Professional Journal Field Ergonomics Arti the Article

¶ … Professional Journal Field Ergonomics Arti The article critiqued in this document is entitled "Workplace economics." It was authored by representatives from the American Chiropractic Association -- although a specific author is not identified. This article serves as an overview to the field of ergonomics as it affects the workplace. The author approaches the topic from a decidedly broad perspective. There are a number of generalizations that are made in this article. In fact, very few of the assertions within it are actually substantiated.

As such, it appears as though the author believes the reader should simply believe him or her based on the author's word, or perhaps because of the publication's backing by the American Chiropractic Association. A STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM There is no research problem identified in this article. Furthermore, there is no original research performed in it. The only type of problem identified in the article is the general one that ergonomic discomfort engenders in the workplace. Specifically, the issue of injuries incurred while working is addressed.

There are a number of complications that are created by these injuries, which include most eminently higher costs to replace employees that are injured, to treat employees that are injured, and to retrain individuals who are replacing employees. The form that these injuries takes generally includes, "carpal tunnel syndrome (a nerve entrapment at the wrist seen in computer users), low-back pain, tendonitis, bursitis, and neck pain or headaches" (ACA, no date, p. 1).

These injuries are definitely problems that are worthy of research in the field of ergonomics, since ensuring ergonomic comfort could largely prevent a number of them. Some organizations develop "programs" (Kelby, 2014, p. 53) to address these issues. However, this problem is not researched in this article. A DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH PROCEDURES There was no research conducted in this article. Therefore, there were no research procedures as well. Instead, there are a bevy of assumptions and unsubstantiated statements about ergonomics and the injuries that they cause.

There is not one citation or references throughout this entire article. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy to mention that many of the unsubstantiated statements and assumptions made about ergonomics and the proclivity towards injury that improper ergonomics produce are plausible. They seem to make sense. However, it would greatly improve the cogency of the author if these statements were based on the sort of empirical evidence that original research, and citations of others that had conducted original research, facilitates.

FLAWS IN THE PROCEDURAL DESIGN The principle flaw in the procedural design is the fact that there is no procedural design. A procedural design is a part of conducting original research; no such research was conducted in this document. As such, virtually all of the information offered in this article is flawed. The authors could have possibly alleviated this problem in the research design by at least referencing other peer-reviewed, empirical evidence-based research documents that could buttress the assertions made in this article. However, no such attempt was made.

The closest the authors come to doing so is denoted in the subsequent quotation. "According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, ergonomics is the science of fitting workplace conditions and job demands to employee capabilities" (ACA, no date, p. 1). Although there is a reference to an external governmental authority, there is no citation and the reader has no way of substantiating this definition. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA There is no data in this article. This point is an extreme detriment.

Data could have been deployed to corroborate some of the findings in this document. There is actually no shortage of such findings. The article includes several suggestions for correcting ergonomic difficulties that can result in work related injuries. And, as previously mentioned, despite the lack of original research or citations from peer-reviewed sources in this document, the vast majority of these suggestions appear plausible and seem like good advice. However, the reader does not know the source of these suggestions, and cannot validate them.

Including original research and generating and analyzing data that could positively impact the development of ergonomics would only assist this article. The fact that no such data exists makes all of the information in this article dubitable, and far from scientific. LIMITED AND JUSTIFIABLE CONCLUSIONS Without conducting original research or reviewing literature that contains original research, it is impossible for the author of this document to garner any sort of justifiable conclusions.

Those that are drawn and which largely take the form of suggestions certainly seem as thought they could help employees.