IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/woemps/v33y2019i1p21-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Typology of Crowdwork Platforms

Author

Listed:
  • Debra Howcroft

    (University of Manchester, UK)

  • Birgitta Bergvall-KÃ¥reborn

    (Luleå University of Technology, Sweden)

Abstract

Despite growing interest in the gig economy among academics, policy makers and media commentators, the area is replete with different terminology, definitional constructs and contested claims about the ensuing transformation of work organisation. The aim of this positional piece is to provide a timely review and classification of crowdwork. A typology is developed to map the complexity of this emerging terrain, illuminating range and scope by critically synthesising empirical findings and issues from multidisciplinary literatures. Rather than side-tracking into debates as to what exactly constitutes crowdwork, the purpose of the typology is to highlight commonalities rather than distinctions, enabling connections across areas. The framework serves as a heuristic device for considering the broader implications for work and employment in terms of control and coordination, regulation and classification, and collective agency and representation.

Suggested Citation

  • Debra Howcroft & Birgitta Bergvall-KÃ¥reborn, 2019. "A Typology of Crowdwork Platforms," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 33(1), pages 21-38, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:33:y:2019:i:1:p:21-38
    DOI: 10.1177/0950017018760136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0950017018760136
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0950017018760136?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diego Mendez-Carbajo & Keith G. Taylor & Mark A. Bayles, 2017. "Building a Taylor Rule Using FRED," Journal of Economics Teaching, Journal of Economics Teaching, vol. 2(1), pages 14-29, June.
    2. Yuxiang Zhao & Qinghua Zhu, 2014. "Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and future direction," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 417-434, July.
    3. Sundararajan, Arun, 2016. "The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262034573, April.
    4. Judy Wajcman, 2006. "New connections: social studies of science and technology and studies of work," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 20(4), pages 773-786, December.
    5. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Karim R. Lakhani, 2010. "Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1016-1033, October.
    6. Chris Smith, 2006. "The double indeterminacy of labour power," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 20(2), pages 389-402, June.
    7. Katie Cruz & Kate Hardy & Teela Sanders, 2017. "False Self-Employment, Autonomy and Regulating for Decent Work: Improving Working Conditions in the UK Stripping Industry," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 55(2), pages 274-294, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Regina Lenart-Gansiniec, 2017. "Factors Influencing Decisions about Crowdsourcing in the Public Sector: A Literature Review," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(6), pages 1997-2005.
    2. Helen Rainbird & Michael Rose, 2008. "Work, Employment and Society, 1997—2007," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 22(2), pages 203-220, June.
    3. Tuba Bakici, 2020. "Comparison of crowdsourcing platforms from social-psychological and motivational perspectives," Post-Print hal-02966992, HAL.
    4. Xuanwei Zhao & Enjun Xia, 2016. "Research On The Operation Mechanism Of Network Crowdsourcing System And Constitutions Of Crowdsourcing Capability," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(07), pages 1-18, October.
    5. Schenk, Eric & Guittard, Claude & Pénin, Julien, 2019. "Open or proprietary? Choosing the right crowdsourcing platform for innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 303-310.
    6. Yiwei Gong, 0. "Estimating participants for knowledge-intensive tasks in a network of crowdsourcing marketplaces," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-19.
    7. Yiwei Gong, 2017. "Estimating participants for knowledge-intensive tasks in a network of crowdsourcing marketplaces," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 301-319, April.
    8. Andrey SHEVCHUK & Denis STREBKOV, 2023. "Digital platforms and the changing freelance workforce in the Russian Federation: A ten‐year perspective," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 162(1), pages 1-22, March.
    9. Bruneel, Johan & Clarysse, Bart & Bobelyn, Annelies & Wright, Mike, 2020. "Liquidity events and VC-backed academic spin-offs: The role of search alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    10. Pia Szichta & Ingela Tietze, 2020. "Sharing Economy in der Elektrizitätswirtschaft: Treiber und Hemmnisse [Title sharing economy in the electricity sector: drivers and barriers]," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 109-125, December.
    11. Lutz, Christoph & Newlands, Gemma, 2018. "Consumer segmentation within the sharing economy: The case of Airbnb," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 187-196.
    12. Livio Cricelli & Michele Grimaldi & Silvia Vermicelli, 2022. "Crowdsourcing and open innovation: a systematic literature review, an integrated framework and a research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 1269-1310, July.
    13. Maik Hesse & Timm Teubner & Marc T. P. Adam, 2022. "In Stars We Trust – A Note on Reputation Portability Between Digital Platforms," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 64(3), pages 349-358, June.
    14. Vincenzo Vignieri, 2021. "Crowdsourcing as a mode of open innovation: Exploring drivers of success of a multisided platform through system dynamics modelling," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 108-124, January.
    15. Agam Gupta & Biswatosh Saha & Parthasarathi Banerjee, 2018. "Pricing decisions of car aggregation platforms in sharing economy: a developing economy perspective," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 17(5), pages 341-355, October.
    16. Barry L. Bayus, 2013. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 226-244, June.
    17. Mario Schaarschmidt & Dirk Homscheid & Thomas Kilian, 2019. "Application Developer Engagement In Open Software Platforms: An Empirical Study Of Apple Ios And Google Android Developers," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(04), pages 1-33, May.
    18. Julienne Brabet & Corinne Vercher- Chaptal & Lucy Taska, 2020. "From oligopolistic digital platforms to Open/Cooperative Ones?," Post-Print hal-03201454, HAL.
    19. Herm, Steffen & Callsen-Bracker, Hans-Markus & Kreis, Henning, 2014. "When the crowd evaluates soccer players’ market values: Accuracy and evaluation attributes of an online community," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 484-492.
    20. Geissinger, Andrea & Laurell, Christofer & Sandström, Christian, 2020. "Digital Disruption beyond Uber and Airbnb—Tracking the long tail of the sharing economy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:33:y:2019:i:1:p:21-38. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.