Three decades ago, Lincoln and Guba (1985) asked, “How can an inquirer persuade his or her audiences that the research findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to (p. 290)?” Concurring, Rolfe (2006) points out that, after a quarter of a century of debate on how best to judge qualitative studies, academics are no closer to agreement on the topic. I also battled with the feeling of doubt because I always had a nagging feeling that perhaps my research project could be found as wanting. As Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008, p. 290) put it: “One of the challenges confronting you as a qualitative researcher is how to assure the readers of your report about its scientific nature, its quality and trustworthiness. Adopting explicit evaluation criteria increases the transparency of your research and provides you with the means to highlight the strengths and limitations of your research.”
Over the past decade however, qualitative scholars have provided important insights into best practices for ensuring the quality of qualitative research.
Values to ensure quality, such as all social knowledge, are not static and, in addition, are contextual and reflect current conversations.
The multiplication of concepts regarding qualitative best practices strongly illustrates that the methodological nature of the qualitative paradigm is complex. The mix of distinct concepts stands in marked contrast to the relative consensus prevailing in the quantitative community that good research aims for validity, reliability, generalisability and objectivity. However, the vast number of criteria prescribed for qualitative research may scare those new to the field, and may also reflect the challenges that qualitative methodologists had in making their ideas respected.
In this regard, Schurink (2009b) points out that at least three distinct thought paradigms on evaluating the quality of qualitative research are presented by scholars. These paradigms held that: (i) qualitative and quantitative research should be evaluated using similar criteria, (ii) qualitative research should be evaluated by standards that have been specifically developed for it, and (iii) completely abandoning measures to assess qualitative work. Notwithstanding the afore-going paradigms, Bloomberg and Volpe (2008, p. 77) maintain that the focus in qualitative research is now “on how well the researcher has provided evidence that her or his descriptions and analysis represent the reality of the situations and persons studied”.
However, Schurink et al. (2012) believe that the focus of the quality of qualitative research debate has now shifted from “fundamental, epistemological and philosophical levels to more concrete and practical levels of research” (p. 422).
In their pioneering work, Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed “trustworthiness” as a substitution for reliability and validity when assessing qualitative study. According to them, trustworthiness comprises four aspects namely: credibility of researcher and results, transferability of findings, dependability of procedures, and confirmability of outcomes. As Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008) point out, it “does not rely on realist or critical conceptions of the social world” (p. 294).
What do these criteria entail and how did this study meet such criteria?
Credibility
In parallel with validity, credibility “…refers to whether the participants' perceptions match up with the researcher's portrayal of them. In other words, has the researcher accurately represented what the participants think feel and do?” (Bloomberg &
Volpe, 2008, p. 77). I conducted the study in line with what is generally deemed to be sound research practice, and made use of the strategies Lincoln and Guba (1985) propose in order to ensure credibility. In particular:
I spent considerable time with the research participants and in research sites.
I continuously pondered the possible effect of my subjectivity as research instrument; on the research process and how to minimize the influence of my biases in my reflective research journal and field notes.
In the field notes I pondered the potential effect of what is sometimes called, observation effects (Mouton & Marais, 1990), or reactive effects (Bryman and Bell (2011)
I applied triangulation by making use of multiple strategies and methods.
I made use of used formalised analytic methods, namely, grounded theory and analytic induction, including deviant case analysis, to verify my interpretations.
I obtained feedback from research participants, or member validation, on my interpretations of what they shared with me. This was done via email and telephone. I sent emails to three research participants who had access to information technology and requested them to indicate if they agreed with the TES typology and if not, to make suggestions on to adjustments. I telephonically discussed my preliminary findings with the other five research participants who had no access to email facilities13
I employed peer debriefing. This refers to a researcher‟s in-depth discussion of his or her critical interpretations and conclusions with
13 See Packer (2011); Bryman & Bell (2011); Koelsch (2013) on talking with people, including telephone discussions as standard methods of validating data
Member checks were also conducted as part of the normal course of observation and interviews.
peers (academics, subject experts, and study leaders). I held regular discussions with my peers who assisted me in making sense of my observations and interpretations. In addition, I also received valuable contextual inputs with a former work colleague and a Senior Commissioner of the CCMA.
Dependability
Dependability refers to researcher‟s responsibility to demonstrate to the reader with a logical, traceable and well-documented exposition of the different stages of the research process. Bloomberg & Volpe (2008, p. 78) maintain that the study is dependable where one can track the process and procedures used to collect and interpret the data. Amplifying the afore-going assertion, Cohen & Crabtree (2008) held that unlike the positivist concept of reliability, the aim of a qualitative study is not to demonstrate an unchanging universe (social world) that is capable of replication;
but to articulate the contextual assumption that the social world is a reconstructed world. For that purpose, the researcher should keep some audit trail of all activities.
Schurink et al. (2011, p. 422) describe an audit trail as follows:
An auditing trail is a systematically maintained, documentation process of the researcher‟s continuous, critical analysis of all decisions and actions taken during the entire research process. The auditing trail displays the interaction between us and our subject (s) in such a way that the research can be understood not only in terms of what was discovered but also how it was discovered The advantage of this is our interpretations can be better understood and validated by readers who are informed about the position we adopt in relation to the study and by our explicit questioning of our own involvement.
In an attempt to ensure dependability, I presented in the thesis a comprehensive discussion of both the study‟s research approach and also the major decisions I took in addressing challenges arising during the research process.
Transferability
This criterion may be regarded as a contrasting concept to external validity or generalisability, or as Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008, p. 293) state: in some way to extend a particular study's findings into a wider context. This ideal is problematic in qualitative research. Noting the said problem, Bryman and Bell (2011, p. 398) wrote:
As qualitative research typically entails the intensive study of a small group, or of individuals sharing certain characteristics (that is, depth rather than the breath that is a preoccupation in quantitative research), qualitative findings tend to be oriented to the contextual uniqueness and significance of the aspect of the social world being studied.
It is, nevertheless, expected of the qualitative researcher to provide sufficient information or a database (Guba & Lincoln, 1985) to enable the reader to check the degree to which current findings may be transferred to other research settings. I provided a comprehensive description of 8 TES employees and their experiences so as to enable my readers to establish whether “some sort of similarity could be found in other research contexts” (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008, p. 294).
Confirmability
This construct is a contrast to the concept of objectivity. In order to pass the rigour of scrutiny, the researcher should show that the outcome of the study was not manufactured. Confirmability refers to the idea that the data and interpretations of an inquiry are not just imagination of the researcher (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008;
Tobin & Begley, 2004). Therefore there exists the need to determine whether the findings of a study could be confirmed by another study. Hence, the researcher should provide evidence that corroborates the findings and interpretations by means of auditing (Schurink et al. 2011, p. 421)
The auditing trail that I kept and which I have already alluded to, played an important role in ensuring confirmability. As suggested in the preceding concepts, researcher integrity and rigour are important when assessing quality. Research integrity carries special importance in qualitative research. Because the designs and procedures for doing qualitative research are potentially more flexible than doing most other kinds of
research, people will want to know that qualitative researchers have gone to great length to conduct their research accurately and fairly (Yin, 2011, p. 41). One way of demonstrating research integrity is to disclose conditions that may have influenced the execution of the study. As indicated in this report, a number of factors affected this study.
Qazi (2011) and Tracy (2013 emphasise the fact that rigour is an important criterion;
arguing that it provides the means with which to show integrity, competence as well as the legitimacy of the research process. It is concerned with whether a study has been carried out in a logical, systematic way and focused on the following concepts:
Transferability, which relates the findings to other settings,
Auditability, which refers to the ability to audit the research process,
Credibility, meaning the verification of the data collection methods and practices by both the research participants and by theory.
In my criticism of my own study, I applied the rigour criteria of Fossey, Harvey, McDermott, and Davidson (2002).14 In their approach to qualitative rigour, Fossey et al. (2002) classify rigour criteria into two types, namely, methodological rigour and interpretive rigour. They also cite the elements to consider for each of these two types of criteria.
2.9 SUMMARY
I presented my research approach and methodology in this chapter. In particular, I discussed (i) qualitative research, and why I had decided to use this type of research, (ii) my ontological and epistemological beliefs, (iii) three strategic questions and how I addressed them, (iv) my application of the case study and grounded theory as research strategies, (v) important decisions I had to take during the execution of research procedures, (vi) writing styles I used in the thesis, and (vii) the strategies I utilised in order to enhance the study‟s quality.
14 See Annexures D1 and D2 of the research story for different quality criteria used to check the validity of this study.
SECTION B THE SOCIAL
CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE STUDY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter aims to achieve two objectives. Firstly, I outline how I applied information from literature in the study. I then present my review of literature on the impact of alternative work arrangements with specific reference to temporary employment service.
3.2 MY USAGE OF THE LITERATURE
As noted previously qualitative researchers, in general, and grounded theorists specifically, hold divergent views with regard to how literature in qualitative research15 could be used.
During the course of the study my interaction with relevant literature may best be described as intermittent. Furthermore, it could be divided primarily into two phases.
During the first phase and at the outset of the study I conducted selective literature review in order to develop the research proposal as required by IPPM. My aim was to identify a topical research problem, formulate relevant research questions and to hone not only the direction of the research but also my approach, including sensitising myself in respect of the key decision taking steps the study would require.
The other stage took place after I spent some time at the research sites and interviewed some of the research participants. During this period my engagement with relevant literature was ongoing. The literature reviews I conducted during this stage enabled me to compare and contrast the emerging themes and insights I derived from interview data; with the viewpoints of scholars and the findings of prior research studies. At the conclusion of data collection, my awareness of constructs by prominent scholars and the findings of researchers enabled me to integrate the
15 See section 2.4.1 in Chapter 2 for contrasting arguments on the use of literature
participants‟ everyday experiences and views of temporary employment service with scholarly work, and finally, to develop a substantive theory of TES.
Glaser and Strauss (1967) pointed out that focusing on the lived experiences of research participants ensures that the researcher is drawn closer to how they attach meaning on the reality of their settings; i.e. their everyday, concrete experiences and perceptions of the phenomenon under study. Thus, the participants‟ experiences guide both the processes of collecting data and the subsequent analysis thereof.
(see, for example, Charmaz, 2012).
Since I believe that any research should be based on a solid empirical foundation, during the fieldwork I had a good understanding of the TES phenomenon. For that purpose, I occasionally reviewed relevant literature in order to incorporate relevant abstract constructs into my theoretical framework. In particular, I aligned closely with Charmaz (2009) who states that grounded theorists compare different sets of data, different sets of analytical codes and respective categories including their finished analyses with relevant theoretical and research literatures.
With regard to specifically building theory, I took heed of Eisenhardt‟s (1999) strategy and also that of Glaser and Strauss (1967), namely; to compare the concepts, hypotheses or theory emerging from the data with existing literature. More specifically, I positioned my literature review around the emergent concepts. This enabled me ultimately to formulate a substantive theory of TES.
Now that I have outlined my engagement with the literature we will discuss the relevant literature.
3.3 ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT (AE)
In this section, I present a brief account of the philosophical aspects of AE. It also presents the key features of AE, including different approaches to the study of AE.
The section concludes with a discussion on the global impact of AE.
3.3.1 The philosophical aspects of AE
AE is a sub-product of globalisation while TES is an extended form of AE. No consensus currently exists regarding the impact of globalisation on workers
worldwide. To a significant degree the diverse viewpoints resulted from various conceptualisations around the phenomenon of „globalisation‟. Bowles (2010) distinguishes three dimensions of globalisation, namely, “neoclassical liberalism, anti-neoliberal globalism and multi-centred statism”. As stated above the first paradigm is the neoclassical liberal paradigm; which is steeped in Ricardian trade theory. This paradigm argues that globalisation offers greater economic benefits to society; derived from greater specialisation of methods of production and skills than would otherwise have been the case. The logic of this argument, therefore, restricts focus to the main policy issue namely; how to prevent the minorities from limiting the spread of globalisation and what strategies should be adopted to minimise the negative effects on affected minority groups.
The second dimension is the anti-neoliberal globalism. The main thrust of this paradigm is that by design, there is a shift of economic power to monopoly capital and therefore out of reach by workers and the state. This dimension is rooted in the theory of exploitation as propagated by Karl Marx. This theory maintains that workers are exploited if the amount of wages received is less than the efforts they exert on their jobs; which is the difference representing the lost value of labour power (Veneziani & Yoshihara, 2011). In this context, they (Veneziani and Yoshihara) regard the definitions of exploitation as contextual; while indices for exploitation have been developed in an attempt to broadly apply the fundamental Marxian theorem to economies attempting to reduce labour costs through labour mechanisation. The third dimension; that of multi-centred statism, argues that globalisation is a process driven by several factors for the benefit of a number of states, including non-Western states. The theory argues further that mitigating steps would require socio-economic measures to ensure that the average worker receives a fair share of the benefits of economic growth.
It is clear from the above that the notions of exploitation are relative. Matsuo (2008) proposed a subjectivist approach to understanding exploitation, stating that individual worker preferences determine consumer behaviour. Furthermore, that workers are exploited fundamentally if their purchasing power remains weak due to their wages being smaller than the amount of labour effort expended in exchange for such wages. Noting the lack of consensus on the notion of exploitation, the objectivist
approach uses the indices of individual and aggregate exploitation to determine the existence of exploitative elements within the economic system. Some scholars (Duménil & Foley, 2008) have suggested the so-called new Interpretation in terms of which workers are considered to be victims of exploitation if their share of wages as a proportion of national income is less than one percent of the value of goods and services produced in a country. The normative approach would accordingly interpret exploitation as a measure of the relative bargaining power of both labour and employers in an imperfect market economy.
There is also an element of commonality between anti-neoliberal globalism and politics, with labour politics playing important part in formulation of ER. Thompson (2003) maintains that work patterns over the ages have always been an expression of power relations, with employers forcing labour costs down while employees strive to achieve decent work standards. In addition, in the absence of protective baselines, employers compete with each other to institute cost-saving measures (race to the bottom). The incapacity of labour organisations to organise TES employees fits the said pattern of power relations. These philosophical arguments led me to consider defining the features of alternative employment. These are discussed in the next section
3.3.2 Key features of alternative employment
Once again no consensus exists as to the key concepts of alternative employment.
Some scholars use the benchmark of the existence of career ladders or opportunities for career mobility as signifying the difference between the good formal employment and bad non-standard sector of the job market. Other scholars16 classify non-standard employment as flexible working practices, flexible staffing arrangements, contingent work, market-mediated arrangements, part-time and fixed-time work, temporary agency work or, simply, as AE, which manifests itself in different forms of phenomena such as part-time work, self-employment and informalisation (Kallenberg, 2000; Nyenti, 2007, Saloniemi & Virtanen, 2005). The simplest point of departure in defining atypical or AWA is to define standard employment. Van der Riet (2010, p. 2) describes standard employment as “full-time
16 Polivka and Nardone (1989); Abraham (1990), Brewster et al (1997); De Grip et al. (1997), and Polsky (1997).
employment of an indefinite duration, under the control of the employer and mostly at the employer‟s workplace”. Thus, AE may be said to refer to the opposite of standard employment (Addison & Surfield, 2009a). In proposing an impact-based definition, May, Campbell and Burgers (2005, p. 1) state that casualisation refers to the “spread of bad conditions of work such as employment insecurity, irregular hours, intermittent employment, low wages and an absence of standard employment benefits”. This contrasts with labour consultants who bridge the gap between formal recruitment and selection processes and accelerate entry into workplaces in a flexible work environment. Figure 3.1 depicts a triangular employment relationship.
Figure 3.1: The TES Employment Relationship
Source: Adapted from Hǻkasson, Isidorsson & Kantelius (2012, p. 154)
There are diverse theories on the rise in alternative working arrangements (AWA) characterised by weak protective measures. Such theories range from temporarily replacing permanently employed staff who are absent due to sick leave. Others refer
There are diverse theories on the rise in alternative working arrangements (AWA) characterised by weak protective measures. Such theories range from temporarily replacing permanently employed staff who are absent due to sick leave. Others refer