IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/treure/v28y2022i4p457-473.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reflecting the changing world of work? A critique of existing survey measures and a proposal for capturing new ways of working

Author

Listed:
  • Yvonne Lott

    (Hans-Böckler Foundation, Germany)

  • Clare Kelliher

    (Cranfield University, UK)

  • Heejung Chung

    (University of Kent, UK)

Abstract

In recent decades we have seen significant and varied changes in the world of work. Most prominent among these is the diminishing prevalence of the standard employment relationship. These changes challenge traditional notions of what constitute ‘employment’, ‘employers’, ‘employees’, the ‘workplace’ and the ‘working day’. Many current survey instruments are still based on the concept of the standard employment relationship, however. This article illustrates some limitations of existing conceptualisations and definitions of flexible work arrangements and of the instruments used to measure them in major surveys. It also suggests ways of tackling these limitations. The aim of highlighting potential limitations of existing survey instruments is to enable data users to be more reflective about what the results actually do and do not report, and to encourage survey designers to modify existing instruments and develop new instruments to better capture contemporary realities, including multiple jobholding and internet and platform work.

Suggested Citation

  • Yvonne Lott & Clare Kelliher & Heejung Chung, 2022. "Reflecting the changing world of work? A critique of existing survey measures and a proposal for capturing new ways of working," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 28(4), pages 457-473, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:treure:v:28:y:2022:i:4:p:457-473
    DOI: 10.1177/10242589221130597
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10242589221130597
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10242589221130597?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jim Stanford, 2017. "The resurgence of gig work: Historical and theoretical perspectives," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 28(3), pages 382-401, September.
    2. John Leopold & Luchien Karsten & David Alis, 2006. "From Gods to Goddesses," Post-Print halshs-00083950, HAL.
    3. Heejung Chung, 2020. "Gender, Flexibility Stigma and the Perceived Negative Consequences of Flexible Working in the UK," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 521-545, September.
    4. Heejung Chung & Tanja Lippe, 2020. "Flexible Working, Work–Life Balance, and Gender Equality: Introduction," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 365-381, September.
    5. Heejung Chung & Mariska van der Horst, 2020. "Flexible Working and Unpaid Overtime in the UK: The Role of Gender, Parental and Occupational Status," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 495-520, September.
    6. Yvonne Lott, 2020. "Does Flexibility Help Employees Switch Off from Work? Flexible Working-Time Arrangements and Cognitive Work-to-Home Spillover for Women and Men in Germany," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 471-494, September.
    7. Den Dulk, Laura & Groeneveld, Sandra & Ollier-Malaterre, Ariane & Valcour, Monique, 2013. "National context in work-life research: A multi-level cross-national analysis of the adoption of workplace work-life arrangements in Europe," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 478-494.
    8. Dharma Raju Bathini & George Mathew Kandathil, 2019. "An Orchestrated Negotiated Exchange: Trading Home-Based Telework for Intensified Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 411-423, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Senhu Wang & Lambert Zixin Li & Zhuofei Lu & Shuanglong Li & David Rehkopf, 2022. "Work Schedule Control and Allostatic Load Biomarkers: Disparities Between and Within Gender," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 1249-1267, October.
    2. Smyth, Emer & Russell, Helen, 2021. "Fathers and children from infancy to middle childhood," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS130, June.
    3. Charlotte K. Marx & Mareike Reimann & Martin Diewald, 2021. "Do Work–Life Measures Really Matter? The Impact of Flexible Working Hours and Home-Based Teleworking in Preventing Voluntary Employee Exits," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Amina Amari & Mohamed Mousa & Walid Chaouali & Zohra Ghali-Zinoubi & Narjess Aloui, 2023. "Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde? Unpacking the Effects of Flexitime and Flexiplace: a Study on MENA Region," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1333-1352, December.
    5. Emma Brulin & Sofie Bjärntoft & Gunnar Bergström & David M. Hallman, 2023. "Gendered Associations of Flexible Work Arrangement and Perceived Flexibility with Work–Life Interference: A Cross-Sectional Mediation Analysis on Office Workers in Sweden," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 571-588, June.
    6. Beata Osiewalska & Anna Matysiak & Anna Kurowska, 2022. "When are women who work from home more likely to have children?," Working Papers 2022-13, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    7. Heejung Chung & Hyojin Seo & Holly Birkett & Sarah Forbes, 2022. "Working from Home and the Division of Childcare and Housework among Dual-Earner Parents during the Pandemic in the UK," Merits, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-23, October.
    8. Aga Kasperska & Anna Matysiak & Ewa Cukrowska-Torzewska, 2023. "Managerial Preferences towards Employees Working from Home: Post-Pandemic Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 2023-16, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    9. Agnieszka Kasperska, 2022. "Working from Home and Employee Perception of Career Prospects in Europe: the Gender and Family Perspectives," Working Papers 2022-31, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    10. Zhuofei Lu & Senhu Wang & Yaojun Li & Xiyuan Liu & Wendy Olsen, 2023. "Who Gains Mental Health Benefits from Work Autonomy? The Roles of Gender and Occupational Class," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 1761-1783, August.
    11. Heejung Chung & Cara Booker, 2023. "Flexible Working and the Division of Housework and Childcare: Examining Divisions across Arrangement and Occupational Lines," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 37(1), pages 236-256, February.
    12. Malik, Ashish & Mahadevan, Jasmin & Sharma, Piyush & Nguyen, Tuyet-Mai, 2021. "Masking, claiming and preventing innovation in cross-border B2B relationships: Neo-colonial frameworks of power in global IT industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 327-339.
    13. Shen-Tsu Wang, 2016. "Analysis of Life Context of On-Line Group-Buying Population by Dynamic Decision," Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, Asian Online Journal Publishing Group, vol. 3(3), pages 173-181.
    14. Suzan Lewis & Deirdre Anderson & Clare Lyonette & Nicola Payne & Stephen Wood, 2017. "Public sector austerity cuts in Britain and the changing discourse of work–life balance," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 31(4), pages 586-604, August.
    15. John Burgess & Julia Connell, 2020. "New technology and work: Exploring the challenges," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 31(3), pages 310-323, September.
    16. Ariane Pailhé & Anne Solaz, 2019. "Is there a wage cost for employees in family‐friendly workplaces? The effect of different employer policies," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 688-721, June.
    17. Paul Dalziel, 2019. "Wellbeing economics in public policy: A distinctive Australasian contribution?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 30(4), pages 478-497, December.
    18. Tachia Chin & Yi Shi & Manlio Giudice & Jianwei Meng & Zeyu Xing, 2023. "Working from anywhere: yin–yang cognition paradoxes of knowledge sharing and hiding for developing careers in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Krenz, Astrid & Strulik, Holger, 2022. "Automation and the fall and rise of the servant economy," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 431, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    20. Zhuofei Lu & Senhu Wang & Wendy Olsen, 2023. "Revisiting the ‘flexibility paradox’: degree of work schedule flexibility and time use patterns across gender and occupational groups," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:treure:v:28:y:2022:i:4:p:457-473. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.