This study is designed as a case study; an approach intended to answer “how” and “why” questions and focusing on contemporary events. The case study approach is situated within a constructivist paradigm, which enables informants to describe their view of reality and this allows researchers to understand informants’ views and actions (Yin, 2014). A case study is, therefore, chosen as it helps us understand the perceptions and decision-making processes of children and their parents concerning their engagement in employment. It also helps us understand the case by considering the context in which children’s everyday lives take place, such as the dynamics of children’s families, local values and circumstances, government
policies, and global standards promoted by international agencies. It is in these settings that the understandings, beliefs and attitudes of children and their parents are developed. Without considering the context, a picture of the views and
experiences of children and their parents is hard to portray.
A case study has several important characteristics. It is a detailed, in depth examination of a person, group or setting and uses multiple data sources and
perspectives. The focus is on the individual or group, not the population. The meaning of the study is extracted from observation and the findings are instructive, not generalizable (Hancock and Algozzine, 2006). Based on positivist logic, these characteristics lead to the one of the disadvantages of case studies, which is the problem of generalisation. A case study does not require sample representativeness from a population; therefore, the study does not provide validity from which to base a generalisation. To be able to make any generalisations, a researcher must conduct a series of case studies. However, this approach is not taken in the current study; instead, this study follows other arguments regarding the possibility for a qualitative study to be used to make a generalisation (see Chapter 9 of this thesis for further explanation; also: Flyvbjerg, 2006; Mason, 2002:39, 194-200; Payne and Williams, 2005; Ruddin, 2006).
In order to avoid studying a topic that is too broad or has too many objectives, this study has clarified how to limit the case. Stake (1995) and Yin (2014) suggest that a researcher should bind the case of study. It can be based on several combinations of considerations: by time and place (Creswell, 2002); by time and activity (Stake, 1995); and (c) by definition and context (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Binding the case will ensure that the study remains reasonable in scope. Drawing on these arguments, this study binds the case based on five aspects for consideration: activity, context, place, time and definition. It is intended that the study be about child work (binding the activity), in agriculture (binding the context), conducted in Central Java and East Java (binding the place) and in the year of 2013 (binding the time). The case is also bound to the definition of working children and child labour provided by the ICLS 2009 and the ILO (binding the definition). Following Statistics Indonesia and the ILO, this research defines working children/children in
employment as all persons aged 5 to 17 years who engaged in any activity falling within the production boundary in the SNA (System of National Account) for at least one hour during the reference period. Moreover, with reference to Statistics Indonesia and the ILO (2010), this research defines child labour as working children who engaged in the worst forms of child labour and/or in employment below the minimum age for employment or work in Indonesia: (a) all working children aged 5-12 years, regardless of their working hours, (b) working children
aged 13-14 years who worked more than 15 hours per week, and (c) working children aged 15-17 years who worked more than 40 hours per week.
4.4 SAMPLING
Choosing research sites and the use of gatekeepers
As detailed, this study focuses on children working in agricultural contexts in Java by collecting qualitative data from children and their parents. Taking statistical and technical considerations, Central Java and East Java were selected as the research sites for this case study of child labour in Indonesia. Statistical data on child labour from 2009 shows that the number of children involved in employment in Central Java and East Java was the fourth highest percentage (4.2 per cent) in Indonesia. This was below Eastern Indonesia, Sulawesi and Sumatera, with percentages of 8.9%, 8.3%, and 5.4% respectively. For financial reasons, this research was not undertaken in those three areas. Central Java and East Java were the most
appropriate locations considering the high rate of child labour in those regions and the limitation of research resources. In general, the selection of research sites in Central Java and East Java was completed in three steps: two districts were selected, followed by the selection of two sub-districts. The final step was the selection of two communities from the two sub-districts, based on a set of criteria. The main criterion was whether the sites had a high incidence of child labour, and the second criterion was to avoid communities that had been previously studied. The selection of research sites in each step was conducted mainly according to the consideration provided by the gatekeepers in this study. A gatekeeper or stranger- handler is “the person who controls research access” (Saunders, 2006:126). Using a gatekeeper to access the field can be both beneficial and ineffectual. On the one hand, as experience in this study showed, the advantage of using a gatekeeper is that it is easier access to the field. It also allows the researcher to be able to portray the big picture of the field, as the gatekeepers are usually able to provide common information regarding the object of the study. On the other hand, the disadvantage of using a gatekeeper is that their interests may bias the research; the gatekeeper may lead the researcher in a particular direction. Another disadvantage is that
and the gatekeeper, and will affect the validity of the data gathered. Therefore, information about the gatekeepers is important for evaluating the result achieved and for the question of transferability, because gatekeepers often link an element of their self-interest to open further information. This was acknowledged thorough the fieldwork.
The selection of each community was done in a slightly different process, as shown in Figure 4.1. The first location in Central Java was selected based on the
information gathered from institutional gatekeepers at the provincial and district level. The first step, at the provincial level, the gatekeeper was a government officer of the Labour Office. Through a phone-interview, I explained the research project and she suggested four regencies that would be appropriate to study. Among four districts, however, she suggested the District of Central Cowfield as the most interesting to study. The reason, she explained, was that the issues of agricultural child labour and early marriage happen at the same time in several sub-districts in Central Cowfield. The second step, at the district level, there were four institutional gatekeepers, including two officials of the Labour Office, a director of an NGO working with the Labour Office on the elimination of child labour, and an NGO field officer. Having discussed the study separately, the four institutional gatekeepers suggested the sub-district Central Stonehill as research site. This was because the sub-district had the highest incidence of child labour in agriculture and of early marriage. In the final step, accompanied by the field officer who was a facilitator of the PPA-PKH, I then selected two villages in this sub-district: Central Hill and Central Valley.
The second location, in East Java, was selected based on the information gathered from institutional gatekeepers at the provincial and district levels. The first step was, similar to the gatekeeper in Central Java, the provincial gatekeeper in East Java who was also an official of the Labour Office. The different was the gatekeeper in East Java did not have sufficient information about the appropriate districts to study, although he provided some possible districts. Through phone interviews with officials from several districts, I then decided to choose the District of East Springfield. The district was chosen because of its characteristic as an agricultural area, having a high incidence of agricultural child labour, and providing more obvious information about child labour when compared with other districts. For
the second step, at the district level the gatekeepers were also officials of the Labour Office and an NGO field officer. Based on their recommendation, I selected the sub-district of East Teakforest. The final step at this sub-district involved a meeting with the head of the Agricultural Extension Office. After explaining the study, we discussed the appropriate community to study. I asked about a village that I observed before, named East River, as a site of fieldwork and he agreed that the place was an appropriate location.
Figure 4.1 Procedure of selecting research sites
Research site 1 Research site 2
Central Java East Java
Province Province
Central Cowfield East Springfield
District District
Central Stonehill East Teakforest
Sub-District Sub-District
Central Hill Central Valley East River
Village Village Village
Note: Districts, sub-districts and villages are anonymised. In Central Java, two villages were selected as research sites. Although administratively different, the two villages are considered as one location or one research site for the reason that their geographical, socio-economic, and socio-cultural conditions were relatively homogenous.
Sample size
This study examined 20 cases, consisting of 20 pairs of child workers and their parents. The choice for 20 cases was made before the start of the investigation based on several considerations, including the diversity of child workers, academic community responses, and the limitations of research resources such as time limitation and financial constraints. Studying a greater number of children reasonably would be more valuable; however, 20 children was considered to be
enough to include the main features in the sample criteria such as region, gender, age, and type of work.
In qualitative research, the number of interviews considered sufficient to provide validity and deep information is disputed (Glaser and Strauss, 2009; Seidman, 2006). Nick Emmel (2013: Chapter 8) argues that “to ask how big the sample size is or how many interviews are enough is to pose the wrong question. It is far more useful to show the ways in which the working and reworking of relationships between ideas and evidence in the research are a foundation for the claims made from the research”. Similarly, Baker and Edwards (2012), drawing on 14 experts’ voices and five early careers’ reflections, concluded that the most accepted argument is that the number depends on epistemological, methodological and practical issues in the study. One of the considerations is sufficiency, whether the number of participants is able to provide information to fulfil the research purpose (Seidman, 2006). Another consideration, according to Douchet and Charmaz (in Baker and Edwards, 2012), is that researchers should be aware of the degree to which their mentors, peers and readers are satisfied with the research evidence (cases), and then make a decision regarding the size, the diversity of cases and the depth of analysis.
Further consideration, suggested by the developers of the grounded theory approach, is the notion of theoretical saturation (Glaser and Strauss, 2009), later termed as data/thematic saturation for other qualitative approaches (O’Reilly and Parker, 2013). Theoretical saturation is described as a process in which a
researcher should continue interviewing until the point at which further
investigation no longer provides new information for research (Glaser and Strauss, 2009), or according to Guest and colleagues (2006: 65) the notion of saturation is “the point in data collection and analysis when new information produces little or no change to the codebook”. Mason’s (2010) review of PhD studies employing qualitative methods found that most of the students employed the notion of theoretical saturation to justify the sample size. However, O’Reilly and Parker (2013) argue that employing the idea of ‘saturation’ as a generic quality marker is inappropriate. It is in these debates that the sample size was decided: to
acknowledge epistemological, methodological and practical issues by including a particular number of children that can reflect their diversity and provide adequate
evidence for analysis. The notion of theoretical saturation was not feasible to be employed in this study because of the constraints of the resources available.
Negotiating access to the research sites
At the first step of my fieldwork (fieldwork preparation) I fulfilled the bureaucratic requirements by applying for ethical approval from the University of York to conduct fieldwork in Indonesia. This was intended to deal with the problem of negotiating access, including bureaucratic requirements, entering research sites and communities, and gaining access to children and their parents. In a further step I applied for a research permit from the University of Gadjah Mada, where I have been working as a member of academic staff. The role of my university as a partner institution was vital in making the study officially and socially acceptable for the two communities studied. In the next step I applied for a research permit from the local government where my university is located, which is in the Province of Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. The final step in the bureaucratic requirements was to obtain a research approval from Central Java and East Java provinces, followed by
obtaining research permits from two districts: Central Cowfield and East Springfield.
In the final step, besides obtaining research permits from district level
governments, I also collected information about communities being studied. Here, as detailed, the district level officers were the first level of gatekeeper for my study to allow me to gain access to and collect information about research sites. Access was the main item for negotiation between the researcher and the gatekeepers of the field. After getting formal approval to conduct fieldwork and obtain information about the fields, I visited community leaders to gain access at the community level by explaining the purpose of the study. This was conducted prior to interviewing children and their parents. The community leaders in the two areas were village officers, serving as gatekeepers at the community level. This step was very crucial to be able to enter the life of the two communities as this gave me a chance to identify the potential research participants and to ensure that the fieldwork was acceptable in the contexts of the two communities.
notion of non-permissible work. It is clear that there are official concerns about it, such as the government campaign to end child labour by 2022 and the Indonesian National Action Plan for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, which identifies the need “to prevent and eliminate the worst forms of child labour through a three-phase programme over twenty years”. I considered this official concern might prevent the community gatekeepers, parents or children to want to become involved in my study because they might fear stigmatisation or other negative consequences. However, this official concern did not significantly affect my negotiation with the community gatekeepers and the potential participants. One possible explanation might be that the practice of working children (including child labour) in agriculture is culturally acceptable and has been long-standing in
Javanese society (see, for example, Irwanto, et al., 1995; White, 2004, 2009a, 2011, 2012). To deal with the sensitivity of the topic, I always explained to the community gatekeepers and the participants that the project was mainly for academic
purposes, and that I would keep their anonymity and confidentiality by anonymising the name of the districts, the communities, the institutional
gatekeepers, the community gatekeepers, and all informants. This was to ensure that they would voluntarily participate in my study, to minimise any fear of being stigmatised or experiencing other negative consequences. In addition, I always showed the research permits from the University of York, the University of Gadjah Mada, and the local governments to prove to them that the study is officially, legally acceptable. This worked well in my fieldwork.
Sample identification and gaining consent
In this study, the gatekeepers who provided access to the children and families were community leaders. This study found that community leaders had invaluable information regarding children, parents and child labour activities in their
community and they had greater access to the potential research participants, and therefore made the fieldwork easier and more manageable. To avoid
misunderstanding between the researcher and the gatekeeper, I gave gatekeepers a project information sheet, and carefully explained the project in their daily
language, either in Indonesian or in Javanese. The use of Indonesian and Javanese languages helped the researcher to communicate with the gatekeepers effectively.
This was possible as both are my daily languages. As I will explain later, the use of Indonesian and Javanese languages also helped the researcher in interviewing children and parents in this study. In addition, to avoid offending the interests of the gatekeepers that might exist in this study, I explained to the community leaders that the research is for academic purposes so that they felt comfortable and were not worried about any potential negative impacts of the findings of the study. Together with community leaders, I identified possible children and parents to be interviewed by developing a list of child workers. As previously stated, sample characteristics such as gender, age, and the type of work were the main features examined in determining who to include in the informant list. My sample was not representative; therefore the central issue in creating the list of children was capturing diversity. There may be a sampling bias that arises from the involvement of community leaders in generating the informant list. One possible reason was that the identification of children was limited to the knowledge of community leaders; hence it was unable to portray children’s diversity in the community. Another reason was that the list was based on the community leaders’ subjectivity, as influenced by their personal interests. To deal with this possible problem of sample identification, I asked and always emphasised to the community leaders the
necessity to provide a list that reflected the most diverse characteristics of the children.
During the first week of conducting fieldwork in each location, I spent my time familiarising myself with the physical and social environment of the local children and their parents. I observed village streets, local housing, fields, and public facilities. It helped me to gain insight into the context of the situation. I also introduced myself to the community leaders and local groups. As a cultural
strategy, speaking in the Javanese traditional language at first introduction helped