| Literature DB >> 35206247 |
Dorota Kwiatkowska-Ciotucha1, Urszula Załuska1, Cyprian Kozyra2, Alicja Grześkowiak3, Marzena Żurawicka4, Krzysztof Polak4.
Abstract
The perception of people with disability (PwD) is of key importance for the full inclusion of this group in the labour market. The article presents selected results of research on the perception of PwD in the workplace. The analyses are based on the results of semiotics research conducted in Poland and of quantitative study in the form of computer-assisted Internet interviews (CAWI) carried out on representative samples from eight European countries. Opinions of Internet users were collected in Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, Germany, Poland, Sweden and Great Britain. The results of semiotic analyses on texts mainly from Polish culture made it possible to identify the prevailing images of disability in Polish popular culture and inspired the authors to seek diversity in perceptions of disability depending on social and cultural patterns in a given country. The results of the international survey were used to compare all eight countries with regard to the relationship between the dimensions of culture according to G. Hofstede, and openness to people with disability in the workplace. The conducted research indicates that the perception of the issue of disability is significantly related to the selected dimensions of culture according to G. Hofstede.Entities:
Keywords: analysis of survey results; attitudes towards people with disability; culture dimensions; semiotic analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35206247 PMCID: PMC8872430 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Values of Hofstede’s indexes, average responses obtained from the proprietary questionnaire and the employment rate of people with disability in specific countries.
| Variables | Country | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BG | DE | UK | ES | BE | GR | PL | SE | |
| PDI | 70 | 35 | 35 | 57 | 65 | 60 | 68 | 31 |
| IDV | 30 | 67 | 89 | 51 | 75 | 35 | 60 | 71 |
| MAS | 40 | 66 | 66 | 42 | 54 | 57 | 64 | 5 |
| UAI | 85 | 65 | 35 | 86 | 94 | 100 | 93 | 29 |
| LTO | 69 | 83 | 51 | 48 | 82 | 45 | 38 | 53 |
| IVR | 16 | 40 | 69 | 44 | 57 | 50 | 29 | 78 |
| Q1 | 2.02 | 2.54 | 2.64 | 2.55 | 2.50 | 1.98 | 2.26 | 2.45 |
| Q2 | 2.19 | 2.61 | 2.70 | 2.64 | 2.55 | 2.24 | 2.32 | 2.61 |
| Q3 | 3.14 | 3.07 | 2.48 | 2.55 | 2.73 | 2.99 | 2.91 | 2.60 |
| Q4 | 1.96 | 2.41 | 2.43 | 2.42 | 2.19 | 1.95 | 2.22 | 2.09 |
| Scale | 2.06 | 2.52 | 2.59 | 2.53 | 2.42 | 2.06 | 2.27 | 2.38 |
| ER People with disability | 39.5 | 51.8 | 52.9 | 40.1 | 42.5 | 36.7 | 42.5 | 52.6 |
BG—Bulgaria, DE—Germany, UK—United Kingdom, ES—Spain, BE—Belgium, GR—Greece, PL—Poland, SE—Sweden, ER People with disability—Employment rate of people with disability, year 2017, ANED [32]. Scale—summative scale consisting of assessments of state policy, social atmosphere and the knowledge of employers: questions Q1, Q2 and Q4 from proprietary questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha equal to 0.74 [47], Source: https://geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/dimension-data-matrix/ (accessed on 4 January 2021), ANED [32] and own preparation.
Figure 1Conceptual model of influence of culture dimensions on the openness towards PwD in the workplace.
Figure 2The semiotic square.
Figure 3Consequences of semiotic analysis: (a) Semiotic square for heroism and weakness; (b) Final semiotic square for disability.
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between culture dimensions according to Hofstede, questions from the proprietary questionnaire and Eurostat data.
| Variable | Culture Dimension | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PDI | IDV | MAS | UAI | LTO | IVR | |
| Q1 | −0.619 | 0.860 * | 0.053 | −0.553 | 0.226 | 0.548 |
| Q2 | −0.734 * | 0.821 * | −0.078 | −0.640 | 0.179 | 0.684 |
| Q3 | 0.428 | −0.659 | 0.260 | 0.523 | 0.323 | −0.754 * |
| Q4 | −0.455 | 0.653 | 0.394 | −0.322 | 0.085 | 0.202 |
| Scale | −0.628 | 0.815 * | 0.121 | −0.529 | 0.175 | 0.503 |
| ER People with disability | −0.897 * | 0.798 * | −0.124 | −0.903 * | 0.208 | 0.582 |
* p-value < 0.05, Scale—summative scale consisting of assessments of state policy, social atmosphere and the knowledge of employers: questions Q1, Q2 and Q4 from proprietary questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha equal to 0.74 [47], ER People with disability—Employment rate of people with disability, year 2017, ANED [32].
Figure 4Graphical presentation of the results from Table 1. BG—Bulgaria, DE—Germany, UK—United Kingdom, ES—Spain, BE—Belgium, GR—Greece, PL—Poland, SE—Sweden.
The significance of culture dimensions in the perception of people with disability in the workplace and in their employment.
| Culture Dimension | Variable with Significant Correlation | Direction of Influence | Association |
|---|---|---|---|
| PDI | Q2 | (−) | The greater the power distance, the lower the social openness to the needs and possibilities of people with disability. |
| ER People with disability | (−) | The greater the power distance, the lower the employment rate of people with disability. | |
| IDV | Q1 | (+) | The higher the individualism of society, the more adapted the social policy is to the needs and expectations of people with disability. |
| Q2 | (+) | The higher the individualism of society, the greater the social openness to the needs and possibilities of people with disability. | |
| Scale | (+) | The higher the individualism of society, the better the atmosphere and the greater the understanding of the needs and possibilities of people with disability. | |
| ER People with disability | (+) | The higher the individualism of society, the higher the employment rate of people with disability. | |
| UAI | ER People with disability | (−) | The greater the uncertainty avoidance, the lower flexibility in action and the lower the willingness to employ people with disability. |
| IVR | Q3 | (−) | The greater the indulgence, the lesser the approval of additional privileges for people with disability. |
(+) – positive relationship, (−) – negative relationship; ER People with disability—Employment rate of people with disability; Scale—summative scale consisting of assessments of state policy, social atmosphere and the knowledge of employers (questions Q1, Q2 and Q4 from proprietary questionnaire).