Researching precarious, virtual and clandestine labour :  Methodological and ethical challenges

Iphofen, Ron; Huws, Ursula; Spencer, Neil H.

doi:10.13169/workorgalaboglob.16.1.0007

ScienceOpen: research and publishing network

For Publishers

For Researchers

Blog
About

Search
Advanced search

586

views

recommends

Call for Papers: Hierarchies of domesticity – spatial and social boundaries. Deadline for submissions is 30^th September, 2024. Full details can be read here.

Articles to be no longer than 6,000 words (excluding footnotes and bibliography) and submitted in two forms: an anonymised version in which all references to the authors’ institution and publications are omitted; and a full version including the authors’ titles and institutional affiliations. For complete instructions on style, formatting, etc., please consult: https://www.plutojournals.com/wp-content/uploads/WOLG-Instructions-for-Authors2023.pdf

scite_

Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation

Volume 16, Issue 1

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Researching precarious, virtual and clandestine labour : Methodological and ethical challenges

research-article

Author(s): Ron Iphofen , Ursula Huws , Neil. H. Spencer

Publication date Pub: 14 May 2022

Journal: Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation

Publisher: Pluto Journals

Keywords: Research ethics, action research, survey methodology, digital research methods, participant observation, ethnography

Bookmark

Abstract

Introducing this volume, this article reflects on recent changes that brought to the editors’ attention the need for this special issue on the methodological and ethical challenges facing those who research precarious, virtual and clandestine labour in the 21st century. An exponential spread of algorithmically managed platform labour, just-in-time working, micro-work, teleworking and other trends associated with digitalisation has converged with traditional patterns of work in the informal economy, including clandestine practices, such as the use of child labour, trafficked labour and slave labour, to create a dynamically shifting labour market that cannot be captured by traditional means using existing indicators. Simultaneously, digitalisation has introduced the possibility of new research methods, raising new ethical challenges, as well as stimulating the adaptation of older forms of ethnographic research including participant observation and action research. It discusses the articles in this issue, suggesting that they form the basis of an ongoing debate.

Content

Author and article information

Contributors

Ron Iphofen:

Bio :

Ron Iphofen is an Independent Consultant and Principal Investigator of the EU-funded PRO-RES Project (PROmoting integrity in the use of RESearch results)

Ursula Huws:

Bio :

Ursula Huws is the Director of Analytica, Social and Economic Research, London, UK

Neil. H. Spencer:

Bio :

Neil H. Spencer is Professor of Applied Statistics and Director of the Statistical Services and Consultancy Unit at the University of Hertfordshire.

Journal

Journal ID (doi): 10.13169/workorgalaboglob

Title: Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation

Abbreviated Title: WOLG

Publisher: Pluto Journals

ISSN (Electronic): 1745-6428

ISSN (Print): 1745-641X

Publication date Pub: 14 May 2022

Publication date Collection: 2022

Volume: 16

Issue: 1

Pages: 7-13

Article

DOI: 10.13169/workorgalaboglob.16.1.0007

SO-VID: 31bd83d3-0931-464a-8e3e-600c7f81b815

License:

All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

History

Page count

Pages: 7

ScienceOpen disciplines: Sociology,Labor law,Political science,Labor & Demographic economics,Political economics

Keywords: ethnography,participant observation,digital research methods,survey methodology,action research,Research ethics

References

J. ChanM. SeldenP. Ngai (2020) Dying for an iPhone: Apple, Foxconn and the Lives of China’s Workers, London, Pluto Press.
S. DenchU. HuwsR. Iphofen (2004) An EU Code of Ethics for Socio-Economic Research, Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.
B. Ehrenreich (2002) Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, London; Granta.
L. GeorgeL. MacdonaldJ. Tauri (2020) Indigenous Research Ethics: Claiming Research Sovereignty beyond Deficit and the Colonial Legacy, Advances in Research Ethics and Integrity, 6, Bingley: Emerald.
M. Hoffman (2018) Militant Acts: The Role of Investigations in Radical Political Struggle, New York: SUNY Press.
U. HuwsN. SpencerM. Coates (2019) The Platformisation of Work in Europe: Results from Research in 13 European Countries, Brussels: Foundation for European Progressive Studies.
ILO (2015) World Employment Social Outlook: The Changing Nature of Jobs, Geneva: International Labour Organisation.
O. KässiV. Lehdonvirta (2018) ‘Online labour index: Measuring the online gig economy for policy and research’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137:241–248
S. KattaK. HowsonM. Graham (2020) ‘The Fairwork Foundation: Action research on the gig economy’, Global Dialogue. 10 (1):44–46.
A. PesoleC. Urzì-BrancatiE. Fernández-MacíasI. González-Vázquez (2018) Platform Workers in Europe: Evidence from the COLLEEM Survey, Report EUR 29275 EN, Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union.
B. Somekh (2005) Action Research: a Methodology for Change and Development, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
P. TubaroC. Le LudecA. Casilli (2020) ‘Counting “micro-workers”: Societal and methodological challenges around new forms of labour’, Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation, 14 (1).

Comments

Comment on this article

[1] J. ChanM. SeldenP. Ngai (2020) Dying for an iPhone: Apple, Foxconn and the Lives of China’s Workers, London, Pluto Press.

[2] S. DenchU. HuwsR. Iphofen (2004) An EU Code of Ethics for Socio-Economic Research, Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.

[3] B. Ehrenreich (2002) Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, London; Granta.

[4] L. GeorgeL. MacdonaldJ. Tauri (2020) Indigenous Research Ethics: Claiming Research Sovereignty beyond Deficit and the Colonial Legacy, Advances in Research Ethics and Integrity, 6, Bingley: Emerald.

[5] M. Hoffman (2018) Militant Acts: The Role of Investigations in Radical Political Struggle, New York: SUNY Press.

[6] U. HuwsN. SpencerM. Coates (2019) The Platformisation of Work in Europe: Results from Research in 13 European Countries, Brussels: Foundation for European Progressive Studies.

[7] ILO (2015) World Employment Social Outlook: The Changing Nature of Jobs, Geneva: International Labour Organisation.

[8] O. KässiV. Lehdonvirta (2018) ‘Online labour index: Measuring the online gig economy for policy and research’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137:241–248

[9] S. KattaK. HowsonM. Graham (2020) ‘The Fairwork Foundation: Action research on the gig economy’, Global Dialogue. 10 (1):44–46.

[10] A. PesoleC. Urzì-BrancatiE. Fernández-MacíasI. González-Vázquez (2018) Platform Workers in Europe: Evidence from the COLLEEM Survey, Report EUR 29275 EN, Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union.

[11] B. Somekh (2005) Action Research: a Methodology for Change and Development, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

[12] P. TubaroC. Le LudecA. Casilli (2020) ‘Counting “micro-workers”: Societal and methodological challenges around new forms of labour’, Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation, 14 (1).