An Initial Investigation Into Compensation Processes for Employees in the Ugandan Industrial Agriculture Sector who Acquire Disabilities Through Accidents at Work, 2015-2023

Modern, Julia (2024). An Initial Investigation Into Compensation Processes for Employees in the Ugandan Industrial Agriculture Sector who Acquire Disabilities Through Accidents at Work, 2015-2023. [Data Collection]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Service. 10.5255/UKDA-SN-857456

The research that produced the data in this upload was initial scoping fieldwork looking at outcomes for people who become disabled through workplace accidents in the industrial agriculture sector in Uganda. The PI, Dr Julia Modern, spent six weeks in a Ugandan town and its surroundings, collecting initial data about how disabled survivors of accidents seek justice. This was an initial study to investigate the feasibility of following the progress of accident survivors’ cases through longer-term fieldwork.
The research had four objectives:
Two primary objectives:
• Identify institutions with which accident survivors interact when attempting to elicit compensation or other forms of redress;
• Identify key individuals who have been involved in collective action for survivors of accidents in the areas investigated.
Two secondary objectives:
• Identify rhetorical strategies used by different actors to argue for redress and how they relate to the outcomes of survivors’ campaigns;
• Identify existing links between Organisations of People with Disabilities (OPDs) and individuals or groups of survivors of industrial plantation-related accidents.

Data description (abstract)

Data creators:

Creator Name	Affiliation	ORCID (as URL)
Modern Julia	SOAS. University of London	https://orcid.org/my-orcid?orcid=0000-0002-4571-1557

Sponsors:

ESRC

Grant reference:

ES/X006468/1

Topic classification:

Law, crime and legal systems
Social welfare policy and systems
Politics
Labour and employment

Keywords:

UGANDA, DISABILITIES, WORKPLACE RELATIONS, FINANCIAL COMPENSATION

Project title:

Competing Commitments: Self-sufficiency and Mutual Obligation among Disabled Communities in Western Uganda

Grant holders:

Dr Julia Modern

Project dates:

From	To
30 September 2022	30 July 2024

Date published:

14 Nov 2024 16:06

Last modified:

14 Nov 2024 16:07

Coverage and Methodology

Temporal coverage:

From	To
1 January 2015	23 September 2023

Collection period:

Date from:	Date to:
30 September 2022	30 July 2024

Country:

Uganda

Data collection method:

Over the six weeks onsite, Dr Modern interviewed 15 participants and drew mapping diagrams with 6 of them. All participants completed a thorough consent process before interviews began. Dr Modern conducted interviews alone when the participants knew English or Ugandan Language 1, of which Dr Modern has a good working knowledge. In three cases, interviews were conducted with the help of translators from the local community. In these cases, participants were asked to recommend their choice of interpreter.
8 interviewees were survivors of workplace accidents in industrial agriculture. 3 were female and 5 male, and their ages ranged from the 30s to the 50s. 3 were or had been permanent employees of a major company; 2 were or had been fixed-term employees of the company; and the other three were or had been casual daily labourers. The accidents survivors had been involved in occurred between 2015 and 2022. Interviews with survivors were conducted in two villages and one town, based on the survivors’ living situations and preferences. Most were conducted in survivors’ homes.
Dr Modern also interviewed a civil servant, 3 elected representatives, 2 legal workers or volunteers, a union official, and a journalist. All non-survivor interviewees had been involved with accident cases in some manner. Interviews with non-survivors were conducted in 2 towns and 1 village, predominantly in offices.
Interviews lasted between 55 and 90 minutes. The question schedule is given below, with some identifying terms redacted. Dr Modern also asked some participants (accident survivors, in cases where it was possible to do so) to draw a map of institutions and persons with which they had interacted after their accidents. She provided materials and an example to guide participants. The materials included flipchart paper, pens, and sticky notes. The example is also reproduced below. Interview recordings were continued during drawing of the maps, to capture further information that emerged through the process. These sections are included in the anonymised interview transcripts.

Question schedule
Participant number:
Demographics
1. Age:
2. Gender:
3. Marital status:
4. Number, age and gender of children:
5. What impairment(s) do you live with, if any?
6. When and how did you acquire this impairment(s), if relevant?
7. What is the highest education level you have reached?
8. Parents’ occupations:
9. Who do you live with?
10. What kind of home do you live in?
11. Have you ever held a salaried job?
Main questions
1. Please tell me how you have been affected by accidents associated with work in [redacted] farming in [redacted] District.
2. Have you been involved in campaigns to access justice for survivors of accidents associated with work in [redacted] farming in [redacted] District?
a. If you have been involved in these campaigns, what did you do?
b. If you have been involved in these campaigns, what was the outcome?
3. What organisations have you worked with on the campaign? For each organisation:
a. How did you approach them?
b. What did they do?
c. Were you satisfied with what they did?
4. When you were campaigning for justice for survivors of accidents associated with work in [redacted] farming, what arguments did you use to persuade other people that the survivors should be helped?
a. What did you say about the survivors’ injuries and any permanent effects of the accident?
5. What organisations or people were helpful to you on this issue?
a. What did they do?
6. Were any organisations or people unhelpful to you on this issue?
a. What did they do?
7. Did you talk to any Disabled People’s Organisations about this issue?
a. What was the outcome of your discussion with them?
8. Can you recommend other people I should speak to about this issue?
9. Do you have any documents relevant to your case (or other cases you have worked on) that you would like to share with me? (Please ensure you have permission from any individuals involved in cases to share the documents before you give them to me.)

Observation unit:

Individual

Kind of data:

Text, Still image

Type of data:

Qualitative and mixed methods data

Resource language:

English

Access and Administration

Data sourcing, processing and preparation:

The following types of identifying information have been removed from the data: 1. Personal names 2. Some identifying job titles 3. Names of organisations 4. Place names 5. Other information that could identify the location, including the names of languages and words quoted in Ugandan languages 6. Dates that could identify specific events in the public domain 7. Information that could identify the industry. No material events have been changed, as it was judged that anonymising the data was sufficient to prevent identification of persons involved. Anonymisation process: The PI, Dr Julia Modern re-read all transcripts to identify information to be redacted, replacing it with text in square brackets: [example]. Searches for common identifiable terms were then performed to check for complete coverage. Dr Modern also reviewed the images and added opaque text boxes with replacement pseudonyms over any identifying information. She also used a drawing tool to remove any incidental text appearing in the image. Anonymisation was necessary for this data for several reasons: 1. Significant amounts of personal data, including health and employment histories, were gathered; 2. Some participants who are vulnerable due to disability were involved in the research; 3. Some participants were in socioeconomic and political positions that made them vulnerable should they be identified as participating in the research; and 4. There is a large power imbalance between groups of participants involved in the research. For these reasons, data from this research must not be shared for any other purpose than legitimate academic research. It is being uploaded to the repository on a ‘safeguarded’ basis to ensure the safety of participants. Copyright of this data is owned by SOAS, University of London.

Rights owners: