Book contents
- Experiencing the New World of Work
- Experiencing the New World of Work
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Experiencing at Work
- Part II Digital Platforms and the New World of Work
- 5 Exploring Inequalities in Platform-Based Legal Work
- 6 Workers Inquiry and the Experience of Work
- 7 Digital Nomads
- Part III Politics, Imaginaries and Others in the New World of Work
- Conclusion
- Afterword
- Index
- References
5 - Exploring Inequalities in Platform-Based Legal Work
from Part II - Digital Platforms and the New World of Work
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2020
Book contents
- Experiencing the New World of Work
- Experiencing the New World of Work
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Experiencing at Work
- Part II Digital Platforms and the New World of Work
- 5 Exploring Inequalities in Platform-Based Legal Work
- 6 Workers Inquiry and the Experience of Work
- 7 Digital Nomads
- Part III Politics, Imaginaries and Others in the New World of Work
- Conclusion
- Afterword
- Index
- References
Summary
The aim of this chapter is to examine the neglected area of platform work and inequalities. Drawing on Acker’s theoretical frame of inequality regimes, this study investigates whether platform work reproduces and/or augments inequalities. Extant research on platforms has focused predominantly on lesser-skilled work based on repetitive transactions; in contrast, we explore experiences of higher-skilled work, specifically the provision of legal services. A qualitative approach was adopted based on participants using the People Per Hour (PPH) platform, which offers high-skilled professional services targeted at the small-business market. The study is situated in the context of structural disadvantages in the legal profession. Our findings show that persistent inequalities within the offline legal profession are not simply mirrored, but amplified in platform work, contesting any optimistic claims that platform work has the potential to act as a leveller.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Experiencing the New World of Work , pp. 109 - 135Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Acker, J. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organization. Gender & Society, 42(2): 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acker, J. 2006. Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4): 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackroyd, S. & Muzio, D. 2007. The reconstructed professional firm: Explaining change in English legal practices. Organisation Studies, 28(5): 729–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, A. & Berg, J. 2017. When home affects pay: An analysis of the gender pay gap among crowdworkers. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3048711 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3048711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barzilay, A. & Ben-David, A. 2017. Platform inequality: Gender in the gig-economy. Seton Hall Law Review, 47(2): 393–431.Google Scholar
Berg, J. 2016. Income security in the on-demand economy: Findings and policy lessons from a survey of crowdworkers. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 37(3): 543–576.Google Scholar
Bolton, S. & Muzio, D. 2008. The paradoxical processes of feminisation in the professions: The case of established, aspiring and semi-professions. Work, Employment and Society, 22(2): 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caves, R. E. 2000. Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gandini, A. 2019. Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations, 72(6): 1039–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, E. 2011. Regulating Reputation. In Masum, H. and Tovey, M. (eds.) The Reputation Society: How Online Opinions are Reshaping the Offline World. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 51-62.Google Scholar
Hakim, C. 2006. Women, careers, and work-life preferences. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 34(3): 279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, W. & Jefferson, T. 2000. Doing Qualitative Research Differently. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howcroft, D. & Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. 2019. A typology of crowdwork platforms. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1): 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ILO 2016. Non-standard Employment around the World: Understanding Challenges, Shaping Prospects. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
Irani, L. 2015. The cultural work of microwork. New Media & Society, 17(5): 720–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, T. & Narwan, G. 2019 Gender pay gap widens at law firms, The Times, April 08 2019, available at: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gender-pay-gap-widens-at-law-firms-7kmrrwvmf#:~:text=The%20gap%20for%20staff%20employed,partners%2C%20between%202017%20and%202018.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, D. & Wajcman, J. 1985. The Social Shaping of Technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Peticca-Harris, A., deGama, N. & Ravishankar, M. N. 2020. Postcapitalist precarious work and those in the ‘drivers’ seat: Exploring the motivations and lived experiences of Uber drivers in Canada. Organization, 27(1): 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J. 1995. Gender Trials: Emotional Lives in Contemporary Law Firms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pinnington, A. H. & Sandberg, J. 2013. Lawyers’ professional careers: Increasing women’s inclusion in the partnership of law firms. Gender, Work and Organization, 20(6): 616–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pringle, J. K., Harris, C., Ravenswood, K., Giddings, L., Ryan, I. & Jaeger, S. 2017. Women’s career progression in law firms: Views from the top, views from below. Gender, Work and Organization, 24(4): 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, N. 1976. Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubery, J. 2019. Joan Acker and doing comparable worth. Gender, Work and Organization, 26(12): 1786–1793.Google Scholar
Schorpf, P., Flecker, J., Schönauer, A. & Eichmann, H. 2017. Triangular love–hate: management and control in creative crowdworking. New Technology, Work and Employment, 32(1): 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerlad, H. 2016. ‘A pit to put women in’: Professionalism, work intensification, sexualisation and work-life balance in the legal profession in England and Wales. International Journal of the Legal profession, 23(1): 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerlad, H., Webley, L., Duff, L., Muzio, D. & Tomlinson, J. 2017. Diversity in the legal profession in England and Wales: a qualitative study of barriers and individual choices. Available at: www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/what_we_do/Research/Publications/pdf/lsb_diversity_in_the_legal_profession_final_rev.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sundararajan, A. 2016. The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-based Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, P., Jones, M. & Warhurst, C. 2007. From conception to consumption: creativity and the missing managerial link. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(5): 625–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlinson, J., Muzio, D., Sommerlad, H., Webley, L. & Duff, L. 2013. Structure, agency and career strategies of white women and black and minority ethnic individuals in the legal profession. Human Relations, 66(2): 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlinson, J., Valizade, D., Muzio, D., Charlwood, A. & Aulakh, S. 2019. Privileges and penalties in the legal profession: An intersectional analysis of career progression. The British Journal of Sociology, 70(3): 1045–1066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wajcman, J. 2018. Digital technology, work extension and the acceleration society. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(3–4): 168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, J. 2012. Not worth the sacrifice? Women’s aspirations and career progression in law firms. Gender, Work and Organization, 19(5): 508–531.Google Scholar
Wood, A., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V. & Hjorth, I. 2019. Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1): 56–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 1
- Cited by