In-depth interviewing is a semi-structured interview technique in which the researcher begins with a loosely defined set of open-ended questions. As each participant responds to these questions, the researcher shapes new questions to obtain additional detail about the information the participant provides. This technique contrasts with quantitative data collection techniques like surveys which seek limited answers to specific, pre-determined questions which can then be statistically analyzed.

Between June and October 1999, 34 injured workers were interviewed:

• 18 interviews took place in the offices of the Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities
• 7 interviews were conducted by telephone.
• 5 occurred in restaurants or hotels
• 4 took place in the homes of study participants

17 study participants lived in Winnipeg, and 17 lived outside Winnipeg. ^[33]

Interview participants were asked a series of broad questions about their occupations at the time they were injured, the nature of their injuries, medical care they received, the disabilities resulting from their injuries, the initial adjudication of their WCB claims, attempts they made to return to their pre-injury employers and jobs, WCB vocational rehabilitation services they received, WCB employment services they received, Permanent Partial Impairment (PPI) awards they received, support unionized participants received from unions, and their use of external resources for injured workers and/or persons with disabilities.

Each participant had considerable influence on the content of his/her interview. For example, a participant who perceived his/her medical care and continuity of WCB benefits as the most significant barriers to re-employment had the opportunity to discuss those issues in detail. Another participant may have had little or nothing to say about these issues, and her/his interview therefore gave greatest emphasis to the issues that were of greatest concern to her/him.

The interviews varied in length from 30 to 120 minutes, with most lasting approximately 90 minutes. Audio recordings were made of 22 of these interviews. (Several early interviews were not recorded. A few interviews were conducted in locations that precluded tape recording, e.g. public places with loud background noise. A few participants declined to be recorded.)

Following each recorded interview, project staff wrote narrative descriptions using direct quotations transcribed from the audio recordings. Interviewers’ notes were used to write summary narratives following interviews which were not recorded.

Researchers use focus groups to collect qualitative data based on participants’ personal experiences, perceptions, feelings, and beliefs. Focus group meetings compliment individual interviews because the interactions between participants can generate data which may not emerge during an individual interview. The moderator of a focus group plays a less intrusive role than an interviewer, devoting more of his/her energy to facilitating interaction between the participants.

Like in-depth interviews, focus groups contrast with quantitative data collection techniques which seek limited answers to specific, pre-determined questions which are then statistically analyzed.

A focus group of five previously interviewed injured workers who live in or near Winnipeg met three times between August and October 1999. (One person was unable to attend the first and third meetings.) An attempt was made to include participants with diverse characteristics, including:

age (from early 20’s to mid-40’s)footnote 34 gender (four men, one woman) overall satisfaction with the WCB (relatively satisfied to very dissatisfied) injury (back, hand, brain, legs) union involvement (3) agency involvement (2) injured worker advocate involvement (2)

Three focus group participants came from the sample recruited from the WDP network, and two were from the sample who received the letter sent to 199 WCB claimants.

Each focus group meeting lasted 150 to 180 minutes. Participants summarized their injuries and subsequent experiences during the first meeting, and discussed their initial attempts to return to work. The second meeting addressed the services they had received from the Workers Compensation Board’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Services departments. The third meeting addressed their knowledge and use of external resources (agencies, unions, advocates).

Quotations of selected participant comments were transcribed from audio recordings of each meeting.

An additional focus group meeting with three injured workers aged 50 and over was held in November 1999.

Project staff also held two small, informal meetings with injured workers outside Winnipeg during the third month of the project. A total of five injured workers attended these meetings.

An advisory committee of representatives of organized labour, persons with disabilities, and the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba oversaw the research, meeting once per month.

In the course of this study, project staff met with staff (primarily supervisors) of the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba’s Vocational Rehabilitation, Employment Services, Adjudication, and Program Planning departments. Project staff also met with staff of unions, disability agencies, and advocates for injured workers.

Following the production of a preliminary report on the findings of the interviews and focus group meetings with injured workers, consultation meetings were held with representatives of disability agencies, unions, and employers during November 1999.35  The primary purpose of these meetings was to solicit comments on the preliminary report’s findings.

During the final months of the project, an educational workshop was developed and presented twice to a total audience of approximately 75 persons from the WCB, unions, disability service agencies, employers, advocacy organizations, and government. Workshop participants examined fictional case studies based on the study’s findings, identified barriers to re-employment, and developed innovative approaches to more effectively assist injured workers with significant disabilities to return to work.

Some experiences, opinions, and concerns expressed by the injured workers with significant disabilities who participated in this study were expressed frequently. Other experiences, opinions, and concerns were described by a smaller number of participants, sometimes a single participant. In qualitative research, the exact frequency of responses is of less importance than in quantitative research, but some quantification of responses provides additional context for the findings. In the presentation of the findings, therefore, the following ranges of participants will be used: “one,”, “two,” “three to five,” “at least six,” and “more than half.”

The findings in this report are illustrated with selected quotations transcribed from the interviews and focus group meetings. Italics are used to indicate words and phrases given particular verbal emphasis by study participants. Where necessary, explanatory information in square brackets has been inserted in some quotations.

To provide anonymity to the injured workers who participated in the study, some participants’ comments have been edited to remove information that could possibly reveal the identity of the participants. For example:

• The cities and towns where individual participants live will not be identified. Where a particular experience, opinion, or concern was more common for participants outside Winnipeg, this “outside of Winnipeg” factor will be noted.
• When participants’ comments include information that could reveal their identities (e.g. names of employers, precise dates or periods of time), the quotations substitute generic terms (e.g. “employer” or “company”) or approximations (e.g. “a training program lasting 6-12 months”) in square brackets rather than the name or figure stated by the injured worker.
• The gender of personal pronouns (she, he, his, her) in some participants’ comments have been altered (i.e. some men’s comments are reported as “she said” and some women’s comments are described as “he said”). This same practice has also been used in comments which include references to WCB staff.

The findings of the interviews and focus group meetings qualitatively describe the experiences, perceptions, and concerns expressed by the 34 study participants. As noted earlier, efforts were made to recruit participants with diverse characteristics. In some cases these efforts were successful. For example, participants had diverse occupations and had sustained a fairly broad range of injuries and disabilities. For other characteristics, the study group was less diverse. As noted above, relatively few women and persons under the age of 35 volunteered to participate in the study. Residents of the Eastman, Westman, Parkland, and Northern regions of the province were included in the 17 participants from outside Winnipeg, but the majority of them were from the Westman and Parkland regions. ^[36]

As with any study based on interviews, the validity of the findings depends on the value that can be attributed to self-reported data. Participants who described experiences which appeared to conflict with WCB policy were asked additional questions to ensure that these experiences were described and recorded accurately. The consultations with unions, agencies, employers, and WCB staff provided additional verification of our findings. Where these consultations have suggested that an experience, belief, or concern reported by injured workers may be inaccurate, this will be noted in the discussion of the findings.

Both of the samples drawn from the Workers with Disabilities Project network and the mailing to WCB claimants were non-random samples, which prohibits generalizing the findings to the total population of injured workers with significant disabilities in Manitoba. In other words, these findings describe the experiences, opinions and concerns of 34 injured workers who participated in the interviews and focus groups. They do not, however, quantitatively describe the overall prevalence of these experiences, opinions, and concerns amongst the total population of injured workers with significant disabilities in Manitoba.

Although it would be misleading to extrapolate the findings of this study to all injured workers with significant disabilities in Manitoba, it would be equally misleading to dismiss these findings as the complaints of an atypically dissatisfied group of injured workers. For example, despite the study’s emphasis on identifying barriers to re-employment, many of the 34 participants had positive things to say about the assistance they had received from Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba and other organizations which assist injured workers.

This study provides a rich set of information about the vocational rehabilitation and re-employment experiences of injured workers with significant disabilities in Manitoba. Many findings highlight barriers and other issues which we hope will be of interest to the WCB, the government of Manitoba, unions, community-based disability agencies, advocates for injured workers, and injured workers themselves.