Critical Evaluation of Central Argument and Methodology of Article - Literature review Example

Critical Evaluation of Central Argument and Methodology of Article Summary of the Central Argument of the Article The article explores the effectiveness of mobilizing protests on organizations by taking two comparable case studies. In essence, the study evaluates the response of workers in two factories namely Burberry and Dewhirst, both before and after their closures. The central argument of the article revolves around mobilization theory. It uses its scientific evaluations to develop valid arguments about the pressure piled on the two factories upon closure. The two factories, namely Burberry and Dewhirst, shared a number of characteristics in terms of workforces, manufacturing sector, and union organization (Blyton & Jenkins 2013, p. 733). Some distinguishing factors between the two factories, particularly when it came to mobilization of worker protest. One company, namely Burberry, sustained worker protest through solid and extended union leadership to prevent closure. On the other hand, the workers of Dewhirst staged weak protests that did not materialize according to their expectations but the company eventually closed down. The research methodology involves conducting interviews at intervals in addition to using observation before drawing suitable inferences. The findings reveal the importance of strengthening the interaction and social structure of a population, the broader society, and its leaders in order to enhance the impact of worker mobilization (Simms & Dean 2015, pp. 173-190). Critical Analysis of the Central Argument Blyton and Jenkins (2013) use insights gathered from two factory closures to assess the underlying factors in mobilizing workers protest. Their main concern is to establish how Industrial Relations (IR) can affect corporate decisions, especially decisions that directly affect the workers. Trade unions are the core of industrial relations in the sense that workers can submit their grievance to the company managements only through their workers unions. They can also organize and mobilize protests along their trade unions in order to coerce their managements to take or revoke certain decisions that are critical to the workers’ welfare. Although the article reviews various literatures on industrial relations and mobilization theory, it uses the Burberry and Dewhirst cases in its study. In this regard, the two companies, namely Burberry and Dewhirst, had been scheduled for closure in 2002, mobilization of the workers determined the contrasting decisions that both managements took in the end (Blyton & Jenkins 2013, pp. 741-749). The two factories were both involved in the manufacture of garments owned by Dewhirst and Burberry. Perhaps an important point to note about the two plants is that its workforce comprised of female workers as the majority, which is typical in the garment-manufacturing sector. Dewhirst and Burberry plants were scheduled for closure by the end of 2002, a plan that materialized, leading to massive job losses totalling to about 1000. Although their closure was good intentioned, it stirred uproar and dissent among the employers, who organized mass protests. In the previous years before the closure of the two factories, the unions representing workers from the two factories had planned to initiate a change process aimed at enhancing productivity. Both unions were vibrant as far as advocating for employee rights such as salary increase was concerned (Blyton & Jenkins 2013, pp. 741-749). In an effort to compel the management to rescind its decision to close the factory, the workers of Burberry organized a massive protest that led to a reduction in the financial figures of the firm in addition to attractive media attention. Their efforts eventually bore fruits because of an effective mobilization strategy. On the other hand, the Dewhirst workers failed to mobilize and compel the management to act otherwise. Instead, the workers withdrew from the company in protest. The two scenarios depict the power of organizing collective action within an organization in order to achieve expected outcomes/objectives (Krašenkienė, Kazokienė, & Susnienė 2014, pp. 1-14). The workers of both Dewhirst and Burberry exhibited several similarities and differences at critical stages of their mobilization. Perhaps the differences in mobilization of workers at some crucial stages led to the success of Burberry and failure of Dewhirst workers in their mobilization. The major mobilization differences between the two factories included variation in local context and differences in work organization. Fundamentally, Dewhirst factory had dominated the area for a long time and the local community had endured a series of industrial restructuring in the past. Perhaps this experience led to their disillusionment of Dewhirst workers upon receiving the news of its impending closure. On the other hand, Burberry had a strong work-community relationship. When it comes to difference in work organization, it is worth noting that the workers at Burberry had closer social interactions when compared to their Dewhirst counterparts primarily due to the computerization of systems at Dewhirst. Stronger social interactions enhance the mobilization capacity of the workers unions (Simms & Dean 2015, pp. 173-190). Leadership, opportunity, and organization also play key roles as far as mobilization and collective action of workers are concerned. Both external and internal solidarities affect the efficacy of collective action among the workers of a particular organization, as was evident in Burberry and Dewhirst cases. Mobilization alone cannot work if the workers union lacks participative democracy. Additionally, workers who demonstrate strong internal and external solidarity tend to mobilize more intensely as compared to companies where workers lack solidarity such as in Dewhirst. It essentially means internal solidarity and external solidarity go together in mobilizing a winning protest. Unlike Burberry, Dewhirst had a strong internal network but lacked any notable external solidarity. It is therefore important for workers to form strong unions whose leadership can influence both the workers and the local community, especially in times of protests against management injurious decisions (Jansen 2014, pp. 60-85). Explanation of the Methodology employed in the Article The article used case study as its research design by exploring the mobilization similarities and differences between two factories namely Burberry and Dewhirst. Blyton and Jenkins (2013) use two case studies to assess the theory of mobilization and industrial relations (IR) as they apply to workers. Fundamentally, the article describes the problem exhaustively before collecting various responses from the workers of the organization. Case studies are effective when comparing non-scientific variables or in cases where discrete data is likely to interfere with the internal validity of the research. In this respect, the authors sampled various views and responses of workers from both factories in addition to independently observing the two scenarios. Besides conducting interviews, the authors of the article review a number of literatures relevant to the study topic in order to get varied views that relate to industrial relations and mobilization theory (Blyton & Jenkins 2013, pp. 740-741). Critical Analysis of the Methodology The authors conducted the study at the Dewhirst plant in two phases with the first phase being in 2000 while the second phase was in 2002. Primarily, the first phase involved conducting a broader comparative study of industrial relations within the area. It is important to note that the authors sought and received approval to conduct the study, which is an acceptable ethical practice in research. The regional human resource director approved the research to be done within its four regional plants. The authors collected their information largely through interviews while observation was a supplementary data collection method. The participants in the study included the workers, the union representatives, and the factory managers. Although the sampling technique used ensured that the samples were actual representatives of the population the element of bias was inevitable. Besides, the leaders selected for the study were highly likely to give biased responses based on their positions instead of giving responses that were more accurate. Information collection through observation involved examining factory floors surveying corporate policy statements. The authors observed documents that contain agreements on terms and conditions of work in order to get an unbiased approach to the whole issue of protest mobilization (Løkke & Sørensen 2014, pp. 66-74). The second phase of study came in 2002, shortly after the plant issued notice of closure. A second interview was conducted on the union branch secretary. The researchers conducted two further interviews at the Swansea plant. The participants, who were the people on the shop floor, gave their responses concerning the closure of the plant. The second phase of the study involves two visits to the plants where oral interviews were carried out. It is worth noting that the first interview had more interviews than the second interviews with 10 workers from various sections of the factory floor participating in the first interview. The researchers preferred oral interviews to other data collection methods because of the high likelihood of getting accurate information from the respondents (Blyton & Jenkins 2013, pp. 740-741). The second interview of the second phase occurred on the day when the plant was closing down in order to gather information both from the participants and from personal observation. In total, the researcher conducted 19 interviews at the Swansea plant where they interviewed the union representatives, the workers, and the managers on the impending closure of the plant. In 2011, the researchers conducted two extra interviews with each lasting one hour forty minutes. One of the interviewees was the full-time officer of the national union while the other was the former local union branch secretary of the plant. The two interviews were means to cement the research design of the research and provide most accurate and up-to-date information about the status of Burberry and Dewhirst after their closure (Blyton & Jenkins 2013, pp. 740-741). The methodology of the case study is exhaustive in terms of its sampling procedure and data collection technique. It is so because the researchers conducted a number of interviews that enabled them to collect sufficient information for the case study (Blyton & Jenkins 2013, pp. 740-741). Since the whole research was a comparative study, it was necessary to conduct research in both factories with the study at Burberry commencing in 2006. GMB, which was the largest trade union at the time, granted the researcher access to the plant for research purposes. Four researchers conducted research during major mobilization protests outside Burberry’s Bond Street store in London. Additionally, informal interviews were conducted among the protesting union workers. The researcher maintained regular communication with the union representatives. In both studies, qualitative study was the most suitable because it presented a different perspective to workplace procedures in the face of globalization (Løkke & Sørensen 2014, pp. 66-74). Reference Blyton, P & Jenkins, J 2013, ‘Mobilizing Protest: Insights from Two Factory Closures,’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 733-753. Jansen, G 2014, Effects of Union Organization on Strike Incidence in EU Companies, Industrial & Labor Relations Review, vol. 67, no.1, pp. 60-85. Krašenkienė, A, Kazokienė, L, & Susnienė, D 2014, Relationships of the Trade Unions with the Media: The Lithuanian Case, Administrative Sciences (2076-3387), vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1-14. Løkke, A, & Sørensen, P 2014, Theory Testing Using Case Studies, Electronic Journal Of Business Research Methods, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 66-74. Simms, M, & Dean, D 2015, Mobilizing contingent workers: An analysis of two successful cases, Economic & Industrial Democracy, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 173-190. Read More