Ethics are considered very important as they serve a number of functions, such as ensuring credibility of the research and legitimacy of the findings, as well as safeguarding participants and researchers (Payne and Payne, 2004). A common approach is to assure participants of privacy and confidentiality, gaining their informed consent and giving them the option to withdraw from the research at any time or to withhold their responses if they see fit (Christians, 2005; Payne and Payne, 2004). In Stake’s (2005: 459) words “Qualitative researchers are guests in the private spaces of the world. Their manners should be good and their code of ethics strict.”
Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Cardiff University, School of Social Sciences Ethics Committee (Appendix VIII). While generally speaking this was not a particularly sensitive topic, seafarers are considered a vulnerable group because of their precarious employment situations. This was taken into consideration although there were no obvious threats. Ethical practices should always be considered as a core aspect of research even in such low risk studies (Payne and Payne, 2004). The standard ethical considerations were applied in this research. Confidentiality and anonymity in collecting, storing and using the data were applied. Interviews were recorded on a personal device with a password. Participants were informed of the nature and purpose of the research and my obligations to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. Some seafarers did not wish to be recorded and instead the responses were hand written.
With the seafarers, care was taken in proving my identity as a PhD student by presenting my Cardiff University business card. A number of studies indicated that seafarers work in a low-trust environment (eg. Sampson, 2013; Bhattacharya 2012a, Xue et. al., 2017). These are issues to be considered when conducting research with seafarers. To build rapport and trust (Rubin and Rubin, 2012), the
interviews with seafarers began with informal conversations. It was helpful that I am from Jamaica which I discovered made for a good icebreaker and general conversation to put the seafarer at ease. Some were curious about my studies and asked questions. It was also helpful to explain about what we do at the Seafarers International Research Centre (SIRC) and that we could easily be found online. I believe these various strategies assisted in building rapport and provided proof of my identity and helped in seafarers consenting to being interviewed.
For the elite participants, the beginning was more direct. Most of them took charge of the opening of the interview and began talking about the research before the ethical formalities. Welch et. al. (2002) discuss the positionality of researcher in elite interviewing and the power dynamics, which were experienced to some extent in this research. However, I had already made contact and my introductory emails had provided information about the research and my ethical obligations. In such situations, I attempted to steer the interview back to the beginning and obtain signed informed consent. Those interviewed on skype or telephone gave verbal consent. Their permission was also sought for the interview to be recorded and there were no refusals at this level.
Although this was not a particularly risky project, personal safety was discussed with my supervisors. Before departing to any location, supervisors were informed as to where I was going and for how long. The SIRC administrator was also informed in general that I would be away from Cardiff and which city I would be visiting.
4.9. Conclusion
This chapter presented a detailed description of the methodology of the research. The design and methods were carefully considered in relation to the research question and objectives. The research was designed as a case study to explore the regulatory measure for seafarers’ representative participation in OHS on ships. It is concerned with the thinking behind this standard, consideration for its purpose, and structures that are necessary for its effectiveness. A qualitative approach was deemed most suitable to access these backstage issues dealing with negotiating
international standards and attempting to access past events via recall and the use of documents.
Key informants were chosen for their involvement with the MLC. These participants had many years of experience in maritime industry spanning 15 to over 40 years, and were involved at the highest levels, nationally and internationally. They were all involved in the development of the MLC and the majority were still involved at the time of the interview and continue to be involved to the present. Seafarers were chosen more generally to convey their experiences of representation on ships. Although there were some challenges, they did not detract from the data quality and the findings that emerged towards answering the research question. The next four chapters present the findings reflecting the development, administration, implementation and practice of representation on ships.
5
Negotiating Maritime Labour Standards
There are…pressing social and human rights issues associated with crew composition and size, wage levels, continuity of employment, health and safety, the quality of shipboard life and, and above all the quite fundamentally, an unfailing recognition of the seafarers’ need for dignity and respect. None of these issues can be properly dealt with without appropriate regulation of the labour market at the global level. (JMC/29/2001/3: 30).
___________________________________________________________________________
5.1. Introduction
This chapter presents the findings of the documentary analysis. The documents were analysed for their accounts of the negotiations with the aim of tracing the development of the provisions for representation, such as, when they were included, who proposed them and what discussions surrounded their inclusion. Special attention was paid to the supports for effective implementation and practice. The main documents used in the analysis are listed in Appendix II.
The documents spanned the MLC negotiations from 2001 to 2006 (as explained in Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1). These include the meeting reports and relevant position papers presented at the meetings. The MLC 2006 and relevant regulatory guidelines were also considered part of the data source and constitute what the thesis refers to as the MLC framework for representation. Documents used as supplementary data in examining the UK’s case are incorporated in presenting those findings in Chapter 7.
Documents have their limitations, as they are the products of the interpretations of those who developed them. Also, not all discussions took place formally and therefore some information may not be on public record. However, the meeting documents used in this research were sufficiently detailed that they present an acceptable account of what transpired in negotiating the MLC text. The documentary accounts were also supported by interviews which serve to supplement and corroborate the records.
This chapter has two main sections. The first section presents the data and analysis of the MLC negotiations. It gives the context for the MLC and how its text was deliberated and the outcomes of interest to the study. The second section deals with the MLC framework and the model for representation, consistent with the research question as to whether these provisions provide a “firm response” to poor working conditions on ships. The conclusions draw out concerns around the lack of discussions on representation in the MLC negotiations, the limitations of provisions for representation in the MLC framework and wider issues of standard- making in the ILO and global governance.