CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 439Digital Economy and Work TransformationLegal and Labor StudiesEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Algorithmic Surveillance in the Gig Economy: The Organization of Work through Lefebvrian Conceived Space

Open access
Newlands, Gemma·2021·Organization Studies
DOI 10.1177/0170840620937900
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Workplace surveillance is traditionally conceived of as a dyadic process, with an observer and an observee. In this paper, I discuss the implications of an emerging form of workplace surveillance: surveillance with an algorithmic, as opposed to human, observer. Situated within the on-demand food-delivery context, I draw upon Henri Lefebvre’s spatial triad to provide in-depth conceptual examination of how platforms rely on conceived space, namely the virtual reality generated by data capture, while neglecting perceived and lived space in the form of the material embodied reality of workers. This paper offers a two-fold contribution. First, it applies Henri Lefebvre’s spatial triad to the techno-centric digital cartography used by platform-mediated organisations, assessing spatial power dynamics and opportunities for resistance. Second, this paper advances organisational research into workplace surveillance in situations where the observer and decision-maker can be a non-human agent.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0170840620937900

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Since all the interactions are digitally mediated, gig workers can outsource their own tasks to a friend or a family with little risk of clients' awareness and complete more tasks than they can on their own.

    “Since all the interactions are digitally mediated, gig workers can also outsource their own tasks to a friend or a family with little risk of clients' awareness and complete more tasks than they can on their own (Newlands, 2021).”

    From Socio‐technical issues in the platform‐mediated gig economy: A systematic literature review: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper (2024) · cites this paper as Newlands, 2021

    The Data doubles section says a rider could outsource a shift to a friend with little risk of organisational awareness because surveillance relies on device data. It does not say clients would be unaware, that a family member could take the shift, or that outsourcing would let the rider complete more tasks. The Introduction also describes face-to-face interactions with customers, so the premise that all interactions are digitally mediated is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Potentially relevant information generated during the work, such as poor client behavior, may be invisible to the platform, placing the gig worker at a disadvantage when receiving an undeserved negative review.

    “It is also the case that potentially relevant information generated during the work, such as poor client behavior, may be invisible to the platform, placing the gig worker at a disadvantage when, for example, receiving an undeserved negative review (Newlands, 2021).”

    From Socio‐technical issues in the platform‐mediated gig economy: A systematic literature review: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper (2024) · cites this paper as Newlands, 2021

    The Introduction (page not provided) says workers may face disdain from customers and that such details, though relevant to managerial decisions, are invisible to organisations. The Customer surveillance section (page not provided) discusses ratings and reviews, but does not link poor client behaviour or that invisibility to an undeserved negative review. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 120 · Cited by 439

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Agre, P. E. (1994). Surveillance and capture: Two models of privacy. The Information Society: An International Journal, 10, 101-127.
  2. Ajunwa, I., Crawford, K., & Schultz, J. (2017). Limitless worker surveillance. California Law Review, 105, 735-776.
  3. Bengtsson, S. (2017). Avatar as second suit. Power and participation in virtual work. Games and Culture, online first, https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412017710616 · DOI
  4. Beyes, T. (2018). Politics, embodiment, everyday life: Lefebvre in spatial organization. In S. F. Kingma, K. Dale, & V. Wasserman (Eds.), Organizational space and beyond: The significance of Henri Lefebvre for organization studies (pp. 1-24). London: Routledge.
  5. Borges, J. L. (2004). A universal history of iniquity (A. Hurley, Trans.). London: Penguin.
  6. Brunton, F., & Nissenbaum, H. (2015). Obfuscation: A user's guide for privacy and protest. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  7. Chan, N. K. (2019). 'Becoming an expert in driving for Uber': Uber driver/bloggers' performance of expertise and self-presentation on YouTube. New Media & Society, online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819837736 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  9. Dablanc, L., Morganti, E., Arvidsson, N., Woxenius, J., Browne, M., & Saidi, N. (2017). The rise of on- demand 'Instant Deliveries' in European cities. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 18, 203-217.
  10. Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2008). The spaces of organisation and the organisation of space: Power, identity and materiality at work. Basingstoke, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  11. De Stefano, V. (2016). Introduction: Crowdsourcing, the gig-economy and the law. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37, 461-470.
  12. Elden, S. (2004). Rhythmanalysis: An introduction. In H. Lefebvre (Ed.), Rhythmanalysis (translated by S. Elden & G. Moore) (pp. vii-xv). London: Continuum.
  13. Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2008). Beyond power and resistance. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 301-309.
  14. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  15. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167-194). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  16. Goods, C., Veen, A., & Barratt, T. (2019). 'Is your gig any good?' Analysing job quality in the Australian platform-based food-delivery sector. Journal of Industrial Relations, online first. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022185618817069 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Graham, M., Zook, M., & Boulton, A. (2013). Augmented reality in urban places: Contested content and the duplicity of code. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38, 464-479.
  18. Gregory, D. (1994). Geographical imaginations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
  19. Healy, J., Nicholson, D., & Pekarek, A. (2017). Should we take the gig economy seriously? Labour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work, 27, 232-248.
  20. Harley, J. B. (1992). Deconstructing the map. In T. J. Barnes & J. S. Duncan (Eds.), Writing worlds (pp. 231- 247). London: Routledge.
  21. Jabagi, N., Croteau, A-M., Audebrand, L. K., & Marsan, J. (2019). Gig-workers' motivation: Thinking beyond carrots and sticks. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2018-0255 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Kingma, S. F., Dale, K., & Wasserman, V. (2018). Introduction. In S. F. Kingma, K. Dale, & V. Wasserman (Eds.), Organizational space and beyond: The significance of Henri Lefebvre for organization studies (pp. 1-24). London: Routledge.
  23. Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/space: Software and everyday life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  24. Korzybski, A. (1933). A non-Aristotelian system and its necessity for rigour in mathematics and physics. In Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics (pp. 747-761).
  25. Kraak, M-J., & Ormeling, F. (2010). Cartography visualization of spatial data. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
  26. Lam, L., Tang, A., & Grundy, J. (2016). Heuristics-based indoor positioning systems: A systematic literature review. Journal of Location Based Services, 10, 178-211.
  27. Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., & Dabbish, L. (2015, April). Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1603-1612). New York: ACM.
  28. Lefebvre, H. (1991 [1974]). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
  29. Lefebvre, H. (2003 [1970]). The urban revolution (R. Bononno, Trans.). Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  30. Lutz, C., Newlands, G., & Fieseler, C. (2018, January). Emotional labor in the sharing economy. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 636-645).
  31. Lyon, D. (2006). 9/11, synopticon, and scopophilia: Watching and being watched. In K. D. Haggerty & R. V. Ericson (Eds.), The new politics of surveillance and visibility (pp. 35-54). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
  32. Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance studies: An overview. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  33. Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  34. Merrifield, A. (2006). Henri Lefebvre: A critical introduction. New York: Routledge.
  35. Meyer, R. E., Höllerer, M., Jancsary, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2013). The visual dimension in organizing, organization, and organization research: Core ideas, current developments, and promising avenues. Academy of Management Annals, 7, 489-555.
  36. Michael, K., & Clarke, R. (2013). Location and tracking of mobile devices: Überveillance stalks the streets. Computer Law and Security Review, 29, 216-228.
  37. Möhlmann, M., & Zalmanson, L. (2017). Hands on the wheel: Navigating algorithmic management and Uber drivers' autonomy. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems.
  38. O'Kane, C. (2018). Henri Lefebvre and the critical theory of society. In J. Bauer & R. Fischer (Eds.), Perspectives on Henri Lefebvre: Theory, Practices and (Re)Readings, 4(3), 55-76.
  39. Orlikowski, W. J. (1991). Integrated information environment or matrix of control? The contradictory impli- cations of information technology. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 1(1), 9-42.
  40. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2015). Exploring material-discursive practices. Journal of Management Studies, 52, 697-705.
  41. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  42. Prassl, J., & Risak, M. (2015). Uber, taskrabbit, and co.: Platforms as employers? Rethinking the legal analy- sis of crowdwork. Comparative Labour Law and Policy Journal, 37, 619-652.
  43. Raper, J., Gartner, G., Karimi, H., & Rizos, C. (2007). Applications of location based services: A selected review. Journal of Location Based Services, 1(2), 89-111.
  44. Rolland, K. H., & Monteiro, E. (2002). Balancing the local and the global in infrastructural information sys- tems. Information Society, 18(2), 87-100.
  45. Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber's drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758-3784.
  46. Rosenblat, A. (2018). Uberland: How algorithms are rewriting the rules of work. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
  47. Rossiter, N. (2016). Software, infrastructure, labor: A media theory of logistical nightmares. New York: Routledge.
  48. Scholz, T. (2017). Uberworked and underpaid: How workers are disrupting the digital economy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  49. Sewell, G. (1998). The discipline of teams: The control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 397-428.
  50. Sewell, G., & Barker, J. R. (2006). Coercion versus care: Using irony to make sense of organizational surveil- lance. Academy of Management Review, 31, 934-961.
  51. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  52. Stanford, J. (2017). The resurgence of gig work: Historical and theoretical perspectives. Economic and Labour Relations Review, 28, 382-401.
  53. Stewart, A., & Stanford, J. (2017). Regulating work in the gig economy: What are the options? Economic and Labour Relations Review, 28, 420-437.
  54. Sun, P. (2019). Your order, their labor: An exploration of algorithms and laboring on food delivery platforms in China. Chinese Journal of Communication, 12, 308-323.
  55. Taylor, S., & Spicer, A. (2007). Time for space: A narrative review of research on organizational spaces. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 325-346.
  56. Thatcher, J. (2014). Living on fumes: Digital footprints, data fumes, and the limitations of spatial big data. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1765-1783.
  57. Thatcher, J., & Dalton, C. M. (2017). Data derives: Confronting digital geographic information as spectacle. THE SPECTACLE 2.0. Thrift, N., & French, S. (2002). The automatic production of space. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 27, 309-335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0852-6 · DOI
  58. Zhao, X. (2015). On processing GPS tracking data of spatiotemporal car movements: A case study. Journal of Location-Based Services, 9, 235-253.
  59. Zureik, E. (2003), Theorizing surveillance: The case of the workplace. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk & digital discrimination (pp. 31-56). London: Routledge.

Authors
Newlands, G.
Affiliations
BI Norwegian Business School (NO)
Corresponding author
Newlands, Gemma
ORCID
Newlands, Gemma
Venue
Organization Studies
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-07-09
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
719-737
ISSN
  • 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3044
DOI
10.1177/0170840620937900
OpenAlex
W3034749153
Cited by
439
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 115 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 1
FWCI
46.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Organization Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Norges Forskningsråd (247725/O7, 275347)
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 › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
algorithmic surveillance, gig economy, workplace surveillance, Henri Lefebvre, spatial triad, on-demand food delivery, platform work, spatial power, employee resistance, digital cartography

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