网络平台工作者的依赖和社会认同:来自混合方法研究的证据

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Social Inclusion Pub Date : 2023-11-02 DOI:10.17645/si.v11i4.7186
Dominik Klaus, Barbara Haas, Maddalena Lamura
{"title":"网络平台工作者的依赖和社会认同:来自混合方法研究的证据","authors":"Dominik Klaus, Barbara Haas, Maddalena Lamura","doi":"10.17645/si.v11i4.7186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":37948,"journal":{"name":"Social Inclusion","volume":"14 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dependency and Social Recognition of Online Platform Workers: Evidence From a Mixed‐Methods Study\",\"authors\":\"Dominik Klaus, Barbara Haas, Maddalena Lamura\",\"doi\":\"10.17645/si.v11i4.7186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Inclusion\",\"volume\":\"14 5\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Inclusion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i4.7186\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Inclusion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i4.7186","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这篇文章是关于那些需要或想要通过在线平台工作谋生的人。此外,经济依赖的问题与为什么要做这项工作以及工人期望从中得到什么样的社会认可有关。我们的混合方法方法通过将在线平台工作分为三类来捕获这种异构领域:(a)微观工作,(b)中观工作和(c)宏观工作。微工作包括向匿名人群提供简短、重复的任务,比如人工智能任务。Macrowork由基于市场的自由职业者平台组成,提供高技能的专业人员复杂和更广泛的任务。在这两者之间,mesowork涵盖了提供专门任务(如软件测试或内容创建)的平台。虽然这些平台之间的收入机会和工作条件差异很大,但共同的特点包括自营职业和随时随地工作的能力。定量结果表明,只有少数高技能工人的平台工作收入占其家庭收入的关键份额。令人惊讶的是,工人的家庭收入并不因技能水平而异。定性结果补充了这一图景,使我们对工人之间的显著差异有了更具体的理解。我们发现,在一些案例中,金钱报酬并不是从事平台工作的唯一原因。因此,尽管存在对不稳定工作条件的所有批评,但平台工作确实有一些积极的方面,也可以为无法参与传统劳动力市场的人提供社会包容的潜力。本文通过提供工人对在线平台工作的风险和挑战的看法,承认他们不同的生活状况、社会经济地位和健康问题,为这些讨论做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Dependency and Social Recognition of Online Platform Workers: Evidence From a Mixed‐Methods Study
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Inclusion
Social Inclusion Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Inclusion is a peer-reviewed open access journal, which provides academics and policy-makers with a forum to discuss and promote a more socially inclusive society. The journal encourages researchers to publish their results on topics concerning social and cultural cohesiveness, marginalized social groups, social stratification, minority-majority interaction, cultural diversity, national identity, and core-periphery relations, while making significant contributions to the understanding and enhancement of social inclusion worldwide. Social Inclusion aims at being an interdisciplinary journal, covering a broad range of topics, such as immigration, poverty, education, minorities, disability, discrimination, and inequality, with a special focus on studies which discuss solutions, strategies and models for social inclusion. Social Inclusion invites contributions from a broad range of disciplinary backgrounds and specializations, inter alia sociology, political science, international relations, history, cultural studies, geography, media studies, educational studies, communication science, and language studies. We welcome conceptual analysis, historical perspectives, and investigations based on empirical findings, while accepting regular research articles, review articles, commentaries, and reviews.
期刊最新文献
Disability, Religion, and Gender: Exploring Experiences of Exclusion in India Through an Intersectional Lens Intersecting Disability and Poverty in the Global South: Barriers to the Localization of the UNCRPD Disabled People and the Intersectional Nature of Social Inclusion Discourses of Digitalisation and the Positioning of Workers in Primary Care: A Norwegian Case Study Work‐Related ICT Use and the Dissolution of Boundaries Between Work and Private Life
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1