Interest in the use of neurophysiological instruments for real-world studies in the workplace is increasing, also intensified by the simultaneously growing use of various commercial self-tracking technologies. However, the application of neurophysiological tools for real-world workplace research is associated with challenges-an aspect that has received little attention in previous research. This article outlines the key challenges encountered when applying neurophysiological measurements in the workplace, drawing on insights gained in an interdisciplinary research project on digital workplaces. We identify challenges along four main themes: technical tool requirements, data processing and interpretation, tool interaction, and organizational collaboration. Additionally, we discuss how these challenges were addressed within our case. As a contribution, this article offers important considerations and recommendations for the effective application of neurophysiological tools in real-world workplace research.

Self-tracking has become omnipresent in our daily lives. By providing insights into how work practices relate to performance or (physical and mental) health, quantified-self technologies (QST) have also made their way into the world of work. Contemporary QST process personal data from multiple sources to help people to gain a better knowledge about themselves at work. According to humanistic psychology, humans have an initial drive to grow and self-actualize, that is, to become a better version of themselves. A key step towards self-actualization is accepting oneself without meeting certain conditions and thus questioning so called “conditions of worth” (e.g., I am a valued person if I am good at my job). In this article, we discuss possible effects of QST at the workplace. We raise the question, how QST could be either used as a tool to locate personal growth outside the capitalist labor process or, on the contrary, to create conditions of worth and thus promote the “entrepreneurial self” – a self which is driven to constantly improve and therefore vulnerable for self-exploitation. In QST development, design choices determine whether they are more designed toward personal growth outside the capitalist labor process or toward the idea of an entrepreneurial self. Thus, we conclude this article by formulating implications for the design of QST, which we cluster along the actors and purpose of the technology (Who? and Why?), the specifics of the work context (Where?), the temporal aspects of the usage (When?), and the design elements used (How?).

New forms of work organization associated with platform labour challenge the notion of the traditional workplace, the employment relationship and the given institutional setting of a nation state. Such conventional spatial and institutional 'containers', where work traditionally takes place, are clearly losing importance in the platform economy. In particular, online platform labour seems to be 'placeless', which is not actually the case because the work takes place somewhere, its spatial distribution is not arbitrary and employment is influenced by local and national conditions. Location-based platform work, on the other hand, is not fully limited to the local scale not least because many platforms are multinational corporations. While place and space still matter the platform economy clearly has an impact on labour relations by, among other things, altering spatial structures.

Im Kontext geografisch verteilter Arbeit wird digital verlagerte Arbeit auf Onlineplattformen intensiv diskutiert. Diese virtuelle Arbeitsform fordert dabei die Interessenartikulation der Arbeitskräfte in mehrfacher Hinsicht heraus: die geografische Verteilung und die fehlende betriebliche Einbettung führen zum Verlust gemeinsamer Erfahrungs- und Gesprächszusammenhänge. Der Beitrag beleuchtet das Verhältnis zwischen virtuellen Kommunikationsräumen und Praktiken der Interessenartikulation in der Onlineplattformarbeit, unter Abgrenzung ortsbasierter Formen von Plattformarbeit. Zudem zeigt sich, dass die unterschiedliche Arbeitsorganisation in hochstandardisierter Onlineplattformarbeit (Microwork) bzw. bei komplexeren Tätigkeiten (Online-Freelancing) unterschiedliche Formen der Interessenartikulation bedarf. Es wird deutlich, dass virtuelle Kommunikationsräume einen wichtigen Ansatzpunkt für die Interessenartikulation in der Onlineplattform bieten. Solche Praktiken des Miteinanders zwischen Arbeitskräften in der Onlineplattformarbeit sind schon jetzt mit Formen der Interessenartikulation verknüpft.

This article analyses the ways in which creative crowdwork is managed and controlled within social and economic power relations. It presents findings from a research project on creative crowdworkers focussing on aspects of management and control. The research shows that the design of the platforms and the strategies of their operating companies clearly structure the triangular relationship between platform, clients and workers. In addition to bureaucratic rules and surveillance exercised by the platform, rating opportunities and other control features utilised by clients strongly impact on crowdworkers' time use, income and creativity and thus on their working and living conditions.

Introduction This paper explores the relation between an increasing ‘place-independence’ of labour in creative industries and the persisting necessity of local embeddedness. The creative industries are predestined to display new trends of structural change in labour organisation (Manske/Schnell 2010). Because of dynamic developments of new forms of labour and labour organisation caused by developments in ICTs, as well as the potential for economic growth, the creative industries are an interesting field of research. Though these changes of labour organisation were in recent years more common in low-skill- and highly standardised areas commonly referred to as ‘crowdwork’ or ‘crowdsourcing’ (Howe 2006), these labour practices increasingly spread to high-skilled labour, the creative industries on its forefront. Methods This paper is the first output of an ongoing research project from the University of Vienna (Department of Sociology) and FORBA (Working Life Research Centre, Vienna). To provide a brief overview of current discussions about place and virtual work the paper sums up noteworthy contributions found in literature. In addition to the literature review first insights in our empirical research and preliminary results will be presented. The research’s design comprises a qualitative panel survey (35+ qualitative follow-up interviews) with people working in the creative industries. These interviews were and are being conducted in 2005 and 2015. The second part is a mapping of Austrian crowd workers and companies that outsource creative tasks. The third part of the empirical research implies 10-15 qualitative interviews with crowd workers. And in the fourth part 5-7 interviews with clients (people who or companies that outsource creative tasks) and 5 interviews with experts in the field of creative production are being conducted. All interviews will be fully transcribed and interpreted using sociological hermeneutics (Hitzler 1999; Froschauer/Lueger 2009) and content analysis (Mayring 2000). Results and Discussion The emergence and progression of information technologies have a vast impact on many aspects of creative work. Easier access to information technologies (i.e. computers, laptops, smartphones, tablets, etc.) contributes to a growing ‘place-independence’ of the production of creative goods. This delocalisation of ICT-enabled or virtual work is, ‘in principle’, always possible and is leading, according to commentators (see, for example, Friedman, 2006), to ‘world flattening’ effects. Better and easier access to the internet as well as faster and more reliable network structures increasingly allow creative producers to work online and connect themselves to clients from basically all over the world, for example via crowdsourcing platforms, e.g. Elance.com, 99designs.com, Freelancer.com etc., and thus drastically impact creative production itself as well as power relations between the creative producer and the client. In contrast to this view, we argue that especially creative work is rooted deeply in places. Spatial aspects and social milieus influence the creative work process in various ways. In literature there are several arguments pointing to the spatial and geographic ‘embeddedness’ of (creative) work. There are, for one, classical agglomeration effects (Simmel 1992; Wirth 1938) that benefit the clustering of creative workers and hence foster the emergence of the creative industries. These arguments include infrastructural factors, such as architecture, transportation possibilities, size and density of the agglomeration area. Other explanations stressing the importance of place in regard to creative production focus on human capital (Florida 2002; Kotkin 2001), networks (Granovetter 1983; Grabher 2004) or social interaction (Storper/Venables 2003; Clare 2012; Currid 2007; Merkel/Oppen 2012). These theories emphasise, to a varying extend, the importance of place and spatial relations. Conclusions The paper concludes what is often perceived as ‘placele-independence’ needs to be actively ‘produced’ in every single case through a process which may include the digitisation of information, the modularisation of creative processes and the standardisation of tasks (Huws et al. 2004). In such processes, aspects of organisation, labour relations, technology and space are closely intertwined. To examine the socially contingent effects of digitalised work we need to analyse the ways in which crowdwork within social and economic power relations is made possible in the first place and the ways in which it can empower people or make them vulnerable. References and Notes 1. Clare, Karenjit. The essential role of place within the creative industries: Boundaries, networks and play. Cities 2012, Vol.34:52-57. 2. Currid, Elizabeth. How Art and Culture Happen in New York: Implications for Urban Economic Development. Journal of the American Planning Association 2007, Vol.73(4):454-467. 3. Florida, Richard. Bohemia and economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 2002. Vol.2(1):55-71. 4. Froschauer, Ulrike; Lueger, Manfred. Interpretative Sozialforschung: der Prozess. Wien : Facultas.WUV. Austria, 2009. 5. Grabher, Gernot. Learning in projects, remembering in networks: Communality, sociality, and connectivity in project ecologies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2004, 11, no. 2: 103–23. 6. Granovetter, Mark. The Strenght of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited . Sociological Theory, 1983, Vol.1, pp.201-233. 7. Friedman, Thomas L. The world is flat. A brief history of the twenty-first century. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2006. 8. Hitzler, Ronald; Hermeneutische Wissenssoziologie: Standpunkte zur Theorie der Interpretation. Konstanz: UVK, Univ.-Verl. Konstanz. Germany, 1999. 9. Howe, Jeff; The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine 2006, 14, 1-4. 10. Huws, U., Dahlmann, S. & Flecker, J. 2004. Outsourcing of ICT and Related Services in the EU: A Status Report. Report for the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 11. Kotkin, Joel. The new geography: how the digital revolution is reshaping the American landscape. New York: Random House, United States, 2001. 12. Manske, Andrea; Schnell, Christiane. Arbeit und Beschäftigung in der Kultur und Kreativwirtschaft. In Handbuch Arbeitssoziologie; Böhle, Fritz; Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Germany, 2010; pp. 699-727. 13. Mayring, Philipp. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse : Grundlagen und Techniken. 7Th ed.; Weinheim: Dt. Studien-Verlag, Germany, 2000. 14. Merkel, Janet; Oppen, Maria. Bedeutungsvolle Orte: Eine kultursoziologische Annäherung an kreative Handlungsressourcen in Städten. Working Paper. Berlin: Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB), Germany, 2012. 15. Simmel, Georg. Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Collected works Vol. 11. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, Germany, 1992. 16. Storper, Michael; Venables, Anthony. Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy; In: Journal of Economic Geography 4, 2004, pp. 351-370. 17. Wirth, Louis. Urbanism as a way of life. In: The American Journal of Sociology 1938, 44(1). 1 – 24.