Workplace learning in crowdwork

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore workplace learning practices within two types of crowdwork – microwork and online freelancing. Specifically, the paper scopes and compares the use of workplace learning activities (WLAs) and self-regulatory learning (SRL) strategies undertaken by microworkers (MWs) and online freelancers (OFs). We hypothesised that there may be quantitative differences in the use of WLAs and SRL strategies within these two types of crowdwork, because of the underpinning differences in the complexity of tasks and skill requirements. Design/methodology/approach To test this hypothesis, a questionnaire survey was carried out among crowdworkers from two crowdwork platforms – Figure Eight (microwork) and Upwork (online freelancing). Chi-square test was used to compare WLAs and SRL strategies among OFs and MWs. Findings Both groups use many WLAs and SRL strategies. Several significant differences were identified between the groups. In particular, moderate and moderately strong associations were uncovered, whereby OFs were more likely to report (i) undertaking free online courses/tutorials and (ii) learning by receiving feedback. In addition, significant but weak or very weak associations were identified, namely, OFs were more likely to learn by (i) collaborating with others, (ii) self-study of literature and (iii) making notes when learning. In contrast, MWs were more likely to write reflective notes on learning after the completion of work tasks, although this association was very weak. Originality/value The paper contributes empirical evidence in an under-researched area – workplace learning practices in crowdwork. Crowdwork is increasingly taken up across developed and developing countries. Therefore, it is important to understand the learning potential of this form of work and where the gaps and issues might be. Better understanding of crowdworkers’ learning practices could help platform providers and policymakers to shape the design of crowdwork in ways that could be beneficial to all stakeholders.

“Tacit pedagogy” and “entanglement”: practice-based learning and innovation

“…Applying this approach to other contexts of practice would extend productive research in this field and help further develop the theoretical literature framing it. Different situations in which this conceptual, epistemological and methodological approach might produce interesting and valuable data would include practice in purely commercial organisations, in wholly Web-based digital collaborative projects, designated "crowdwork" by Margaryan (2019), in contexts characterised by self-employment and consultancy, in other forms of precarious contract work and in "hobbyist" activities (Marchand, 2017).…”

“Why lose control?” A Study of Freelancers’ Experiences with Gig Economy Platforms

“…Firstly, freelancing platforms primarily promote knowledge-based forms of work, such as graphic design, software development, and creative writing [34]. This type of knowledge-based work contrasts with microwork, such as photo tagging and data entry, which typically does not require specialised knowledge [44]. Secondly, freelancing platforms are commonly used for completing often larger and more complex projects where freelancers and customers collaborate to arrange projects as opposed to be hired 'on the spot' [27].…”

“…However, location-independent gig platforms do not include just microworkers, but also skilled professionals, including freelancers. Microwork is different from freelancing because freelancers often engage in longer and more complex projects that require close collaboration with their clients as well as specialised knowledge [44]. In fact, highly skilled freelancers, in areas such as software development, graphic design, creative writing, among other forms of knowledge work, have been attracted to gig economy platforms like Upwork and Fiverr [34].…”

Digital inequalities 3.0: Emergent inequalities in the information age

“…Contractual stability, whether achieved via reclassification or through a special status for platform workers, does not suffice to curb the tendency to consider "humans as a service" (Prassl, 2018). More promising solutions are being progressively put in place by workers and activists to increase their autonomy and bargaining power (Graham and Woodcock, 2018), and to recognize and leverage the potential for skills formation on platforms (Margaryan, 2019). Until such changes occur, however, the platform economy and digital labor remain embedded in the digital inequality stack.…”