, EA Locke, and DM Schweiger. 1990. Fact and fiction in analyzing research on participative decision making: A critique of Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, and Jennings. Acad Manage Rev 15:137-146.

                Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper.

                Liker, JK, M Nagamachi, and YR Lifshitz. 1988. A Comparitive Analysis of Participatory Programs in US and Japan Manufacturing Plants. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. of Michigan, Center for Ergonomics, Industrial and Operational Engineering.

                Lillrank, B and N Kano. 1989. Continuous Improvement: Quality Control Circles in Japanese Industries. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. of Michigan, Center for Japanese Studies.

                Locke, EA and DM Schweiger. 1979. Participation in decision making: One more look. In Research in Organizational Behavior, edited by BM Staw. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

                Louhevaara, V, T Hakola, and H Ollila. 1990. Physical work and strain involved in manual sorting of postal parcels. Ergonomics 33:1115-1130.

                Luczak, H. 1982.  Belastung, Beanspruchung und Erholungszeit bei informatorisch- mentaler Arbeit — Literaturexpertise. Forschungsbericht der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Unfallforschung Dortmund . Bremerhaven: Wirtschaftsverlag NW.

                —. 1983. Ermüdung. In Praktische Arbeitsphysiologie, edited by W Rohmert and J Rutenfranz. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag.

                —. 1993. Arbeitswissenschaft. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

                Majchrzak, A. 1988. The Human Side of Factory Automation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

                Martin, T, J Kivinen, JE Rijnsdorp, MG Rodd, and WB Rouse. 1991. Appropriate automation-integrating technical, human, organization, economic and cultural factors. Automatica 27:901-917.

                Matsumoto, K and M Harada. 1994. The effect of night-time naps on recovery from fatigue following night work. Ergonomics 37:899-907.

                Matthews, R. 1982. Divergent conditions in the technological development of India and Japan. Lund Letters on Technology and Culture, No. 4. Lund: Univ. of Lund, Research Policy Institute.

                McCormick, EJ. 1979. Job Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: American Management Association.

                McIntosh, DJ. 1994. Integration of VDUs into the US office work environment. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Scientific Conference WWDU ‘94. Milan: Univ. of Milan.

                McWhinney. 1990. The Power of Myth in Planning and Organizational Change, 1989 IEEE Technics, Culture and Consequences. Torrence, Calif.: IEEE Los Angeles Council.

                Meshkati, N. 1989. An etiological investigation of micro and macroergonomics factors in the Bhopal disaster: Lessons for industries of both industrialized and developing countries. Int J Ind Erg 4:161-175.

                Minors, DS and JM Waterhouse. 1981. Anchor sleep as a synchronizer of rhythms on abnormal routines.  Int J Chronobiology : 165-188.

                Mital, A and W Karwowski. 1991. Advances in Human Factors/Ergonomics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

                Monk, TH. 1991.  Sleep, Sleepiness and Performance . Chichester: Wiley.

                Moray, N, PM Sanderson, and K Vincente. 1989. Cognitive task analysis for a team in a complex work domain: A case study. Proceedings of the Second European Meeting On Cognitive Science Approaches to Process Control, Siena, Italy.

                Morgan, CT, A Chapanis, JS III Cork, and MW Lund. 1963. Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

                Mossholder, KW and RD Arvey. 1984. Synthetic validity: A conceptual and comparative review. J Appl Psychol 69:322-333.

                Mumford, E and Henshall. 1979. A Participative Approach to Computer Systems Design. London: Associated Business Press.

                Nagamachi, M. 1992. Pleasantness and Kansei engineering. In Measurement Standards. Taejon, Korea: Korean Research Institute of Standards and Science Publishing.

                National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1981. Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting. Cincinnati, Ohio: US Department of Health and Human Services.

                —. 1990. OSHA Instruction CPL 2.85: Directorate of Compliance Programs: Appendix C, Guidelines Auggested By NIOSH for Videotape Evaluation of Work Station for Upper Extremities Cumulative Trauma Disorders. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

                Navarro, C. 1990. Functional communication and problem-solving in a bus traffic-regulation task. Psychol Rep 67:403-409.

                Negandhi, ART. 1975. Modern Organizational Behaviour. Kent: Kent Univ..

                Nisbett, RE and TD De Camp Wilson. 1977. Telling more than we know. Psychol Rev 84:231-259.

                Norman, DA. 1993. Things That Make Us Smart. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

                Noro, K and AS Imada. 1991. Participatory Ergonomics. London: Taylor & Francis.

                O’Donnell, RD and FT Eggemeier. 1986. Work load assessment methodology. In Handbook of Perception and Human Performance. Cognitive Processes and Performance, edited by K Boff, L Kaufman, and JP Thomas. New York: Wiley.

                Pagels, HR. 1984. Computer culture: The scientific, intellectual and social impact of the computer. Ann NY Acad Sci :426.

                Persson, J and Å Kilbom. 1983. VIRA—En Enkel Videofilmteknik För Registrering OchAnalys Av Arbetsställningar Och—Rörelser. Solna, Sweden: Undersökningsrapport,Arbetraskyddsstyrelsen.

                Pham, DT and HH Onder. 1992. A knowledge-based system for optimizing workplace layouts using a genetic algorithm. Ergonomics 35:1479-1487.

                Pheasant, S. 1986. Bodyspace, Anthropometry, Ergonomics and Design. London: Taylor & Francis.

                Poole, CJM. 1993. Seamstress’ finger. Brit J Ind Med 50:668-669.

                Putz-Anderson, V. 1988. Cumulative Trauma Disorders. A Manual for Musculoskeletal Diseases of the Upper Limbs. London: Taylor & Francis.

                Rasmussen, J. 1983. Skills, rules, and knowledge: Sinds, signs, symbols and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE T Syst Man Cyb 13:257-266.

                —. 1986. A framework for cognitive task analysis in systems design. In Intelligent Decision Support in Process Environments, edited by E Hollnagel, G Mancini, and DD Woods. Berlin: Springer.

                Rasmussen, J, A Pejtersen, and K Schmidts. 1990. In Taxonomy for Analysis of Work Domains. Proceedings of the First MOHAWC Workshop, edited by B Brehmer, M de Montmollin and J Leplat. Roskilde: Riso National Laboratory.

                Reason, J. 1989. Human Error. Cambridge: CUP.

                Rebiffé, R, O Zayana, and C Tarrière. 1969. Détermination des zones optimales pour l’emplacement des commandes manuelles dans l’espace de travail. Ergonomics 12:913-924.

                Régie nationale des usines Renault (RNUR). 1976. Les profils de poste: Methode d’analyse des conditions de travail. Paris: Masson-Sirtes.

                Rogalski, J. 1991. Distributed decision making in emergency management: Using a method as a framework for analysing cooperative work and as a decision aid. In Distributed Decision Making. Cognitive Models for Cooperative Work, edited by J Rasmussen, B Brehmer, and J Leplat. Chichester: Wiley.

                Rohmert, W. 1962. Untersuchungen über Muskelermüdung und Arbeitsgestaltung. Bern: Beuth-Vertrieb.

                —. 1973. Problems in determining rest allowances. Part I: Use of modern methods to evaluate stress and strain in static muscular work. Appl Ergon 4(2):91-95.

                —. 1984. Das Belastungs-Beanspruchungs-Konzept. Z Arb wiss 38:193-200.

                Rohmert, W and K Landau. 1985. A New Technique of Job Analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.

                Rolland, C. 1986. Introduction à la conception des systèmes d’information et panorama des méthodes disponibles. Génie Logiciel 4:6-11.

                Roth, EM and DD Woods. 1988. Aiding human performance. I. Cognitive analysis. Travail Hum 51:39-54.

                Rudolph, E, E Schönfelder, and W Hacker. 1987. Tätigkeitsbewertungssystem für geistige arbeit mit und ohne Rechnerunterstützung (TBS-GA). Berlin: Psychodiagnostisches Zentrum der Humboldt-Universität.

                Rutenfranz, J. 1982. Occupational health measures for night- and shiftworkers. II. Shiftwork: Its practice and improvement. J Hum Ergol:67-86.

                Rutenfranz, J, J Ilmarinen, F Klimmer, and H Kylian. 1990. Work load and demanded physical performance capacity under different industrial working conditions. In Fitness for Aged, Disabled, and Industrial Workers, edited by M Kaneko. Champaign, Ill.: Human Kinetics Books.

                Rutenfranz, J, P Knauth, and D Angersbach. 1981. Shift work research issues. In  Biological Rhythms, Sleep and Shift Work , edited by LC Johnson, DI Tepas, WP Colquhoun, and MJ Colligan. New York: Spectrum Publications Medical and Scientific Books.

                Saito, Y. and K Matsumoto. 1988. Variations of physiological functions and psychological measures and their relationship on delayed shift of sleeping time.  Jap J Ind Health  30:196-205.

                Sakai, K, A Watanabe, N Onishi, H Shindo, K Kimotsuki, H Saito, and K Kogl. 1984. Conditions of night naps effective to facilitate recovery from night work fatigue.  J Sci  Lab 60: 451-478.

                Savage, CM and D Appleton. 1988. CIM and Fifth Generation Management. Dearborn: CASA/SME Technical Council.

                Savoyant, A and J Leplat. 1983. Statut et fonction des communications dans l’activité des équipes de travail. Psychol Franç 28:247-253.

                Scarbrough, H and JM Corbett. 1992. Technology and Organization. London: Routledge.

                Schmidtke, H. 1965. Die Ermüdung. Bern: Huber.

                —. 1971. Untersuchungen über den Erholunggszeitbedarf bei verschiedenen Arten gewerblicher Tätigkeit. Berlin: Beuth-Vertrieb.

                Sen, RN. 1984. Application of ergonomics to industrially developing countries. Ergonomics 27:1021-1032.

                Sergean, R. 1971. Managing Shiftwork. London: Gower Press.

                Sethi, AA, DHJ Caro, and RS Schuler. 1987. Strategic Management of Technostress in an Information Society. Lewiston: Hogrefe.

                Shackel, B. 1986. Ergonomics in design for usability. In People and Computer: Design for Usability, edited by MD Harrison and AF Monk. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

                Shahnavaz, H. 1991. Transfer of Technology to Industrially Developing Countries and Human Factors Consideration TULEÅ 1991: 22, 23024. Luleå Univ., Luleå, Sweden: Center for Ergonomics of Developing Countries.

                Shahnavaz, H, J Abeysekera, and A Johansson. 1993. Solving multi-factorial work-environment problems through participatory ergonomics: Case study: VDT operators. In Ergonomics of Manual Work, edited by E Williams, S Marrs, W Karwowski, JL Smith, and L Pacholski. London: Taylor & Francis.

                Shaw, JB and JH Riskind. 1983. Predicting job stress using data from the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). J Appl Psychol 68:253-261.

                Shugaar, A. 1990. Ecodesign: New products for a greener culture. Int Herald Trib, 17.

                Sinaiko, WH. 1975. Verbal factors in human engineering: Some cultural and psychological data. In Ethnic Variables in Human Factors Engineering, edited by A Chapanis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ..

                Singleton, WT. 1982. The Body At Work. Cambridge: CUP.

                Snyder, HL. 1985a. Image quality: Measures and visual performance. In Flat Panel Displays and CRTs, edited by LE Tannas. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

                —. 1985b. The visual system: Capabilities and limitations. In Flat Panel Displays and CRTs, edited by LE Tannas. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

                Solomon, CM. 1989. The corporate response to work force diversity. Pers J 68:42-53.

                Sparke, P. 1987. Modern Japanese Design. New York: EP Dutton.

                Sperandio, JC. 1972. Charge de travail et régulation des processus opératoires. Travail Hum 35:85-98.

                Sperling, L, S Dahlman, L Wikström, A Kilbom, and R Kadefors. 1993. A cube model for the classification of work with hand tools and the formulation of functional requirements. Appl Ergon 34:203-211.

                Spinas, P. 1989. User oriented software development and dialogue design. In Work With Computers: Organizational, Management, Stress and Health Aspects, edited by MJ Smith and G Salvendy. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

                Staramler, JH. 1993. The Dictionary of Human Factors Ergonomics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

                Strohm, O, JK Kuark, and A Schilling. 1993. Integrierte Produktion: Arbeitspsychologische Konzepte und empirische Befunde, Schriftenreihe Mensch, Technik, Organisation. In CIM—Herausforderung an Mensch, Technik, Organisation, edited by G Cyranek and E Ulich. Stuttgart, Zürich: Verlag der Fachvereine.

                Strohm, O, P Troxler and E Ulich. 1994. Vorschlag für die Restrukturierung eines
                Produktionsbetriebes. Zürich: Institut für Arbietspsychologie der ETH.

                Sullivan, LP. 1986. Quality function deployment: A system to assure that customer needs drive the product design and production process. Quality Progr :39-50.

                Sundin, A, J Laring, J Bäck, G Nengtsson, and R Kadefors. 1994. An Ambulatory Workplace for Manual Welding: Productivity through Ergonomics. Manuscript. Göteborg: Lindholmen Development.

                Tardieu, H, D Nanci, and D Pascot. 1985. Conception d’un système d’information. Paris: Editions d’Organisation.

                Teiger, C, A Laville, and J Durafourg. 1974. Taches répétitives sous contrainte de temps et charge de travail. Rapport no 39. Laboratoire de physiologie du travail et d’ergonomie du CNAM.

                Torsvall, L, T Akerstedt, and M. Gillberg. 1981. Age, sleep and irregular workhours: a field study with EEG recording, catecholamine excretion and self-ratings.  Scand J Wor Env Health  7:196-203.

                Ulich, E. 1994. Arbeitspsychologie 3. Auflage. Zürich: Verlag der Fachvereine and Schäffer-Poeschel.

                Ulich, E, M Rauterberg, T Moll, T Greutmann, and O Strohm. 1991. Task orientation and user-oriented dialogue design. In  Int J Human-Computer Interaction  3:117-144.

                United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 1992. Ergonomics Impact of Science on Society. Vol. 165. London: Taylor & Francis.

                Van Daele, A. 1988. L’écran de visualisation ou la communication verbale? Analyse comparative de leur utilisation par des opérateurs de salle de contrôle en sidérurgie. Travail Hum 51(1):65-80.

                —. 1992. La réduction de la complexité par les opérateurs dans le contrôle de processus continus. contribution à l’étude du contrôle par anticipation et de ses conditions de mise en œuvre. Liège: Université de Liège.

                Van der Beek, AJ, LC Van Gaalen, and MHW Frings-Dresen. 1992. Working postures and activities of lorry drivers: A reliability study of on-site observation and recording on a pocket computer. Appl Ergon 23:331-336.

                Vleeschdrager, E. 1986.  Hardness 10: diamonds . Paris.

                Volpert, W. 1987. Psychische Regulation von Arbeitstätigkeiten. In Arbeitspsychologie. Enzklopüdie der Psychologie, edited by U Kleinbeck and J Rutenfranz. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

                Wagner, R. 1985. Job analysis at ARBED. Ergonomics 28:255-273.

                Wagner, JA and RZ Gooding. 1987. Effects of societal trends on participation research. Adm Sci Q 32:241-262.

                Wall, TD and JA Lischeron. 1977. Worker Participation: A Critique of the Literature and Some Fresh Evidence. London: McGraw-Hill.

                Wang, WM-Y. 1992. Usability Evaluation for Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). Luleå, Sweden: Luleå Univ. of Technology.

                Waters, TR, V Putz-Anderson, A Garg, and LJ Fine. 1993. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual handling tasks. Ergonomics 36:749-776.

                Wedderburn, A. 1991. Guidelines for shiftworkers. Bulletin of European Shiftwork Topics (BEST) No. 3. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

                Welford, AT. 1986. Mental workload as a function of demand, capacity, strategy and skill. Ergonomics 21:151-176.

                White, PA. 1988. Knowing more about what we tell: ‘Introspective access’ and causal report accuracy, 10 years later. Brit J Psychol 79:13-45.

                Wickens, C. 1992. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. New York: Harper Collins.

                Wickens, CD and YY Yeh. 1983. The dissociation between subjective work load and performance: A multiple resources approach. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, Calif.: Human Factors Society.

                Wieland-Eckelmann, R. 1992. Kognition, Emotion und Psychische Beanspruchung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

                Wikström.L, S Byström, S Dahlman, C Fransson, R Kadefors, Å Kilbom, E Landervik, L Lieberg, L Sperling, and J Öster. 1991. Criterion for Selection and Development of Hand Tools. Stockholm: National Institute of Occupational Health.

                Wilkinson, RT. 1964. Effects of up to 60 hours sleep deprivation on different types of work. Ergonomics 7:63-72.

                Williams, R. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Glasgow: Fontana.

                Wilpert, B. 1989. Mitbestimmung. In Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie. Internationales Handbuch in Schlüsselbegriffen, edited by S Greif, H Holling, and N Nicholson. Munich: Psychologie Verlags Union.

                Wilson, JR. 1991. Participation: A framework and foundation for ergonomics. J Occup Psychol 64:67-80.

                Wilson, JR and EN Corlett. 1990. Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics Methodology. London: Taylor & Francis.

                Wisner, A. 1983. Ergonomics or anthropology: A limited or wide approach to working condition in technology transfer. In Proceedings of the First International Conference On Ergonomics of Developing Countries, edited by Shahnavaz and Babri. Luleå, Sweden: Luleå Univ. of Technology.

                Womack, J, T Jones, and D Roos. 1990. The Machine That Changed the World. New York: Macmillan.

                Woodson, WE, B Tillman, and P Tillman. 1991. Human Factors Design Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

                Zhang, YK and JS Tyler. 1990. The establishment of a modern telephone cable production facility in a developing country. A case study. In International Wire and Cable Symposium Proceedings. Illinois.

                Zinchenko, V and V Munipov. 1989. Fundamentals of Ergonomics. Moscow: Progress.