Open AccessTHE ARGUMENTS ABOUT RSI: AN EXAMINATION
Author(s) -
Bammer Gabriele,
Martin Brian
Publication year - 1988
Publication title -
community health studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.946
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1753-6405
pISSN - 0314-9021
DOI - 10.1111/j.1753-6405.1988.tb00596.x
Subject(s) - rigour , principal (computer security) , compensation (psychology) , subject (documents) , work (physics) , repetition (rhetorical device) , psychology , medicine , epistemology , social psychology , computer science , engineering , computer security , mechanical engineering , philosophy , linguistics , library science
The occupational health problem which, in Australia, is commonly referred to as repetition strain injuries (RSI) has long been the subject of debate. A large increase in the number of reported cases was seen in Australia in the 1980s and was accompanied by a flood of articles and letters to medical journals. This has given an unprecedented opportunity for analysis of the debate over this occupational health problem. We outline the standard view that there are work‐related injuries and four principal contrary views: that people with RSI are malingerers, that they suffer from compensation neurosis, that they have a conversion disorder or that they have normal fatigue. We examine the types of arguments and evidence used to back up these views, with particular emphasis on the alternative explanations. We show that the standard view has weaknesses, but that the alternative explanations have even more problems if they are examined with the same rigour that their advocates demand of the standard view.