The research has assumed certain specifics about skills, using human capability as an alternative, and then uses an approach which is positivist ontologically and epistemologically which underpins the method of interpreting the outcome and results. This is the most positive interpretation that is used and also compared with multiple past research which also agree to the contention taken by the author.
In the research, the author found out that the first four attributes in ranking that the participants liked were work that they liked doing, a secure job, working with friendly people, and access to opportunities for using their abilities. The author was surprised to find out that the job attributes that were used in the research were more similar to the capabilities list that was used and designed by the author. The author agrees that the complex interplay between the institutions, organisations, workers, employees, presents the list of job attributes which are not preferred or examined properly. These could be the opportunity freedom of workers, and the agency used in achieving the job attributes. The author is sure that the use of capability approach of individual has helped the question a lot as merely listing some capabilities would not have solved the purpose.
Bryson uses interpretivist approach in understanding the results when he associates the use of skill for a better life, a totalitarian life of quality and balance, which fortunately is a social construct (Mertens, 1998) and is exactly interpreted here by Bryson, he speaks:
“This article has further highlighted some important gaps in high skills policies: the formulation of these visions has begged the question of overall purpose, skills for what end?”
“In addition, policies have been vocationally focused at the expense of preparing for any alternative mode of life and social existence.”