Lost in the crowd? An investigation into where microwork is conducted and classifying worker types

The global expansion of the platform economy raised questions about where and by whom different forms of platform work are performed in Europe. This study focuses on microworking – that is, where an anonymous ‘crowd’ completes piecemeal digital work. Specifically, we address two questions about microworking in the EU-27: Where is microworking performed? Who is performing it? Based on the geolocation of 5,239 workers active on six prominent microworking platforms, we identify variation in the relative prevalence of microworking across the EU. Furthermore, we build on existing research to provide a more granular understanding of different classes of microworkers, in terms of diversity and (income) dependency. Four distinct classes of microworkers emerge through statistical modelling of eight relevant diversity and dependency indicators: age, gender, education, citizenship, experience, hours per week, personal income earned, household income. We label these classes Explorers, Enthusiasts, Supplementers, and Dependents. The identification of these emergent classes and varied prevalence of microworking across the EU, suggest the importance of heterogeneity to both the future study and regulation of microwork.

[1]  A. Aloisi Platform work in Europe: Lessons learned, legal developments and challenges ahead , 2022, European Labour Law Journal.

[2]  V. Pulignano,et al.  Product markets and working conditions on international and regional food delivery platforms: A study in Poland and Italy , 2022, European Journal of Industrial Relations.

[3]  V. Kirov,et al.  The digitalisation of service work: A comparative study of restructuring of the banking sector in the United Kingdom and Luxembourg , 2022, European Journal of Industrial Relations.

[4]  Despoina Georgiou The new EU Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions in the context of new forms of employment , 2022, European Journal of Industrial Relations.

[5]  C. Lutz,et al.  Professionals, purpose-seekers, and passers-through: How microworkers reconcile alienation and platform commitment through identity work , 2021, New Media Soc..

[6]  Youngrong Lee After a Global Platform Leaves: Understanding the Heterogeneity of Gig Workers through Capital Mobility , 2021, Critical Sociology.

[7]  A. Murgia,et al.  Mind the gap between discourses and practices: Platform workers’ representation in France and Italy , 2021, European Journal of Industrial Relations.

[8]  G. Newlands Lifting the curtain: Strategic visibility of human labour in AI-as-a-Service , 2021, Big Data Soc..

[9]  Alexander Newman,et al.  Data Collection via Online Platforms: Challenges and Recommendations for Future Research , 2020 .

[10]  Herman Aguinis,et al.  MTurk Research: Review and Recommendations , 2020, Journal of Management.

[11]  J. Schor,et al.  Dependence and precarity in the platform economy , 2020, Theory and Society.

[12]  Mo Wang,et al.  Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research , 2020, Journal of Vocational Behavior.

[13]  Juliet B. Schor,et al.  What Do Platforms Do? Understanding the Gig Economy , 2020, Annual Review of Sociology.

[14]  J. V. van Dijck Seeing the forest for the trees: Visualizing platformization and its governance , 2020, New Media Soc..

[15]  Michael Dunn Making gigs work: digital platforms, job quality and worker motivations , 2020 .

[16]  Jamie Woodcock,et al.  The Fairwork Foundation: Strategies for improving platform work in a global context , 2020, Geoforum.

[17]  Elke Schüßler,et al.  Microphones, not megaphones: Functional crowdworker voice regimes on digital work platforms , 2020, Human Relations.

[18]  N. Bowen,et al.  Latent Class Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice , 2020, Journal of Black Psychology.

[19]  J. Drahokoupil,et al.  Digital Labour in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence from the ETUI Internet and Platform Work Survey , 2019, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[20]  A. Y. Choi,et al.  Ten Frequently Asked Questions About Latent Class Analysis , 2018, Translational Issues in Psychological Science.

[21]  Mark Graham,et al.  Good Gig, Bad Gig: Autonomy and Algorithmic Control in the Global Gig Economy , 2018, Work, employment & society : a journal of the British Sociological Association.

[22]  Bill Tomlinson,et al.  Responsible research with crowds , 2018, Commun. ACM.

[23]  A. Donini,et al.  Towards collective protections for crowdworkers , 2017 .

[24]  Ursula Huws,et al.  Logged labour: : a new paradigm of work organisation? , 2016 .

[25]  Mary L. Gray,et al.  The Crowd is a Collaborative Network , 2016, CSCW.

[26]  Mary L. Gray,et al.  Accounting for Market Frictions and Power Asymmetries in Online Labor Markets , 2015 .

[27]  Bengt Muthén,et al.  Auxiliary Variables in Mixture Modeling: Three-Step Approaches Using Mplus , 2014 .

[28]  B. Muthén,et al.  Deciding on the Number of Classes in Latent Class Analysis and Growth Mixture Modeling: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study , 2007 .

[29]  J. Drahokoupil,et al.  The Platform Economy in Europe: Results from the Second ETUI Internet and Platform Work Survey (IPWS) , 2022, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[30]  J. Drahokoupil,et al.  A Modern Guide To Labour and the Platform Economy , 2021 .

[31]  Susan J. Ashford,et al.  From surviving to thriving in the gig economy: A research agenda for individuals in the new world of work , 2018 .