Quality of work research: a methodological review

IF 0.2 Q3 Social Sciences Portuguese Journal of Social Science Pub Date : 2018-12-08 DOI:10.1386/PJSS.17.1.89_1
M. Barroso
{"title":"Quality of work research: a methodological review","authors":"M. Barroso","doi":"10.1386/PJSS.17.1.89_1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The research on quality of work experienced remarkable resurgence during the noughties, partially as a result of the inclusion of the topic in European and international policy-making agendas. In the second half of the decade, the global economic crisis largely redirected the attention to the quantitative dimensions of labour market policy. Nonetheless, academic production on job quality has maintained its vitality over the years. As in many other relevant research topics, consensus over the conceptualization and measurement of quality of work has been difficult to achieve among academics and policy-makers. Apart from the lack of a commonly agreed definition, measurement also tends to be varied and supported by different methods. In fact, both academics and policy-makers claim the need for a more consensual definition as a way of improving the comparability between countries, sectors of activity or occupations. In this article, we compare the methodological designs of a selected group of quality of work studies to identify the degree to which there are significant discrepancies within the academic community and to assess progress regarding the challenge of conceptualizing and measuring quality of work. The article offers a review of the most-cited articles indexed at the Scopus database between 2000 and 2015, and a comprehensive analysis over the question of conceptualization and measurement.","PeriodicalId":51963,"journal":{"name":"Portuguese Journal of Social Science","volume":"17 1","pages":"89-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1386/PJSS.17.1.89_1","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Portuguese Journal of Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1386/PJSS.17.1.89_1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The research on quality of work experienced remarkable resurgence during the noughties, partially as a result of the inclusion of the topic in European and international policy-making agendas. In the second half of the decade, the global economic crisis largely redirected the attention to the quantitative dimensions of labour market policy. Nonetheless, academic production on job quality has maintained its vitality over the years. As in many other relevant research topics, consensus over the conceptualization and measurement of quality of work has been difficult to achieve among academics and policy-makers. Apart from the lack of a commonly agreed definition, measurement also tends to be varied and supported by different methods. In fact, both academics and policy-makers claim the need for a more consensual definition as a way of improving the comparability between countries, sectors of activity or occupations. In this article, we compare the methodological designs of a selected group of quality of work studies to identify the degree to which there are significant discrepancies within the academic community and to assess progress regarding the challenge of conceptualizing and measuring quality of work. The article offers a review of the most-cited articles indexed at the Scopus database between 2000 and 2015, and a comprehensive analysis over the question of conceptualization and measurement.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
工作质量研究:方法论综述
关于工作质量的研究在20世纪90年代经历了显著的复兴,部分原因是将该主题纳入了欧洲和国际决策议程。在本十年的后半段,全球经济危机在很大程度上将注意力转向了劳动力市场政策的数量层面。尽管如此,关于工作质量的学术成果多年来一直保持着活力。与许多其他相关研究主题一样,学术界和决策者很难就工作质量的概念化和衡量达成共识。除了缺乏一个共同商定的定义外,衡量也往往是多样化的,并由不同的方法来支持。事实上,学者和决策者都声称,需要一个更一致的定义,以提高国家、活动部门或职业之间的可比性。在这篇文章中,我们比较了一组选定的工作质量研究的方法设计,以确定学术界存在重大差异的程度,并评估在概念化和衡量工作质量的挑战方面的进展。这篇文章回顾了2000年至2015年间Scopus数据库中引用最多的文章,并对概念化和测量问题进行了全面分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Portuguese Journal of Social Science is a peer-reviewed cross-disciplinary journal focusing on research about Portuguese society by scholars of any nationality. However, the journal takes a broad view and accepts articles that are not exclusively devoted to the Portuguese case. We particularly welcome comparative studies. While the journal concentrates on research articles it operates a flexible policy in respect of other types of submission, including book reviews.
期刊最新文献
João Ferreira de Ameida (12 June 1941 – 16 June 2022) Ageing with a twist: Intimacy and care amongst LGB older adults in Portugal Gender (trans)formations in Europe and beyond: Trans lives and politics from a transnational perspective LGBTQI+ in democratic Portugal: An overview essay Somewhere under the rainbow: LGBTQ youth and school climate in Portugal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1