Making gigs work: digital platforms, job quality and worker motivations
Abstract
Technology has driven new organisations of work and employment relationships, rendering changes that would have been unimaginable just a decade ago. The rise of digital platforms has not only enabled new forms of work activity but also transformed the way workers find new opportunities. This development, referred to as gig work, is distinct from traditional employment in that it is mediated through online platforms. While we can somewhat objectively designate traditional job characteristics as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, designating gig work itself as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ overlooks the fact that workers are inclined to evaluate the quality of their jobs according to their own individual needs, priorities, backgrounds and other circumstances—even if those jobs are objectively the same. Unlike previous scholarship on gig work, which has viewed job quality largely from a platform‐focused perspective, this article takes a worker‐centric approach and provides a typology of gig workers. The typology demarcates how gig work is used and indicates key attributes that differentiate how workers approach such jobs. Moreover, the typology reveals heterogeneity in gig workers’ motivations, characteristics and intentions. Consequently, platforms with ‘bad’ job quality characteristics can still offer work that some workers will see as ‘good’ and vice versa.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 · Cited by 34,210 · see citing works
Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990) · Qualitative Sociology · doi:10.1007/bf00988593 · Cited by 11,133 · see citing works
SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010) · doi:10.4135/9781506335193 · Cited by 6,215 · see citing works
Intrinsic motivation and organizational identification among on-demand workers.
Rockmann, K. W., & Ballinger, G. A. (2017) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000224 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhang, A., Boltz, A., Wang, C. W., & Lee, M. K. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501866 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
Dedema, M., & Rosenbaum, H. (2024) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24868 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
“In the meantime, algorithms and machine learning tools are collecting and analyzing data invisibly to make sure the gig work is correctly assigned and efficiently done by workers with different skills (Dunn, 2020).”
BackgroundFilipetto, S., Micha, A., Pereyra, F., Poggi, C., & Trombetta, M. (2024) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/ntwe.12283 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dunn, M.
- Corresponding author
- Dunn, Michael
- ORCID
- Dunn, Michael
- Venue
- New Technology, Work and Employment
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-07
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 232-249
- ISSN
- 0268-1072 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-005X
- OpenAlex
- W3045753808
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 10
- FWCI
- 25.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- New Technology Work and Employment (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Employment, Labor, and Gender Studies
- Keywords
- gig work, digital platforms, job quality, employee motivation, employment relationship, worker heterogeneity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review