Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byBrittany Shauna Boyd Modified over 9 years ago
1
Validating ESeC using Round 1 of the European Social Survey ESeC Validation Conference, Lisbon, January 2006 Eric Harrison & David Rose ISER, University of Essex
2
Starting Point Early versions of ESeC drew on questions asked about employment relations in UK LFS used to validate NS-SEC Advantage – both NS-SEC and ESeC use same conceptual grounding (i.e. ‘EGP’) Disadvantage –time lapse (1996-97 to 2004) –Enlarged and heterogeneous European area
3
Three Definitions of Validity Criterion – does it measure what it purports to measure? Construct – does it predict the kinds of things it ought to predict? ‘Operational’ – does it work?
4
European Social Survey Round 1 used here (Round 2 now available, Round 3 in progress) 22 countries, 42,359 cases Most or all of the information needed to make an ESeC (i.e. 3 or 4 digit ISCO, supervision, establishment size)
5
The Treatment of Employment Status Self-employed, managers, supervisors, employees No problem with self-employed: –Exception Norway where self-employed have no occupational information. Solution – small employers to class 4, large employers to class 1. –Family workers (small N) treated as employees Supervision Management
7
Does Size Matter? Potential contradictions between OUG and employment status variable
9
Does Size Matter? Potential contradictions between OUG and employment status variable Want to get impression of accuracy of size coding versus OUG So, ignored employment status and allocated ISCO grous 12 and 13 to their ‘simplified class’
10
Distribution of raw class data
12
Correspondence between 4 and 3 digit ESeC
13
ISCO Codes moving between classes 8 and 9
14
From Nine Classes to Five Much movement is within employment relations boundaries: Collapsed ESeC: 1 and 2 = ‘the service class’ 3 and 6 = ‘intermediate technical class’ 4 and 5 = ‘the self-employed’ 7 = ‘lower sales and service workers’ 8 and 9 = ‘manual working class’
15
A Collapsed 5-class ESeC
16
Employment Relations through Work Autonomy (difficulty of monitoring) The ESS invited respondents to say ‘how much the management at your work allows you…. to be flexible in your working hours? To decide how your own daily work is organised? To influence your environment? To influence decisions about the general direction of your work? To change your work tasks if you wish to?
17
Mean Work autonomy scores
18
Effects of Size in Management groups Being in group 12 (corporate managers) increased work autonomy score by 0.5 points (statistically significant) Being in an ‘establishment’ of 10+ workers had a negative and non-significant effect At minor group level, only 123 (specialist managers) have significantly better outcomes than other groups
19
Distinguishing classes 8 and 9 Literature on deskilling of ‘lower technical occupations’ through technology and working arrangements How wide a phenomenon: How deep? Analysis identifies candidate occupations within class 8 and calls them ‘class ten’ Compare work autonomy scores for classes 8, 9 and 10.
20
Work autonomy scores for ‘bottom’ classes
21
Poor Subjective Health
22
Next Steps Further investigation of ‘country types’ (see Dutch validation) Explore round 2 data from European Social Survey Assess utility of ESeC in other ISCO- based datasets (International Social Survey Programme)
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.