7th Global Conference on Economic Geography
Call For Papers
(Submission Deadline = January 10th 2025)
Working in the digital age: Exploring precarity, agency, and spatiality
Organizers:
Han Chu, Kiel University, Germany, chu@geographie.uni-kiel.de
Alica Repenning, Greifswald University, Germany alica.repenning@uni-greifswald.de
Brian J. Hracs, University of Southampton, UK B.J.Hracs@soton.ac.uk
The rapid rise of digital labor, driven by digital platforms, is reshaping traditional work models and creating new forms of economic engagement. As the landscape of labor geography continues to evolve, researchers have been exploring the structures, spatial dynamics and implications of different types of work. For example, gig work involves short-term flexible, and task-based work organized via ride-hailing, booking, or delivery platforms such as Uber, delivero, Airbnb, or Helpling. (van Slageren et al., 2023; Wood et al., 2019; Koutsimpogiorgos et al., 2020; Montgomery & Baglioni, 2020; Wood & Lehdonvirta, 2021; Graham et al., 2017). Platform mediated creative entrepreneurship, is performed by independent artists, musicians and fashion designers who operate within trans-local scenes through digital spaces such as Spotify, Instagram, or YouTube (Repenning, 2022; Repenning & Oechslen, 2023; McAdam et al., 2019; Richardson, 2018; Cutolo & Kenney, 2020; Hracs et al., 2013). Whereas these traditional creatives have ‘gone digital’ a new group of creators, including bloggers, Instagrammers, and Youtubers rely on digital platforms for creating content, cultivating audiences and generating partnerships and income (Florida, 2022, p. 3; Slater & Wruuck, 2012).
This session will discuss the nature of working in the digital age while paying particular attention to intersections and contradictions associated with precarity, agency, and spatiality. For example, the creator economy reflects an inherent tension and complexity arising from the unique way precarity and individual agency intersect in digital space. While it often promises greater autonomy and flexibility, work-related instability and risks can be exacerbated. On one hand, the opaque platform algorithms and regulations of digital platforms impose systemic structural precarity by creating unpredictable working conditions, income instability, limited access to social benefits and job security such as health insurance and paid leave (Montgomery & Baglioni, 2020; Wood & Lehdonvirta, 2021). On the other hand, individual agency is represented by associating digital work with creativity, independence and fun.
Platform algorithms frequently enforce a “winner-takes-all” model, where only a small fraction of platform workers achieve significant financial stability, leaving the majority in precarious circumstances (Strauss, 2018; Engels, 2022). Moreover, while creative entrepreneurs seek independence through their digital work, the dependency on the opaque mechanisms of the digital platform creates new constraints and challenges (Repenning & Oechslen, 2023; Cutolo & Kenney, 2020). The precarious structure of this environment has spurred debates among scholars: some emphasize the economic vulnerabilities inherent in such platform structures, highlighting issues such as income inequality, algorithmic bias, and dependence on platform policies. Others focus on the entrepreneurial potential of digital platforms, highlighting empowering aspects that enable creators to reach global audiences while also emphasizing opportunities to create jobs, reduce unemployment, and alleviate poverty in certain regions (Barratt et al., 2020; Braesemann et al., 2022; Chu et al., 2023; Zhang, 2023). Despite these opportunities, the tension between structural constraints and individual agency remains central to understanding digital labor.
Like all forms of work, digital labor is spatially embedded and there is a need to consider a range of spatial dynamics and implications (Repenning, 2022; Hracs et al., 2013). For instance, creators, digitally mediated creative entrepreneurs, and gig-workers often cluster in specific physical locations to benefit from cultural and information exchange, creative networks, local forms of branding, and the agglomeration effects that foster networking and collaboration. Importantly, platform-mediated work is not merely done with a click or swipe online but has substantial offline components, as the cases of fashion design and gig work indicate (Repenning, 2024; Lehdonvirta, 2021). However, blogging and other platform-mediated work arrangements do include characteristics of digital nomads, who can theoretically operate in a “flat world” free from geographical constraints. In the case of creators, this reduction in spatial restrictions has led to a unique intersection of identities, such as Chinese YouTubers based in the U.S. or German creators on China’s Bilibili platform. Contractually, some creators are formal employees of unrelated companies, universities, or governments, while others are independent contractors or temporary employees working with Multi-channel-Networks (MCN).
Given the dynamism of contemporary labor markets, ongoing scholarly research, consideration and debate is valuable. In particular, applying labour geography's theoretical frameworks, can help us to understand the inherent tensions, conflicts, and opportunities within the fields of digital work, while identifying potential challenges and pathways for future research.
Suggested Themes and Topics
· The spatial concentration and diffusion of platform work: What kinds of spatial work arrangements associated with digital work are emerging and where? What are the connections or overlaps between online and offline spaces? How do digital workers navigate between these spaces to exercise their agency? How and why do platform mediated workers cluster in certain geographic areas? What factors determine the concentration or dispersion of digital work? How, if at all, do these processes impact the spatial organization of creative industries?
· The influence of platform work on culture and economies: How do digital workers and the circulation of digital content shape the cultural and economic spaces of their communities? In what ways do digitally mediated forms of work resemble or differ from the traditional forms of creative work? What kinds of social and economic impacts arise from their presence and clustering?
· The organization and regional development of creators: How do creators form and operate collective organizations, e.g. MCN companies or Live Streamer Associations, and what impact do these organizations have on local and regional development? What role do organizations play in enhancing creators' economic resilience and influence within the broader digital labor landscape?
· Creator communities and social inclusion/exclusion: What roles do creator communities play in fostering social inclusion or exclusion, and how do these dynamics unfold in both digital and physical spaces? How do creators build communities, and what are the broader social impacts of these networks?
· The heterogeneity of identities and cross-cultural influences: How do intersecting identities—such as race, gender, age, nationality, and social background—shape the experiences and opportunities within the platform economy? In what ways do these cross-cultural influences and diverse backgrounds affect the engagement and success of digital work on platforms?
· Algorithmic/platform power and resistance: How do platform workers respond to algorithmic control and other platform-imposed limitations on their visibility and income? What resistance or adaptation strategies are employed, and how do these exemplify agency within the platform ecosystem?
· Additional topics and future directions: We welcome further contributions that explore the future direction of digital labor, considering the needs and challenges faced today. Contributions that approach the topic from innovative theoretical, empirical, or policy-oriented perspectives are especially encouraged.
Overall, this session aims to foster interdisciplinary dialogue among scholars in labor geography, economic geography, the sociology of work, digital media, and platform studies. By bridging these fields, we hope to enhance our understanding of the dynamic interplay between precarity and agency within the creator economy and examine the roles that place and space play in shaping the contours and experiences of digital labor.
Submission Guidelines
We invite authors to submit abstracts of up to 300 words to Han Chu chu@geographie.uni-kiel.de. by Friday 10th January 2025. Following acceptance of abstracts to the session (Monday 13th January 2015), paper authors will be required to submit their abstracts through the conference registration page (https://gceg.org/index.php/register/) by the GCEG deadline of 15th January 2025. We also welcome queries or requests for further information.
References
Barratt, T., Goods, C., & Veen, A. (2020). ‘I’m my own boss…’: Active intermediation and ‘entrepreneurial’ worker agency in the Australian gig-economy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 52(8), 1643–1661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20914346
Braesemann, F., Lehdonvirta, V., & Kässi, O. (2022). ICTs and the urban-rural divide: Can online labour platforms bridge the gap? Information, Communication & Society, 25(1), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1761857
Chu, H., Hassink, R., Xie, D., & Hu, X. (2023). Placing the platform economy: the emerging, developing and upgrading of Taobao villages as a platform-based place making phenomenon in China. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 16(2), 319-334.
Cutolo, D., & Kenney, M. (2020). Platform-dependent Entrepreneurs: Power Asymmetries, Risks, and Strategies in the Platform Economy. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(4), 584–605. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2019.0103
Florida, R. (2022). The rise of the creator economy. https://creativeclass.com/reports/The_Rise_of_the_Creator_Economy.pdf
Graham, M., Hjorth, I., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2017). Digital labour and development: Impacts of global digital labour platforms and the gig economy on worker livelihoods. Transfer-European Review of Labour and Research, 23(2), 135–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258916687250
Hracs, B. J., Jakob, D., & Hauge, A. (2013). Standing Out in the Crowd: The Rise of Exclusivity-based Strategies to Compete in the Contemporary Marketplace for Music and Fashion. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 45(5), 1144–1161. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45229
Koutsimpogiorgos, N., Van Slageren, J., Herrmann, A. M., & Frenken, K. (2020). Conceptualizing the Gig Economy and Its Regulatory Problems. Policy & Internet, 12(4), 525–545. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.237
Kraus, S., Vonmetz, K., Orlandi, L. B., Zardini, A., & Rossignoli, C. (2023). Digital entrepreneurship: The role of entrepreneurial orientation and digitalization for disruptive innovation. Technological Forecasting And Social Change, 193, 122638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122638
Kubler, K. (2023). Influencers and the attention economy: The meaning and management of attention on Instagram. Journal of Marketing Management, 39(11–12), 965–981. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2022.2157864
McAdam, M., Crowley, C., & Harrison, R. T. (2019). “To boldly go where no [man] has gone before”—Institutional voids and the development of women’s digital entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 912–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.051
Montgomery, T., & Baglioni, S. (2020). Defining the gig economy: Platform capitalism and the reinvention of precarious work. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 41(9/10), 1012–1025. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-08-2020-0400
Parry, J., & Hracs, B. J. (2020). From leisure to labour: towards a typology of the motivations, structures and experiences of work‐related blogging. New Technology, Work and Employment, 35(3), 314-335.
Rees-Roberts, N. (2020). After fashion film: Social video and brand content in the influencer economy. Journal of Visual Culture, 19(3), 405–421.
Repenning, A. (2024). Speeding up, slowing down, losing grip: On digital media metronomes and timespace friction in the platformised temporalities of fashion design. EPA: Economy and Space, 56(5), 1503–1520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X241231691
Repenning, A., & Oechslen, A. (2023). Creative Digipreneurs: Artistic Entrepreneurial Practices in Platform-mediated Space. Digital Geography and Society, 4, 100058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diggeo.2023.100058
Repenning, A. (2022). Workspaces of Mediation: How Digital Platforms Shape Practices, Spaces and Places of Creative Work. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie (TSEG), 113(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12508
Richardson, L. (2018). Feminist geographies of digital work. Progress in Human Geography, 42(2), 244-263.
Zhang, W., & Tong, T. (2024). Contesting the intermediary power: How Chinese MCNs interact with platforms, creators, and advertisers. Media, Culture & Society, 01634437241229306.
Slater, D., & Wruuck, P. (2012). We Are All Content Creators Now: Measuring Creativity and Innovation in the Digital Economy. The Global Innovation Index 2012, 163.
van Slageren, J., Herrmann, A. M., & Frenken, K. (2023). Is the online gig economy beyond national reach? A European analysis. Socio-Economic Review, 21(3), 1795–1821. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwac038
Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Networked but Commodified: The (Dis)Embeddedness of Digital Labour in the Gig Economy. Sociology, 53(5), 931–950. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038519828906
Wood, A., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2021). Platform Precarity: Surviving algorithmic insecurity in the gig economy. Available at SSRN 3795375.
Zhang, L. (2023). The Labor of Reinvention: Entrepreneurship in the New Chinese Digital Economy. Columbia University Press.