Virtual Spaces, Intermediate Places: Doing Identity in ICT-Enabled Work

Klaus, Dominik; Flecker, Jörg

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80327-8_9

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Especially in the case of the standard employment biography, we find examples of escapists (Frayne, 2015) or digital nomads (Reichenberger, 2018) who work well with spatially flexible online work. Within the "placeless" realm of digital work (Flecker & Schönauer, 2016), sources of recognition have changed in three ways: Traditional sources, especially ones bound to office space, are missing; new sources of recognition are provided in the virtual space or on the platforms (e.g., ratings, profiles, portfolios, social networks); and the subjective processing of these sources in the sense of identity work is happening in a virtual space (Klaus & Flecker, 2021).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dependency and Social Recognition of Online Platform Workers: Evidence From a Mixed‐Methods Study

Klaus,

Haas,

Lamura

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is about those who need or want to make a living from working on online platforms. Moreover, questions of financial dependence are related to why this work is done and what social recognition the workers expect from it. Our mixed‐methods approach captures this heterogeneous field of online platform work by dividing it into three categories: (a) microwork, (b) mesowork, and (c) macrowork. Microwork involves offering short, repetitive tasks to an anonymous crowd, such as human intelligence tasks. Macrowork consists of market‐based freelance platforms offering highly skilled professionals complex and more extensive tasks. In between, mesowork covers platforms offering specialized tasks such as software testing or content creation. While income opportunities and working conditions vary widely between these platforms, common features include self‐employment and the ability to work from anywhere. Quantitative results show that only for a few highly skilled workers does income from platform work account for a crucial share of their household income. Surprisingly, workers’ household incomes do not differ by skill level. Qualitative results complement this picture by giving us a more contextual understanding of the significant variation among workers. We find cases in which monetary remuneration is not the only reason for doing platform work. So, despite all the criticism of precarious working conditions, platform work does have some positive aspects and can also hold the potential for the social inclusion of people who cannot participate in traditional labor markets. This article contributes to these discussions by providing workers’ perspectives on the risks and challenges of online platform work, acknowledging their different living situations, socioeconomic status, and health issues.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What makes online work of all kinds special are the nontraditional sources of recognition, such as user profiles and ratings (Klaus & Flecker, 2021). Platforms offer various forms of bonuses and rankings via "stars," "gold standards," or "levels" to value the quality and quantity of fulfilled tasks.…”

Section: Other Motivations and Social Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%