Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Work in the Global Economy • vol XX • no XX • 1–27 • © Author 2024
Online ISSN 2732-4176 • https://doi.org/10.1332/27324176Y2024D000000020
Accepted for publication 23 July 2024 • First published online 16 August 2024
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of
online freelance labour: a literature review and
agenda for future research
Jorien Oprins, j.h.oprins@uva.nl
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
As the demand for online freelance labour is on the rise, it is critical to have a thorough
understanding of the implications for freelancers. This article contributes to this understanding
by synthesizing the empirical, academic literature centering the narratives of freelancers
working through online freelance platforms. In doing so, it aims to answer the question of
what is known about how these freelancers experience and navigate their work. The analysis
identifies four prevailing themes, that is: (1) employment opportunities and motivating factors;
(2) challenges; (3) freelancer agency; and (4) livelihood outcomes, and uncovers that online
freelance labour results in an uneven distribution of livelihood outcomes. It also shows that
detailed knowledge on this distribution is lacking. To fill this gap, this article proposes an
agenda for future research based on Heeks’ (2022) model of adverse digital incorporation
and revolving around four dimensions: design inequality, resource inequality, institutional
inequality, and relational inequality.
Keywords online outsourcing • digital marketplace • online freelance labour • platform labour
• adverse digital incorporation
To cite this article: Oprins, J. (2024) Uncover ing the uneven livelihood outcomes of online
freelance labour: a literature review and agenda for future research, Work in the Global
Economy, XX(XX): 1–27, DOI: 10.1332/27324176Y2024D000000020
Introduction
In recent years ever more workers, organisations, governments, and researchers
have turned to online freelance platforms like Upwork and Freelancer. Since the
late 1990s, such platforms have been facilitating the outsourcing of service work
to individual freelancers around the globe (Kuek et al, 2015). Instead of being
(permanently) employed in their local economy, these freelancers compete globally
for casual, flexible, and temporary jobs such as web development and virtual
assistance, mainly for clients in the Global North (Beerepoot and Lambregts, 2015).
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Jorien Oprins
2
Following Kalleberg and Dunn (2016), this article defines online freelance platforms
by distinguishing them from related digital labour platforms, that is, transportation
platforms (for example, Uber), delivery/home task platforms (for example, Deliveroo
and TaskRabbit), and crowdwork platforms (for example, Amazon Mechanical Turk).
On online freelance platforms, freelancers possess comparatively high worker control
(for example, they earn negotiable wages and possess considerable autonomy) and
earn relatively high wages in return for longer term, project-based, virtual work for
which specialised skills are required (Kalleberg and Dunn, 2016).
Today, tens of millions of freelancers from a wide range of countries are oering their
services on online freelance platforms (Kuek et al, 2015; Kässi et al, 2021; Stephany
etal, 2021). The majority of them are located in India (26.7 percent), Bangladesh
(14.7 percent), Pakistan (12.1 percent), the United States (5.5 percent), and the
United Kingdom (3.8 percent) (Kässi et al, 2021). While specific statistics are lacking,
it is clear that the demand for online freelance labour is vastly growing. From 2016
to 2021, the demand for projects outsourced mainly via online freelance platforms
and a small portion via crowdwork platforms, grew by roughly 90 percent, and the
annual growth rate is significantly higher than changes in national labour markets
(Kässi and Lehdonvirta, 2018; Stephany et al, 2021). As online freelance labour was
gaining ground, a debate rose about its impact on and value for freelancers. Some
see a great potential in the global reach of employment opportunities facilitated by
online freelance platforms and the flexibility and autonomy that online freelance
labour oers (Kuek et al, 2015; European Parliament, 2017; ILO, 2019; World Bank,
2019; Elbanna and Idowu, 2021b; Na’in et al, 2021a; Beerepoot and Oprins, 2022).
Others contend that online freelance platforms bring harm to workers as they increase
their precarity and vulnerability (Graham et al, 2017; Anwar and Graham, 2021).
Given the rapid expansion of the online freelance industry, it is important to have a
thorough understanding of the implications for freelancers. However, as exemplified
by the debate discussed in the previous paragraph, such an understanding is currently
lacking. This is because even though there is a large body of literature that seeks to
typologize and distinguish between dierent types of digital platform labour (for
example, Kalleberg and Dunn, 2016; Schmidt, 2017; De Stefano and Aloisi, 2018;
Howcroft and Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2019), analytically, the dierences have often
not been taken into account, so obscuring our understanding (Vallas and Schor,
2020). For instance, by grouping online freelance labour with crowdwork, platform
transportation work, and platform delivery work (for example, see Huws et al, 2018
and Piasna and Drahokoupil, 2019), one neglects the dierence in online freelancers’
worker control and, as a result, may wrongly specify how they experience and navigate
their work (Kalleberg and Dunn, 2016; Vallas and Schor, 2020).
To fill this gap, this article synthesizes the literature centering the narratives of
freelancers working through online freelance platforms. In doing so, it aims to answer
the question of what is known about how these freelancers experience and navigate
their work. Based on the findings, knowledge gaps are identified and an agenda for
future research is oered.
The proceeding section offers an explanation of the methodological steps
undertaken to identify relevant articles and describes how these are analysed. The
article then elaborates on four key themes that emanate from a synthesis of these
articles, that is, employment opportunities and motivating factors, challenges,
freelancer agency, and livelihood outcomes, and uncovers that online freelance labour
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of online freelance labour
3
results in uneven livelihood outcomes between freelancers. Subsequently, it argues
that detailed knowledge on this manifestation of digital inequality is lacking, and
proposes the use of Heeks’ (2022) conceptual model of ‘adverse digital incorporation’
to fill this research gap. Adverse digital incorporation refers to inclusion in a digital
system1 that enables a more advantaged group to extract disproportionate value
from the work or resources of another, less advantaged group. To better understand
why, how, and for whom inequality can emerge from the use of digital systems, the
model distinguishes between four dimensions: digital inequality, resource inequality,
institutional inequality, and relational inequality. This article uses these dimensions
to guide future research on the diverging outcomes between freelancers. The final
section concludes with the main findings.
Methods
This article follows an analytical and systematic approach to obtain a comprehensive
overview of empirical, academic literature which focuses on freelancers’ perspectives
on their work. Rather than selecting literature arbitrarily, based on implicit biases
(Linnenluecke et al, 2020), it adheres to a ‘replicable, scientific, and transparent
process… that aims to minimize bias through exhaustive literature searches… by
providing an audit trail of the reviewer’s decisions, procedures, and conclusions’
(Tranfield et al, 2003: 209). Based on the guidelines provided by Okoli (2015) and
Tranfield et al (2003), we outlined a five-step protocol which we followed iteratively.
We (1) established the purpose of this literature review; (2) identified studies that are
of interest to this research; and (3) made a selection by screening all identified studies.
Thereafter, we turned to (4) citation tracking; followed by (5) data extraction and
analysis. This article proceeds with a detailed explanation of each step.
Purpose of the literature review
Defining our research objectives was an iterative process, with our initial aim being
to outline the current state of empirical, academic literature on service outsourcing
through online freelance platforms, from here on referred to as online outsourcing.2
We set out to include research on all phases of production, from beginning: clients
posting a project online; through platform mediation: linking demand and supply; to
end: freelancers delivering a project; and incorporated research on all actors involved
in the process. This resulted in the identification of numerous articles which we
considered to be outside the scope of the more general purposes of the research project
of which this article is a part. Therefore, we refined our objectives throughout the
identification and selection of articles (steps (2) and (3)) to outlining the empirical,
academic literature centering freelancers’ perspectives and synthesizing the findings
to identify trends and prevalent themes. Through these objectives, we aim to answer
two research questions:
• What does the current empirical, academic literature say about how
freelancers working through online freelance platforms perceive and navigate
their work?
• Which knowledge gaps can be identied and what are priorities for future
research on online freelance labour?
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Jorien Oprins
4
Identification of articles
As our initial objective was to outline the current state of empirical, academic literature
on online outsourcing, we commenced with a broad search on this process. The
literature on online outsourcing uses myriad terminologies to refer to the respective
labour and business practices and the freelancers involved, and their definitions can be
somewhat arbitrary (Heeks, 2017). Furthermore, a number of terms are sometimes
used to refer particularly to online outsourcing, online freelance labour, or freelancers,
yet, in other contexts they refer to much broader economic practices or dierent
agents (Heeks, 2017). For example, gig work may denote the labour conducted by
freelancers working through online freelance platforms (for example, Kinder et al,
2019; Wood et al, 2019a) but it may also be used to discuss the labour practices of a
highly encompassing group of workers involved in platform labour, also including,
for example, Uber taxi drivers (for example, Berger et al, 2019) and crowdworkers
(for example, Keith et al, 2019). Therefore, in the selection of keywords, we aimed
to strike a balance between identifying a highly exhaustive set of records,3 of which
a great deal is not relevant for answering our research questions, and a much too
narrow set of records. In doing so, Heeks’ (2017) selection of ‘directly-relevant terms’
and ‘(moderately-)relevant super-set terms’ was used as principal guidance. The
former group of terms are ‘solely and specifically coterminous’ with the practices of
outsourcing through online freelance and crowdwork platforms (Heeks, 2017). The
latter group is broader than these practices but contains some or a significant number
of items about them. For additional keywords, the titles, abstracts, and author-selected
keywords of key articles were screened.
We then entered the keywords in various databases, including Business Source
Premier, Scopus, SocINDEX, Web of Science, JSTOR, and Google Scholar.
Dierent combinations were used to check if the results fitted the initial research
objective. When keywords generated unfitting results, we altered or excluded them.
Subsequently, we excluded databases if they kept giving a too exhaustive set of
records of which many are irrelevant for answering our research questions because
they are, for example, concerned with digital innovations in more traditional types
of labour or in education. This ultimately resulted in the generation of search strings
for four databases, that is, Business Source Premier, Scopus, SocINDEX, and Web
of Science (see Appendix). The strings are similar in essence, but dier based on the
syntaxes of each database.
The searches were performed in November 2021. We searched in all four databases
for hits in the titles, abstracts, author-selected keywords, and database-selected
keywords. As a method of controlling for quality, the results were narrowed down
by excluding all non-peer-reviewed studies and, for practical purposes, we excluded
non-English studies. Figure 1 shows the results of the searches in a flow diagram. It
is informed by the 2020 PRISMA framework, which provides an evidence-based
minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews (PRISMA, nd). In total,
we identified 1,950 records, of which 943 were duplicates, meaning that 1,007
records were screened.
Selection of articles
The selection of articles was performed in two steps: screening records and full-
text screening. Regarding the former, we screened all 1,007 records based on two
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of online freelance labour
5
selection criteria. First, records were included only if they solely focus on online
outsourcing. To clearly distinguish online outsourcing from other types of (digital)
service outsourcing, five boundary conditions established by Wagner et al (2021:
5), were used:
(1) Digitality: an online freelance platform mediates the three processes of
matching, contracting, and executing.
(2) Value network paradigm: online freelance work is sourced in individual-
level value networks, meaning that the service exchange occurs between
organizationally independent workers and clients.
(3) Centralized governance: online freelance platforms exercise centralized
governance by regulating the exchange and facilitating the matching,
contracting, and executing process.
Figure 1: Flow diagram of the literature identification and selection process
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Jorien Oprins
6
(4) Contractual work: the contract between freelancers and clients involves nancial
compensation of the freelancer and is closed before work execution commences.
(5) Knowledge work: online freelance platforms facilitate the outsourcing of
knowledge work which is contingent on frequent communication, requires
domain-specic expertise, and involves uncertainty.
Second, only articles that present findings based on empirical primary and/
or secondary data were included. To prevent a selection bias, 10 percent of the
records were independently screened and coded by the author and a colleague
(Linnenluecke et al, 2020). Findings were then cross-checked and discussed until
agreement was reached. These discussions formed the basis for the coding of the
remaining 90 percent of records which were subsequently screened by the author.
We selected 125 articles.
As four articles could not be retrieved, 121 articles were subject to full-text
screening, the second step of the selection process. We used the same selection criteria
as for the first step and added two more, the first being that the empirical focus
needs to be on online outsourcing, so excluding studies that focus on developing
(computational) models and test or evaluate them on online freelance platforms.
Second, at this stage, we decided to focus only on the perspectives of freelancers and
defined our ultimate research objectives. Therefore, we only included articles for
which freelancers were interviewed or surveyed, or for which their posts on forums
or social media platforms were subject to analysis. To prevent a selection bias, the
screening procedure was similar to the one used in the previous step. In sum, 32
articles met all selection criteria.
Citation tracking
As we likely missed finding some articles due to, for example, the selection of
keywords and databases, we conducted backward (screening the literature lists of all
included articles) and forward (checking the lists of articles that cite one of these
articles) citation tracking with all 32 articles (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). Each
additionally identified article was subsequently also subject to backward and forward
citation tracking. This process continued until no additional, relevant articles could
be identified. As a result, 10 more articles were added to the data set.
Data extraction and identification of themes
In total, we identified 42 articles. Despite the limitations resulting from the selection
criteria, this data set gives an extensive overview of the academic literature centralising
freelancers’ perspectives on their work. The thematic analysis was informed by our
focus on these perspectives. We drew inspiration from the systematic, analytical
approach by Gioia et al (2013) to add rigour and transparency. Through inductive
coding with the use of Atlas.ti, numerous codes emerged from the articles. We sought
for commonalities and dierences between them, which resulted in the categorisation
of first-order terms, such as ‘autonomy and flexibility’ (see Figure 2). With these
terms, we aimed to retain the terms used in the articles. We then repeated our search
for commonalities and dierences to identify second-order themes based on the first-
order terms, for example, ‘motivating factors’. These were subsequently distilled into
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of online freelance labour
7
four aggregate themes that are discussed most prevalently in the literature focusing
on the perspectives of freelancers of their work: (1) employment opportunities and
motivating factors; (2) challenges; (3) freelancer agency; and (4) livelihood outcomes.
Figure 2 visualizes the data structure and illustrates how the aggregate themes are
related. Particularly, it depicts how the synthesis of the articles suggests that the first
three themes result in a diverging set of freelancers’ livelihood outcomes, as depicted
on a continuum ranging from unsuccessful to successful. The next section elaborates
on this point.
Figure 2: Prevalent themes in literature centring the perspectives of freelancers
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Jorien Oprins
8
Results
Before engaging with the four themes, we review the descriptive data of the 42
identified studies based on their relevance to these themes, year of publication,
research context, and methodological approach. Regarding the former, Figure 3 is
complementary to Figure 2 and illustrates the varying levels of research attention
paid to each theme. The challenges and agency of freelancers are most commonly
studied and substantial attention is paid to the employment opportunities provided
by online freelance platforms and freelancers’ motivations for engaging with these
opportunities. Only 14 studies touch upon the livelihood outcomes of freelancers.
Remarkably, the articles rarely focus on only one of the four themes. Rather, they
focus on two but mostly three or four themes, signalling the exploratory nature of
many articles.
Regarding the articles’ years of publication, Figure 4 shows that research centering
the perspectives of freelancers picked up more than 10 years after the first online
freelance platform, Guru, was founded in 1998 (Kuek et al, 2015), and only recently
did their perspectives gain substantial scholarly interest. In comparison, research from
the angle of online freelance platforms picked up already in 2008 and reached a peak
in 2018 (Wagner et al, 2021: 18).
The vast majority of the 42 studies focus on developing or emerging economies
in South(east) Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, and a few articles concentrate on North
America and Europe. The studies illustrate a strong bias for studying English online
freelance platforms in general and Upwork and its predecessors, Elance and oDesk, in
particular. In terms of methodological approaches, there is a bias towards qualitative
(33) versus quantitative research methods (2) and mixed-methods (7). This may be
explained by the diculty in accessing geographically-dispersed freelancers and
conducting large-scale surveys among them (see Spilda et al, 2022, for a detailed
discussion). It may also explain why some studies are innovative with respect to
their units of observation, such as posts from WhatsApp and social media groups
for freelancers (for example, see Elbanna and Idowu (2021a; 2021b)) and posts
from freelancers on forums hosted by online freelance platforms (for example, see
Beerepoot and Lambregts (2015)) as well as independently hosted forums like Reddit
(for example, see Kinder et al, 2019 and Jarrahi et al, 2020).
Employment opportunities and motivating factors
Online freelance platforms provide workers with employment opportunities beyond
the geographical boundaries of their local labour market, filling an ‘institutional void’
by connecting freelancers to clients all around the globe, generating mutual trust
(for example, by reputation systems), and creating a sense of security (for example,
by escrow and dispute resolution services) (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016; 2018a;
Abubaker and Schneikat, 2017; Graham et al, 2017; Du and Mao, 2018; Bellesia etal,
2019; Taylor and Joshi, 2019; Lehdonvirta et al, 2019; Jarrahi et al, 2020; Soriano
and Cabañes, 2020; Malik et al, 2021; Demirel et al, 2021; Wood and Lehdonvirta,
2021; Seppänen et al, 2021; Rahman, 2021). The review finds that freelancers are
motivated to seek these employment opportunities broadly for four reasons: flexibility
and autonomy, monetary incentives, lack of (suitable) employment in the local labour
market, and skill and career development (see Figure 2).
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of online freelance labour
9
Figure 3: Classification of articles according to aggregate themes
The reason most emphasized is the desire for autonomy and flexibility. It is mainly
freelancers living in developing countries who stress the advantage of being able
to work from home, so avoiding long, exhaustive daily commutes in overcrowded
public transportation systems (Caraway, 2010; Lehdonvirta et al, 2019; Soriano and
Cabañes, 2020; D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016; Wood et al, 2019a). Female freelancers,
both from developed and developing countries, highlight how working from home
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Jorien Oprins
10
enables them to set their own schedule and combine wage labour with domestic
and/or caring labour (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016; Graham et al, 2017; Lehdonvirta
et al, 2019; Nawaz et al, 2020; Tintiangko and Soriano, 2020; Dunn et al, 2021).
Freelancers also ascribe high value to having the discretion to choose their jobs and
work independently (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016; Bellesia et al, 2019; Taylor and
Joshi, 2019; Wood and Lehdonvirta, 2021). Three studies even found that freelancers
ascribe such high value to autonomy and flexibility that they are willing to compromise
on other labour conditions, such as wages (Wood et al, 2018; Taylor and Joshi, 2019;
Seppänen et al, 2021).
At the same time, monetary incentives are also an important motivator for
freelancers. While for some, working online is their main source of income,
others use it to supplement their earnings from other activities (Caraway, 2010;
Wood etal, 2019a; Anwar and Graham, 2021; Na’in et al, 2021a). In particular,
freelancers in developing and emerging economies, where local wages are relatively
low, are drawn to online freelance platforms because of great wage dierentials
(Caraway, 2010; D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016; Abubakar and Shneikat, 2017; Anwar
and Graham, 2021; Demirel et al, 2021; Elbanna and Idowu, 2021b; Na’in et al,
2021a). For female freelancers who are not allowed to work outside their homes,
online freelance labour provides an opportunity to gain economic independence
(Anwar and Graham, 2020).
The third reason why freelancers engage in online freelance labour is a lack of
(suitable) local employment. Unemployment is a motivator for both workers in
developed and developing countries (Idowu and Elbanna, 2020; Anwar and Graham,
2021; Dunn et al, 2021). For the former, Dunn et al (2021) find that participation
Figure 4: Number of articles by year of publication
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of online freelance labour
11
by freelancers in the US moves in tandem with economic cycles, with the supply
of online freelance labour increasing during economic downturns and decreasing
during economic booms. This suggests that when local jobs are available, workers
generally choose those over working online. In contrast, four studies situated in
developing countries illustrate examples of freelancers who choose online freelancing
over (informal) local employment because it provides more income security and
more decent working conditions (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016; Lehdonvirta etal,
2019; Soriano and Cabañes, 2020; Anwar and Graham, 2020). There are also many
examples of workers who are motivated to work through online freelance platforms
because they are excluded from traditional labour, that is, migrant, older, physically-
disabled, rural-based, and less-educated workers (Beerepoot and Lambregts, 2015;
Abubakar and Schneikat, 2017; Graham et al, 2017; Lehdonvirta et al, 2019; Anwar
and Graham, 2020; 2021; Demirel et al, 2021). Other studies provide examples of
underemployed workers who seek challenging jobs on online freelance platforms
(Bellesia et al, 2019; Taylor and Joshi, 2019; Malik et al, 2021).
Fourth, skill and career development is a motivational force for freelancers.
A number of studies find that they feel that online freelancing enables them to
develop their technical and business skills, so as to maintain and expand their career
opportunities in traditional labour markets, in what they view as ‘future labour
markets’, or in entrepreneurial endeavours (Taylor and Joshi, 2019: 656; see also
D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016; Wood et al, 2018; Bellesia et al, 2019; Anwar and
Graham, 2020 Nawaz et al, 2020; Demirel et al, 2021; Seppänen et al, 2021). Other
freelancers do not necessarily strive to advance their career. They simply enjoy
learning through working on challenging projects (Abubakar and Shneikat, 2017;
Taylor and Joshi, 2019).
Challenges
While many studies highlight the innovative employment opportunities and
motivating factors to engage with online freelance labour, others show how the
challenges experienced by freelancers compromise these upsides. The review finds
some commonalities in these challenges which arise from two sources: those inherent
to online freelance labour and from power asymmetry. It also finds that freelancers
experience challenges specific to their personal characteristics and socioeconomic
context (see Figure 2).
In terms of the challenges inherent to online freelance labour, a number of studies
argue that this type of work is precarious by nature, as online outsourcing thrives on the
principle of outsourcing highly commoditized, small-size, and one-time projects directly
to freelancers who bear the full financial risk of vagaries in the market and personal and
health issues (Bellesia et al, 2019; Taylor and Joshi, 2019; Wood et al, 2019b; Anwar and
Graham, 2020; 2021; Dunn et al, 2021) and are responsible for the cost of a variety of
work-related activities, such as breaks, time spent reflecting, training, job searching and
applying, and waiting for work (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016; Wood et al, 2019b; Soriano,
2021; Waldkirch et al, 2021). As a result, they experience feelings of stress and anxiety
(Nawaz et al, 2020; Anwar and Graham, 2021). Fierce competition, resulting from the
oversupply of labour, aggravates these feelings (Beerepoot and Lambregts, 2015; Graham
et al, 2017; Taylor and Joshi, 2019; Wood et al, 2019a; 2019b; Anwar and Graham,
2020; Demirel et al, 2021; Malik et al, 2021; Rahman, 2021). Some freelancers also
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Jorien Oprins
12
suer from social isolation and feelings of loneliness as they regularly work from home,
sometimes at non-standard hours (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016; Graham et al, 2017;
Lehdonvirta et al, 2019; Wood et al, 2019a; Soriano and Cabañes, 2020; Anwar and
Graham, 2020; 2021; Sutherland et al, 2020). Besides, working without colleagues and
a formal employer results in freelancers having to ‘navigate [online freelance platforms]
without much formal guidance from any institutional authority’ (Soriano et al, 2021:
97). Especially, new freelancers find it challenging to discern legitimate platforms and
clients, build a compelling digital portfolio, strategically price their services, bid on and
perform a job online, and manage foreign clients (Graham et al, 2017; Bellesia etal,
2019; Nawaz et al, 2020; Soriano and Cabañes, 2020; Soriano et al, 2021).
A second source of the common challenges experienced by freelancers is the power
asymmetry between freelancers and, on the other hand, online freelance platforms,
clients, and fellow freelancers. To some extent, this is inherent to the nature of
online freelance labour. However, contrary to the previously discussed root cause of
commonly experienced challenges, numerous studies argue that power asymmetry also
stems from the imbalance between demand and supply of online freelance labour, and
is fuelled by what Jarrahi et al (2020) refer to as ‘platformic management’, that is, the
broad set of technological resources and rules wielded by online freelance platforms
to enable and manage work (Jarrahi et al, 2020: 6). The design and implementation
of these resources and rules are at the sole discretion of online freelance platforms
who tend to prioritise their own and clients’ interests over those of freelancers who
lack bargaining power to co-decide (Kinder et al, 2019; Demirel et al, 2021; Rahman
and Valentine, 2021; Soriano, 2021; Wood and Lehdonvirta, 2021).
One example is the reverse auction mechanism. It stimulates a race to the
bottom among freelancers who aim to compete by underbidding each other, as
a result of which clients get to pay less for work (for example, Beerepoot and
Lambregts, 2015; D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016; Graham et al, 2017; Kinder et al,
2019; Nawaz et al, 2020; Anwar and Graham, 2021; Malik et al, 2021; Wood and
Lehdonvirta, 2021). Another example is the ‘lock-in’ eects created by online
freelance platforms (Wood and Lehdonvirta, 2021: 1380). Platforms do not allow
freelancers to establish o-platform relations with clients, nor do they facilitate
freelancers’ transfer to competing platforms as they do not enable inter-platform
transfers of platform reputation (Jarrahi et al, 2020; Sutherland et al, 2020; Bucher
et al, 2021; Rahman, 2021). As a result, freelancers are highly vulnerable to
regulatory changes to platformic management and feel that they have no other
choice than to accept and deal with them (Nemkova et al, 2019; Rahman, 2021;
Soriano, 2021; Wood and Lehdonvirta, 2021; Wood et al, 2021). This is because
they would incur high costs when transferring to a dierent platform since they
cannot take their platform reputation with them, nor can they legally challenge
regulatory changes as online freelance platforms operate in a regulatory vacuum
(Beerepoot and Lambregts, 2015; Graham et al, 2017; Wood et al, 2019b; Rahman,
2021; Wood and Lehdonvirta, 2021).
Besides online freelance platforms, clients also hold significant power over
freelancers, and there are many examples where freelancers are being exploited,
scammed, bullied, and blackmailed with negative ratings and refusal of wages by
clients (for example, Beerepoot and Lambregts, 2015; D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016;
2018a; 2018b; Wood et al, 2018; Kinder et al, 2019; Anwar and Graham, 2020;
2021; Soriano and Cabañes, 2020; Malik et al, 2021; Rahman and Valentine,
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of online freelance labour
13
2021; Dunn et al, 2021; Soriano et al, 2021). This behaviour is fuelled by clients’
awareness of excess labour supply and the substantial impact of reputation systems,
which allow clients to review freelancers after job completion. Freelancers express
that negative valuations seriously hamper their future chances of securing a project
(Kinder et al, 2019; Malik et al, 2021; Rahman, 2021; Rahman and Valentine, 2021).
A third form of power asymmetry manifests itself between freelancers and is
also enabled by platformic management (Jarrahi et al, 2020; Rahman, 2021). On
the one hand, reputation systems create a catch-22 for new freelancers: they need
feedback ratings in order to secure their first job, yet a job is required to generate
feedback ratings. This eect is amplified by algorithmic recommendation systems
that recommend freelancers with the best platform reputation to clients and make
them highly visible on the platform at the cost of less advanced freelancers. As a
result, freelancers take from one month to a year to secure their first job, if they
have not quit trying before that (Beerepoot and Lambregts, 2015; Anwar and
Graham, 2020; 2021; Idowu and Elbanna, 2020; Nawaz et al, 2020; Demirel et al,
2021; Elbanna and Idowu, 2021a; Malik et al, 2021). On the other hand, there are
freelancers who managed to break through the barriers of reputation and algorithmic
recommendation systems and whose competitive position is reinforced by these
systems. They possess the power to secure more work than they can manage. Some
benefit from this position by re-outsourcing portions of work to less advanced
freelancers and taking a margin of the earnings (Graham et al, 2017; Wood et al,
2019b; Idowu and Elbanna, 2020; Jarrahi et al, 2020; Elbanna and Idowu, 2021a;
2021b; Soriano, 2021).
In addition to the common challenges experienced by freelancers, they face
challenges that are specific to their personal characteristics and socioeconomic context
and make them relatively vulnerable to the commonly-experienced challenges. As
such, contrary to the narratives of online freelance platforms that promote online
freelance labour by arguing that it overrides existing inequalities in traditional, oine
labour markets, these platforms are not ‘levelling the playing field for all’ (Demirel et al,
2021). In terms of personal characteristics, there are multiple examples of freelancers
from developing countries experiencing racism and discriminatory hiring practices
by clients based on their nationality (Beerepoot and Lambregts, 2015; D’Cruz and
Noronha, 2016; Graham et al, 2017; Lehdonvirta et al, 2019; Demirel et al, 2021).
Regarding freelancers’ socioeconomic context, freelancers from developed economies
are relatively vulnerable to race-to-the-bottom-wages as they have higher cost of
living (Bellesia et al, 2019; Nemkova et al, 2019; Wood and Lehdonvirta, 2021).
This disadvantage is generally counterbalanced by their competitive advantage with
respect to relatively high levels of economic (assets, property, and material wealth) and
cultural (dispositions, behaviour, and skills) capital (Demirel et al, 2021). Regardless
of the socioeconomic dierences between developed and developing economies,
freelancers struggle more with the inherent precarity of online freelance labour if
they are solely economically dependent on online freelancing, have few alternative
labour opportunities, live in countries without a social safety net, and are not eligible
for social security (Graham et al, 2017; Wood et al, 2019a; Anwar and Graham,
2021; Dunn et al, 2021; Soriano et al, 2021). The same is true for freelancers who
are involved in low-end jobs: they experience fiercer competition and are less able to
build long-term relationships with clients (Beerepoot and Lambregts, 2015; Anwar
and Graham, 2021; Demirel et al, 2021).
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Jorien Oprins
14
Freelancer agency
Researchers generally acknowledge that freelancers are not helpless users of online
freelance platforms who tamely endure the challenges they experience. They show
how freelancers exercise their agency, meaning ‘the intention and practice of taking
action for one’s self-interest’ (Anwar and Graham, 2020: 1272), to overcome these
diculties and benefit from the employment opportunities provided by online
freelance platforms. The review finds that freelancers mostly preserve their self-interest
through individual action that is compliant with or aims to circumvent or subvert
the systemic structures of online freelance labour and platformic management. In
contrast, collective action is rare (see Figure 2).
The individual actions taken in compliance with the systemic structures of online
freelance labour and platformic management illustrate how freelancers play by the
rules of the game. Particularly at the start of their online career, when they need
feedback ratings to establish a good platform reputation, they give in to the race-to-
the-bottom tendencies induced by reverse auction mechanisms and strive to secure
their first job by underbidding other freelancers, sometimes to the extent that they
set lower rates than they believe are fair (Beerepoot and Lambregts, 2015; Graham
et al, 2017; Kinder et al, 2019; Anwar and Graham, 2020; Idowu and Elbanna,
2020; Nawaz et al, 2020; Demirel et al, 2021; Elbanna and Idowu, 2021a, 2021b).
At this stage, freelancers prefer easy, short-term jobs that help them to quickly build
their platform reputation (Kinder et al, 2019; Anwar and Graham, 2020; Idowu
and Elbanna, 2020; Sutherland et al, 2020). Once their online career progresses and
they have gained some bargaining power through feedback ratings, they actively
market themselves based on two aspects of their work, that is, platform reputation
and professional skills.
With respect to platform reputation, freelancers go to great lengths to develop and
preserve it. By scrutinising clients and jobs before applying, they minimize the risk
of ending up in conflictual situations and receiving bad feedback ratings (D’Cruz
and Noronha, 2018b; Kinder et al, 2019; Lehdonvirta et al, 2019; Jarrahi et al, 2020;
Bucher et al, 2021). If freelancers nevertheless do end up in a conflictual situation,
they may turn to platforms for dispute resolution if there is clear, platform-based proof
that they have been wrongfully treated (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2018b). In instances
where proof is marked by ambiguity or platform-based proof is lacking, freelancers
are wary to seek redressal for fear that it may escalate the conflict and the platform
will side with the client, so potentially hampering their continuity on the platform
(D’Cruz and Noronha, 2018a, 2018b; Rahman and Valentine, 2021). Instead, they
often opt to resolve conflicts and avoid negative feedback by oering refunds, carrying
out fixes for free, or billing less hours than worked (Kinder et al, 2019; Lehdonvirta
etal, 2019; Nemkova et al, 2019; Jarrahi et al, 2020; Sutherland et al, 2020; Bucher
et al, 2021; Demirel et al, 2021; Rahman and Valentine, 2021; Waldkirch et al, 2021).
In doing so, they essentially deliver unpaid work. Another solution used by freelancers
to avoid negative feedback is to barter with clients for mutual positive feedback
(Kinder et al, 2019; Bucher et al, 2021). If, despite these strategies, freelancers do
receive negative feedback, they return to the strategies deployed at the start of their
online career to restore their platform reputation, underbidding on easy, short-term
projects (Kinder et al, 2019; Rahman, 2021).
Besides platform reputation, freelancers exercise agency by competing on
professional skills. While Graham et al (2017) voice concerns that commoditized,
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of online freelance labour
15
on-demand work leads to a stagnation of skills development or even downskilling,
the vast majority of studies illustrates how fierce competition on online freelance
platforms serves as a motivational force for professional reskilling and upskilling
(D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016; Abubakar and Shneikat, 2017; Wood et al, 2018; 2019b;
Bellesia etal, 2019; Kinder et al, 2019; Nemkova et al, 2019; Lehdonvirta et al, 2019;
Idowu and Elbanna, 2020; Elbanna and Idowu, 2021a; Malik et al, 2021; Na’in et
al, 2021a; 2021b; Seppänen, 2021; Sutherland et al, 2020; Soriano, 2021; Soriano
et al, 2021; Waldkirch et al, 2021; Taylor and Joshi, 2019; Soriano and Cabañes,
2020). Freelancers broadly develop three types of skills: domain skills (associated
with freelancers’ area of expertise); business skills (managerial and entrepreneurial
skills like bidding and client relationship management); and digital platform skills
(associated with how to navigate online freelance platforms) (Elbanna and Idowu,
2021a). They develop these skills mostly through self-motivated, self-directed, and
informal learning trajectories. Without formal aliations to traditional employers,
they resort to learning from friends and fellow freelancers, instructive books, online
tutorials, training courses, and blogs. They also advance and diversify their skills
through on-the-job learning (Elbanna and Idowu, 2021a; Wood et al, 2018; 2019b;
Nemkova et al, 2019; Taylor and Joshi, 2019; Jarrahi et al, 2020; Soriano, 2021;
Soriano et al, 2021; Waldkirch et al, 2021).
Thus far, this section has focused on freelancers’ individual actions that are in
compliance with systemic structures of online freelance labour and platformic
management. Studies also shows how freelancers circumvent or subvert these structures
and rules if they do not align with their interests. With respect to platform reputation
and algorithmic recommendation systems, they are ‘gaming the system’, for instance,
by having friends hire them for a mock job or breaking up projects into smaller jobs to
gain (additional) positive feedback (Kinder et al, 2019; Sutherland etal, 2020; Elbanna
and Idowu, 2021b). In addition, the fear of negative feedback or desire to circumvent
paying platform fees causes them to take clients o platform (Caraway, 2010; D’Cruz
and Noronha, 2016; Kinder et al, 2019; Wood et al, 2019b; Jarrahi et al, 2020;
Sutherland et al, 2020; Elbanna and Idowu, 2021b; Rahman, 2021). Another strategy
is to build a larger ‘ecosystem of external digital platforms’ (Kinder et al, 2019: 1).
Even though online freelance platforms are designed as self-contained, comprehensive
spaces that are to be used in isolation from other (competing) platforms, freelancers
create accounts on multiple online freelance platforms and use communication (for
example, Skype and email) and file-sharing systems that are not supported by the
platforms through which they work (Jarrahi et al, 2020).
Whether in compliance with or in opposition to systemic structures of online
freelance labour and platformic management, freelancers commonly seek support
and guidance from fellow freelancers (Jarrahi et al, 2020; Soriano and Cabañes, 2020;
Waldkirch et al, 2021; Soriano, 2021; Elbanna and Idowu, 2021b; Soriano et al, 2021).
In the absence of institutional and organisational support, they build informal online
and local oine social networks (Malik et al, 2021; Anwar and Graham, 2020; 2021;
Anwar and Graham, 2021; Kinder et al, 2019; Soriano and Cabañes, 2020; Wood
etal, 2018; Sultana et al, 2019). Through these networks, they commonly sell and
buy accounts, share bidding strategies, re-outsource jobs, run skills-training classes, and
discuss a variety of interpersonal and work-related issues such as life, fair employment
relationships, trust, and dealing with bad clients (Anwar and Graham, 2020). In one
instance, freelancers also voiced their opposition through social media when one of
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Jorien Oprins
16
the largest online freelance platforms doubled their fees (Wood and Lehdonvirta,
2021). In addition, they expressed their opposition through a platform forum when
this platform altered bidding conditions (Caraway, 2010). However, there is no further
academic evidence of collective endeavours by freelancers to defend their self-interest
(Graham et al, 2017; D’Cruz and Noronha, 2018a; Wood et al, 2018; Malik et al,
2021). Even though some freelancers would be interested in collectively organising
their voice towards online freelance platforms and governments (Wood et al, 2018;
2021; Wood and Lehdonvirta, 2021), to date, this has proven to be dicult as they
are spatially dispersed, lack a collective identity and mutual solidarity, or do simply not
believe that the perceived benefits outweigh the cost (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016;
Graham et al, 2017; Wood et al, 2018; 2021; Anwar and Graham, 2021). Besides,
freelancers may not even contemplate the avenues of legislation and collective action
due to ongoing circumstantial discourses and long-standing social cognitions (D’Cruz
and Noronha, 2018a).
While this section has outlined broader findings and commonly used agency
practices, evidently not all freelancers exercise their individual and collective agency
in a similar way. Several studies indicate how the agency of freelancers who are female,
less-educated, from a low-income or migrant background, and work online part-
time, is constrained more than their counterparts. The same is true for freelancers
who oer services for which supply exceeds demand by a relatively wide margin
(D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016; Kinder et al, 2019; Anwar and Graham, 2020; Dunn
et al, 2021; Idowu and Elbanna, 2021; Rahman, 2021). As a result, these freelancers’
agency potential is relatively limited and they take somewhat dierent approaches to
exercising their agency (Anwar and Graham, 2020).
Livelihood outcomes
The employment opportunities provided by online freelance platforms and freelancers’
challenges and agency together determine their livelihood outcomes, that is, their
‘capabilities, assets… and activities required for a means of living’ (Chambers and
Conway, 1992: 6). Following the literature, these outcomes may strongly diverge and
can be portrayed on a continuum from unsuccessful to successful (see Figure 2). On
the one hand, studies provide examples of freelancers who do not manage to break
through the barriers of platform reputation and algorithmic recommendation and,
hence, experience precarity and suer financial, social, and psychological harm, albeit
to dierent degrees (Beerepoot and Lambregts, 2015; Graham et al, 2017; Wood
etal, 2019a; Anwar and Graham, 2020; 2021; Sutherland et al, 2020; Demirel et al,
2021; Dunn et al, 2021; Malik et al, 2021). For example, there are freelancers who
experience a sudden, steep decline in income causing feelings of disempowerment
(Graham et al, 2017). In addition, there is evidence of freelancers working below
their countries’ minimum wage (Wood et al, 2019a) and of freelancers who invested
a considerable amount of time in trying to acquire their first online job but never
actually managed to get one and, thus, never earned a single dollar online (Malik
et al, 2021). In line with these findings, Graham et al (2017:153) argue that online
freelance labour is not a ‘straightforward pathway to economic development for a
broad base of workers’.
On the other hand, using a non-Western perspective and approaching the topic
through the lens of indigenous theory, Elbanna and Idowu (2021b: 11) argue that
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of online freelance labour
17
online freelance labour ‘does not necessarily lead to precarious work’. Through
their research in Nigeria, they find that it can provide a stable income and
sustainable career (see also Elbanna and Idowu, 2021a; Idowu and Elbanna, 2020;
2021) and allows for freelancers’ development of human capital, so expanding their
employment opportunities beyond online freelance platforms (Idowu and Elbanna,
2020; Elbanna and Idowu, 2021a). This then allows for knowledge transfers to
other areas in society (Elbanna and Idowu, 2021a) as well as income transfers to
freelancers’ local economy (Idowu and Elbanna, 2020). In a similar vein, D’Cruz
and Noronha (2016) argue against a dominant Western understanding of online
freelance labour and assert that the experiences of Indian freelancers, which are
generally positive, should be viewed in light of the relatively disadvantageous
features of the local labour market. Nevertheless, it should be noted that ‘Western
scholars’ (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2016: 59) also provide examples of freelancers
from both the Global North and South who would place themselves more toward
the successful end of the continuum and are content that, through online freelance
platforms, they manage to fruitfully maintain or improve their livelihoods (Graham
et al, 2017; Wood et al, 2019a; Anwar and Graham, 2020; 2021; Demirel et al,
2021; Malik et al, 2021).
Agenda for future research
The literature review identifies four main themes in research centering freelancers’
perspectives and sheds light on what is currently known about how freelancers perceive
and navigate their work. It shows that the impact and value of online freelance labour,
as perceived by freelancers, is highly contextualised and not unambiguously ‘good’ or
‘bad’. Moreover, the diverging range of examples of freelancers’ livelihood outcomes
suggests that the benefits of online freelance labour are unequally divided: on the one
hand freelancers with a firmly-established platform reputation who possess the power
to secure a disproportionate share of the work, and on the other hand, freelancers
who lack a good platform reputation and, hence, do not have (a stable) income and
the opportunity to develop themselves. The former group sometimes exploits the
latter group by re-outsourcing portions of work to them and taking a margin of
the earnings, so extracting value. Though some studies indicate factors that aid in
understanding this manifestation of digital inequality, three knowledge gaps can be
identified. First, there is a limited understanding of why some freelancers manage to
become successful and others do not. Second, there is a lack of knowledge on the
distribution of gains or how freelancers are distributed across the livelihood outcomes
continuum (see Figure 2). Third, research on the extent to which freelancers are able
to move along this continuum is limited.
To fill these gaps, research could draw from Heeks’ (2022) conceptual model
of ‘adverse digital incorporation’. This model shifts our attention away from
the traditional understanding of digital inequality in which the focus is on the
contradictions between those who make use of digital systems and those who lack
access to them. Rather, given the growing breadth and depth of digital engagement,
it sets out to understand the complex factors that shape inequalities between users of
digital systems. The model aids in unravelling these complex factors by distinguishing
between four causes: design inequality, resource inequality, institutional inequality,
and relational inequality. In line with Heeks (2022), this article assumes that online
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Jorien Oprins
18
freelance platforms classify as digital systems, and uses these four causes to guide
suggestions for future research on the diverging outcomes between freelancers.
Design inequality
Design inequality refers to inequitable outcomes which emerge when the design of
a digital system causes some groups to have an advantage over others (Heeks, 2022).
As previously illustrated in this article, online freelance platforms possess the sole
power to design the ‘rules of the game’ and, as such, put themselves and clients at
an advantage over freelancers. However, less is known about inequalities between
freelancers caused by the design of online freelance platforms and, in particular, the
reputation and algorithmic recommendation systems operated by many of them. The
synthesis finds that freelancers ascribe high value to their platform reputation as they
feel that their future online career depends on it. This aligns with the author’s own
findings that clients use reputation systems as their main source of information to gauge
the quality of freelancers which, in turn, indicates unequal flows of value between
freelancers with an established versus unestablished platform reputation (Beerepoot
etal, 2023). The question then is: who manages to build a strong platform reputation
and, as a result, is positioned at the end of the livelihood outcomes continuum?
Considering that this requires a substantial investment, for example, accepting lower-
than-fair wages at the start of one’s online freelance career, taking considerable time
to scrutinise clients, and providing unpaid work to satisfy clients, it may well be that
only financially stronger freelancers are able to break through the barriers of platform
reputation. Future research should examine this question in more detail and focus,
more broadly, on the role of platform reputation and algorithmic recommendation
systems in allocating work to financially-strong freelancers at the cost of less financially
powerful freelancers, thereby reinforcing their financial positions. In doing so, a
comparison between online freelance platforms that use fundamentally similar but
slightly dierent systems, could aid in unravelling this complex issue (Heeks, 2022).
Resource inequality
Resource inequality may explain unequal outcomes between online freelancers by
taking their access to financial, human, social, physical, and informational capital
into consideration (Heeks, 2022). The study by Demirel et al (2021) could be
regarded as pioneering research on this topic. As was previously discussed in this
article, it finds that cultural capital plays a central role in freelancers’ success while
social capital is considerably less important. Besides, Anwar and Graham (2020) find
indicatory evidence that financial and human capital determine freelancers’ success.
Nevertheless, research on resource inequality between freelancers is in its infancy,
and future research should contribute to a more thorough understanding of how
freelancers’ resource portfolio contributes to their experiences with online freelance
labour. Besides a specific focus on online freelancers, research on this topic could
benefit from a comparison to more traditional, ‘analogue’ freelancers.
In both instances, particular attention should be paid to freelancers’ development
of human capital. This is because, on the one hand, Demirel et al (2021) find that
there is little room for freelancers to gradually move toward the successful end of
the continuum. In contrast, the literature review highlights how freelancers take
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of online freelance labour
19
substantive eort to develop skills, with the aim to improve their employability and
competitive position on online freelance platforms and, hence, their gains from online
freelance labour. While the studies in this review indicate a wide range of informal
resources used by freelancers, more thorough research is needed on this topic. In
addition, there is a lack of knowledge on how freelancers craft their learning paths,
that is, how they select the skills they want to develop and choose certain training
methods. Future research also needs to explore how freelancers leverage newly-
developed skills to advance their competitive position on online freelance platforms
and how this results in shifts along the livelihoods outcomes continuum.
Institutional inequality
The third dimension, institutional inequality, refers to inequality that is caused by
formal laws and regulations and informal norms and values which favour some
groups over others (Heeks, 2022). Aside from research indicating that a countries’
social safety net (as previously discussed in this article) and informal norms on
social reproductive responsibilities (see Dunn et al, 2021) might help determine
freelancers’ success, little is known about how institutional inequality plays a role in
their diverging positions on the livelihood outcomes continuum. In addition, given
the ‘global auction’ on online freelance platforms (Brown et al, 2010), the lack of
country, and in particular, North-South comparative studies, is surprising. There is
also a lack of academic studies on freelancers in Central and Eastern Europe, where
a significant portion of the online freelance labour force is located (Kuek et al, 2015;
Wallis, 2021; Braesemann et al, 2022). The bias towards studying English language
platforms and, in particular, Upwork and its predecessors, provides a further restriction
in understanding institutional inequality between freelancers. It should be noted,
however, that several studies have been concerned with freelancers from Central
and Eastern Europe, some of whom work via non-English language platforms (see
Shevchuk and Strebkov, 2015; 2018; Shevchuk et al, 2018; 2019; Aleksynska et al,
2019; Piasna and Drahokoupil, 2019; Wallis, 2021). While these studies do not fit
the selection criteria of this research, the economic practices on which they focus
are closely adjacent to online outsourcing and they could therefore provide some
helpful insights.
Finally, it is remarkable that research, to date, has not questioned the employment
status of online freelancers, particularly because it is a prominent topic among
scholars studying related forms of platform labour, particularly transportation
and delivery/home task platform labour (for example, see Drahokoupil and
Fabo, 2016; De Stefano, 2016, and Cant, 2019). Future research should delve
into the normativity of freelancers’ employment status and examine how their
current status feeds into their diverging positions on the livelihood outcomes
continuum. A comparison to related forms of platform labour could help to put
findings into perspective.
Relational inequality
Relational inequality addresses the inequality between capital, that is, online freelance
platforms, and freelancers, rather than between freelancers (Heeks, 2022). The
synthesis illustrates asymmetrical dependencies: while freelancers, on the one hand,
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Jorien Oprins
20
are highly dependent on specific platforms for their income due to lock-in eects,
platforms, on the other hand, are presented with a large excess supply of labour, as
a result of which freelancers can be replaced easily. Consequently, the interests of
freelancers play a marginal role in the design of online freelance platforms, which
is exacerbated by the general absence of collective organisation among freelancers.
However, in November 2021, external eorts were made to defend their interests
when the Fairwork project introduced a set of principles for non-geographically
tethered platform workers to evaluate their working conditions (Fairwork, 2022).
Research could examine how these eorts influence the working conditions of
freelancers, as well as their perceptions of the employment opportunities provided
by online freelance platforms, the challenges they face, their labour agency, and their
livelihood outcomes.
Building on the Fairwork project, action research on how collective organisation of
online freelancers can be successful could help to bring about action and reflection on
the pressing issue of asymmetrical dependencies. Specific attention should be paid to
the lock-in eects on platforms: how can collective action push for the enablement
of inter-platform transfers of the platform reputations of freelancers, in such a way
that online freelance platforms are forced to continuously compete to attract the best
freelancers? This will improve the position of freelancers vis-à-vis platforms.
Conclusion
This article gives an extensive overview of the empirical, academic literature which
focuses on freelancers’ perspectives of online freelance labour, and synthesizes
the findings to identify trends and prevalent themes. In doing so, it aims to gain
an understanding of what, to date, is known about how freelancers perceive and
navigate their work. Besides, it aims to identify knowledge gaps and priorities for
future research.
The article oers three main contributions. First, it identifies four prevailing themes
in the literature focusing on freelancers’ perspectives of their work, and illustrates
how these are related: (1) the employment opportunities and motivating factors to
engage with online freelance labour as perceived by freelancers; (2) how these are
compromised by the challenges they experience; (3) the agency they exercise to
mitigate these challenges; and (4) the resulting livelihood outcomes. Second, the
synthesis suggests that online freelance labour results in unequally-divided livelihood
outcomes. Third, it shows that a detailed understanding of this manifestation of
digital inequality is lacking. To fill this gap, it recommends studying the unequal
distribution of benefits by focusing on four causes as distinguished by the adverse
digital incorporation model, that is, design-, resource-, institutional-, and relational
inequality. Furthermore, it proposes an agenda for future research guided by these
causes. Approaching the gap through these dimensions contributes to a thorough
understanding of inequalities between freelancers. This, in turn, allows for actions by
stakeholders to actually level the playing field on online freelance platforms, rather
than it just being an utopian image used by advocates (Demirel et al, 2021).
We conclude that filling the research gap that is highlighted in this article is not
only for the sake of freelancers involved in online freelance labour. As the platform
economy is progressing in such a way that the question is not only how online
freelance platforms will expand, but also how the platform model will become more
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of online freelance labour
21
ubiquitous in an increasingly wide range of sectors (Baldwin, 2019; Reshaping Work,
2022), it is important to have an understanding of the complex factors that shape
inequality between growing groups of flexible, on-demand workers.
Notes
1 Dened as socio-technical systems of digital data, digital technology, people, and tasks
(Heeks, 2022).
2 Dened as the process of service outsourcing through online freelance platforms (Kuek
et al, 2015; Heeks, 2017).
3 Records refer to the titles or abstracts (or both) of an article indexed in a database (Page
et al, 2021).
Funding
This research was supported by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) Doctoral Grant
for Teachers Programme (no. 023.016.010).
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Niels Beerepoot and Valentina Carraro for their generous comments
and feedback throughout the research and writing process. I would also like to thank
Judith Opitz who helped me set up the database searches and answered my many
questions about this.
Conict of interest
The author declares that there is no conict of interest.
References
Abubakar, A.M. and Shneikat, B.H.T. (2017) Elancing motivations, Online Information
Review, 41(1): 53–69. doi: 10.1108/oir-09-2015-0306
Aleksynska, M., Bastrakova, A. and Kharchenko, N. (2019) Working conditions on
digital labour platforms: evidence from a leading labour supply economy, IZA
Discussion Paper 12245, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), https://www.econstor.
eu/bitstream/10419/196743/1/dp12245.pdf.
Anwar, M.A. and Graham, M. (2020) Hidden transcripts of the gig economy: labour
agency and the new art of resistance among African gig workers, Environment and
Planning A: Economy and Space, 52(7): 1269–91. doi: 10.1177/0308518x19894584
Anwar, M.A. and Graham, M. (2021) Between a rock and a hard place: freedom,
exibility, precarity and vulnerability in the gig economy in Africa, Competition &
Change, 25(2): 237–58. doi: 10.1177/1024529420914473
Arksey, H. and O’Malley, L. (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological
framework, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1): 19–32. doi:
10.1080/1364557032000119616
Baldwin, R. (2019) The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Robotics, and the Future of
Work, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beerepoot, N. and Lambregts, B. (2015) Competition in online job marketplaces:
towards a global labour market for outsourcing services?, Global Networks, 15(2):
236–55. doi: 10.1111/glob.12051
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Jorien Oprins
22
Beerepoot, N. and Oprins, J. (2022) Online freelancing and impact sourcing: examining
the inclusive development potential of online service work in the Philippines,
Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 88(2): e12204. doi:
10.1002/isd2.12204
Beerepoot, N., Lambregts, B. and Oprins, J. (2023) Digital reputation, skills and
uncertainty reduction on global digital labour platforms, Work Organisation, Labour
& Globalisation, 17(2): 7–26. doi: 10.13169/workorgalaboglob.17.2.0007
Bellesia, F., Mattarelli, E., Bertolotti, F. and Sobrero, M. (2019) Platforms as
entrepreneurial incubators? How online labor markets shape work identity, Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 34(4): 246–68. doi: 10.1108/jmp-06-2018-0269
Berger, T., Frey, C.B., Levin, G. and Danda, S.R. (2019) Uber happy? Work and well-
being in the ‘gig economy’, Economic Policy, 34(99): 429–77. doi: 10.1093/epolic/
eiz007
Braesemann, F., Stephany, F., Teutlo, O., Kässi, O., Graham, M. and Lehdonvirta, V.
(2022) The global polarisation of remote work, PloS One, 17(10): e0274630. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0274630
Brown, P., Lauder, H. and Ashton, D. (2010) The Global Auction: The Broken Promises
of Education, Jobs, and Incomes, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acpr
of:oso/9780199731688.001.0001
Bucher, E.L., Schou, P.K. and Waldkirch, M. (2021) Pacifying the algorithm:
anticipatory compliance in the face of algorithmic management in the gig economy,
Organization, 28(1): 44–67. doi: 10.1177/1350508420961531
Cant, C. (2019) Riding for Deliveroo: Resistance in the New Economy, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Caraway, B. (2010) Online labour markets: an inquiry into oDesk providers,
Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation, 4(2): 111–25. doi: 10.13169/
workorgalaboglob.4.2.0111
Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical
Concepts for the 21st Century, IDS Discussion Paper 296, Brighton, Institute of
Development Studies.
D’Cruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2016) Positives outweighing negatives: the experiences
of Indian crowdsourced workers, Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation, 10(1):
44–63. doi: 10.13169/workorgalaboglob.10.1.0044
D’Cruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2018a) Abuse on online labour markets: targets’ coping,
power and control, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 13(1):
53–78. doi: 10.1108/qrom-10-2016-1426
D’Cruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2018b) Target experiences of workplace bullying on
online labour markets: uncovering the nuances of resilience, Employee Relations,
40(1): 139–54. doi: 10.1108/er-09-2016-0171
De Stefano, V. (2016) The rise of the ‘just-in time workforce’: on-demand work,
crowd work and labor protection in the ‘gig-economy’, Comparative Labor Law &
Policy Journal, 37(3): 461–71.
De Stefano, V. and Aloisi, A. (2018) European Legal Framework for Digital Labour Platforms,
Luxembourg: European Commission. doi: 10.2760/78590
Demirel, P., Nemkova, E. and Taylor, R. (2021) Reproducing global inequalities in
the online labour market: valuing capital in the design eld, Work, Employment and
Society, 35(5): 914–30. doi: 10.1177/0950017020942447
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of online freelance labour
23
Drahokoupil, J. and Fabo, B. (2016) The platform economy and the disruption of
the employment relationship, ETUI Research Paper-Policy Brief, 5. doi: 10.2139/
ssrn.2809517
Du, W. and Mao, J. (2018) Developing and maintaining clients’ trust through institutional
mechanisms in online service markets for digital entrepreneurs: a process model,
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(4): 296–310. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2018.07.001
Dunn, M., Munoz, I. and Sawyer, S. (2021) Gender dierences and lost exibility in
online freelancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, Frontiers in Sociology, 6. doi:
10.3389/fsoc.2021.738024
Elbanna, A. and Idowu, A. (2021a) Crowdwork as an elevator of human capital: a
sustainable human development perspective, Scandinavian Journal of Information
Systems, 33(2): 4.
Elbanna, A. and Idowu, A. (2021b) Crowdwork, digital liminality and the
enactment of culturally recognised alternatives to Western precarity: beyond
epistemological terra nullius, European Journal of Information Systems, 31(1): 128–44.
doi: 10.1080/0960085x.2021.1981779
European Parliament (2017) The social protection of workers in the platform
economy (Report no. IP/A/EMPL/2016-11 PE 614.184). Policy Department
A: Economic and Scientic Policy, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/
etudes/STUD/2017/614184/IPOL_STU(2017)614184_EN.pdf.
Fairwork (2022, November) Cloudwork (Online Platform Work) Principles, https://
fair.work/en/fw/principles/cloudwork-principles/.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in
inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology, Organizational Research Methods,
16(1): 15–31. doi: 10.1177/1094428112452151
Graham, M., Hjorth, I. and Lehdonvirta, V. (2017) Digital labour and development:
impacts of global digital labour platforms and the gig economy on worker
livelihoods, Transfer, 23(2): 135–62. doi: 10.1177/1024258916687250
Heeks, R. (2017, August) Digital economy and digital labour terminology: making
sense of the ‘gig economy’, ‘online labour’, ‘crowd work’, ‘microwork’, ‘platform
labour’, etc., Development Informatics Working Paper 70, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3431728
Heeks, R. (2022) Digital inequality beyond the digital divide: conceptualizing adverse
digital incorporation in the global South, Information Technology for Development,
28(4): 688–704. doi: 10.1080/02681102.2022.2068492
Howcroft, D. and Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. (2019) A typology of crowdwork platforms,
Work, Employment and Society, 33(1): 21–38. doi: 10.1177/0950017018760136
Huws, U., Spencer, N.H. and Syrdal, D.S. (2018) Online, on call: the spread of digitally
organised just‐in‐time working and its implications for standard employment models,
New Technology, Work and Employment, 33(2): 113–29. doi: 10.1111/ntwe.12111
Idowu, A. and Elbanna, A. (2020) Digital platforms of work and the crafting of career
path: the crowdworkers’ perspective, Information Systems Frontiers, 24: 441–57. doi:
10.1007/s10796-020-10036-1
Idowu, A. and Elbanna, A. (2021) Crowdworkers, social armation and work identity:
Rethinking dominant assumptions of crowdwork, Information and Organization,
31(4): 100335. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100335
ILO (International Labour Organisation) (2019) Work for a Brighter Future, Report of the
Global Commission on the Future of Work, Geneva: International Labour Organisation.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Jorien Oprins
24
Jarrahi, M.H., Sutherland, W., Nelson, S.B. and Sawyer, S. (2020) Platformic
management, boundary resources for gig work, and worker autonomy, Computer
Supported Cooperative Work, 29(1): 153–89. doi: 10.1007/s10606-019-09368-7
Kalleberg, A.L. and Dunn, M. (2016) Good jobs, bad jobs in the gig economy, LERA
for Libraries, 20(1-2).
Kässi, O. and Lehdonvirta, V. (2018) Online labour index: measuring the online gig
economy for policy and research, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137:
241–48. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.056
Kässi, O., Lehdonvirta, V. and Stephany, F. (2021) How many online workers are there
in the world? A data-driven assessment, Open Research Europe, 1(53). doi: 10.12688/
openreseurope.13639.4
Keith, M.G., Harms, P. and Tay, L. (2019) Mechanical Turk and the gig economy:
exploring dierences between gig workers, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(4):
286–306. doi: 10.1108/jmp-06-2018-0228
Kinder, E., Jarrahi, M.H. and Sutherland, W. (2019) Gig platforms, tensions, alliances
and ecosystems: an actor-network perspective, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-
Computer Interaction, 3: 212. doi: 10.1145/3359314
Kuek, S.C., Paradi-Guilford, C., Fayomi, T., Imaizumi, S., Ipeirotis, P., Pina, P. and Singh,
M. (2015) The Global Opportunity in Online Outsourcing, Washington, DC: World Bank.
Lehdonvirta, V., Kässi, O., Hjorth, I., Barnard, H. and Graham, M. (2019)
The global platform economy: a new offshoring institution enabling
emerging-economy microproviders, Journal of Management, 45(2): 567–99. doi:
10.1177/0149206318786781
Linnenluecke, M.K., Marrone, M. and Singh, A.K. (2020) Conducting systematic
literature reviews and bibliometric analyses, Australian Journal of Management, 45(2):
175–94. doi: 10.1177/0312896219877678
Malik, F., Heeks, R., Masiero, S. and Nicholson, B. (2021) Digital labour platforms
in Pakistan: institutional voids and solidarity networks, Information Technology and
People, 34(7): 1819–39. doi: 10.1108/itp-04-2020-0218
Na’in, N., Husin, M.H. and Baharudin, A.S. (2021a) Technological factors facilitating B40’s
motivation in Malaysia to continue using online crowdsourcing platform, Journal of Asian
Finance, Economics and Business, 8(8): 117–26. doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no8.0117
Na’in, N., Husin, M.H. and Baharudin, A.S. (2021b) Online crowdsourcing platform
continuous participation during COVID-19: a low-income group perspective
in Malaysia, Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(10): 317–26. doi:
10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no10.0317
Nawaz, Z., Zhang, J., Mansoor, R., Hafeez, S. and Ilmudeen, A. (2020) Freelancers as
part-time employees: dimensions of FVP and FJS in e-lancing platforms, South Asian
Journal of Human Resources Management, 7(1): 34–60. doi: 10.1177/2322093720908453
Nemkova, E., Demirel, P. and Baines, L. (2019) In search of meaningful work on
digital freelancing platforms: the case of design professionals, New Technology, Work
and Employment, 34(3): 226–43. doi: 10.1111/ntwe.12148
Okoli, C. (2015) A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature
review, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(1): 43. doi:
10.17705/1cais.03743
Page, M.J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Homann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D. et al
(2021) PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars
for reporting systematic reviews, BMJ, 372: n160.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of online freelance labour
25
Piasna, A. and Drahokoupil, J. (2019) Digital labour in Central and Eastern
Europe: evidence from the ETUI Internet and Platform Work Survey,
Working Paper 2019.12, European Trade Union Institute, https://ssrn.com/
abstract=3500717.
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
(nd) https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020-ow-diagram.
Rahman, H.A. (2021) The invisible cage: workers’ reactivity to opaque
algorithmic evaluations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(4): 945–88. doi:
10.1177/00018392211010118
Rahman, H.A. and Valentine, M.A. (2021) How managers maintain control through
collaborative repair: evidence from platform-mediated ‘Gigs’, Organization Science,
32(5): 1300–26. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1428
Reshaping Work (2022) Navigating diverse forms of work: how to advance decent
and fair work, https://reshapingwork.net/dialogue/2021-report/.
Schmidt, F.A. (2017) Digital Labour Markets in the Platform Economy: Mapping the Political
Challenges of Crowd Work and Gig Work, Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Seppänen, L., Spinuzzi, C., Poutanen, S. and Alasoini, T. (2021) Co-creation in
macrotask knowledge work on online labor platforms, Nordic Journal of Working
Life Studies, 11(2): 77–98. doi: 10.18291/njwls.123166
Shevchuk, A. and Strebkov, D. (2015) The rise of freelance contracting on the
Russian-language internet, Small Enterprise Research, 22(2–3): 146–58. doi:
10.1080/13215906.2015.1052341
Shevchuk, A. and Strebkov, D. (2018) Safeguards against opportunism in freelance
contracting on the internet, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 56(2): 342–69. doi:
10.1111/bjir.12283
Shevchuk, A., Strebkov, D. and Davis, S.N. (2018) Work value orientations and worker
well-being in the new economy: implications of the job demands-resources model
among internet freelancers, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 38(9/10):
736–53. doi: 10.1108/ijssp-01-2018-0006
Shevchuk, A., Strebkov, D. and Davis, S.N. (2019) The autonomy paradox: how night
work undermines subjective well-being of internet-based freelancers, ILR Review,
72(1): 75–100. doi: 10.1177/0019793918767114
Soriano, C.R., Cabalquinto, E.C. and Panaligan, J.H. (2021) Performing ‘digital labor
bayanihan’: strategies of inuence and survival in the platform economy, Sociologias,
23(57): 84–111. doi: 10.1590/15174522-113027
Soriano, C.R.R. (2021) Digital labour in the Philippines: emerging forms of brokerage,
Media International Australia, 179(1): 23–37. doi: 10.1177/1329878x21993114
Soriano, C.R.R. and Cabañes, J.V.A. (2020) Entrepreneurial solidarities: social media
collectives and Filipino digital platform workers, Social Media & Society, 6(2). doi:
10.1177/2056305120926484
Spilda, F.U., Howson, K., Johnston, H.E., Bertolini, A., Feuerstein, P., Bezuidenhout,
et al (2022) Is anonymity dead? Doing critical research on digital labour platforms
through platform interfaces, Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation, 16(1): 72–87.
doi: 10.13169/workorgalaboglob.16.1.0072
Stephany, F., Kässi, O., Rani, U. and Lehdonvirta, V. (2021) Online Labour Index 2020:
new ways to measure the world’s remote freelancing market, Big Data & Society,
8(2). doi: 10.1177/20539517211043240
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Jorien Oprins
26
Sultana, R., Im, I. and Im, K.S. (2019) Do IT freelancers increase their entrepreneurial
behavior and performance by using IT self-ecacy and social capital? Evidence
from Bangladesh, Information and Management, 56(6). doi: 10.1016/j.im.2018.12.001
Sutherland, W., Jarrahi, M.H., Dunn, M. and Nelson, S.B. (2020) Work precarity and
gig literacies in online freelancing, Work, Employment and Society, 34(3): 457–75.
doi: 10.1177/0950017019886511
Taylor, J. and Joshi, K.D. (2019) Joining the crowd: the career anchors of information
technology workers participating in crowdsourcing, Information Systems Journal,
29(3): 641–73. doi: 10.1111/isj.12225
Tintiangko, J. and Soriano, C.R. (2020) Coworking spaces in the Global South:
local articulations and imaginaries, Journal of Urban Technology, 27(1): 67–85. doi:
10.1080/10630732.2019.1696144
Traneld, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003) Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review, British
Journal of Management, 14(3): 207–22.
Vallas, S. and Schor, J.P. (2020) What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy,
Annual Review of Sociology, 46(16): 1–22. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857
Wagner, G., Prester, J. and Paré, G. (2021) Exploring the boundaries and processes of
digital platforms for knowledge work: a review of information systems research,
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 30(4): 101694. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2021.101694
Waldkirch, M., Bucher, E., Schou, P.K. and Grünwald, E. (2021) Controlled by the
algorithm, coached by the crowd: how HRM activities take shape on digital work
platforms in the gig economy, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
32(12): 2643–82. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2021.1914129
Wallis, M. (2021) Digital labour and social reproduction: crowdwork in Germany and
Romania, Spheres: Journal for Digital Cultures, 6: 1–14. doi: 10.25969/mediarep/18038
Wood, A.J. and Lehdonvirta, V. (2021) Antagonism beyond employment: how the
‘subordinated agency’ of labour platforms generates conict in the remote gig
economy, Socio-Economic Review, 19(4): 1369–96. doi: 10.1093/ser/mwab016
Wood, A.J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V. and Hjorth, I. (2019a) Good gig, bad gig:
autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy, Work, Employment
and Society, 33(1): 56–75. doi: 10.1177/0950017018785616
Wood, A.J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V. and Hjorth, I. (2019b) Networked but
commodied: the (dis)embeddedness of digital labour in the gig economy, Sociology,
53(5): 931–50. doi: 10.1177/0038038519828906
Wood, A.J., Lehdonvirta, V. and Graham, M. (2018) Workers of the Internet unite?
Online freelancer organisation among remote gig economy workers in six Asian
and African countries, New Technology, Work and Employment, 33(2): 95–112. doi:
10.1111/ntwe.12112
Wood, A.J., Martindale, N. and Lehdonvirta, V. (2021) Dynamics of contention in the
gig economy: rage against the platform, customer or state? New Technology, Work and
Employment, 38(2): 330–50. doi: 10.1111/ntwe.12216
World Bank (2019) The Changing Nature of Work: World Development Report 2019,
Washington, DC: World Bank, https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/
wdr2019.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
Uncovering the uneven livelihood outcomes of online freelance labour
27
Appendix
Search strings
Search string Scopus
“online labo*r” OR “microwork*” OR “online outsourcing” OR “microsourcing” OR “micro
sourcing” OR “elancing” OR “e lancing” OR “elance” OR “e lance” OR “elancer” OR “e
lancer” OR “digital labo*r” OR “online freelanc*” OR “digital freelanc*” OR “online service
marketplace*” OR “microprovid*” OR “micro provid*” OR “crowdwork*” OR “crowd work*”
Search string SocINDEX and Business Source Premier
TI (“online labo#r” OR “microwork*” OR “online outsourcing” OR “microsourcing” OR “micro
sourcing” OR “elancing” OR “e lancing” OR “elance” OR “e lance” OR “elancer” OR “e
lancer” OR “digital labo#r” OR “online freelanc*” OR “digital freelanc*” OR “online service
market*” OR “microprovid*” OR “micro provid*” OR “crowdwork*” OR “crowd work*”) OR AB
(“online labo#r” OR “microwork*” OR “online outsourcing” OR “microsourcing” OR “micro
sourcing” OR “elancing” OR “e lancing” OR “elance” OR “e lance” OR “elancer” OR “e
lancer” OR “digital labo#r” OR “online freelanc*” OR “digital freelanc*” OR “online service
market*” OR “microprovid*” OR “micro provid*” OR “crowdwork*” OR “crowd work*”) OR
KW (“online labo#r” OR “microwork*” OR “online outsourcing” OR “microsourcing” OR
“micro sourcing” OR “elancing” OR “e lancing” OR “elance” OR “e lance” OR “elancer”
OR “e lancer” OR “digital labo#r” OR “online freelanc*” OR “digital freelanc*” OR “online
service market*” OR “microprovid*” OR “micro provid*” OR “crowdwork*” OR “crowd work*”)
OR SU (“online labo#r” OR “microwork*” OR “online outsourcing” OR “microsourcing” OR
“micro sourcing” OR “elancing” OR “e lancing” OR “elance” OR “e lance” OR “elancer” OR
“e lancer” OR “digital labo#r” OR “online freelanc*” OR “digital freelanc*” OR “online ser-
vice market*” OR “microprovid*” OR “micro provid*” OR “crowdwork*” OR “crowd work*”)
Search string Web of Science:
TS=(“online labo$r” OR “microwork*” OR “online outsourcing” OR “microsourcing” OR
“micro sourcing” OR “elancing” OR “e lancing” OR “elance” OR “e lance” OR “elancer” OR
“e lancer” OR “digital labo$r” OR “online freelanc*” OR “digital freelanc*” OR “online ser-
vice market*” OR “microprovid*” OR “micro provid*” OR “crowdwork*” OR “crowd work*”)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 08/17/24 02:04 PM UTC
