Análisis de Resultados de las Áreas de cambio

Sammut’s (2015) nested model of social behaviour (Figure 11) illustrates the social character of social representation (see also Bauer and Gaskell 1999). In a social representation there are at least two persons (called subjects) who are oriented towards

and evaluate the same object. Their consensual attitudes towards the object forge a social representation of the object. The concept of point of view bridges the intrapersonal attitude and the interpersonal social representation. A point of view is acquired from a subject position (Davies and Harré 1990) and allows the person to perceive the object in a certain way. A point of view is both relative and relational (Sammut 2015). In the diagram, point of view relates Subject-1 to the object in focus and it also links Subject-1 to Subject-2. Likewise, Subject-2 holds a consequent viewpoint to both Subject-1 and the object. A closely related concept to point of view is the notion of ‘taking a stance’.

Figure 11 Nested model of social behaviour (Sammut 2015)

DuBois (2007) expounded the notion of stancetaking in a model called stance triangle. By definition,

Stance is a public act by a social actor, achieved dialogically through overt communicative means, of simultaneously evaluating objects, positioning subjects (self and others), and aligning with other subjects, with respect to any salient dimension of the socio-cultural field (p.163).

DuBois, a sociolinguist, was interested in how people use language to calibrate their stance particularly in naturally occurring, face-to-face, and everyday conversations such

as banter between co-workers. For him, stance taking is a triplex act – i.e. three acts in one (DuBois 2012). The logic of stance can be summarised by the statement: ‘I evaluate something, and thereby position myself, and thereby align with you’ (2007 p.163). This means that the acts of positioning and aligning are always implicated in every act of evaluation. DuBois describes stance as having a ‘blowback effect’. If I evaluate an object as either positive or negative, I am not just saying something about that object, I am, as a consequence, telling the world about myself. My opinion of the object also (dis)aligns myself to certain others.

The conceptual links between ‘point of view’ and ‘stance’ can now be outlined (Figure 11). The attitude of Person-1 towards the object is effectively an evaluative stance. This favourable or unfavourable attitude of Person-1 also creates a stance position in relation to both the object and to the Person-2 who is simultaneously taking a stance towards the object. The respective evaluations and consequent positions of the two persons can be used to assess whether their stances towards the object are aligned or not. The two persons have a ‘shared’ point of view if their positions are more or less aligned.

An example can further clarify these points. As discussed in the previous sections, workers’ prior motivation and the extent to which such expectation is adequately addressed in the work setting are predictive of job satisfaction (e.g. Testa 2004; Larsen et al. 2012). One extrinsic dimension of work valued by employees is opportunity for career development. This relates to whether or not chances for promotion are available and whether workers have equitable access to career advancement (Kalleberg 2011). Let us assume that four seafarers working on-board cruise ships were asked their opinion of whether there is fair access to promotion among employees. They were asked to evaluate an attitude statement using a five-point Likert scale where 1=Strongly disagree, 3=undecided and 5=Strongly agree. The participants gave the following evaluation:

Attitude Object ‘On-board, every person has an equal chance of being promoted.’ Subjects Evaluative rating to the statement

Mario 5=Strongly agree

Andro 1=Disagree

Gloria 4=Agree

Anelyn 2=Strongly disagree

Mario and Gloria support the idea that the cruise ship work setting offers workers an equitable chance at getting promoted. Andro and Anelyn gave an unfavourable evaluation to the statement and seem to suggest that certain employees are more likely to be given a promotion than others. Whilst they both agree to the statement, Mario gave a rating score of “5” whereas Gloria gave a score “4”. Andro “disagreed” with the statement and Anelyn expressed a “strong disagreement”. Each of them has a ‘personal’ point of view towards the issue of fair access to promotion. Each of them is drawing from their own individual experience, knowledge and beliefs. Mario and Gloria’s positions on the matter are closely aligned with each other but are in contrast to the positions of Andro and Anelyn. Using the issue of career opportunities these hypothetical participants may initially be grouped based on shared opinion or point of view. One group seem to affirm an image of a ‘fair employer’ (i.e. Mario and Gloria) but the other group suggests otherwise (i.e. Andro and Anelyn).

To have a deeper understanding of the emerging social representations of work and life on-board cruise ships we can perhaps expand our analysis and explore other forms of job rewards such as convenience, compensation, relationship with co-workers and resource adequacy (Kalleberg 1977). Moreover, attitudes towards job tasks, the company, the physical environment on-board, future work intentions and issues of family relationships may also be relevant objects in socially representing the work and life of cruise ship employees. Analysis of attitudes on this range of issues follows from the argument that ‘orientations to work are enmeshed in the totality of social experience, both at work and outside’ (Blackburn and Mann 1979 p.242). It is possible that in considering the opinions of seafarers on a range of issues about working and living on-board cruise ships that several social representations emerge: that is, even

though participants have a common experience of being employed on a cruise ship, each one has a unique point of view that may cluster into shared points of view.

Chapter Summary

After reviewing an emerging area of research that focused on the different aspects of the work and life of seafarers on-board cruise ships, this chapter discussed work orientations, social representations, viewpoint and stance as key concepts around which the study revolves. By and large, research about cruise sector seafarers has focused on issues framed within the workplace setting of the ship. Studies have discussed occupational issues such as physical and emotional labour, person- organisation fit of certain groups of workers in a multicultural setting, and correlates of job satisfaction among others. Studies about organisational issues covered the relevance of organisational commitment, the conceptualisation of the ship as a total institution, extended social interaction and existence of identifiable communities on- board based on similar rank, occupation or ethno-nationality. Several studies meanwhile focused on the work motivation of seafarers and metaphors/images of their work and life.

I have argued that these studies can be broadly subsumed under the canopy of work orientation research that revolves around work motivation and responses to work. Work orientation typologies that have emerged over the years have described different types of orientations based on how extrinsic and intrinsic rewards are valued and experienced. Nevertheless, as some authors have argued from the outset, there is a need to situate these meanings about work within the overall and ongoing experience of the workers both inside and outside the confines of the work setting. Following this argument, work orientation can be approached using a socio-temporal frame which takes into account the occupational, organisational and non-work issues individuals face before, during and after employment. In a sense, the analytical gaze moves beyond motivation, and instead towards a social representation of working lives. Examining how seafarers socially represent their own experience of working and living on-board

cruise ships provides an opportunity to illustrate the extent to which work orientations – motivations and judgements about work – can be potentially dynamic and heterogeneous.

Finally, the flexible framework of social representations theory helps us extend the idea of exploring ‘uniquely identifiable communities’ signalled in previous studies (Gibson 2008; Lee-Ross 2008). Instead of characterising these groups according to pre-existing categories (e.g. employer versus worker, marine crew versus hotel staff, developed country versus developing country) these groups can be ‘naturally’ defined based on shared viewpoints or stance (Bauer and Gaskell 1999). They are groups precisely because they subscribe to the same social representation or shared viewpoint about the working lives of seafarers. These social representations are significant examples that illustrate diverse ways by which workers in a globalised industry are able to retain individual agency in carving out, negotiating, innovating and defending meaning from work (Hodson 2001; Watson et al. 2003; Howarth 2006a).

Mindful of a strand of research about cruise sector seafarers and the conceptual distinctions between ‘social representation’, ‘viewpoint’ and ‘stance’ discussed in this chapter, an important methodological task becomes apparent. How can we empirically model the notions of stance, viewpoint and work orientation in a study of the social representations of the working lives of cruise sector seafarers? The succeeding chapter proposes to provide ‘proof of concepts’ and to operationalise the inter-relationship of these ideas (see Section 4.1.2, pp.81-84) using the technique, method and epistemology of Q-methodology.

Researching Shared Viewpoints

Method and theory are like the language of the country you live in: it is nothing to brag about that you can speak it, but it is a disgrace, as well as an inconvenience, if you cannot.

C. Wright Mills (1959)