1,720,993 research outputs found
Gig Workers and Well-being: How is Algorithmic Work related to Work-life Balance?, in Symposium: Beyond and Behind Platforms and Algorithms: Exploring the Lived Experiences of Gig Workers
No full text
Algorithmic Embeddedness and the ‘Gig’ Characteristics Model: Examining the Interplay between Technology and Work Design in Crowdwork
Get PDFThis article systematically reviews the literature on online task crowdwork to investigate
the complex relationship between technology and work design on crowdwork platforms.
We highlight the diverse interpretations and uses of technology, specifically platform features
and algorithms, in relation to work design. Our review reveals that platform features serve as antecedents
to work design characteristics, while algorithms are so intertwined with job execution
that a new work characteristic is needed to model this interplay. We introduce this new work
characteristic as algorithmic embeddedness and show that it varies in degree. When high, algorithmic
embeddedness can be perceived as either an affordance or a constraint; when low, it has a
limited impact on crowdworkers’ jobs. Our ‘gig characteristics model’ expands previous work
design theories and offers a framework for understanding the design of contemporary jobs that
rely highly on algorithms. To refine our model and better understand crowdwork dynamics, we
provide an agenda for future research directions
Algorithms and their Affordances: How Crowdworkers Manage Algorithmic Scores in Online Labour Markets
Get PDFOn online labour platforms, algorithmic scores are used as indicators of freelancers\u27 work quality and future performance. Recent studies underscore that, to achieve good scores and secure their presence on platforms, freelancers respond to algorithmic control in different ways. However, we argue, to fully understand how freelancers deal with algorithmic scores, we first need to investigate how they interpret scores and, more specifically, what scores can do for them, i.e., perceived algorithmic affordances and constraints. Our interviews and other qualitative data collected with knowledge intensive gig workers on a major platform allow us to explain how the perceived affordances of algorithms (i.e., barrier, individual visibility, self-extension, rule of the game) act as mechanisms that explain different behavioural and emotional responses over time. Our work contributes to the current debate on the positive and negative consequences of algorithmic work by portraying the fundamental role paid by the individual interpretation of algorithmic scores and by integrating the affordance perspective into our understanding of algorithmic work
Institutional Frames and Collaboration Expectations in Hybrid Interorganizational Partnerships
No full textOur research is concerned with the role played by expectations in hybrid interorganizational collaboration projects. In particular, we look at how organizations participating in multi-party cross-sector partnerships negotiate broad and ill-defined metaproblems set by policymakers to carry forward heterogeneous goals about the partnership. We used a process-perspective derived from the sociology of expectations to empirically study a hybrid partnership in which public and private actors came together with the broad goal of supporting regional innovation and creating and managing a new science park. In particular, we found that the ambiguity of institutional frames gave room to the proliferation of partners’ expectations about the collaboration. Such proliferation was driven by a clash between the pile-up of goals and commitments in relation to the main project of the partnership -i.e. the design of the science park- and the materialization of the project itself -i.e. the realization and use of the science park. Instead of admitting difficulties in making the science park function properly (i.e., managing the clash) our actors continuously alimented their positive expectations about the collaboration thanks to a rolling announcements strategy that constantly pushed expectations further into the future. We offer contributions to a better understanding of collaborative dynamics in hybrid partnership failure by surfacing the negative power of expectations, the dual role of materiality as collaboration enabler and constrainer, and the interplay between broadly defined institutional frames and the proliferation of heterogeneous goals within hybrid partnerships
Navigating Multiple Virtual Teams: How Variety in Communication Rules Affects Knowledge Sharing
Get PDFMaking matters worse by trying to make them better? Exploring vicious circles of decision in hybrid partnerships
Get PDFOur research is concerned with how and why vicious circles of decision occur in hybrid partnerships. The literature reports three types of decision dysfunctions that can alter the trajectory of multi-stakeholder collaborations: escalation of commitment, procrastination, and indecision. While previous studies focused on one dysfunction at a time, we inquire about cases in which dysfunctions coexist and interact in the same partnership. Employing multiple sources of qualitative data, we conducted a longitudinal field study in a cross-sector partnership that co-created and managed a science park. We offer an in-depth account of ‘vicious circles of decision’ in which partners’ attempts to solve a dysfunction paradoxically lead to the accumulation of additional dysfunctions. We explain that the process is more likely to happen when solutions are 1) conditioned by the very risk-opportunity tensions they try to solve and 2) inscribed in material artefacts for greater visibility. In addition to the literature on hybrid partnerships, we also contribute to the debate in organization studies about the evolution of collaborations within frames of concurrent risk-opportunity tensions and theorize about the role of materiality in such processes
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
