Trading Choices - Methodology

GO TO: TOC / Previous / Next - Impacts

Research questions
Focus groups
Individual interviews
Sample definition
Interviewee subgroups
Recruitment
Interviewee questions
Participant feedback
 

Methodology

As outlined in the introduction to this report, the aim of this research was to examine the interconnections between gender and gendered ideas and young people’s decisions about careers, in order to develop useful understandings for policy work aimed at ensuring young people’s career choices are not constrained by their gender. The study focuses on the trades, where gender segregation is particularly apparent.
 

Research questions

The research questions were as follows:

 In line with our focus on gender equity rather than gender equality (as discussed in Chapter 1), our concern is not difference per se. We have treated gender, not as an independent variable, but as one of a great many factors drawn on by young people as they ‘produce’ themselves and their identity – in work, and other contexts. Our starting point was that the wider socialisation contexts (home/family, friends, school, work, wider society) are likely to mean that young men and women will experience the process of career decision-making differently. However, because these contexts are different for different individuals, and different individuals use them in different ways, while we expected to find some broad general patterns, we also expected to find many gender similarities.

2.  If there are differences and/or inequities, where is the problem primarily located?

In posing this question, we are assuming that the gender imbalance in the traditional trades is a problem (in line with the discussion on page 7). We are also assuming that, if there are gender inequities in young people’s career decision-making experiences, that this is also a problem. We are interested in exploring how the following factors might help to explain the current situation:

• certain features of today’s young people and the influence of wider society (their information/experience-seeking and sense-making strategies, gender – and other – identities, socialisation experiences, individualisation, etc.)

• the current ‘pathways’ framework (school structures, the connections between schools and post-school opportunities, pathways information provision, etc.)

• the trades themselves (information about the trades, training opportunities, work demands and culture, historical developments, etc.).

3.  Given our answers to the above questions and our knowledge about recent educational and occupational changes, what policy – and other – levers could lead to a better gender balance in the trades, and/or an increase in women’s economic independence? 

Our aim in this research was to explore whether or not young people’s stories about career decision making can provide insights into how to shift the deeply and historically entrenched gender divide in the trades. We were interested in what the young people had to say about the source(s) of the problem, and/or how their stories could inform future policy work in this area. For example, should effort be put into:

• information provision and/or support for sense making?
• school learning environments, planning, structures, and options?
• Industry Training and/or the Modern Apprenticeship Scheme?
• the pathways framework, including connections between school and post-school?
• workforce planning for the future in general?

We used focus groups and interviews to elicit young people’s stories and perspectives. These were then analysed to understand the different inter-related factors involved in their decision making. This qualitative methodology was designed to help us explore the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of young people’s career decision making, rather than the ‘what’. We interviewed a total of 86 young people, in 33 different focus groups or individual interviews.

Focus groups

We used focus groups for two main reasons. Firstly, focus groups (or ‘group interviews’) can establish a wide range of participant-defined issues and perspectives on a topic in a short space of time as well as offering insight into shared meanings (Stewart & Shamdasini, 1990). Thus they were an efficient and economical way to gain a lot of data from a lot of young people. Secondly, by bringing a range of participants together in discussions we hoped to facilitate an active and dynamic environment to facilitate the social construction of meaning (Madriz, 2000). That is, the focus groups produced data on the interactions between different participants, giving additional insight into the ways in which young people process information and opinion. This was particularly important in this study because we believe that career decision making is not an entirely individual pursuit, but is intimately tied to the people and discourses young people are linked to. We were able to see how ideas were bounced around and recreated between the young people, rather than each interviewee simply responding to the interview questions (Dupuis & Neale, 1998).

We organised the focus groups into female-only or male-only groups to help participants feel comfortable about sharing their ideas and experiences. We limited the number of participants in focus groups (two to six individuals per group) to encourage debate but also to enable enough time and space for everyone to have their say and be listened to by others. We supplemented focus groups with individual interviews.

Individual interviews

We carried out individual interviews in circumstances where privacy or accessibility was an issue. Specifically, young people were interviewed on their own if they were not part of an easily identifiable group to interview together. We conducted face-to-face interviews with participants in the local region, and phone interviews with participants further afield.

In comparison to focus groups, individual interviews can be more sensitive to individual stories. It has been argued that interviews have become a ‘natural’ context in which to articulate experience and make sense of our lives (Atkinson & Silverman, 1997). While interviews cannot provide a mirror reflection of the interviewee’s social world, actions, and meanings, in-depth interactive discussion in an environment of rapport and trust can allow respondents to give honest and full accounts of their opinions and social situations (Miller & Glassner, 1997, p. 101).

Due to the extremely small numbers of women in trades-related pathways, we conducted more individual interviews than we had initially planned for. This means that our participant sample was smaller than we expected, but the one-on-one approach enabled us to explore these young people’s decision-making experiences in greater depth (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Our sample of young people is described next, followed by an outline of the interview questions.

Sample definition

In order to establish the sample of young people we were to interview, we needed to identify – and therefore define – what we meant by gender-segregated trades training pathways. The ‘vocational trades sector’ has been defined in New Zealand as the group of occupations in which:

• job applicants require a well-developed range of literacies and demonstrated attainment;
• fundamental competencies are acquired and practised on the job;
• competencies are developed to advanced levels through the apprenticeship system;
• the majority of day-to-day activity is manual and practical, being supported by processes and systems that grow in complexity during the apprenticeship period. (Scripps, 2006, p. 13).

However, ideas about what a trade is have changed over time. Origins stretch back to a live-in guild system for artisanal trades, such as building and printing. Live-out work-based trade apprenticeships later developed in the growing metal work industries, including engineering, shipbuilding, electrical, and plumbing, and then spread to particular specialties such as footwear, papermaking, and furniture-making (Gospel, 1995). The relatively new Modern Apprenticeship Scheme^[10] feeds into a wide range of occupational categories that were not part of more historical apprenticeship systems.

A growing number of other industries are now forming ITOs and are therefore considered trades and as much vocational as any of the others (e.g. IT, care industries, hospitality and public service). (Scripps, 2006, p.13)

While this broader conceptualisation of the trades has brought more women into apprenticeships, some commentators are suggesting that women are gravitating to the newer areas, which may well be less secure and less well paid. For example:

Overseas experience of introducing the apprenticeship system into the office administration, tourism and retail sectors suggests that while female participation statistics improve on the face of it, there is a great deal of ‘churning’ of participants because of low pay and lack of a genuine career path in these industries. The new industry areas are required to develop qualifications to provide a range of skills ‘lifting’ young people from low paid and low status jobs and propel them into management. Whether this will overcome the CEDAW Committee’s stated concern of perpetuating occupational segregation remains to be seen. (McGregor & Gray, 2003, p. 3)

 [T]he more traditional vocational trades…is where the gender discrepancy is greatest… One response to this situation from VT [vocational trades] employers has been to include traditional female industries in industry training initiatives. This may have, perversely, reinforced stereotypical gender roles (Tertiary Education Commission, 2000). (Scripps, 2006, pp. 13,19)

Because there is no accepted male:female ratio that defines an area as male- or female-dominated, we had to make one up. We decided that 10 percent or less of one gender in any Industry Training Organisation or Modern Apprenticeship indicates that it is ‘dominated’ by the opposite gender. Two tables in Appendix B provide the gender breakdown of trainees and apprentices as at September 2006.

In terms of our sampling, these figures show that there was a wide range of male-dominated categories from which we could have selected interviewees (although women were hard to find), but very few female-dominated categories. Females make up less than 10 percent of trainees in 17 out of 38 Industry Training Organisations and in 19 out of 30 Modern Apprenticeship industries. The only female-dominated Industry Training Organisations (more than 90 percent women) are: Community Support Services, Pharmacy, and Hairdressing (of which only the latter is considered a traditional trade). No Modern Apprenticeship category has greater than 90 percent women: in fact, the only two areas where females make up more than half of the apprentices are Tourism and Public Sector.

School students’ STAR and Gateway^[11] options roughly mapped against the apprenticeship and industry training categories noted above. However, other school subjects do not necessarily match clearly onto industry training or occupational groupings. We classed these as male- or female-dominated in two ways. First, we took account of the types of occupations that a subject might logically lead towards. Second, we took the advice of teachers and careers advisers who knew the extent to which the subject was generally gender segregated (if it was an optional choice for students).

Interviewee subgroups

We conducted focus groups and interviews with young people from four different groups:

• junior secondary school students in general and trades-related subjects (especially in technology subjects that could be viewed as trades-related)
• senior secondary school students in general and trades-related school pathways (especially in STAR and Gateway which provide trades-related training and work experiences)
• trainees and recent graduates in gender segregated trades-related occupations
• young people avoiding gender-trades-related gender-segregated occupations, especially ex-trades trainees.

 
Within each of these four groups we wanted to talk to young men and women involved in gender-segregated options that were either traditional or nontraditional for their gender. Arranging this gave us four categories per group. These four second-tier categories were as follows: 

• nontraditional females: young women either employed or training in male-dominated trades, or doing traditionally male school subjects, such as woodwork technology
• traditional females:young women either employed or training in female-dominated trades, or doing traditionally female school subjects, such as fabrics technology
  
• traditional males: young men either employed or training in male-dominated trades, or doing traditionally male school subjects, such as metalwork
  
• nontraditional males: young men either employed or training in female-dominated trades, or doing traditionally female school subjects, such as fabrics.

The table below shows the numbers and spread of individuals across these four groups and four categories. The table also records the number of data collection episodes that were carried out with each subgroup, either as a focus group or individual interview. The total number of individuals taking part in each data collection episode is indicated in brackets ‘(x)’. Initially we had expected to include more nontraditional recent graduates and employees, but such individuals proved extremely difficult to locate.[12] To increase the numbers, especially in the nontraditional category, we included students from a school that requires all students to study all of the technology subjects in Year 9.
 

Table 2: Spread of participants across the four groups and categories

* One focus group was mixed gender (i.e., 0.5 of a data collection episode).
 

These subgroups do not represent the homogeneous categories that our labelling suggests. What emerged was a jumble of identities and positions, which, while it is a much closer representation of the diversity in society, makes it difficult to talk about each group as an entity, or as representative of their categorisation. For example, in the ‘avoiding group’ we only included women who had left post-school trades training. However, many of the secondary school students we spoke with did not intend to follow through into trades-related work, and could therefore also be categorised in the ‘avoiding’ group. At the same time, many of the senior secondary students were in some kind of trades apprenticeship or training course run by another provider, and so we could have categorised them as trainees.

Also, the Year 9 students from the school we added in later were doing traditional and nontraditional subjects that had been decided and structured for them by the school. Their participation was therefore not the result of their own decision making, nor of their so-called nontraditional or traditional interest. On the other hand, this group provided us with a useful insight into a school-based strategy that could impact on gendered perceptions of occupations.

Table 3 below provides details of the ethnicity of the 86 participants. Nine participants gave two or more ethnicities, and have been multiply entered. As the table shows, there were no clear patterns by ethnicity in relation to participants’ nontraditional or traditional choices. However, we set out to meet a range of young people and since this is not a quantitative study the information cannot be generalised.
 

Table 3: Participant ethnicity by options traditional or nontraditional for their gender

Recruitment

We made use of NZCER’s connections with organisations and individuals to create a snowballing sample of young people. For example, we used previous – and built new – relationships with secondary schools, Modern Apprenticeship co-ordinators, Industry Training Organisers, training providers, polytechnics, and universities to create our sample. We also asked interviewees whether they could recommend others to participate. Participants were officially invited to:

take part in a research study about how different things (especially being male or female) can influence young people’s career decisions or experiences in trades-related training or jobs.

^[13]

Interviewee questions

In all focus groups or interviews we used a semi structured interview schedule to provide a balance between open-ended questions, discussion points, statements, and visual prompts for participants to respond to. The questions needed to make sense to interviewees, but also to provide access into some of the deeper analysis we hoped to do: for example, our focus on system-level barriers, gendered narratives, demographic patterns, occupational status, etc. They also needed to generate the young people’s personal stories of how they came to be in their current pathway, as well as their reflections about the current gender divide in many of the trades.

The main question areas are described next, although we used the schedule flexibly to follow the young people’s stories as they emerged (see Appendix D for a copy of the interview schedule).

The first questions we asked were about childhood, and early considerations about occupations. We were interested in how gender normativity might have been an influence, as well as stories about ‘critical moments’ that encouraged or discouraged people to follow their dreams.

• Thinking back to your childhood, what did you want to be when you grew up?

• What happened to that dream?

The second set of questions asked how they came to be in their current pathway. We were particularly interested in how this might relate to other structures in society (such as gender, class, ethnicity, family background). We were also interested in knowing about the information and people that impact on young people’s decision making.

• What attracted you into this subject/training/job?
• What did you know about this subject/training/job before you started it?

The third set of questions related to wider socialisation influences, and the impact that others have on a young person’s career-related decisions and experiences.

• Before you started this course/job, had you known anyone in training or a job that was not traditional for their gender?
• What do people in your family think about what you do? Friends? And people you interact with (colleagues, boss, tutor, customers)?

The fourth set of questions focused on the (potentially unexpected) realities of their experiences, the positives and negatives. We were also interested in how their descriptions or rationalisations might fit with stereotypically gendered narratives.

• Have you found anything different from what you initially expected from this course/job? (If so, what?)
• Things that could make you stay/leave?

 
The fifth set of questions came with visual prompts. We provided a list of occupations, and asked the interviewees to estimate the proportion of men and women in them. We then produced pie graphs showing that there are less than 5 percent of women (or men) in these occupations. Later we showed them posters of women and men carrying out trades-related work that was not traditional for their gender. We were interested in how they view gender (in)equality, the extent to which their perceptions match reality, the ways in which young people rationalise/theorise gender differences beyond their individual situation, and their reactions to (and assumptions about) people who challenge the norms. We asked them the following questions:

• What do you think is the percentage of males and females in each?
• Are these numbers similar to, or different from, what you thought? Why?
• Which of these occupations are the most appealing [to you/society generally]? Why?
• What kind of person/man/woman do you think you need to be to do this job? (skills, personal characteristics)
• Do you think there are any differences in the way that males and females are treated in trades-related jobs today?

Finally, we asked the interviewees what they thought could be done to improve the current situation.

• What do you think might help other [males or females] get into, or stay in, this training or job?

 
The next four chapters outline and comment on what the interviewees told us in response to our original questions and prompts. We reviewed the first draft of these chapters in light of feedback from participant analysis workshops and posted comments.
 

Participant feedback

Later, after the main data collection work was complete, we ran two small workshops designed to elicit participants’ feedback on our analysis. These workshops, organised as male-only or female-only groups, brought together some of our original interviewees in trades training or work (including an ex-trainee). We presented a PowerPoint summary of our main findings, stopping regularly for comment and discussion. We also provided a hard copy of the PowerPoint to the young women who could not attend the workshop. Three of these later provided us with written feedback on the presentation. The purpose of this was to allow the young people to engage with, and critique, the researcher lens that had been put on their stories. This extra tier of data (participant reactions to our initial analysis) provided us with further insights into how young women and men make sense of their own and other people’s (gendered) experiences, and what they think could be done to address the issues that are raised by the analysis. It was also an opportunity for participants to reflect, not only on their own experiences, but also the experiences of others.^[14] We reviewed our draft report in the light of this feedback, and the participants’ comments have been woven into this final report.

There are a great many ways to analyse the data produced in the interviews and feedback workshops. We have drawn, somewhat eclectically, on a variety of theoretical lenses to address the research questions. This pragmatic approach means that each of the following chapters takes a slightly different angle on the central problem. Our dominant – far from ‘pure’ – frame is post-structuralism^[15], although we also draw on socialisation theory^[16] and structuralism^[17], especially in Chapters 3 and 4.
 

GO TO: TOC / Previous / Next - Impacts