Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW: THE ROLE OF INFORMATION SERVICES TO FACILITATE IN DEVELOPING THE CAPACITY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NEET
Introduction
The preceding chapter introduced the research by providing the introduction, conceptual settings, background to the study problem, and the purpose and objectives that drove the investigation.
The necessity for this study arose from the fact that most of the literature on NEET people have been from the perspective of developed countries in Europe (Thornham & Cruz 2017; Maguire 2015a; House of Lords 2014). The literature review gives an indication that most of these studies have concentrated mostly on policies and have been done from governments’ and international bodies’ perspective. Therefore, this study explores how information services can assist in developing the capacity of NEET people from the perspective of a developing country and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) member state country.
This chapter seeks to unpack and provide an overview of developing the capacity of people who are NEET, the different interventions by various international bodies, issues affecting people who are NEET and challenges related to capacity development. The role of information services in the development of people who are NEET is addressed.
Purpose of the literature review
Levy and Ellis (2006) assert that literature review plays an important role in any academic study being conducted and also determines if the proposed study contributes to the existing literature or provides new knowledge to the area. Therefore, literature review provides the opportunity to have an understanding of what has been done (researched) by others previously (Olivier 2009). Furthermore, Olivier (2009) adds that literature review has the ability to assist in determining how other researchers have researched a similar problem previously. Boote and Beile (2005) point out that the purpose of a literature review is to provide the research context, identify gaps from previous studies, and identify where and what have been covered in previous studies, among others.
Overview and historic evolution of the NEET concept
This section provides high-level discussions of the key terms to broaden the reader’s understanding of the study undertaken. The origin and historical evolutions of NEET are discussed thoroughly.
The origin of the NEET people
It is 21 years (1988 – 2019) from the time when the Social Security Act removed young people under the age of 18 years from the unemployment register and they disappeared. It was in 1988 when the term was formulated as a result of the UK benefits regime that looked at issues of young people who were not in education, employment or training and between the ages of 16 and 17 years (Eurofound 2016). The term NEET was used to accommodate the population that has not yet been incorporated into the youth labour force statistics. This included individuals who dropped out of basic education schooling.
A seminal study was conducted in South Glamorgan Istance et al (as cited in Eurofound 2016) which focused on young people between the ages of 16 and 18 years who were not covered in the labour force survey, which used the term ‘StatusZer0’ . The studies organised by Reiter and Schlimbach (2015) and Eurofound (2016) in the UK, reported that ‘StatusZer0’ was not a proper name to categorise a group of inactive population. Reiter and Schlimbach (2015) state that the concept of NEET is the successor of what was then called ‘Status Zer0’ in the UK. Whereas, Istance et al (as cited in Eurofound 2016), state that the researchers later felt that it was important to make use of the term ‘NEET’ as a successor of the term ‘StatusZer0′ because of the negative impact it may be perceived to have. The change from ‘Status Zer0’ to ‘NEET’ was influenced by changes that were made to legislation and delineation of unemployment in the UK during the late 1980s (Reiter & Schlimbach 2015). Maguire (2015a) seconds the view that the concept of NEET started in the UK by stating that the origin of the term ‘NEET’ materialised from the UK towards the end of the year in 1990. It is therefore not surprising that most literature related to NEET comes from Europe, compared to other continents. Thornham and Cruz (2017), Maguire and McKay (2016), Maguire (2015a), Fergusson (2013) and Thompson (2011) are some of the scholars from the UK who have contributed to the literature covering the domain of people who are NEET.
The historic evolution of NEET
The term ‘NEET’ that originates from the United Kingdom, has gained popularity among policy makers and scholars in recent years due to unacceptably high levels of youth unemployment and economic inactivity and the scarring effects this have shown to have on young people’s lives. The use of the term ‘NEET’ has faced a number of international challenges.
The term NEET became familiar in the public domain around the 1990s, emerging from UK policy documents that looked at addressing the integration of youth from the population group aged 16 to 18 years that have dropped out of the education system but have not yet moved into the labour force (Eurofound 2016).
In the European policy documents, the use of the term NEET was later extended from the age group 16 to 17/16 to 18 to include a larger age group of young people aged 15 to 24 and later extended to 15 to 29 (Eurofound 2016; Maguire & McKay 2016). The inception of the term NEET was used in an attempt to deal with issues related to social exclusion and unemployment of youth aged 16 to 17 MacDonald (as cited in Eurofound 2016) and to date, it is unquestionable that the term NEET originates from the UK. Ever since 2010, the use of the concept NEET has dominated policies addressing young people issues in all 28 the states affiliated to the European Union (Eurofound 2016). The term NEET was used to depict those that are not yet captured in the youth labour force statistics; however, they have dropped out of basic schooling.
Understanding people who are NEET
Internationally, significant variation exists between the use and application of the term ‘NEET’ (not in education, employment or training) to define levels of economic and/or social exclusion among groups of young people. The absence of international standardisation to define the term ‘NEET’ creates challenges in terms of having a universal definition of characteristics and age cohorts of people who are NEET ILO (as cited in Maguire & McKay 2016). This leads to vast definitions of NEET in literature reviewed, thus creating international concerns for scholars. For instance, the age range of NEETs may vary from one country to another. Most countries rely heavily on their statistics department’s age categories definition. As a result, this creates a challenge to make a correct comparison between various countries in terms of the NEET population and the NEET rates ILO (as cited in Maguire & McKay 2016).
The concept NEET has gained momentum in recent years by scholars and research institutions. The concept has managed to clearly capture and provide a better understanding of the vulnerabilities faced by young people in the labour force and in terms of their social inclusion (Eurofound 2016). In recent years, scholars and policy makers have given attention to the increasing number of people who are NEET (Maguire & McKay 2016).
The extent to which the concept of people who are NEET is being used has raised concerns as to whether it still refers to its initial purpose and scale (Maguire & McKay 2016). This is caused by the unstable age range and the heterogeneity related to the category of people who are NEET. Furthermore, questions have been raised about the pertinence of using the term ‘NEET’ and if it still serves its scope (Maguire and McKay 2016). Though there are interventions put in place to address the NEET concern, there are possibilities that this initiative may not holistically achieve its purpose unless some attempts are made to understand the subgroups covered by the concept of NEET (Eurofound 2016).
It was in 2010 when the European policy makers decided to use the term ‘NEET’ , which incorporated young people who are not in education, employment or training to address and understand the complex vulnerabilities that young people face in the digital era and changing world (Eurofound 2016). Both the types of people who are NEET, whether economically inactive or economically active, share common attributes. In this regard, both groups are not gaining human capital through participating in the labour force or even through education or training (Eurofound 2016).
The absence of standardisation of the NEET concept
Even though the term ‘NEET’ is rich in terms of understanding various issues and varying characteristics young people are faced with, the term may be unhelpful to scholars because of the broad scope that is difficult to normalise (House of Lords 2014). Maguire and McKay (2016) state that although the term ‘NEET’ has been used extensively and prolonged to cater for a large youth category, there have been challenges in building new knowledge of ‘people who are NEET and economically active’ and ‘people who are NEET and economically inactive’. The term has been misused for various reasons which are linked to people who are in NEET settings and not for its fundamental purpose. The term ‘NEET’ has received criticism from the UK (where it originates) and other scholars throughout the world. The criticism is related to the heterogeneity of the population it represents (Maguire & McKay 2016).
In some cases, there is a disjoint, where young people are either in school or are actively participating in the labour market (House of Lords 2014). However, equally, there are young people who multi-task (overlapping) by being registered at school and participating in the labour market activities at the same time.
The section the follows shows how various organisations and scholars define the term and the extent to which the age cohort of NEET varies.
People who are NEET age cohorts
Scholars and organisations around the world define the age range of the NEET in various ways as a result of no standardisation of the NEET age range and the term itself. A few definitions from different scholars and organisations are as follows:
Table 2.1 illustrates that the age range of people categorised as the NEET varies and is not consistent, although a large number of sources make use of the age range of 16 to 24 years. The different age ranges from table 2.1 are in the category of youth and exist because the term is mostly aligned with challenges faced by young people.
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Conceptual settings
1.3 Background to the research problem
1.4 Research argument
1.5 Problem statement
1.6 Research goal and specific objectives
1.7 Importance of the study
1.8 Originality of the study
1.9 Outline of the study
1.10 Summary of introduction
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW: THE ROLE OF INFORMATION SERVICES TO FACILITATE IN DEVELOPING THE CAPACITY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NEET
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Purpose of the literature review
2.3 Overview and historic evolution of the NEET concept
2.4 Mapping of the study literature
2.5 Capacity development interventions
2.6 Information and digital literacy skills, and education and training
2.7 Legislation in place that makes provision for youth development and employment
2.8 Access to services that serve developmental information
2.9 Chapter summary
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN and METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Ethical considerations
3.3 Evaluation of research methodology
3.4 Summary
CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Presentation of data and findings
4.3 Profiling participants’ background
4.4 Findings from data using themes
4.5 Headline findings
4.6 Summary
CHAPTER FIVE INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSION ON FINDINGS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Legislation and policy framework
5.3 Access to information services in Gauteng province of South Africa
5.4 Information literacy skills of people who are NEET in Gauteng province
5.5 Interventions for developing people who are NEET in the Gauteng province
5.6 Summary
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Summary of findings
6.3 Conclusions
6.4 Recommendations
6.5 Proposed framework
6.6 Limitations
6.7 Suggestions for further research
6.8 Reflections
6.9 Implications on theory and practice
6.10 Final conclusion
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
