Menu Expand

Measuring Digital Work in (German) Employee Surveys: An Overview and Proposal of Systematization

  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch
  4. Vol. 142, Issue 1
  5. pp. 67–92

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Marx, C., Abendroth, A., Meyer, S., Reimann, M., Tisch, A. Measuring Digital Work in (German) Employee Surveys: An Overview and Proposal of Systematization. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, 142(1), 67-92. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.142.1.67
Marx, Charlotte K.; Abendroth, Anja-Kristin; Meyer, Sophie-Charlotte; Reimann, Mareike and Tisch, Anita "Measuring Digital Work in (German) Employee Surveys: An Overview and Proposal of Systematization" Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch 142.1, 2022, 67-92. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.142.1.67
Marx, Charlotte K./Abendroth, Anja-Kristin/Meyer, Sophie-Charlotte/Reimann, Mareike/Tisch, Anita (2022): Measuring Digital Work in (German) Employee Surveys: An Overview and Proposal of Systematization, in: Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 142, iss. 1, 67-92, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.142.1.67
Format
Download

Measuring Digital Work in (German) Employee Surveys: An Overview and Proposal of Systematization

Marx, Charlotte K. | Abendroth, Anja-Kristin | Meyer, Sophie-Charlotte | Reimann, Mareike | Tisch, Anita

Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. 142 (2022), Iss. 1 : pp. 67–92

Read Now Download (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.142.1.67
Language
English
Pages
26
Keywords

Author Details

Dr. Charlotte K. Marx, Department of Sociology, Bielefeld University Universitätsstr. 25 33615 Bielefeld, Germany

Prof. Dr. Anja-Kristin Abendroth, Department of Sociology, Bielefeld University Universitätsstr. 25 33615 Bielefeld, Germany

Sophie-Charlotte Meyer, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Friedrich-Henkel-Weg 1–25 44149 Dortmund, Germany

Dr. Mareike Reimann, Department of Sociology, Bielefeld University Universitätsstr. 25 33615 Bielefeld, Germany

Prof. Dr. Anita Tisch, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Friedrich-Henkel-Weg 1–25 44149 Dortmund, Germany

References

  1. Arnold, D., S. Butschek, S. Steffes, and D. Müller. 2016. Digitalisierung am Arbeitsplatz: Bericht. (Forschungsbericht /Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales, FB468). Nürnberg: Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales; Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung der Bundesagentur für Arbeit (IAB); Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW) GmbH; Universität Köln. Accessed on January 17, 2023. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-47712-7.  Google Scholar
  2. Arntz, M., K. Dengler, R. Dorau, T. Gregory, M. Hartwig, R. Helmrich, F. Lehmer, B. Matthes, A. Tisch, S. Wischniewski, and U. Zierahn. 2020. Digitalisierung und Wandel der Beschäftigung (DiWaBe): Eine Datengrundlage für die interdisziplinäre Sozialpolitikforschung. Datenreport und Forschungspotenzial. Dokumentation 20 – 02. Mannheim, ZEW.  Google Scholar
  3. Arntz, M., T. Gregory, and U. Zierahn. 2019. Digitalization and the Future of Work: Macroeconomic Consequences. ZEW Discussion Paper No. 19 – 024. Mannheim, ZEW.  Google Scholar
  4. Attewell, P. and J. Rule. 1984. “Computing and Organizations: What We Know and What We Don’t Know.” Communications of the ACM 27 (12): 1184 – 92.  Google Scholar
  5. Autor, D. H., F. Levy, and R. J. Murnane. 2003. “The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (4): 1279 – 333.  Google Scholar
  6. Bakker, A. B., and E. Demerouti. 2007. “The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 22 (3): 309 – 28.  Google Scholar
  7. BAuA Arbeitszeitbefragung. 2019. Scientific Use File. Version 1. Dortmund, Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin. https://doi.org/10.48697/baua.azb19.suf.1.  Google Scholar
  8. Becka, D., P. Enste, and C. Ludwig. 2019. “Zur Wirkungsmessung digitaler Transformationsprozess in Arbeitswelten.” ARBEIT 28 (4): 341 – 62.  Google Scholar
  9. Berger, T. and C. B. Frey. 2016. Structural Transformation in the OECD: Digitalisation, Deindustrialisation and the Future of Work. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 193. Accessed on April 11, 2022. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/structural-transformation-in-the-oecd_5jlr068802f7-en.  Google Scholar
  10. Bhattacherjee, A. 2012. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. Textbooks Collection. USF Tampa Library Open Access Collections. Accessed on January 17, 2023. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3.  Google Scholar
  11. Bolisani, E., E. Scarso, C. Ipsen, K. Kirchner, and J. P. Hansen. 2020. “Working from Home During COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned and Issues.” Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society 15 (SI): 458 – 76.  Google Scholar
  12. Borle, P., F. Boerner-Zobel, S. Voelter-Mahlknecht, H. M. Hasselhorn, and M. Ebener. 2021. “The Social and Health Implications of Digital Work Intensification: Associations Between Exposure to Information and Communication Technologies, Health and Work Ability in Different Socio-Economic Strata.” International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 94 (3): 377 – 90.  Google Scholar
  13. Brockhaus, C. P., T. S. Bischoff, K. Haverkamp, T. Proeger, and A. Thonipara. 2020. “Digitalisierung von kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen in Deutschland – ein Forschungsüberblick.” Göttinger Beiträge zur Handwerksforschung 46. Volkswirtschaftliches Institut für Mittelstand und Handwerk an der Universität Göttingen.  Google Scholar
  14. Broszeit, S., P. Grunau, and S. Wolter. 2016. LPP – Linked Personnel Panel 1415. Arbeitsqualität und wirtschaftlicher Erfolg: Längsschnittstudie in deutschen Betrieben (Datendokumentation der zweiten Welle). FDZ-Datenreport, 06/2016. Nürnberg, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung. Accessed on April 11, 2022. https://fdz.iab.de/187/section.aspx/Publikation/k160922302.  Google Scholar
  15. Caselli, F. and W. J. Coleman. 2001. “Cross-Country Technology Diffusion: The Case of Computers.” American Economic Review 91 (2): 328 – 35.  Google Scholar
  16. Dafoe, A. 2015. “On Technological Determinism: A Typology, Scope Conditions, and a Mechanism.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 40 (6): 1047 – 76.  Google Scholar
  17. Day, A., S. Paquet, N. Scott, and L. Hambley. 2012. “Perceived Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Demands on Employee Outcomes: The Moderating Effect of Organizational ICT Support.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 17 (4): 473 – 91.  Google Scholar
  18. Day, A., N. Scott, and E. K. Kelloway. 2010. “Information and Communication Technology: Implications for Job Stress and Employee Well-Being”. In Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being: New Developments in Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches to Job Stress, Vol. 8, edited by P. L. Perrewé and D. C. Ganster, 317 – 50. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.  Google Scholar
  19. DGB. 2016. Report 2016 – Schwerpunkt: Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt. Accessed on June 4, 2021. https://index-gute-arbeit.dgb.de/++co++76276168-a0fb-11e6-8bb8-525400e5a74a.  Google Scholar
  20. Emery, F. (1959) 2016. “Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems.” In The Social Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology, Volume 2: A Tavistock Anthology—The Socio-Technical Perspective, edited by E. Trist, H. Murray, and B. Trist, 157 – 86, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  Google Scholar
  21. Fischer, G. and T. Herrmann. 2011. “Socio-Technical Systems: A Meta-Design Perspective.” International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development 3 (1): 1 – 33.  Google Scholar
  22. Friedrich, T. S., M.-C. Laible, C. Müller, R. Pollak, S. Schongen, B. Schulz, and B. Vicari. 2022. Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt – ein Messinstrument der NEPS-Erwachsenenbefragungen. NEPS Survey Papers 92. Bamberg.  Google Scholar
  23. Friedrich, T. S., M.-C. Laible, R. Pollak, S. Schongen, B. Schulz, and B. Vicari. 2021. “Grasping Digitalization in the Working World. An Example from the German National Educational Panel Study.” Soziale Welt 72 (4): 415 – 52.  Google Scholar
  24. Gensler, E. and A. Abendroth. 2021. “Verstärkt algorithmische Arbeitssteuerung Ungleichheiten in Arbeitsautonomie? Eine empirische Untersuchung von Beschäftigten in großen deutschen Arbeitsorganisationen.” Soziale Welt 72 (4): 514 – 50.  Google Scholar
  25. Giering, O., A. Fedorets, J. Adriaans, and S. Kirchner. 2021. Artificial Intelligence in Germany: Employees Often Unaware They Are Working with AI-Based Systems. DIW Weekly Report Nr. 48/2021. Berlin: DIW. Accessed online on January 17, 2023. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/248514.  Google Scholar
  26. Giering, O. and S. Kirchner. 2021. “Künstliche Intelligenz am Arbeitsplatz. Forschungsstand, Konzepte und empirische Zusammenhänge zu Autonomie.” Soziale Welt 72 (4): 551 – 88.  Google Scholar
  27. Govers, M. and P. van Amelsvoort. 2019. “A Socio-Technical Perspective on the Digital Era: The Lowlands View.” European Journal of Workplace Innovation 4 (2): 142 – 59.  Google Scholar
  28. Gray, J. and B. Rumpe. 2015. “Models for Digitalization.” Software & Systems Modeling 14 (4): 1319 – 20.  Google Scholar
  29. Groves, R. M., F. J. Fowler, Jr., M. P. Couper, J. M. Lepkowski, E. Singer, and R. Tourangeau. 2009. Survey Methodology. Second Edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.  Google Scholar
  30. Grzymek, V. and O. Wintermann. 2020. Wie digital sind die Unternehmen in Deutschland? Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Befragung unter Erwerbstätigen. Bertelsmann Stiftung/Kantar. Accessed on June 4, 2021. https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/publikationen/publikation/did/wie-digital-sind-die-unternehmen-in-deutschland.  Google Scholar
  31. Häring, A., H. Schütz, M. Kleudgen, C. Brauner, L. Vieten, A. Michel, and A. M. Wöhrmann. 2020. Methodenbericht und Fragebogen zur BAuA-Arbeitszeitbefragung 2019. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin.  Google Scholar
  32. Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. 2016. “Digitization of Industrial Work: Development Paths and Prospects.” Journal for Labour Market Research 49 (1): 1 – 14.  Google Scholar
  33. Holler, M. 2017. Verbreitung, Folgen und Gestaltungsaspekte der Digitalisierung in der Arbeitswelt. Auswertungsbericht auf Basis des DGB-Index Gute Arbeit 2016. Berlin: Institut DGB-Index Gute Arbeit. Accessed on June 4, 2021 https://index-gute-arbeit.dgb.de/++co++1c40dfc8-b953-11e7-8dd1-52540088cada.  Google Scholar
  34. Jeske, D. and A. M. Santuzzi. 2015. “Monitoring What and How: Psychological Implications of Electronic Performance Monitoring.” New Technology, Work and Employment 30 (1): 62 – 78.  Google Scholar
  35. Kersten, N. and G. Junghanns. 2022. “Informationsüberflutung am Arbeitsplatz. Gesundheitliche Beschwerden im Längsschnitt der BAuA-Arbeitszeitbefragung.” Zentralblatt für Arbeitsmedizin, Arbeitsschutz und Ergonomie 72 (5): 206 – 18.  Google Scholar
  36. Kleinert, C., A.-C. Bächmann, B. Schulz, B. Vicari, and M. Ehlert. 2021. Für wen brachte Corona einen Digitalisierungsschub? Veränderungen in der Nutzung digitaler Technologien während der COVID-19-Pandemie. NEPS Corona & Bildung, 6. Bamberg: Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsverläufe.  Google Scholar
  37. Legner, C., T. Eymann, T. Hess, C. Matt, T. Böhmann, P. Drews, A. Mädche, N. Urbach, and F. Ahlemann. 2017. “Digitalization: Opportunity and Challenge for the Business and Information Systems Engineering Community.” Business & Information Systems Engineering 59 (4): 301 – 8.  Google Scholar
  38. Marenco, M. and T. Seidl. 2021. “The Discursive Construction of Digitalization: A Comparative Analysis of National Discourses on the Digital Future of Work.” European Political Science Review 13 (3): 391 – 409.  Google Scholar
  39. Martin, A. J., J. M. Wellen, and M. R. Grimmer. 2016. “An Eye on Your Work: How Empowerment Affects the Relationship Between Electronic Surveillance and Counterproductive Work Behaviours.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27 (21): 2635 – 51.  Google Scholar
  40. Marx, C., A.-K. Abendroth, A.-C. Bächmann, M. Diewald, L. Lükemann, S. M. Melzer, E. Peters, and M. Reimann. 2020. Employee and Partner Surveys Wave 3 of the Linked-Employer-Employee-Panel (LEEP-B3) Project (DFG – 373090005): Organizational Inequalities and Interdependencies between Capabilities in Work and Personal Life: A Study of Employees in Different Work Organizations. Technical Report. Bielefeld: Bielefeld University.  Google Scholar
  41. Marx, C. K., A.-K. Abendroth, and S.-C. Meyer. 2022. Automatische Datenspeicherung von Arbeitsschritten und das Wohlbefinden von Beschäftigten. Ergebnisse einer Befragung in deutschen Großbetrieben. baua: Bericht kompakt. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin.  Google Scholar
  42. Marx, C. K., M. Reimann, and M. Ribbat. 2021. Führung digital: Anforderungen und Ressourcen bei Führungskräften. baua: Bericht kompakt. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin.  Google Scholar
  43. Meyer, S.-C. and N. Backhaus. 2022. Wie nehmen Beschäftigte den technologischen Wandel wahr? Ergebnisse der BAuA-Arbeitszeitbefragung. baua: Bericht kompakt. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin.  Google Scholar
  44. Meyer, S.-C., M. Hartwig, A. Tisch, and S. Wischniewski. 2021. Veränderte Arbeitsanforderungen in der digitalisierten Arbeitswelt. Unterschiede nach Digitalisierungsgrad des Arbeitsmittels. baua: Bericht kompakt. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin.  Google Scholar
  45. Meyer, S.-C. and L. Hünefeld. 2021. “Work-Related ICT Use and Work Intensity: The Role of Mobile Devices.” Soziale Welt 72 (4): 453 – 82.  Google Scholar
  46. NEPS. 2022. Documentation of Starting Cohort Adults SC(6). Version 13.0.0. Accessed on May 30, 2023. https://www.neps-data.de/Data-Center/Data-and-Documentation/Start-Cohort-Adults/105157-NEPSSC61300. https://doi.org/10.5157/NEPS:SC6:13.0.0.  Google Scholar
  47. Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. “Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations.” Organization Science 11 (4): 404 – 28.  Google Scholar
  48. Orlikowski, W. J. and S. V. Scott. 2014. “What Happens When Evaluation Goes Online? Exploring Apparatuses of Valuation in the Travel Sector.” Organization Science 25 (3): 868 – 91.  Google Scholar
  49. Pattloch, D., L. Menze, L. Vieten, J. Nold, N. Backhaus, I. Entgelmeier, L.-K. Stein, S. Zink, A. Tisch, C. Brauner-Sommer, A. Michel, and A. M. Wöhrmann. 2021. Datendokumentation des Scientific Use File der BAuA-Arbeitszeitbefragung 2019. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin.  Google Scholar
  50. Posey, C., B. Bennett, T. Roberts, and P. B. Lowry. 2011. “When Computer Monitoring Backfires: Invasion of Privacy and Organizational Injustice as Precursors to Computer Abuse.” Journal of Information System Security 7 (1): 24 – 47.  Google Scholar
  51. Reimann, M., A.-K. Abendroth, and M. Diewald. 2020. How Digitalized is Work in Large German Workplaces and How is Digitalized Work Perceived by Workers? A New Employer-Employee Survey Instrument. IAB-Forschungsbericht, 8|2020. Accessed on November 9, 2021. http://doku.iab.de/forschungsbericht/2020/fb0820.pdf.  Google Scholar
  52. Ruf, K., J. Mackeben, T. Haepp, S. Wolter, and P. Grunau. 2020a. Linked Personnel Panel (LPP) – Version 1819 v1. Forschungsdatenzentrum der Bundesagentur für Arbeit (BA) im Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB).Nuremberg : IAB.  Google Scholar
  53. Ruf, K., J. Mackeben, T. Haepp, S. Wolter, and P. Grunau. 2020b. LPP – Linked Personnel Panel 1819 – Quality of Work and Economic Success: Longitudinal Study in German Establishments (Data Documentation on the Fourth Wave). FDZ-Datenreport, 11/2020 (en). Nuremberg : IAB.  Google Scholar
  54. Sharma, A. and T. Sharma. 2017. “HR Analytics and Performance Appraisal System: A Conceptual Framework for Employee Performance.” Management Research Review 40 (6): 684 – 97.  Google Scholar
  55. Siegel, R., C. J. König, and V. Lazar. 2022. “The Impact of Electronic Monitoring on Employees’ Job Satisfaction, Stress, Performance, and Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Meta-Analysis.” Computers in Human Behavior Reports 8: 100227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100227.  Google Scholar
  56. SOEP Innovation Sample (SOEP-IS). 2020. Data from 1998 – 2019. Accessed on March 29, 2022. https://www.diw.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=diw_01.c.818852.en#c_818854Frageboegen_tab.  Google Scholar
  57. SOEP-IS Group. 2021. SOEP-IS 2019 – Fragebogen für die SOEP-Innovations-Stichprobe. SOEP Survey Papers 953, Series A – Survey Instruments (Erhebungsinstrumente). Berlin: DIW Berlin/SOEP. Accessed on April 11, 2022. https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.821972.de/publikationen/soepsurveypapers/2021_0953/soep-is_2019_____fragebogen_fuer_die_soep-innovations-stichprobe.html.  Google Scholar
  58. Steinwede, J., J. Ruiz Marcos, and M. Kleudgen. 2020. Methodenbericht. lidA Welle 3. Bonn: infas Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH. Accessed on January 17, 2023. https://arbeit.uni-wuppertal.de/fileadmin/arbeit/Publikationen/Methodenbericht_lidA_W3.  Google Scholar
  59. Tarafdar, M., E. B. Pullins, and T. S. Ragu-Nathan. 2015. “Technostress: Negative Effect on Performance and Possible Mitigations.” Information Systems Journal 25 (2): 103 – 32.  Google Scholar
  60. Tisch, A., N. Backhaus, M. Hartwig, S.-C. Meyer, and S. Wischniewski. 2021. “Digitalisierung und Arbeitsbedingungen.” In Datenreport 2019 – ein Sozialbericht für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, edited by Statistisches Bundesamt, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung & Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung, 189 – 196. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.  Google Scholar
  61. Tong, G. and Guang Guo. 2019. “Meta-Analysis in Sociological Research: Power and Heterogeneity.” Sociological Methods & Research 51 (2): 566 – 604.  Google Scholar
  62. Trist, E. L. 1953. Some Observations on the Machine Face as a Socio-Technical System. London: Tavistock Institute.  Google Scholar
  63. Trist, E. L. and K. W. Bamforth. 1951. “Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Long Wall Method of Coal-Getting.” Human Relations 4 (1): 3 – 38.  Google Scholar
  64. Waizenegger, L., B. McKenna, W. Cai, and T. Bendz. 2020. “An Affordance Perspective of Team Collaboration and Enforced Working from Home During COVID-19.” European Journal of Information Systems 29 (4): 429 – 42.  Google Scholar
  65. Warhurst, C. and W. Hunt. 2019. The Digitalisation of Future Work and Employment: Possible Impact and Policy Responses. JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology 2019 – 05. European Commission: Joint Research Centre.  Google Scholar
  66. Winner, L. 1977. Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.  Google Scholar
  67. Wood, A. J. 2021. Algorithmic Management: Consequences for Work Organisation and Working Conditions. JRC124874. European Commission. Seville. Accessed on October 20, 2022. https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-05/jrc124874.pdf.  Google Scholar
  68. Wood, A. J., M. Graham, V. Lehdonvirta, and I. Hjorth. 2019. “Good Gig, Bad Gig: Autonomy and Algorithmic Control in the Global Gig Economy.” Work, Employment and Society 33 (1): 56 – 75.  Google Scholar
  69. Wuppertal University. 2018. Home. lidA Study. Wuppertal: Bergische Universität. Accessed on June 4, 2021. https://arbeit.uni-wuppertal.de/en/study.html.  Google Scholar
  70. zukunft der arbeit. 2020. Wie digital sind die Unternehmen in Deutschland?. Accessed on November 11, 2021. https://www.zukunftderarbeit.de/2020/01/31/unternehmen-digital/.  Google Scholar
  71. Žwaková, M. 2018. “The Conditions for Digitalization and Industry 4.0 Development in Selected European States.” Journal of Applied Economic Sciences 13 (2): 484 – 97.  Google Scholar
  72. Zweck, B. and A. Glemser. 2020. SOEP-IS 2019 – Survey Report on the 2019 SOEP Innovation Sample. SOEP Survey Papers 902, Series B – Survey Reports (Methodenberichte), Berlin: DIW/SOEP. Accessed on April 11, 2022. https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.806669.de/publikationen/soepsurveypapers/2020_0902/soep-is_2019_____survey_report_on_the_2019_soep_innovation_sample.html.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Innovative measurements in representative surveys are needed to draw meaningful conclusions about the prevalence of digital work and its consequences for employees’ job demands and resources. Since the digitalization of work encompasses a variety of technological developments and possible implications for employment, there are many different approaches to its operationalization. Within this article, we (1) provide a scheme for classifying different approaches to measuring digital work, (2) apply this scheme to nine different representative German employee surveys that operationalize digital work, and (3) evaluate the measurement of digital work by discussing the advantages and limitations of the different approaches. We identify three approaches to measuring digital work: equipment-based, content-based, and opinion-based. Besides the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches, we discuss the state of the art in measuring digital work and whether it would make sense to create a standardized set of questions.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Charlotte K. Marx, Anja-Kristin Abendroth, Sophie-Charlotte Meyer, Mareike Reimann and Anita Tisch: Measuring Digital Work in (German) Employee Surveys: An Overview and Proposal of Systematization 67
Abstract 67
1. Introduction 67
2. Theoretical Perspectives on Digital Work and Its Relation to Job Quality 69
3. Proposal of Systemization 70
4. Measurements of Digital Work in German Studies 72
4.1 Selection of Studies 72
4.2 Implementation Within the Studies 73
4.2.1 Definition and Theoretical Concept: Concept of Digital Work, Study Interest, and Study Design 73
4.2.2 Operationalization: Work Equipment-Based, Work Content-Based, and Opinion-Based Approaches 76
4.2.3 Impact: Assessment and Consequences of Digitalization 79
5. Discussion and Further Research 81
Limitations of this Study 84
Conclusion 84
References 84
Appendix 89

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.