Mobilization Theory - Research Proposal Example

Critical Evaluation Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Critical Evaluation Summary The objective of the article is to discuss mobilization theory, which is about collection action of the workers in reaction to employer-generated injustice. To achieve this objective, the article has drawn on investigations of workers reaction to the closure of two garment factories. The two factories had many similarities in terms of workers characteristics, same sector, and union organization, but their distinguished features contributed to differences in worker protest. In one factory, the worker protest became successfully mobilized and sustained while it did not materialize in the other factory. There are many factors that contributed to the differences of the worker protest as identified in the article. They included pre-existing social structures, and the interaction between individuals, their leaders and the general population (Blyton & Jenkins, 2013). The comparison of the two factories helped evaluate the factors that contributed to the differences in workforce mobilization. The article focussed on the interaction between social networks in the workplace and sources of leverage and influence in the external environment. The relationship between the two was noted to contribute positively to the success of the worker protest mobilization (Blyton & Jenkins, 2013). In other words, factors both inside the factories and outside contributed to a social coherence among the workers that interacted with the social processes of organization and leadership. The process of participating in collective action was transformative, increasing union of interest, strengthening ideas of injustice and influencing their leaders and being under their actual direction. What led to the success of the collection action in one factory was the combined impact of internal solidarity, union strategy and organisational resources which was supported and facilitated by external solidarities (Blyton & Jenkins, 2013). This article has explored the various factors both outside and inside the factory that could have led to social coherence and impact on mobilization. In the cases analysed in the article, both internal features of the factory, in regard to internal solidarities and external features in terms of capacity for coalition building, links with elite allies, national union, and geographical location led to the greater mobilization potential of workers in one factory as compared to the others (Blyton & Jenkins, 2013). Methodology used in the Article The research design used in the study is qualitative. The method that was used to collect data in both cases was semi-structured interviews. In the first case, interviews were conducted with workers, union representatives, and managers. This was supplemented with an observation of the floors of the factory and documentary analysis. In total, 19 interviews were conducted in the first case. Almost ten years later, two additional interviews were conducted with the full-time officer of the national union and a former local union branch secretary. In the second case, the researchers were allowed to conduct the research alongside the workers protest. This presented opportunities for informal interviewing for individual workers concerning the campaign and their motivation. Interviews were conducted every week with both full-time and lay union officials. Additional interviews were conducted with the workers. The researchers maintained a regular contact with the members of the workforce and union representatives following the closure of the factory. The number of interviews that were conducted in the second case was 36 interviews: semi-structured individual and group interviews. This was supplemented by several hours of informal interviewing. There was a degree of observation also undertaken in the second factory. The several stages of research with workers and other staffs provided rich information and insight and enabled the creation of a clear picture of the workers protest, its development, and aftermath. Analysis of the Central Argument and Methodology The main objective of the article was to discuss collection action and how some factors may lead to its success in addressing employer-generated injustice. Collective action is normally affected by a number of factors such as inhibiting factors, facilitating factors, and mobilization triggers. This article has successively developed current discussions about mobilization theory. The objective of the study is well-stated, which was to contribute to the mobilization theory debate by drawing on a handy comparison of two factories in which closure decisions faced workers. The title itself explains everything and the background provided identify the research area very well. There is a succinct purpose statement which is to identify whether there are some significance variables that could lead to the success of workforce mobilization. The significance of this study to industrial relations (IR) is very precise as union organizers and leaders play a critical role in turning a collective sense of injustice or grievance into collective action and union involvement. This also applies to workers and trade unions, who also participate in collective action at work. Collective action and commitment are the basis of a union starting up workers protest or campaign (Atzeni, 2009). As an important constituent, social solidarities among workers at workplace level may establish the collective basis for a trade union starting up a drive (Cregan, Bartram, & Stantom, 2009). The article has also identified that externally orchestrated union campaigns may assist in building collective action and commitment even in non-union firms (Blyton & Jenkins, 2013; O'Sullivan & Turner, 2013). In other words, the likelihood of a successful workforce mobilization is associated with the interaction between the internal cohesion formulated at the workplace and the connections local unions are capable of establishing, not only within the labour movement and wider union but also with the external community, as well as other social patterns (Blyton & Jenkins, 2013). Just like other studies, this study has identified that some union may organize more successful campaigns than others (Blyton & Jenkins, 2013; Badigannavar & Kelly, 2005; Blyton & Jenkins, 2012). The article has provided a review of the social networks in the workplace and sources of leverage and influence in the external environment. The review provided is very comprehensive and concise as it has concentrated on workforce mobilization as a concern in industrial relations. The flow of the review is logical as it helps the reader understand the purpose of the article clearly right from the beginning. The sources used to support the literature are relevant and are critically appraised. Most of the sources used are directly related to the topics of workforce mobilization and industrial relations, and a great number of them are primary sources, especially journals. A number of secondary sources have also been used. The researchers used direct quotes from the interviewees to support their arguments, and this enhanced the validity of these arguments. All the sources cited in the article are included in the reference list. The research methods used in the study were logically discussed. The research was conducted in two phases since it involved two factories that were closed at different times. The qualitative research design is clearly identified and described in the research article. To be precise, this article has used a comparative study design, where two cases that occurred in 2002 and 2006 were considered. In both cases, a total of 57 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Qualitative research design could satisfactory answer the research problem on its own because the data was readily available from the participants were readily available from the two factories and they were all willing to participate. The cases used in the study were identified retrospectively. The best method to approach this research was the qualitative method, but it could also have been approached through the mixed method. A quantitative method cannot be used alone in this research because the primary objective of the study is best expressed in words. Since some factors could be expressed well in numeric form, the qualitative method could be used to describe these factors while quantitative represent the numeric data. Some of the factors that could have been represented numerically the number of the participants and their characteristics, including how these characteristics affect workforce mobilization. Therefore, only qualitative or mixed methods could fit in this study and not otherwise. The main advantage of a quantitative method of analysis in this research is that it can provide data that is descriptive. With this method, it is also easier for researchers to compare the results. This method also allows the authors to apply statistical tests to providing characteristics or statements about the data (Moga, Guo, Schopflocher, & Harstall, 2012). Semi-structured interviews were used to conduct the qualitative design (Blyton & Jenkins, 2013). This study did not use an experimental design; however, the research employed by the researchers allowed them to draw a cause-and-effect relationship between the variables as they were able to determine the factors that influenced the workforce mobilizations (Blyton & Jenkins, 2013). An experimental design would not have been appropriate for this study because in qualitative research in social sciences, there are no facility to run control experiment with research subjects as it is the case of purely scientific enquiry (Sartori, 2009). References Read More