Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 478

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Typology of Crowdwork Platforms

Open access
Howcroft, Debra, Bergvall-Kåreborn, Birgitta·2019·Work, Employment and Society
DOI 10.1177/0950017018760136
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

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 · 10.1177/0950017018760136

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. 10.1177/0950017014559960 · DOI
  2. Benkler Y, 2006, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets
  3. Berg J, 2016, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37, 543
  4. 10.1177/0950017012474709 · DOI
  5. 10.1111/ntwe.12038 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1177/1354856507084420 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Burawoy M, 1979, Manufacturing Consent
  8. Calo R, 2017, Columbia Law Review, 117, 1623
  9. Cherry MA, 2016, Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37, 577
  10. 10.1177/1065912912437162 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/bjir.12201 · DOI
  12. de Stefano V, 2016, The rise of the ‘just-in-time workforce’: on-demand work, crowdwork and labour protection in the ‘gig economy’
  13. 10.1145/2844110 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1177/0950017014564601 · DOI
  15. Eurofound, 2015, New Forms of Employment
  16. Felstiner A, 2011, Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 32, 143
  17. 10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00279.x · DOI · Paper page
  18. Florida R, 2002, The Rise of the Creative Class
  19. 10.4324/9781315880075 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1177/0950017091005001002 · DOI
  21. Goldman E, 2011, The Reputation Society: How Online Opinions Are Reshaping the Offline World, 51
  22. 10.1093/oso/9780199283262.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Howe J, 2008, Crowdsourcing – How the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business
  24. 10.1177/0950017087001001004 · DOI · Paper page
  25. ILO, 2016, Non-standard Employment around the World: Understanding Challenges, Shaping Prospects
  26. 10.1287/orsc.1090.0491 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Johnston J, 2017, 5th conference of the regulating for decent work network, International Labour Office
  28. Katz V, 2015, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 30, 1066
  29. Kucklich J (2005) Precarious playbour. Fibreculture Journal 5. Available at: http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue5/kucklich_print.html (accessed 21 November 2016).
  30. 10.1109/MS.2016.12 · DOI
  31. 10.1145/2702123.2702548 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1057/978-1-137-48087-3_4 · DOI
  33. Nichols T, 1980, Capital and Labour
  34. Pollman E, 2017, Southern California Law Review, 90, 383
  35. 10.1145/2818048.2820026 · DOI
  36. 10.1145/2702123.2702508 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Scholz T, 2016, Uberworked and Underpaid: How Workers Are Disrupting the Digital Economy
  38. Shirky C, 2010, Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age
  39. Slee T, 2015, What’s Yours Is Mine: Against the Sharing Economy
  40. 10.1177/0950017006065109 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1177/0950017016645716 · DOI
  42. Srnicek N, 2017, Platform Capitalism
  43. 10.5040/9781472510631 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1145/2568225.2568249 · DOI
  45. Sundararajan A, 2016, The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism
  46. 10.1007/978-1-137-41036-8_15 · DOI
  47. Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices (2017) Available at: https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/good-work-taylor-review-into-modern-working-practices.pdf (accessed 20 July 2017).
  48. 10.1177/0038038514565836 · DOI
  49. 10.1109/MIC.2014.46 · DOI
  50. 10.1177/0950017006069814 · DOI
  51. Weber M, 1949, Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy
  52. Winner L, 1986, The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology, 19
  53. 10.1007/s10796-012-9350-4 · DOI · Paper page
  54. 10.1111/tsq.12101 · DOI

Cited by

See all 478

Metadata

Authors
Howcroft, D., & Bergvall-Kåreborn, B.
Venue
Work, Employment and Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-05-04
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
21-38
ISSN
  • 0950-0170 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8722
DOI
10.1177/0950017018760136
OpenAlex
W2799513409
Cited by
478
References
5
FWCI
94.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Typology of Crowdwork Platforms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0950017018760136
The paper
Howcroft, D., & Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. (2019). A Typology of Crowdwork Platforms. Work, Employment and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018760136

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.