IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/woemps/v33y2019i4p631-647.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Dirty Work be Satisfying? A Mixed Method Study of Workers Doing Dirty Jobs

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Deery

    (King’s College London, UK)

  • Deanna Kolar

    (Purdue University, USA)

  • Janet Walsh

    (King’s College London, UK)

Abstract

It has been argued in this journal that sociologists can make an important contribution to the understanding of why workers report feeling satisfied with their work, particularly where job quality is poor. Utilising a mixed method approach, this article explores how employees derive satisfaction from dirty work. The term ‘dirty work’ refers to tasks and occupations that are perceived as disgusting, distasteful or degrading. The research was conducted among workers specialising in the cleaning of abandoned social or public housing apartments in high crime areas in the UK and the USA. The study identifies a number of different mechanisms through which workers are able to make work both more satisfying and establish a sense of self-worth from the tasks they perform, even though dirt and physical taint are central to the job.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Deery & Deanna Kolar & Janet Walsh, 2019. "Can Dirty Work be Satisfying? A Mixed Method Study of Workers Doing Dirty Jobs," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 33(4), pages 631-647, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:33:y:2019:i:4:p:631-647
    DOI: 10.1177/0950017018817307
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0950017018817307
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0950017018817307?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
    ---><---

    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:woemps:v:33:y:2019:i:4:p:631-647. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/ .

    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.