Automatic Text Annotating: Methodology
|
Author(s)Dr Lucio Baccaro , International Institute for Labour Studies (IILS) , International Labour Organisation (ILO) . Irini Georgiou . Hakim Hacid . Vincent Pisetta . Prof Djamel A. Zighed , Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management , University Lyon 2 . |
Research Project
Social Dialogue Regimes: Worker Rights, Collective Bargaining and Negotiated Policy-Making
Keywords
Collective Bargaining - Freedom of Association - ILO Conventions - ILO Recommendations - ILO Standards - Information Technology - Labour Right - MethodologyAbstract
The ILO supervisory machinery produces a wealth of information on labour standards. However rich, this information is unstructured and, as such, difficult to systematize for the purpose of presenting overviews of the application of ILO standards, following the progress made by States in the implementation of particular Conventions, or highlighting the most problematic areas.
This paper proposes a methodology for coding the reports of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. It focuses on freedom of association and collective bargaining, a fundamental labour right, also recognised as a core labour right since the adoption of the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. It looks at the two fundamental ILO Conventions in this field, the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (ILO No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (ILO No. 98) and considers CEACR reports on these Conventions in the period between 1990 and 2002.
The proposed methodology seeks to capture and convey the Committee’s assessment in an accurate and consistent manner and to minimise the possibility of coder bias, in other words, the possibility of subjective judgment. For this reason, consistent effort was made to articulate the proposed set of rules in a clear and transparent fashion. As indicated, this paper proposes a methodology for coding the Committee’s reports but falls short of proposing a methodology for measuring State compliance with Conventions 87 and 98 or, put differently, a methodology for producing rankings of State performance with respect to the standards enunciated in the two aforesaid Conventions. Although part four supports the idea of developing an assessment scheme on the basis of the proposed coding methodology, and hence acknowledges the feasibility of producing sound and accurate measurements, the authors of this paper consciously refrained from articulating a methodology for measuring State conformity – or alternatively non-conformity— with Conventions 87 and 98 because of the absence of an authoritative pronouncement as regards, on the one hand, the relative importance of the rights envisaged in Conventions 87 and 98 and, on the other, the relative severity of the violations thereof.
File(s)
|
Automatic Text Annotating:Application on First Samples of Comments Regarding Conventions 87 and 98
English | [78 ko] > download |
|
Automatic Text Annotating:Methodology
English | [284 ko] > download |
|
A Methodology for Violation Identification
English | [283 ko] > download |
|
Coding CEACR Reports on ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98:A Proposed Methodology
English | [473 ko] > download |