You Are Here Home Human resource management project topics EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES

EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES

Project topics and materials 0

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

BACKGROUND

This study focuses on the identification and confirmation of criteria for the workplace-effective mobility (as defined in the last paragraph of Section 1.1, in Section 1.11.2 and in Chapter 3) of employees with disabilities. It uses an emancipatory approach. The identification and confirmation of criteria for workplace-effective mobility add to the workplace equity debate and put it on the workplace agenda to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities in paid employment. Workplace equity is thus central to the study, because it relates to the pursuit of the universal human right to work and associate with others, and constitutes a fundamental human right enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Republic of South Africa, 1996).
Criteria for the workplace-effective mobility of employees with disabilities are essential for ensuring workplace equity. In order to identify and confirm criteria for workplace-effective mobility, however, the concept of workplace-effective mobility itself needs to be clarified for common nderstanding. Workplace-effective mobility is a multi-dimensional concept that can be inferred from various definitions of the mobility of employees in the workplace; and it includes elements such as self-motivation (Ingledew, Markland & Sheppard, 2004), a sense of independence (Patel et al., 2006), good quality of life (Patla & Shumway- Cook, 1999), personal competence, the ability to work and physical accessibility (Chatterton, 2005).
The availability of job opportunities (Anderson, Milkovich & Tsui, 1981) determines the extent to which employees may attain such workplace-effective mobility, based on well- delineated criteria. However, employers may wrongly allocate or even refuse to allocate available job opportunities to people with disabilities when they apply medical criteria (Kopec, 1995).
Based on research by Anderson et al. (1981) aimed at developing a model for intra-organisational mobility, the central argument in this study is that organisations often lack well-delineated criteria for the workplace- effective mobility of employees with disabilities. This is regrettable, because the lack of such criteria in organisations inhibits the employment, development and promotion (Williams, 2006) of suitably qualified employees with disabilities. The Employment Equity Act, No 55 of 1998, defines „suitably qualified‟ people in terms of their formal qualifications, prior learning, relevant experience and capacity to acquire, within a reasonable time, the ability to do a given job (Republic of South Africa, 1998).

CONTENTS

  • Declaration
  • Acknowledgements
  • Abstract
  • CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
    • 1.1 BACKGROUND
    • 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
    • 1.3 RESEARCH AIMS
    • 1.4 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
    • 1.5 RATIONALE AND MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY
    • 1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
    • 1.7 THE RESEARCH ASSUMPTIONS
      • 1.7.1 Ontological assumptions
      • 1.7.2 Epistemological assumptions
      • 1.7.3 Axiological assumptions
      • 1.7.4 Rhetorical assumptions
    • 1.7.5 Methodological assumptions
    • 1.8 VISUAL PRESENTATION OF THE RESEARCH PROCESS AND METHODS
    • 1.8.1 Phase 1: Focus group interviews
      • 1.8.2 Phase 2: Delphi technique
      • 1.8.3 Validity and reliability
      • 1.8.4 Trustworthiness
      • 1.8.5 Ethical measures
    • 1.9 DEMARCATION OF THE STUDY
    • 1.10 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
    • 1.11 CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS
    • 1.11.1 Disability
    • 1.11.2 Workplace-effective mobility
    • 1.12 OUTLINE OF THE STUDY
  • CHAPTER 2: EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES
    • 2.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 2.2 LOCATING THE LITERATURE FOR THE STUDY
    • 2.2.1 Conducting literature searches for the study
    • 2.2.2 Analysing the literature searches
    • 2.3 UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGING DISABILITY
    • 2.3.1 The medical model of disability
      • 2.3.2 The functional model of disability
      • 2.3.3 The social model of disability
      • 2.3.4 The biopsychosocial model of disability
    • 2.3.5 Salutogenesis
    • 2.4 EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES AND THE WORKPLACE
    • 2.4.1 Unfair discrimination
    • 2.4.2 Social neglect
    • 2.4.3 Stigmatization
      • 2.4.4 Slow progress towards achieving employment equity
      • 2.4.5 Disincentive of disability grants and resultant growing dependence
      • 2.4.6 Inequality and poverty
      • 2.4.7 Over-protective families
    • 2.5 NEED FOR WORKPLACE EQUITY
    • 2.5.1 Progressive corporate culture
    • 2.5.2 Welfare-to-work strategies
    • 2.5.3 Sensitisation programmes
    • 2.5.4 Sign language appreciation
    • 2.5.5 Emancipatory research and strategies
    • 2.6 SUMMARY
  • CHAPTER 3: WORKPLACE-EFFECTIVE MOBILITY
    • 3.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 3.2 ORIGINS AND NATURE OF WORKPLACE-EFFECTIVE MOBILITY
    • 3.3 DIMENSIONS OF WORKPLACE-EFFECTIVE MOBILITY
    • 3.3.1 Personal dimension
      • 3.3.1.1 Motivation and identity
      • 3.3.1.2 Skills and expertise
      • 3.3.1.3 Relationships
      • 3.3.2 Physical dimension
      • 3.3.2.1 Accessibility
      • 3.3.2.2 Reasonable accommodation
      • 3.3.2.3 Assistive devices
      • 3.3.3 Economic dimension
      • 3.3.3.1 Economic conditions
      • 3.3.3.2 Good quality of life
      • 3.3.4 Social dimension
      • 3.3.4.1 Equal employment opportunities
      • 3.3.4.2 Socialisation processes
      • 3.3.4.3 Social support
    • 3.4 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON IDENTIFYING CRITERIA FOR MOBILITY
    • 3.4.1 Significance of previous studies on criteria development
    • 3.5 NEED FOR WELL-DELINEATED CRITERIA
    • 3.6 SUMMARY
  • CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
    • 4.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 4.2 THE KNOWLEDGE CLAIM
    • 4.3 THE RESEARCH DESIGN
    • 4.3.1 Interpretivist design
    • 4.3.2 Grounded theory design
    • 4.4 THE FOCUS OF THE RESEARCH DESIGN
    • 4.4.1 Conditions
      • 4.4.2 Orientations
      • 4.4.3 Actions
    • 4.4.4 The units of analysis
    • 4.5 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF BIAS
    • 4.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
    • 4.7 RESEARCH METHODS
    • 4.7.1 Phase 1: Identifying criteria and compiling a theoretical model of the workplace-effective mobility of employees with disabilities
      • 4.7.1.1 Sampling
      • 4.7.1.2 Sample size
      • 4.7.1.3 Data collection
      • 4.7.1.4 Data analysis
      • 4.7.1.5 Measures to ensure trustworthiness
      • 4.7.1.6 Ethical measures
      • 4.7.2 Phase 2: Confirmation of identified criteria using the Delphi technique
      • 4.7.2.1 Sampling
      • 4.7.2.2 Sample size
      • 4.7.2.3 Data collection
      • 4.7.2.4 Data analysis
      • 4.7.2.5 Ethical measures
      • 4.7.2.6 Validity and reliability
      • 4.7.2.7 Potential research bias
      • 4.7.2.8 Measure to ensure trustworthiness of the findings
    • 4.8 SUMMARY
  • CHAPTER 5: PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS FROM THE
    • QUALITATIVE PHASE (FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS)
    • 5.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 5.2 THE RESEARCH SITE
    • 5.3 PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS
    • 5.4 RESULTS FROM THE PILOT PHASE
    • 5.4.1 Definition of workplace mobility
    • 5.4.2 Enablers of workplace mobility
    • 5.4.2.1 Positive self-concept
      • 5.4.2.2 Self-efficacy
      • 5.4.2.3 Sense of Coherence
      • 5.4.2.4 Positive sense of independence
      • 5.4.2.5 Workplace accessibility
      • 5.4.2.6 Workplace equity
      • 5.4.3 Inhibitors of workplace mobility
      • 5.4.3.1 Adverse economic conditions
      • 5.4.3.2 Negative self-concept
      • 5.4.3.3 Workplace prejudice
      • 5.4.4 Achieving goals of the pilot phase
    • 5.4.4.1 Determining the understanding of the terminology by participants
    • 5.4.4.2 Interview schedule – duration
    • 5.4.4.3 Refinement of the interview schedule
    • 5.4.5 Conclusion
    • 5.5. RESULTS FROM MAIN STUDY PARTICIPANTS
      • 5.5.1 Definition of workplace-effective mobility
      • 5.5.2 Enablers of workplace-effective mobility
      • 5.5.2.1 Positive self-concept
      • 5.5.2.2 Self-efficacy
      • 5.5.2.3 Sense of Coherence
      • 5.5.2.4 Workplace accessibility
      • 5.5.2.5 Positive sense of independence
      • 5.5.2.6 Workplace equity
    • 5.5.3 Inhibitors of workplace-effective mobility
      • 5.5.3.1 Accessibility issues
      • 5.5.3.2 Negative self-concept
      • 5.5.3.3 Unemployment rate
      • 5.5.3.4 Workplace prejudice
    • 5.5.4 Differential treatment
    • General opinions
    • Comparing and contrasting the results from the pilot and
    • the main study
    • 5.6 TENTATIVE CRITERIA FOR WORKPLACE-EFFECTIVE MOBILITY
    • 5.7 SUMMARY
  • CHAPTER 6: PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS FROM THE
    • QUANTITATIVE PHASE (CONFIRMATORY DELPHI PHASE)
    • 6.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 6.2 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
      • 6.2.1 Pilot round of the Delphi process
      • 6.2.1.1 Problems with access to the Moodle webpage
      • 6.2.1.2 Content and structural problems regarding the questionnaire
      • 6.2.1.3 Conclusion
      • 6.2.2 Results from Round One of Delphi
      • 6.2.2.1 Consensus regarding the definition of workplace-effective mobility
      • 6.2.2.2 Dimensions of workplace-effective mobility
      • 6.2.2.3 Categorising indicators into criteria for workplace-effective mobility
      • 6.2.3 Results from Round Two
      • 6.2.3.1 Definition of workplace-effective mobility
      • 6.2.3.2. Dimensions of workplace-effective mobility
      • 6.2.3.3 Categorising indicators into criteria for workplace-effective mobility
    • 6.3 SUMMARY
  • CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
    • 7.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 7.2 NATURE OF WORKPLACE-EFFECTIVE MOBILITY
    • 7.3 ENABLERS OF WORKPLACE-EFFECTIVE MOBILITY
    • 7.4 INHIBITORS OF WORKPLACE-EFFECTIVE MOBILITY
    • 7.5 DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES
    • 7.6 DIMENSIONS AND INDICATORS OF WORKPLACE- EFFECTIVE MOBILITY
      • 7.6.1 Positive self-concept
      • 7.6.2 Self-efficacy
      • 7.6.3 Sense of coherence
      • 7.6.4 Positive sense of independence
      • 7.6.5 Workplace accessibility
    • 7.7 GENERAL COMMENTS MADE BY PARTICIPANTS
    • 7.7.1 Deafness and disability
      • 7.7.2 Deafness and speech-impairment
      • 7.7.3 Disability and quality of life
      • 7.7.4 Disabilities are different in nature and extent
      • 7.7.5 Effect of changing regimes
      • 7.7.6 Contributions of the data to broader field of knowledge
      • 7.7.6.1 Ontology
      • 7.7.6.2 Epistemology
      • 7.7.6.3 Axiology
      • 7.7.6.4 Methodology
      • 7.7.6.5 Emancipatory research principles
      • 7.7.6.6 Theoretical models of disability
      • 7.7.6.7 The biopsychosocial model
      • 7.7.6.8 Salutogenisis
      • 7.7.6.9 Welfare-to-work strategies
      • 7.7.6.10 Sensitivity training and awareness programmes
      • 7.7.6.11 Sign language appreciation
      • 7.7.6.12 Contribution to practice
      • 7.7.6.13 Contribution of data to international literature
    • 7.8 SUMMARY
  • CHAPTER 8: A THEORETICAL MODEL OF WORKPLACE- EFFECTIVE MOBILITY
    • 8.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 8.2 CAUSAL CONDITIONS
    • 8.3 CONTEXT-INTERVENING CONDITIONS
    • 8.4 ACTIONS AND INTERACTION STRATEGIES
    • 8.5 CONSEQUENCES
    • 8.6 SUMMARY
  • CHAPTER 9: REFLECTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    • 9.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 9.2 REFLECTION ON THE RESEARCH PROCESS
    • 9.2.1 Objectives of the study
      • 9.2.2 The trustworthiness of the study
      • 9.2.2.1 Reflexivity
      • 9.2.2.2 Peer debriefing
      • 9.2.2.3 Auditability
      • 9.2.2.4 Credibility and dependability
      • 9.2.2.5 Authenticity
      • 9.2.2.6 Transferability
      • 9.2.3 Weaknesses of the study
      • 9.3 PERSONAL REFLECTIONS
      • 9.3.1 Researching people with disabilities
      • 9.3.2 Doing qualitative research
      • 9.3.3 My study leader
      • 9.4 IMPLICATIONS AND WIDER CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE
    • 9.4.1 Human Resources Management implications
    • 9.4.2 Implications for national policy
    • 9.4.3 Implications for research
    • 9.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION ANDFUTURE RESEARCH
    • 9.5.1 Policy recommendations
    • 9.5.2 Practice recommendations
    • 9.5.3 Recommendations for research
    • 9.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS
    • REFERENCES
    • ANNEXURES
    • Annexure A Informed Consent Agreement
    • Annexure B Memorandum of Understanding
    • Annexure C Interview Schedule for focus group interviews
    • Annexure D Delphi questionnaire
READ  Local and indigenous music practices in Buganda

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT

Related Posts

Young Millennials News Consumption

Recursive feature elimination with random forest regression

The Language of Portfolio

Identifying residents at risk of malnutrition 

HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEMS OPERATIONAL TEST PROCEDURES

Electroweak precision observables fit of the Higgs mass