Beneficios de exportar

3.1.1 Research methods adopted in previous studies

Previous studies have tended to address workers’ compensation claims from two perspectives: a legal doctrinal and historical analysis and the empirical analysis of claimants’ experiences (Van Hoecke, 2011). From the legal doctrinal perspective, scholars examine the structures of compensation system and legal entitlements and rights of workers (Burton, 1988; Clayton, 1997; Butler, 2002; Dimitrova and Blanpain, 2010; Oliphant and Wagner, 2012; Lippel and Lötters, 2013; Quinlan et al., 2010) In terms of empirical work, researchers have usually explored the experiences of workers and have identified the negative and harmful outcomes of compensation systems (Lippel et al., 2007; Quinlan et al., 2015; Purse, 2000; Roberts-Yates, 2003; Sun and Zhu, 2009; Matthews et al., 2012).

Legal doctrinal research is concerned with the formulation of legal ‘doctrines’ through the analysis of legal rules, and through collecting normative and

58

authoritative sources25 to build up a system of legal findings and theories (Chynoweth, 2008; Van Hoecke, 2011). One example is Clayton (1997): through comparing and analysing historical and contemporary legal sources from jurisdictions including England, Germany, Australia and the United States, he develops four models of Workers’ Compensation Funds: state fund, self-insurance, co-operative fund and private insurance. Through further legal analysis, Clayton identifies the lack of inherent connection between the social insurance law and occupational health and safety law in the private insurance model, and then he argues this model of legislation is deficient in respect to injury prevention. Another example is an edited work by Oliphant and Wagener (2012): drawing on the legal sources from 13 states regarding the scopes, funding systems, administration and adjudication of claims and employers’ liabilities, they criticise the two-layer model of workers’ compensation and tort liability system as it imposes a double burden of administrative costs on society. On the contrary, drawing on Canadian legal sources, Hyatt and Law (2000) argues that the workers’ compensation one- layer only system needs to be reformed to ensure and expand workers’ rights to initiate tort actions. Legal doctrinal research usually addresses debates regarding weaknesses and strengths of a compensation system from a systematic perspective drawing on legal sources rather than empirical data based on participants’ experiences.

Empirical studies of workers’ claim experiences contribute to a critical sociological analysis of the effects of compensation systems in several developed countries. Lippel et al. (2007) conducted six collective interviews with injured workers’ representatives and 85 individual interviews in Quebec and identified that additional harm occurred during the compensation system to workers’ physical and mental health. This research also explored factors contributing to the harm, such as employers’ surveillance and stigmatisation of welfare claimants and immigration status. Matthews et al. (2012) conducted in-depth interviews with seven surviving families of construction

25 _{Normative sources refer to statutes, treaties, generally principles of law,}

customary law, binding precedents. Authoritative sources include cases law, if they are not binding precedents, and scholarly legal writings.

59

workers to explore the victims’ families’ experiences following traumatic workplace death in the construction industry. Drawing on the surviving families’ accounts, Matthews et al. (2014) and Quinlan et al. (2015) claim that lack of support from authorities is a common problem for surviving families. Sun and Liu (2014) conducted 33 in-depth interviews with injured migrant workers and eight employers in China to critically assess the effects of the Work-related Injury Insurance in practice. Through this qualitative study, they made a claim that Chinese Work-related Injury Insurance is an ornamental institution, and migrant workers could barely obtain compensation through this insurance. Drawing on the recent empirical studies regarding workers’ claim experiences, the qualitative interview is commonly used by the researchers (Lippel, 2003b; Lippel, 2007; Lippel et al., 2007; Strunin and Boden, 2004; Matthews et al., 2012; Matthews et al., 2014; Quinlan et al., 2015). Matthews et al. (2014) justify the use of qualitative methods by emphasising their value in exploring complex phenomena and providing insights into the experiences and views of people with different stakes and perspectives. Qualitative research methods also allow researchers to evaluate legal systems and public policies drawing on the experiences and viewpoints of those who are affected by specific public issues and policy (Sofaer, 1999; Ritchie and Spencer, 2002). Strunin and Boden (2004) justify the use of qualitative research methods by arguing that ethnographic interviews can provide in-depth details through narratives of situations, events and interactions. Also, they emphasise the socially constructed nature of reality and how social experience is created and given meaning (Needleman and Needleman, 1996; Denzin and Lincoln, 2003).

3.1.2 Research methods in this study

In this study, I will use qualitative research methods to explore the claim experiences of injured Chinese workers and surviving families following workplace accidents. With the advantages of the qualitative research methods, I will be able to explore the in-depth details of the claim activities including (1) the stages of a compensation claim process; (2) the stakeholders and key players in managing seafarers’ claims (3) the feeling and experiences of victims during the claim process; (4) victims’ opinions regarding their legal

60

rights and entitlements available from the compensation system, employers’ claim management policies and practices and remedies from public institutions (Creswell, 2009). To address the research question whether Chinese seafarers and surviving families suffer additional harm during compensation processes, I will examine harm as a socially constructed concept and experience, and adopt victims’ narratives of their experiences and feelings as a major source of data to identify whether they have suffered additional harm and what kinds of additional harm they have suffered.

As a socio-legal study, it is necessary here to consider the legal rights and entitlements available for injured seafarers and surviving families following workplace accidents, considering that many challenges during the claim process are caused by the insufficiency of legal rights and procedural supports. The compensation system, including statutes, regulations, the basic concepts, categories and meanings of legal procedures are constructed by the law (Cotterrell 2006).Therefore, I have conducted a legal doctrinal study to collect and analyse both normative and authoritative legal sources regarding the rights and entitlements of injured seafarers and surviving families and conduct a critical evaluation of the current Chinese compensation system (See 4.3).

Compensation claim activities, which are human behaviours and social phenomenon related to law, are more complex than ordinary daily social phenomenon (Cotterrell 2006; Dworkin 1998). Seafarers’ claim activities have a particular structure, complex operation and application process, which usually involves professional assistance. There are various social actors involved in claim activities, including claimants (seafarers or surviving families), liable employers (shipowners and crew agencies), claim administrators of the Work-related Injury Insurance, adjudicators (judges or arbitrators), and relevant third parties (lawyers and representatives of liability insurers). Claim activities are also varied: in addition to litigation, informal negotiations are also widely reported as dispute resolution measures, which are subject to the soico-economic power difference between victims and employers (Sun and Liu, 2014; Engel 1994; Ross 1980). Even in the formal

61

legal action, socio-economic factors may influence the power of balance between claimants, employers and adjudicators, which cannot be described by numerical quantitative methods. Considering the complexity of claim activities, qualitative observation methods are appropriate to obtain data containing a richer picture of the whole process of seafarers’ claims.

3.1.3 Secondary harm, human experience and qualitative research methods

Gert (2004) construes harms as pain, death, disability, loss of ability or freedom or loss of pleasure. Harm can also be broadly divided into physical and emotional harm. In the cases of seafarers’ claims following workplace accidents, the primary harm is death or physical pain, while the additional harm seafarers might suffer during the claim process is secondary. This research aims to identify whether such additional harm occurs to victims during the claim process. Although this secondary harm is not recognised as loss and damages by law so far, it is proved to impose negative physical, emotional and financial effects on victims following workplace accidents (Best and Barnes, 2007). This additional harm may also involve different relationships, such as stigmatisation and discrimination, which damages the dignity, self-esteem and confidence of workers (Goffman, 2009; Lippel, 2003b; Lippel, 2007). These harmful relationships can be constructed during the interaction between injured workers, employers and public institutions. The capital-labour conflict is identified as a contributor to the harmful relationships of suppression, discrimination and stigmatisation (See 2.1) (Quinlan et al., 2010; Lippel, 2003b; Lippel et al., 2007).

According to Giddens (1984), human experience is the real material of social analysis. Accurate representation is the prerequisite to increasing people’s knowledge (Smith and Hodkinson, 2005). To address the research question whether Chinese seafarers and surviving families suffer additional harm during compensation processes, qualitative research methods are selected as the primary research instruments. This is based on the selection criteria whether the research instrument can collect an accurate, comprehensive and

62

rich representation of the experiences seafarers have during the claim process. A quantitative survey is not suited when studying the experiences of injured seafarers and surviving families, as it is not able to provide insight into in- depth experiences of (Bryman, 2008; Creswell, 2009). Qualitative methods are more appropriate instrument helping me to collect data to address my research question (Bryman and Burgess, 1999; Coffey and Atkinson, 1996; Creswell, 2009; Denzin and Lincoln, 2008; Huberman and Miles, 2002; King, 1994; Rubin and Rubin, 2005). Referring to literature discussed in previous chapter, I have found most of the studies on injured workers adopted qualitative research methods, including interviews, focus group and participatory action research methods (Lippel et al., 2007; Purse, 2009; Matthews et al., 2012; Quinlan et al., 2015; Strunin and Boden, 2004) and quantitative research methods are rarely found.

In addition, considering the nature of a socio-legal study, legal doctrinal research is necessary to understand the entitlements and rights for injured seafarers and surviving families and then based on these legal findings, a critical analysis regarding law and policy can be achieved.