Are You Really Your Own Boss? Flexi-Vulnerability and False Consciousness of Autonomy in the Digital Labor Culture of Riders
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see my comments and suggestions below:
- Add citations: e.g.: LL: 37, 47, 49, 52, 54, etc…
- Please clarify: L: 375 Random sampling or snowball sampling mentioned in line 330?
- Analysis (l: 493) – This section is about results again than analysis, I’d suggest adding “Analysis” earlier in the paper as part of Materials and Methods, to explain what and how they conducted the analysis for both quantitative and qualitative data before starting presenting the results aka analysis and discussion (ll: 364-…)
- I would suggest presenting findings first and then incorporating them into the discussion section and maybe then merging the discussion with the conclusion. Right now, the conclusion is a summary of findings that does not provide any added value to the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your kind comments. Hereby we respond to your suggestions:
- Add citations: e.g.: LL: 37, 47, 49, 52, 54, etc…
Thank you very much for this recommendation. Throughout the article we have made reference to all the citations we have consulted, so we understand that we have not incurred in lack of citations. In your case, we have heeded your recommendation and have included some references that could help to complete the main debate in our proposal, on the ambiguous nature of the rider as self-employed or salaried. We have done so by including citations on line 37.
- Please clarify: L: 375 Random sampling or snowball sampling mentioned in line 330?
Thank you for your appreciation. It was a transcription error. It is snowball sampling as mentioned before. We have corrected the reference to random sample on line 375.
- Analysis (l: 493) – This section is about results again than analysis, I’d suggest adding “Analysis” earlier in the paper as part of Materials and Methods, to explain what and how they conducted the analysis for both quantitative and qualitative data before starting presenting the results aka analysis and discussion (ll: 364-…)
Thank you for your recommendation. To facilitate the reading and comprehension of the article's structure, we have taken your suggestion into account. In the Materials and Methods section, we have included two subsections: Quantitative Approach and Qualitative Approach. This provides a clearer view of the two methodologies used.
Regarding the issue of Analysis, to avoid confusion, we have chosen to name this section (after Materials and Methods) as "Results and Discussion." This way, we first present the results (primarily from the survey, describing the sample), and then we analyze (Discussion), including the interviews, in the sections we have outlined to enhance clarity in reading.
- I would suggest presenting findings first and then incorporating them into the discussion section and maybe then merging the discussion with the conclusion. Right now, the conclusion is a summary of findings that does not provide any added value to the paper.
Thank you very much for this recommendation. We agree that the conclusions had remained as a presentation of the results, and perhaps they had not been sufficiently developed. We have taken your recommendation into account, and you will see that we have reformulated the conclusions. Specifically, we have expanded the meaning and analysis of the concept of flexi-vulnerability, which we understand to be crucial in our proposal. Additionally, we have included a final paragraph with considerations to be taken into account in future studies in this field.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for this interesting article concerning an actual topic.
Specific comments
Line 21. A key word is ‘gig economy’, but this is not explained in the article (a bit in the section ‘Conclusion’, but it should be addressed earlier in the article). So, what is a gig economy?
Line 70, the authors write ‘They serve as intermediaries for a variety of flows, although certain precarious situations (Sherman 2016) prevent us from affirming that their process of intermediation is as successful as in other sectors of capitalism.’ What is meant with ‘precarious situations? Can you give an example?
Line 324, concerning the sample for the survey of the free riders, how did the authors/researchers know they were dealing with a rider? Did they consult the platform owners for this, or otherwise (so at the start, before the snowballing method was used)?
Line 346, concerning the qualitative research. Is there an overlap of riders that took part in the survey, and the riders that were interviewed? What were the criteria on which the interviewee were selected, and where were they ‘recruted’. Have one or more test interviews been held, to come up to the criterium of construct validity? How were the interviews analysed? First transcription and then coding? This remains unclear to me. Further, it is good to read that interviews continued till saturation occurred.
Line 404, an interviewee says ‘"I have trained myself in personal development matters. Actually, I would like to have a center where I can teach yoga" (E8, 41 years old).’An interesting topic for future research, a section that still has to be added to the article, would be concerning the ‘dreams’ these people have, as this illustrative citation makes clear that being a rider is not his/her dream job.
Line 492, Table 2. Although I can read Spanish, I do not know if most readers are capable of doing the same. So, I would recommend to translate the table into English.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your kind comments. Hereby I respond to your suggestions:
Specific comments
Line 21. A key word is ‘gig economy’, but this is not explained in the article (a bit in the section ‘Conclusion’, but it should be addressed earlier in the article). So, what is a gig economy?
- Thank you for your comment, In line 21 we have qualified "in the so-called 'gig' economy". In addition, we include in the introduction a definition and characteristics of what this gig economy means (lines 39-52). We included some relevant citations.
Line 70, the authors write ‘They serve as intermediaries for a variety of flows, although certain precarious situations (Sherman 2016) prevent us from affirming that their process of intermediation is as successful as in other sectors of capitalism.’ What is meant with ‘precarious situations? Can you give an example?
Thank you for your appreciation. We have decided to remove that last sentence that closed the paragraph because, as you pointed out, it leads to some confusion and did not provide more information to what is stated in the paragraph.
Line 324, concerning the sample for the survey of the free riders, how did the authors/researchers know they were dealing with a rider? Did they consult the platform owners for this, or otherwise (so at the start, before the snowballing method was used)?
Thank you. As we say in line 340, the first contact with the riders was made in person. We visited the meeting points where riders expect to receive orders (at the door of restaurants and other places where goods are picked up). At that point, they were asked to complete the survey and phone numbers were exchanged with the intention of following up and verifying that they completed the survey. To clarify this point, we have explained on line 340 where these personal contacts were.
Line 346, concerning the qualitative research. Is there an overlap of riders that took part in the survey, and the riders that were interviewed? What were the criteria on which the interviewee were selected, and where were they ‘recruted’. Have one or more test interviews been held, to come up to the criterium of construct validity?
For the selection of the 15 in-depth interviews, some of the respondents were taken into account, so that a heterogeneous selection was made (according to gender, age, experience and self-employed or salaried status). The saturation criterion already mentioned led us to conclude the interview process.
How were the interviews analysed? First transcription and then coding? This remains unclear to me. Further, it is good to read that interviews continued till saturation occurred.
Thank you. As we set out in lines 363-366:
"The content and thematic blocks of the interviews have been designed based on the previous study of consultation of primary sources, scientific articles in this field of study, as well as the experience obtained from the exploratory pilot work carried out in the city of Murcia (López-Martínez, Haz-Gómez, and Manzanera-Román 2022)".
However, taking into account your suggestion we have included a paragraph specifying transcription, coding and categories of interviews (lines 367-375).
Line 404, an interviewee says ‘"I have trained myself in personal development matters. Actually, I would like to have a center where I can teach yoga" (E8, 41 years old).’An interesting topic for future research, a section that still has to be added to the article, would be concerning the ‘dreams’ these people have, as this illustrative citation makes clear that being a rider is not his/her dream job.
Thank you very much for this insightful observation. Following your recommendation, you will see that we have reformulated the conclusions to avoid repeating the results of the fieldwork and instead delve into what we consider relevant about the concept of flexi-vulnerability that we presented. Additionally, in the last paragraph, we present suggestions for future research and include, if applicable, the proposal you mentioned regarding occupational identity.
Line 492, Table 2. Although I can read Spanish, I do not know if most readers are capable of doing the same. So, I would recommend to translate the table into English.
This is an error in the final review. It has been rectified, and therefore translated into English. Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Are you really your own boss? Flexi-vulnerability and false consciousness of autonomy in the digital labour culture of riders" for review. I appreciate the insights and findings presented in your study. However, I have a few suggestions and concerns that I believe should be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
1. Clarity and organization:
The Materials and Methods section lacks clarity and organization. It would greatly benefit from restructuring and providing clear subheadings for each subsection, such as "Quantitative Research Techniques" and "Qualitative Research Techniques." This would make it easier for readers to navigate and understand the methodology employed.
2. Sampling methodology:
In the description of your survey sample (143 riders in the Region of Murcia, Spain), it would be helpful to provide more details on how the participants were selected. Clarify whether the snowball sampling method was used exclusively or in combination with other sampling techniques. Additionally, discuss any potential limitations or biases associated with this sampling approach.
3. Survey questionnaire:
Provide additional information regarding the development and validation of the survey questionnaire. Mention if any existing scales or validated instruments were used, or if the questions were specifically designed for this study. This would help establish the reliability and validity of the data collected.
4. Qualitative interviews:
In the section discussing the qualitative interviews, it would be valuable to elaborate on the criteria used to select the 15 key informants. Explain how these individuals were chosen and why they are representative of the rider population in the Region of Murcia. Additionally, provide details about the semi-structured interview process, including the main topics covered and the duration of each interview.
5. Saturation of data:
While you briefly mentioned the consideration of saturation in relation to the qualitative interviews, it would be beneficial to provide more information on how this was determined. Explain the criteria or indicators used to assess data saturation and justify why the collected information was deemed sufficient for analysis. This would enhance the trustworthiness and rigor of your qualitative findings.
6. Ethical considerations:
Address the ethical aspects of your research, particularly concerning the survey and interview procedures. Clarify whether informed consent was obtained from all participants and whether the study received ethical approval from an appropriate research ethics committee.
Please revise the format of your references to ensure they comply with the required style . Additionally, double-check for any word that appear in Spanish and ensure they are translated into English
Overall, I believe addressing these points will significantly strengthen your manuscript and improve its clarity and rigor. I look forward to reviewing the revised version.
Best regards,
Reviewer
.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your kind comments. Hereby we respond to your suggestions:
- Clarity and organization:
The Materials and Methods section lacks clarity and organization. It would greatly benefit from restructuring and providing clear subheadings for each subsection, such as "Quantitative Research Techniques" and "Qualitative Research Techniques." This would make it easier for readers to navigate and understand the methodology employed.
Thank you very much for your feedback. We find it very appropriate. We have included two subheadings to differentiate the quantitative and qualitative parts so that readers can find it more clearly.
2. Sampling methodology:
In the description of your survey sample (143 riders in the Region of Murcia, Spain), it would be helpful to provide more details on how the participants were selected. Clarify whether the snowball sampling method was used exclusively or in combination with other sampling techniques. Additionally, discuss any potential limitations or biases associated with this sampling approach.
For the sample selection, in-depth interviews were used as the basis to establish a "snowball sampling" in which interviewees were contacted through their fellow riders (in lines 371-372 we refer to the experience obtained from the exploratory pilot work carried out in the city of Murcia (López-Martínez, Haz-Gómez, and Manzanera-Román 2022).
The limitations of the sample arise from the inability to define a precise universe of individuals working as riders in the Region of Murcia, as there is no official registry of rider activity. This prevents an exact number of people engaged in this occupation from being established. Hence, the total figures of these workers are estimated based on the number of companies and the average number of workers, data gathered through interviews.
3. Survey questionnaire:
Provide additional information regarding the development and validation of the survey questionnaire. Mention if any existing scales or validated instruments were used, or if the questions were specifically designed for this study. This would help establish the reliability and validity of the data collected.
The survey is based on the methodology of the study design dimensions presented in the article "Identities and Precariousness in the Collaborative Economy, Neither Wage-Earner, nor Self-Employed: Emergence and Consolidation of the Homo Rider, a Case Study" (López-Martínez; Haz-Gómez; Manzanera-Román, 2022). In this case, adaptation was made through a questionnaire for survey purposes, as opposed to in-depth semi-directive interviews. Both the questions and proposed variables were adapted ex novo to a quantitative analysis methodology.
Qualitative interviews:
In the section discussing the qualitative interviews, it would be valuable to elaborate on the criteria used to select the 15 key informants. Explain how these individuals were chosen and why they are representative of the rider population in the Region of Murcia. Additionally, provide details about the semi-structured interview process, including the main topics covered and the duration of each interview.
Thank you for your comment. We have explained the use of the MaxQda program to generate dimensions and analysis categories derived from the interviews (lines 373-381)
. Regarding the number of informants, it is a heterogeneous selection (gender, age, education, self-employed/salaried work modality). We believe that by explaining saturation (when responses were repetitive and did not offer relevant meanings to answer our research questions), it is sufficiently understood as a criterion to establish the 15 interviews as sufficient.
Saturation of data:
While you briefly mentioned the consideration of saturation in relation to the qualitative interviews, it would be beneficial to provide more information on how this was determined. Explain the criteria or indicators used to assess data saturation and justify why the collected information was deemed sufficient for analysis. This would enhance the trustworthiness and rigor of your qualitative findings.
Thank you for your comment.
As said before, in our study, the determination of saturation was a deliberate and rigorous process. We applied several criteria and indicators to assess data saturation and ensure the sufficiency of the collected information for analysis. Just to mention some criteria:
Repetition of responses: We closely examined the responses from our interviewees, looking for patterns of repetition or redundancy. When we noticed that responses became repetitive and no new or meaningful insights were emerging, we considered it an indicator of saturation.
Conceptual redundancy: We also assessed whether the collected data contributed to the development of new concepts, categories, or themes. If the data consistently provided similar information without introducing new perspectives or ideas, we interpreted it as a sign of saturation.
Information richness: We examined the depth and richness of the information provided by the interviewees. When the responses started to converge, and additional interviews yielded limited new information, we inferred that saturation had been reached.
Theoretical saturation: We compared the collected data with the existing theoretical frameworks and concepts within our research area. If the data sufficiently covered the major concepts and dimensions relevant to our research questions, we considered it indicative of saturation.
We have taken your proposal into account, and it is true that it would be interesting to refer to some of these criteria in the article. We have done so in lines 389-397.
6. Ethical considerations:
Address the ethical aspects of your research, particularly concerning the survey and interview procedures. Clarify whether informed consent was obtained from all participants and whether the study received ethical approval from an appropriate research ethics committee.
Thank you for the recommendation. We're glad to hear that the issue has been resolved with the assigned editor for this issue. We understand that the ethical reference, as well as the informed consent of the study participants, will be incorporated into the publication.
Please revise the format of your references to ensure they comply with the required style . Additionally, double-check for any word that appear in Spanish and ensure they are translated into English
We have also carried out this review. Thank you very much.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for considering my suggestions
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed my comments in a way that will have increased the quality of this article.
