Clarke, L; van der Meer, M; Bingham, C; Michielsens, E and Miller, S (2009) Enabling and disabling: Disability in the British and Dutch construction sectors. Construction Management and Economics, 27(6), pp. 555-566. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Though the British and Dutch approaches to disability in the construction sector exhibit common features, Britain tends towards a capabilities model compared with the Netherlands which is closer to a social model. The construction sector is considerably more regulated in the Netherlands but is in both countries highly disabling and exclusive. Sector-specific disabling and enabling factors and policy measures were investigated in the two countries with a view to identifying which policies might facilitate labour market participation. The investigation was based on interviews using similar questionnaires with key stakeholders, firms and disabled employees and a focus group. Policy in each country addresses the nature of exclusion in different ways. The conclusion drawn is that a sector-specific approach is needed if disability policy in Britain is to be more in tune with the social model-as apparent from the comparison with the Netherlands.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | disability; discrimination; health and safety; Netherlands; policy; UK |
| Index terms: | questionnaire, discrimination, construction sector, disability, disabled, interview, health and safety, focus group, Netherlands, policy measure, labour market, investigation |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, policy studies, Geography, health safety and environment, economics, professional ethics, industry analysis, health conditions and diseases, sociology |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Supply Chain Management, Ethics, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here