IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v30y1990i3p365-372.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The social recognition of repetition strain injuries: An Australian/American comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Hopkins, Andrew

Abstract

In the mid 1980s the problem of occupational overuse injuries, particularly among keyboard operators, gained widespread recognition in Australia. The country appeared to be experiencing an epidemic, the like of which was unknown elsewhere in the world. Three explanations are canvassed in the paper: first, the psychiatric theory that it was a case of 'epidemic hysteria'; second the hypothesis that there really were more such injuries in Australia than elsewhere; and third, the hypothesis that the institutions of Australian society facilitated recognition of the problem, while those of other countries repress awareness of it. The paper focusses on this last hypothesis and seeks to demonstrate it by means of a comparison between Australia and the United States. It shows how, in particular, the system of workers' compensation in the Australian public service facilitated recognition of the problem, while the compensation system in the United States makes it very difficult for sufferers to have their disability acknowledged. Since workers' compensation is virtually the only source of injury statistics, this had led to the visibility of the problem in Australia and its invisibility in the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • Hopkins, Andrew, 1990. "The social recognition of repetition strain injuries: An Australian/American comparison," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 365-372, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:30:y:1990:i:3:p:365-372
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(90)90191-T
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:30:y:1990:i:3:p:365-372. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.