METHODOLOGY

The Pathways to Work Research project had many ambitious objectives set out in the funding agreement. Central features of the funding agreement[1] were to locate a population referred to as Discouraged Workers, define who and where they are in the context of Kings County and what barriers to employment, from their vantage point, they face.

The term ‘discouraged worker’ is one that has been used by Statistics Canada since 1997. Discouraged workers are those persons who reported wanting to work at a job or business during a Labor Force Survey (LFS) reference week and were available but who did not look for work because they believed no suitable work was available Their belief may derive from a variety of factors, including a shortage of jobs in their locality or line of work; perceived discrimination for reasons such as age, race, sex and religion; a lack of necessary skills, training or experience; or a chronic illness or disability[2]. The definition used by Statistics Canada is relatively universal and was the definition we adopted for our purposes.

In our early recruitment efforts for research participants we used the term discouraged workers as that was the wording used in the funding agreement for the project, in the academic literature, and by Statistics Canada. In Kings County it became apparent that using the term communicated an interest in researching a different population than the one intended. When we explained our project, to people they thought we were seeking participants who were employed, but were working at jobs that did not tap their potential or they did not feel met their standards of ‘good’ employment. As a consequence, discouraged workers were seen as workers stuck in what they perceived to be ‘dead end jobs’. Statistics Canada also used the term discouraged seeker to identify those who withdraw from the labor market. As we wanted to emphasize the job search aspect of seeking employment, we changed the term we used to describe the participants we were looking for to Discouraged Job Seekers.

In the research literature and in definitions used by government agencies, Discouraged Job Seekers are only defined by their decision to not participate. Therefore, Discouraged Job Seekers cannot be strictly identified by where they live, or by their age, gender, education, or by attachment to any organized group or subculture. Thus, a Discouraged Job Seeker could be anyone and could come from any number of demographic groups or backgrounds.

Our funding agreement indicated that we would focus on “self-identified Discouraged Job Seekers from ‘targeted groups’ who receive priority status from the government, e.g., social/income assistance recipients, new entrants, and people with disabilities. However, as suggested by the funding applicant, when engaging potential participants we asked only if they self-identified as a discouraged job seeker, rather than pre-determine if they fit into those specific categories. We did not know how many people we would recruit. Discouraged Job Seekers come from all sectors of the general population; as a result, we developed recruitment strategies that attempted to access anyone who would identify as a Discouraged Job Seeker.

As Discouraged Job Seeker is not a common term, our outreach had to include a brief educational component – a description of the kind of person we were seeking, and our purpose. It is interesting to note that upon being given an explanation of what a Discouraged Job Seeker is, many people readily identified with the term.

We chose a ‘mixed methods’ approach in order to capture the depth and breadth of experiences of Discouraged Job Seekers. That is, we used quantitative research methods through a survey questionnaire as well as qualitative research through in depth interviews with research participants and also with employers and employment services staff in order to investigate the veracity of participants’ perspectives. The use of more than two sources for research is known as triangulation: it is a strategy that leads to more rigorous research findings.

The main instruments used in the research were a questionnaire and in-depth qualitative interviews. Both went through a pre-test process with the researchers and a variety of academics, people working in employment services and with people who met our criteria for participation in the study. From the beginning, the funding applicant was clear that the overall goal of the project was to ``hear the voices of discouraged workers in Kings County``. The primary focus of the project therefore was to acquire qualitative data from interviews with people who met the criteria for participation in the study.

As is standard with a qualitative approach our questions were adapted over time to reflect our growing knowledge and experience.

Our first task was to become oriented both to the literature and the local labor market and employment services. We conducted a traditional academic review of the literature looking at the areas of employment, community psychology, qualitative research methods and strategies for workforce development.

We approached local experts[3] regarding aspects of the project’s objectives. We consulted academics to help us with the research design and ethical considerations. We also drew on community expertise, specifically people who work directly with potential participants to help us understand some of the issues that Discouraged Job Seekers may face and to identify the best methods to reach out to them.

Particularly important to us was our commitment to ensuring that we design a process that reflected respect for, and the needs of, possible participants. We consulted people who have lived lives that reflected those of a Discouraged Job Seeker but were disqualified from participating in the actual project. We found this group of experts to be extremely helpful: without them we would not have developed an understanding of some of the situations as quickly and profoundly as we did. Indeed this project would not reflect much of the richness without having had their input.

In order to ensure we were actually communicating what we wished to, throughout our project we screened our material through people who would identify as Discouraged Job Seekers, but could not be included in the research for some reason, e.g., having recently found some employment. We used their feedback as appropriate. When we developed our outreach strategy we were aware of the need to reach people with limited literacy. Accordingly, material distributed to organizations and the public was screened for clear and plain language in order to ensure accessibility by those with relatively low literacy skills. [4] When we developed our consent and questionnaire forms, we pre-tested them on people with low literacy skills.

The Discouraged Job Seekers who agreed to take part in the project we refer to as ‘participants’. One of the defining features of a Discouraged Job Seeker is that they have withdrawn from the labor market or have never tried to enter the labor market. Consequently, they are difficult to identify and to contact, which makes finding smaller numbers of participants who reflect ‘typical’ concerns a Discouraged Job Seeker has very difficult.

Identifying a sample proved to be challenging. Discouraged Job Seekers are not generally attached to employment services and therefore we could not solely target employment services to find the participant we wanted to interview[5].

We used many methods to contact potential participants. We developed publicity materials, posters, brochures, and cards, which we widely distributed. We approached groups, such as local groups for people with mental health challenges that would likely have people who identified as Discouraged Job Seekers. We distributed flyers, advertised in the local media, and were interviewed by various media outlets. The most effective method was directly contacting agencies and organizations that serve people of differing abilities.

In our research and professional experience we recognized that a trusting, safe, respectful relationship needed to be developed in order for the interviews to be successful and have depth. The intention throughout the process was for the participants to feel that they had full control over the interview process. We wanted participants to know we valued their input, and demonstrated this in a number of ways. We informed participants that they had choices and rights at each stage of the process. We gave them ‘thank you cards’ with small tokens of our appreciation for their contribution after they shared their stories.

We emphasized throughout the process that participants were free to withdraw at any point and that we would only cover topics that they felt comfortable discussing.

Upon contacting us, the process we engaged in with participants went through four stages:

1)Initial Contact: The intentionally brief and interactive nature of the encounter not only allowed us to determine whether the interviewees met the criteria of the study but also allowed them to briefly explore their possible participation in our project. This was the first step in meeting our objective of their experience with us being one that allowed them to set the pace and tone of the research process.

2)Consent: Obtaining a signed consent form[6]. Prior to asking them to share any information, we asked them to sign a consent form. We reviewed the contents of the consent form we created in the way they felt most comfortable. We wanted to ensure that the participants were making an informed decision. We ensured that they had time for clarifying questions, and they had the opportunity to choose to consent to up to three levels of participation, i.e., be a participant in the research, have their interview recorded, permit us to use anonymously quote them from our interview(s) with them. The consent form was screened for clear and plain language with people who had limited literacy skills.

3)Questionnaire: Filling out the questionnaire^.[7] In this step we primarily asked for factual information: but, some questions also had a qualitative aspect as the participant could elaborate on the specifics of the answer given. After the first initial interviews we began providing a few minutes for participants to discuss their perspectives on work before getting to the questionnaire. This allowed them time to reflect on the topic of employment and to feel more comfortable with the researcher. This became a standard practice for the remainder of the research. To ensure accessibility and sensitivity to literacy, when filling out the consent and questionnaire forms we were flexible in how we obtained the information, i.e., email,telephone, in-person. The decision on how to obtain the information was based both on participants’ request and on our commitment to ensuring that their agreement was one of ‘informed consent’.

4)The in-depth, qualitative interview. From the beginning, we informed participants that this reflective process would be conducted in a manner that allowed them as much control over how much and in what manner information would be shared, recognizing that that some experiences may be painful and possibly not previously disclosed .

Resumes/Work Histories: We asked interviewees for either a copy of their job resume or asked them to complete a form that covered areas similar to what would be on a resume so that we had some understanding of skills and job history. We assured the interviewees that the information would be used only for the research.

Setting considerations: When collecting both the quantitative and qualitative data, we offered to meet participants in a place they believed to be safe and comfortable. As many of the interviews were in the hottest part of the summer and our office was comfortably air-conditioned and offered private spaces, many interviews occurred there. We also interviewed people in their homes and in other public places at their request.

The role of the questionnaire was threefold; 1) to collect as much relevant data to capture the experiences of the Discouraged Job Seeker, 2) to gain insight into whether Discouraged Job Seekers exhibited any group characteristics, and 3) to help shape the in-depth interviews. The questionnaire was given to all 31 participants.

The questions were drawn from issues identified in our discussions with experts and the literature review we had conducted. The questions covered various issues related to finding work and working and any challenges or disabilities the participants might faced.

The questionnaire evolved in a similar way to the in-depth interviews. Several topics were at first thought to be too intrusive, such as income source: but, based on participants input over time, it along with other questions, were added to the questionnaire. Generally, participants played an important role in this evolution. At the end of each questionnaire we asked each participant if we had not asked a question that they felt was relevant to their experience and while a large number of participants did not offer anything, several offered valuable insight.

We found participants came to the appointments primed and ready to talk about their experiences, and we didn’t want to lose that valuable information. As a result after several of the questionnaires were completed we began taping these “unofficial interviews” with the participants’ permission for review and reflection at a later date.

The foundational article for our qualitative semi-structured interviews was Anne Honey’s (2004) Benefits and Drawbacks of Employment: Perspectives of People with Mental Illness. The research was conducted in Australia. Honey found that her respondents engaged in a ‘Weighing up’ process of the benefits and drawbacks of employment, i.e., is it worthwhile to engage in employment based on the cost versus benefit. She identified six areas relevant to decision-making:

  Employment and Disability in Society,
  Social Networks,
  The Individual and their Mental Illness,
  Job Properties,
  Disclosure, and
  Perceived Alternatives to Employment.

We did not ask about each area specifically but rather used them as a conceptual guide in directing questions during the in-depth interviews.

The goals of the interviews were to explore why the participants self-defined as a Discouraged Job Seeker, how they came to be a Discouraged Job Seeker, what they perceived as their barriers to employment and what they saw as potential strategies for overcoming those barriers.

All interviews were recorded except for one. Interestingly enough the rationale for why one participant did not want to be taped was related to one of the barriers they self-identified, i.e., being too accommodating and feeling pushed around.

The in-depth interviews varied in length from less than one hour to more than 3 hours. The average interview was just over one hour. In some cases the interviews needed to be completed in two or more sessions due to scheduling conflicts or participant fatigue despite their desire to continue talking.

We found that flexibility regarding the way the interview was conducted was extremely important. Our research[8] indicated that one of the main barriers to successful communication with vulnerable people such as Discouraged Job Seekers was having a formulaic ‘cookie cutter’ approach to developing a relationship.

All interviews were transcribed; thematically coded and emergent themes were identified. The themes that emerged from the initial five interviews were integrated into the subsequent interviews. This process was repeated after approximately every five interviews. By doing this, we were able to engage successive groups of the participants in a richer and increasingly self-aware discussion.

Throughout the project we were surprised and honored at how quickly and easily some people shared their most difficult stories. Many participants had stories waiting to burst out. It was hard to contain their insights and engagement with the issue once recruited. Others had a more cynical outlook, and their answers were couched in terms that clearly described the depth of their complete discouragement regarding job seeking. Many thanked us for providing them a venue to discuss the worries and concerns they had and a process for working through them, even though we did not suggest we could offer any solutions to the barriers they faced.

All of our interviews varied in length. Those that were done in two rather than one session were unsurprisingly the longest and richest interviews.

As introduced earlier, we used Anne Honey’s (2004) Benefits and Drawbacks of Employment: Perspectives of People with Mental Illness as the basis for many of our theme areas for our interviews and the concept of a Weighing Up process when looking at whether to enter the workforce. Comparing the results of Honey's findings to ours is difficult. Unlike Honey’s participants, very few if any of our participants considered that they had much of a choice in being unemployed. This may be due to the target population she had or other factors such as policies related to financial supports provided to disabled persons in current Canadian society compared with Australian society six years ago.