Pruebas de aceptación

Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008) and Schurink (2005) maintain that qualitative data typically entails using words, telling stories, relating oral histories, inspecting photographs and/or diagrams but rarely involving numbers. In order to collect such data, qualitative researchers usually apply multiple methods. By mixing data collection sources I ensured that the quality of research was improved. For this purpose, Bloomberg and Volpe, (2008) advise as follows:

Qualitative researchers are concerned about the validity of their communication. To reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation, we employ various procedures, including redundancy of data gathering and procedural challenges to explanation. These procedures, called triangulation, are

considered a process of using multiple perceptions to clarify meaning (pp.

72–73).

In this study, I used participant observation, interviewing, and documents. These will now be discussed next.

Participant observation

I used participant observation primarily, but not exclusively, at the beginning of the fieldwork when I immersed myself with people who were carrying out temporary employment service at restaurants and hotels in various locations in Mpumalanga and Gauteng.

Participant observation involves not only observing people carrying out activities but also participating to some extent in these activities as well. The main purpose is to talk to people and interact with them in an attempt to gain an understanding of their beliefs and activities from the inside (Myers, 2011, p. 139).

This provided me with the ideal opportunity to observe how they went about their tasks and also to discuss their experiences and perceptions of temporary employment service with them. There were even times when I saw them arriving at work and leaving for home in the late evening hours.

Another setting which provided me with valuable information was my own workplace (government department) at which small business enterprises render catering and event management services using TES employees. Here, I often had the opportunity to take part in conversations with people who were temporarily employed about their fears about the tenure of the employment. In addition, I also took advantage of the opportunity to share views with my colleagues on the phenomenon of temporary employment.

I also frequently observed people seeking temporary jobs at public venues such as theatres, retail shops, banking institutions, a food manufacturing plant, and a construction site. Finally, I was provided with the opportunity to observe first-hand the live dispute resolution process and how the processes between the TES

employees, TES client employers, and a TES firm unfolded when the office of the South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union in Nelspruit invited me to attend a live dispute resolution process. The precariousness of the TES employees‟ job struck me when the employee struggled to identify his or her real employer. At that time the recent legislative changes to labour laws had not yet taken effect. I found the CCMA Commissioner‟s explanation of how, at times, the favourable remedy entails reinstating the employee on the TES firm‟s books particularly insightful. This situation had arisen when the client business entity had maintained that it no longer required the services of the employee.

Interviews

I noticed from literature that the most appropriate way of enquiring how people feel and think is by talking to them. The interview is recognised as one of the requisite techniques at the qualitative researcher‟s disposal. In fact, a large proportion of data used in social science research is gathered by means of interviewing (Bryman &

Cassell, 2006). It is small wonder that various qualitative researchers (Al-Yateem, 2012; Rowley, 2012; Uhrenfeldt, Patterson, & Hall, 2007) advocate this as a powerful tool with which to gain an understanding of people. Whether undertaken face-to-face or in groups, the interview is among the oldest and most frequently used methods of data collection and has been used extensively in case study research.

Concurring with the aforementioned scholars, Rowley (2012) and Greeff (2012) describe interviews as verbal exchanges during which the researcher attempts to get information and gain an understanding of another person, namely, the interviewee.

In situations like these, the interviewee or custodian of data is invited by the researcher to a face-to-face discussion for sharing his or her own attitudes, beliefs, behaviours or experiences as an employee, user or consumer of a product, or citizen. In this context, the interviewee represents a primary source of data.

At the conclusion of my review of the literature on qualitative methodology I decided to conduct interviews for the following reasons: (i) they offer a flexible interview structure; (ii) they entail interactive discussions on the topic; (iii) they provide one the opportunity to use combination of techniques in order to extract rich data (e.g. by probing, penetrating, exploring and explaining phenomena); (iv) they facilitate the

creation of new knowledge and insight as the interview progresses and (v) they entail face-to-face events (Greeff, 2012; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003).

I had to make a choice between different sorts of interviews which I was advised could be classified into three basic types, namely: structured, semi-structured, and unstructured interviews (Bryman & Bell, 2011; Myers, 2011; Yin, 2011). Yin (2011, pp. 134–135) delineates the following ways in which unstructured interview differs from conducting structured interviews:

The researcher role between the agent and the data source is not rigorous.

Despite the fact that the interviewer has “a mental framework of study questions” no questionnaire is used. The verbalized questions “… posed to any given participant will differ according to the context and setting of the interview. The interviewer does not attempt to approach every interview in a uniform way. The interview entails a conversation, facilitating “a social relationship of sorts, with the quality of the relationship individualized to every participant ... This controversial mode … presents the opportunity for two-way interactions, in which a participant even may query the researcher

…” Also that participants enjoy the freedom to choose their verbal expressions, being candid at some topics but reserved in respect of others, and researchers need to know distinguish the two The interviewer “tries to have participants use their own words, not those predefined by the researcher, to discuss topics.”

The mode of interviewing I used could be described as controversial. The interviews with the research participants provided me with personal accounts of their experiences and views of temporary employment service. However, I did use more structured interviews when I required the interviewees to expand on something they had shared with me, and also when I wanted them to comment on my findings and insights and to perform member checking.

In the process of the interviews I requested the participants to talk around a particular theme/idea. In addition, I adapted my questions and the order of the questions in accordance with what the interviewee said (see Condie, 2007). In general, I followed Greeff‟s (2012, pp. 343–346) advice on ensuring that the thrust of

the interview remained centred on the original research question posed. I also encouraged the research participants to talk about issues that they considered important to them.

Telephonic interviews

Despite debates around the value of email collected data, such method has recently gained prominence as a form of data collection (Reid, Petocz, & Gordon, 2008;

Greeff, 2012). The distance between research participants 5 and 6, who were based in Gauteng and me, residing in Nelspruit, Mpumalanga, ruled out the possibility of conducting face-to-face interviews with them. Accordingly, I had to make use of both telephone discussions and email. I discussed the broad discussion topics to be used during the interviews with the two participants telephonically and did follow-up by email correspondence and we then discussed their views and experiences during the telephonic interviews⁸. In view of the fact that RP5 was a frequent visitor to Nelspruit we took advantage of this and were able to conduct follow up, face-to-face interviews in order to discuss the information she had shared in her emails.

The interviews were conducted in phases. During phase 1 I used unstructured interviews to pave the way, introduce the study, and set the scene.⁹ At this stage, I aimed at obtaining a general understanding of temporary agency work arrangements and, specifically, TES, and verify what I knew about the phenomenon and had observed, especially in the hospitality and catering settings I frequented. Following the guidelines of Schurink (2004b) and that of Krueger and Casey (2009), I developed a 15-point interview guide¹⁰ which consisted of 64 topics. Ten questions formed the core of the interviews, which, in turn, formed the basis of the GT analysis.

Phase 2 entailed in-depth interviews which focused on substantive aspects of the participants‟ views and experience.

Phase 3 entailed re-affirming important points which had emerged from the data as well as verifying both my findings and insights and the emerging theory. The interviews were conducted at convenient venues, for example a coffee shop or a

8 Annexure B explains the manner of invitation and agenda points informing the form of subsequent interviews.

9 See Annexure B.

10 See section 3.2.6.2 of Annexure A for the research story.

participant‟s home and varied between 45 minutes and 1 hour 18 minutes – the average length was 50 minutes.

The interviews with the commissioners of the CCMA and the manager of the Department of Labour were not recorded and, thus, I made notes of our discussions in my note book.

Documents

Solicited personal documents are those produced at the request of the researcher (Draper & Swift, 2010). This kind is illustrated by the person telling his story to a researcher in a series of open-ended interviews. In solicited personal documents, the researcher actively participates in the production of the document and must consequently employ special techniques and procedures. On the other hand, in unsolicited personal documents, the researcher makes use of documents that already exist. Unsolicited documents are created by the researcher either for his or her own use (a personal diary) or at the request of some other party. His or her task is confined to the selection, location, analysis, and presentation of such documents (Bogdan & Taylor, 1975). In this study, I made very little use of documents but obtained some pictures from COSATU trade union federation. I was aware that had a need arose, I could have requested access to letters, minutes, official records, films, videos and photographs, etc. which are available to qualitative researchers from various sources.

For purposes of gaining a better understanding of TES employees I contacted COSATU House in Johannesburg. I enquired about their position on TES in general, and whether they had accumulated documents about TES. I was referred to a shop steward manager in the same office to whom I sent an email. He, in turn, provided me with useful material.

Finally, I used solicited essays where I asked the research participants to write about their experiences and views and e-mail these to me.