Introduction to the Handbook of Research Methods on the Quality of Working Lives

Wheatley, D

doi:10.4337/9781788118774.00005

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is silent because members of these work contexts commonly take a certain level of job security, time autonomy or physical integrity for granted and thus the relevance of working and employment conditions can easily slip through attempts to measure inclusivity. And those workers of an organization who do not take these conditions for granted, such as cleaners, couriers or warehouse workers, are either very hard to reach via conventional survey or interview methods (Berrey, 2014), or they are even outsourced (Smith and McBride, 2019) and thus ‘don’t count’ in measurements of an organization’s inclusivity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating inclusivity through boundary work? Zooming in on low-wage service sector work

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Workers in the low-wage service sector represent a sociodemographically heterogeneous and particularly vulnerable group in terms of job security, job quality and health implications. However, organizational inclusion research has largely neglected this group. In contrast, this article builds on a qualitative study of a Dutch aircraft cleaning company in order to assess the ‘inclusivity of inclusion approaches’ for less privileged groups of employees. By reconstructing how managers and cleaners draw/rework boundaries, we identify certain configurations of inclusion and exclusion that can unfold more or less ‘inclusive’ consequences for historically disadvantaged group members, and more or less exclusionary repercussions for particularly privileged and/or majority group members. We stress the need to say goodbye to a linear narrative of organizations becoming ‘inclusive as such’. Furthermore, we argue that the presence of decent working and employment conditions and the absence of steep differences in those conditions between groups represent the ‘silent foundation’ of creating inclusivity. Consequently, we ask: does inclusion research reach its ‘natural limits’ by tiptoeing around the topic of equality?

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating inclusivity through boundary work? Zooming in on low-wage service sector work

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, in the case of the CIPD survey those invited to take part are pre-screened and agree to complete the online survey in exchange for financial payment and entry into prize draws (YouGov, 2018). The effects that the sampling process and mode of data collection has on the results presented are not the subject of detailed discussion (Williams et al , 2020a, p. 4; Wheatley and Gifford, 2019, p. 3). In this paper, however, we compare the profile of respondents and their responses to two radically different modes of data collection in order to shine a light on any biases in the samples and differences in the results respondents report.…”

Section: Research Motivation and Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are online job quality quizzes of any value? Selecting questions, maximising quiz completions and estimating biases

Felstead

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to compare two ways of collecting job quality data in Britain using a common set of questions. One way is through a short quiz taken by a self-selected sample and completed by clicking on a web link www.howgoodismyjob.com. The other way is via an invitation to take part in a long-running survey of working life – the Skills and Employment Survey. The survey takes much longer to complete, is carried out face-to-face and is based on random probability principles.Design/methodology/approachTo be content-comparable, the quiz uses tried and tested questions contained in recent waves of the Skills and Employment Survey. Each survey comprises a nationally representative sample of workers in Britain aged 20–65 years. However, the quiz is based on uncontrolled convenience sampling prompted, in large part, by a Facebook advertising campaign, whereas survey participants are randomly selected. In this paper, the authors compare the profile of respondents and their responses to these two different modes of data collection and therefore shine a light on any biases in the samples and differences in the results respondents report.FindingsThe paper shows that while the number taking in the quiz is impressive, participation in the quiz – unlike the survey – is heavily skewed. Weighting can be used to correct some of these sample selection biases. But, even then, the picture painted by the quiz and survey data varies with the quiz under-reporting the intrinsic quality of jobs, while over-reporting on the extrinsic rewards. This suggests that how job quality data are collected can have a strong influence on the results produced.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings suggest that a number of biases are in operation, both in terms of those who take part and the answers they give. This makes comparison between data collected using radically different methods, at best, inadvisable and, at worst, misleading. Nevertheless, quizzes are a good way of engaging large numbers of people in public debates, gathering additional data, extending the reach of academic work and prompting action to improve working life. However, the limitation of this study is that it does not offer a true experiment of different ways of collecting the same data. The quiz and survey were, for example, not carried out at the same time, but were some 14 months apart.Practical implicationsOver 50,000 people took part in the quizzes reported in the paper and almost 1,300 investigated joining a trade union as a result. The reach of the quiz far exceeds the 3,306 people who took part in the Skills and Employment Survey 2017.Originality/valueThis paper focusses on how job quality data are collected and the consequences this has for the validity of the data gathered. This is a unique contribution to international debates about the measurement and monitoring of trends in job quality.

show abstract

Introduction to the Handbook of Research Methods on the Quality of Working Lives

Cited by 2 publications

References 36 publications

Creating inclusivity through boundary work? Zooming in on low-wage service sector work

Creating inclusivity through boundary work? Zooming in on low-wage service sector work

Are online job quality quizzes of any value? Selecting questions, maximising quiz completions and estimating biases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About