The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 7.
Digital mediation of domestic and care work in India: Project Announcement
https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-domestic-work-india-announcement
<b>It is our great pleasure to announce that we are undertaking a study on digital mediation of domestic and care work in India, as part of and supported by the Feminist Internet Research Network led by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The study is exploring the ways in which structural inequalities, such as those of gender and class, are being reproduced or challenged by digital
platforms. The project sites are Delhi and Bangalore, where we are conducting interviews with workers, companies, and unions. In Bangalore, we are collaborating with Stree Jagruti Samiti to collect qualitative data from different stakeholders. The outputs of the research will include a report, policy brief, and other communication materials in English, Hindi, and Kannada. This study is being led by Ambika Tandon and Aayush Rathi, along with Sumandro Chattapadhyay.</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Feminist Internet Research Network: <a href="https://www.apc.org/en/project/firn-feminist-internet-research-network" target="_blank">apc.org/en/project/firn-feminist-internet-research-network</a></h4>
<hr />
<h3>Introduction to the Project</h3>
<p>This project seeks to investigate the mediation of domestic and care work through digital platforms in India. These forms of labour fall within the informal economy, which employs the largest share of non-agricultural workers in the global South [1]. Workers and economic units in the informal economy differ widely in terms of all metrics, including income levels, size and type of enterprise, and status of worker. According to the International Labour Organisation’s Resolution on decent work and the informal economy, it refers to “all economic activities by workers and economic units that are - in law of practice - not covered or insufficiently covered by formal arrangements” [2]. What this implies in practice for workers in the informal economy is greater vulnerability to poor work conditions, poverty, and violation of labour rights [3].</p>
<p>Women, particularly those with intersectional marginalities, including that of caste and class, are overrepresented in the informal economy globally and in India. Domestic work in particular has been stratified along the lines of caste and gender historically. Further, class has become more salient in producing stratifications in labour relations following urbanisation and gentrification. These intersections have shaped employment relations in the sector in different ways, which range from feudal to contractual models. Digital platforms are increasingly becoming intermediaries in this space, mediating between so called ‘semi-skilled’ or ‘low-skilled’ workers from lower classes, and millions of middle and upper class employers in tier I cities. This is expected to shift the stratification of workers and employment relations in key ways.</p>
<p>Through a feminist approach to digital labour, our project aims to examine platforms offering domestic or reproductive care work. This will be situated within larger feminist critiques around the devaluation and invisibilisation of women’s labour within patriarchal-capitalist economic discourse. The project further seeks to unpack technocratic imaginaries of the platform economy by looking at access and meaningful use of technology and qualifying narratives around labour market optimisation, empowerment, and agency. We will include within this
scope two kinds of platforms: marketplaces for workers to post their profiles; and on-demand platforms with algorithmic matching of workers and employers.</p>
<h3>Research Questions</h3>
<p>Our hypothesis is that platforms are reconfiguring labour conditions, which would empower and/or exploit workers in ways qualitatively different than non-standard work off the platform. In order to interrogate this further, we will study wages, conditions of work, social security, skill levels, and worker surveillance off platforms. This will be used to develop contextual knowledge around the conditions of work among (a) domestic workers on and off platforms in particular, and (b) informal sector workers joining the web-based gig economy in general.</p>
<p>The overarching question that the research will address is, <strong>what are the ways in which structural inequalities are challenged or reproduced through the growth of digital platforms in reproductive and care work?</strong></p>
<ul><li>How are relations of social inequality, including along the axes of caste and gender, reworked through digital platforms, especially in a context where domestic and care work remains historically undervalued and dominated by women workers with intersectional marginalities?<br /><br /></li>
<li>How do workers on platforms envision the role of the state, market, and informal networks of kinship in intervening in employment relations?<br /><br /></li>
<li>How is inequality and exploitation in informal labour reconfigured through platforms, with specific reference to work conditions (including hours of work, and physical and mental demands of the workplace), wages, social security, and surveillance?<br /><br /></li>
<li>What strategies of negotiation are being and have been adopted by care workers on and off platforms?<br /><br /></li>
<li>Is collectivisation an aspiration for care workers across different models of employment?<br /><br /></li>
<li>How can negotiation and collectivisation strategies inform the ongoing challenges faced by both care workers and platform workers?</li></ul>
<h3>Endnotes</h3>
<p>[1] International Labour Office, (2018). Women and men in the informal economy: A statistical picture. Third Edition. International labour Organisation. <a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/docu-&#xA;ments/publication/wcms_626831.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/docu-
ments/publication/wcms_626831.pdf</a></p>
<p>[2] International Labour Organisation, (2002). 2002 ILC Resolution and Conclusions on Decent Work and the Informal Economy. <a href="https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/employment-promotion/informal-economy/lang--en/index.htm&#xA; target=">https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/employment-promotion/informal-economy/lang--en/index.htm</a></p>
<p>[3] Ibid.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-domestic-work-india-announcement'>https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-domestic-work-india-announcement</a>
</p>
No publisherAmbika Tandon and Aayush RathiDigital EconomyDigital LabourResearchResearchers at WorkDigital Domestic Work2019-10-10T08:09:34ZBlog EntryDoing Standpoint Theory
https://cis-india.org/raw/doing-standpoint-theory
<b>Feminist research methodology has evolved from different epistemologies, with several different schools of thought. Some of the more popular ones are feminist standpoint theory, feminist empiricism, and feminist relativism. Standpoint theory holds the experiences of the marginalised as the source of ‘truth’ about structures of oppression, which is silenced by traditional objectivist research methods as they produce knowledge from the standpoint of voices in positions of power. In this essay published on the GenderIT website, Ambika Tandon and Aayush Rathi [1] discuss the practical applicability of these epistemologies to research practices in the field of technology and gender.</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Cross-posted from <a href="https://www.genderit.org/articles/doing-standpoint-theory" target="_blank">GenderIT</a>, September 1, 2019</h4>
<hr />
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/CatalinaAlzate.jpg/image" alt="Catalina Alzate - Speech Bubbles" class="image-left image-inline" title="Catalina Alzate - Speech Bubbles" /></p>
<h6>Image description: Three speech bubbles on different textures. Artist: <a href="https://www.genderit.org/users/catalina-alzate" target="_blank">Catalina Alzate</a><br /></h6>
<p>Feminist research methodology has evolved from different epistemologies, with several different schools of thought. Some of the more popular ones are feminist standpoint theory, feminist empiricism, and feminist relativism. Standpoint theory holds the experiences of the marginalised as the source of ‘truth’ about structures of oppression, which is silenced by traditional objectivist research methods as they produce knowledge from the standpoint of voices in positions of power [2]. Feminist empiricism does not eschew traditional modes of knowledge production, but emphasises diversity of research participants for feminist (and therefore also rigorous) knowledge production [3]. Relativists have critiqued standpoint theory for its tendency to essentialise the experience of marginalised groups, and subsume them into one homogenous voice to achieve the goal of ‘emancipatory’ research [4]. Relativists instead focus on multiple standpoints, which could be Dalit women, lesbian women, or women with disabilities [5]. We will be discussing the practical applicability of these epistemologies to research practices in the field of technology and gender.</p>
<h4>Standpoint theory holds the experiences of the marginalised as the source of ‘truth’ about structures of oppression, which is silenced by traditional objectivist research methods as they produce knowledge from the standpoint of voices in positions of power.</h4>
<p>As part of the Feminist Internet Research Network, the Centre for Internet and Society is undertaking research on the <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-domestic-work-india-announcement" target="_blank">digital mediation of domestic and care work in India</a>. The project aims to assess shifts in the sector, including conditions of work, brought on by the entry of digital platforms. Our starting point for designing a methodology for the research was standpoint theory, which we thought to be the best fit as the goal of the project was to disrupt dominant narratives of women’s labour in relation to platformisation. In the context of dalit feminis, Rege warns that standpoint research risks producing a narrow frame of identity politics, although it is critical to pay attention to lived experience and the “naming of difference” between dalit women and savarna women [6]. She asserts that neither ‘women’ nor ‘dalit women’ is a homogenous category. While feminist researchers from outside these categories cannot claim to “speak for” those within, they can “reinvent” themselves as dalit feminists and ally themselves with their politics.</p>
<p>In order to address this risk of appropriating the voices of domestic workers (“speaking for”), we chose to directly work with a domestic workers’ union in Bengaluru called Stree Jagruti Smiti. Bengaluru is one of the two cities we are conducting research in (the other being Delhi, with very few registered unions). This is meant to radically destabilise power hierarchies and material relations within the research process, as benefits of participatory research tend to accumulate with the researchers rather than participants [7].</p>
<p>Along with amplifying the voices of workers, a central objective of our project is to question the techno-solutionism that has accompanied the entry of digital platforms into the domestic work sector, which is unorganised and unregulated. To do so, we included companies and state labour departments as participants whose standpoint is to be interrogated. By juxtaposing the standpoints of stakeholders that have differential access to power and resources, the researcher is able to surface various conflicts and intersections in dominant and alternative narratives. This form of research also brings with it unique challenges, as researchers could find themselves mediating between the different stakeholders, while constantly choosing to privilege the standpoint of the least powerful - in this case the workers. Self-reflexivity then becomes necessary to ensure that the project does not slip into an absolutely relativist position, rather using the narratives of workers to challenge those of governments and private actors. This can also be done by ensuring that workers have agency to shape the agenda of researchers, thereby producing research which is instrumental in supporting grassroots campaigns and movements.</p>
<h4>Self-reflexivity then becomes necessary to ensure that the project does not slip into an absolutely relativist position, rather using the narratives of workers to challenge those of governments and private actors.</h4>
<p>Feminist participatory research itself, despite its many promises, is not a linear pathway to empowerment for participants [8]. At the very outset of the project, we were constantly asked the question by domestic workers and unions – why should we participate in this project? Researchers, in their experience, acquire information from the community throughout the process of data collection by positioning themselves as allies. However, as all such engagements are bound to limited timelines and budgets, researchers are then often absent at critical junctures where the community may need external support. We were also told that all too often, the output of the research itself does not make its way back to the participants, making it a one-way process of knowledge extraction. Being mindful of these experiences, we have integrated a feedback loop into our research design, which will allow us to design outputs that are accessible and useful to collectives of domestic workers.</p>
<p>Not only domestic workers and their organisations, many corporations operating these online portals and platforms often questioned the benefits of participating in the project. However, the manner of articulation differed. While attempting to reject the hierarchical nature of the researcher/participant relationship, we increasingly became aware that the underlying power equation was not a monolith. Rather, it varied across stakeholder groups and was explicitly contingent on the socially constructed positionalities already existing outside of the space of the interview. Companies, governments and workers all exemplified varying degrees of engagement with, knowledge of, and contributions to research. Interviews with workers and unions, and even some bootstrapped (i.e. without much external funding) , socially-minded companies, were often cathartic with an expectation of some benefits in return for opening themselves up to researchers. This was quite different for governments and larger companies, as conversations typically adhered to the patriarchal and classed notions of professionalism in sanitised, formal spaces [9] and the strict dichotomy between public and personal spaces. Their contribution seemingly required lesser affective engagement from the interviewee, thereby resulting in lesser investment in the outcome of the research itself.</p>
<p>The cathartic nature of interviews also speak to the impossibility of the distanced, Platonic, school of research. We were often asked politically charged questions, our advice solicited and information sought. Workers and representatives from platform companies alike would question our motivations with the research and challenge us by inquiring about the benefits accruing to us. Again, both set of stakeholders would often ask differently about how other platforms were; workers already registered on a platform would wonder if another platform would be ‘better’ and representatives of platform companies would be curious about competition. This is perhaps a consequence of attempting to design a study that is of use and of interest to the workers we have been reaching out to [10]. At times, we found ourselves at a place in the conversation where we were compelled to respond to political positions for the conversation to continue. There were interviews where notions of caste hierarchies (within oppressed classes) as a justification/complaint for engaging/having to engage in certain tasks would surface. Despite being beholden to a feminist consciousness that disregards the idea of the interviewer as neutral, we often found ourselves only hesitantly forthcoming. At times, it was to keep the interview broadly focused around the research subject, at others it was due to our own ignorance about the research artefact (in this instance, platforms mediating domestic work services). This underscores the challenges of seeing the interview as a value ridden space, where the contradictions between the interview as a data collection method and as a consciousness raising emerged - how could we share information about the artefact we were in the process of collecting data about?</p>
<h4>We were often asked politically charged questions, our advice solicited and information sought.</h4>
<p>The fostering of ‘rapport’ [11] has made its may into method, almost unknowingly. Often, respondents across stakeholder groups started from an initial place of hesitation, sometimes even suspicion. Several structural issues could be at work here - our inability in being able to accurately describe research itself, the class differences and at times, ideological ones as well. While with most participants, rapport was eventually established, its establishment was a laboured process. Especially given that we were using one-off, in-depth interviews as our method, securing an interview was contingent on the establishment of rapport. This isn’t to suggest that feminist research mandatorily requires the ‘doing of rapport’ [12], but that when it does, it’s a fortunate outcome and that feminist researchers engage with it more critically.</p>
<p>Building rapport creates an impression of having minimised the exploitation of the participant, however the underlying politics and pressures of building rapport need to be interrogated. Rapport, like research itself, is at times a performance; rapport is often not naturally occuring. Rather, rapport may also be built to conceal the very structural factors preventing it. For instance, during instances of ideological differences during the interview, we were at times complicit through our silence. This may have been to further a certain notion of ‘objectivity’ itself whereby the building and maintenance of rapport is essential to surfacing a participant’s real views. This then raises the questions: What are the ethical questions that the suppression of certain viewpoints and reactions pose? How does the building, maintenance and continuance of rapport inform the research findings? Rapport, then, comes in all shapes and sizes and its manifold forms implicate the research process differently. Another critical question to be addressed is - why does some rapport take less work than others? With platform companies, building rapport came by easier than it did with workers both on and off platforms. If understood as removing degrees of distance between the researcher and participants, several factors could play into the effort required to build rapport. For instance, language was a critical determinant of the ease of relationship-building. Being more fluent in English than in colloquial Hindi enabled clearer articulation of the research. Further, familiarity with the research process was, as expected, mediated along class lines. This influenced the manner in which we articulated research outcomes and objectives to workers with complete unfamiliarity with the meaning of research. Among workers, this unfamiliarity often resulted in distrust, which required the underlying politics of the research to be more critically articulated.</p>
<p>By and large, the feminist engagement with research methods has been quite successful in its resistance and transformation of traditional forms. Since Oakley’s conception of the interview as a deeply subjective space [13] and Harding’s dialectical conception of masculinist science through its history [14], the application of feminist critical theory has increasingly subverted assumptions around the averseness of research to political motivations. At the same time, it has made knowledge-production occur in a more equitable space. It is in this context that standpoint theory has had wide purchase, but challenges persist in its application. As the foregoing discussion outlines, we have been able to achieve some of the goals of feminist standpoint research while missing out on others. We also found the ‘multiple standpoints’ approach of relativists to be useful in a project involving multiple stakeholders - thereby also avoiding the risk of essentialisation of the identities of domestic workers. However, unlike the tendency of relativists to focus on each perspective as ‘equally valid truth’, we are choosing to focus on the conflicts and intersections between emerging discourses. Through this hybrid theoretical framework, we are seeking to make knowledge production more equitable. At the same time, the discussion around rapport shows that this may nevertheless happen in a limited fashion. Feminist research may never be fully non-extractive. The reflexivity exercised and choices made during the course of the research are key.</p>
<h4>Unlike the tendency of relativists to focus on each perspective as ‘equally valid truth’, we are choosing to focus on the conflicts and intersections between emerging discourses.</h4>
<p> </p>
<h3><strong>Endnotes</strong></h3>
<p>[1] The names of the authors are in alphabetical order.</p>
<p>[2] Harding, S. (2003) The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, Routledge.</p>
<p>[3] M. Wickramasinghe, Feminist Research Methodology: Making meaning out of meaning-making, Zubaan, 2014</p>
<p>[4] Pease, D. (2000) Researching profeminist men's narratives: participatory methodologies in a postmodern frame. In B. Fawcett, D. Featherstone, J. Fook ll)'ld A. Rossiter (eds) Restarching and Practising in Social Work: Postmodern Feminist Perspectives (London: Routledge).</p>
<p>[5] Stanley, L. and Wise, S. (1983) Breaking Out: Feminist Consciousness and Feminist Research (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).</p>
<p>[6] Rege, S. 1998. ” Dalit Women Talk Differently: A critique of ‘Difference’ and Towards a Dalit Feminist Standpoint.” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 33, No.44, pp 39-48.</p>
<p>[7] Heeks, R. and Shekhar, S. (2018) An Applied Data Justice Framework: Analysing Datafication and Marginalised Communities in Cities of the Global South. Working Paper Series, Centre for Development Informatics, University of Manchester.</p>
<p>[8] Stone, E. and Priestley, M. (1996) Parasites, pawn and partners: disability research and the role of nondisabled researchers. British Journal of Sociology, 47(4), 699-716.</p>
<p>[9] Evans, L. (2010). Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals. Br. J. Educ. Stud. 56, 20–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00392.x</p>
<p>[10] Webb C. Feminist methodology in nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 1984 May;9(3):249-56.</p>
<p>[11] Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qual. Res. 15, 219–234. doi:10.1177/1468794112468475; Pitts, M. J., and Miller-Day, M. (2007). Upward turning points and positive rapport development across time in researcher-participant relationships. Qual. Res. 7, 177–201. doi:10.1177/1468794107071409</p>
<p>[12] Dunscombe, J., and Jessop, J. (2002). “Doing rapport, and the ethics of ’faking friendship’,” in Ethics in Qualitative Research, eds T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, and J. Jessop (London: SAGE), 108–121.</p>
<p>[13] Oakley, A. (1981). “Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms?” in Doing Feminist Research, ed. H. Roberts (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul), 30–61.</p>
<p>[14] Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/doing-standpoint-theory'>https://cis-india.org/raw/doing-standpoint-theory</a>
</p>
No publisherAmbika Tandon and Aayush RathiDigital EconomyGenderDigital LabourResearchPublicationsResearchers at WorkDigital Domestic Work2019-12-06T04:59:35ZBlog EntryDomestic Work in the ‘Gig Economy’
https://cis-india.org/raw/domestic-work-in-the-gig-economy-20191116
<b>The CIS and Domestic Workers’ Rights Union (DWRU) are hosting a discussion on the ‘gig economy’ and domestic work on Saturday, November 16 at Student Christian Movement of India, Mission Road, Bangalore. This event is a part of a project supported by the Feminist Internet Research Network led by Association for Progressive Communication (APC) and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/FutureofWork.jpeg" alt="Domestic work in the gig economy, 16 December 2019, Student Christian Mission of India, Bangalore" /></p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Presentation: <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/domestic-work-and-platforms-presentation" class="internal-link" title="Domestic Work and Platforms Presentation">Download</a> (PDF)</h4>
<h4>Concept Note: <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/cis-dwru-apc-firn-domestic-work-in-the-gig-economy-concept-note" target="_blank">Download</a> (PDF)</h4>
<h4>Venue: Student Christian Movement of India (29, 2nd Cross, CSI Compound, Mission Road, Sampangi Rama Nagara)</h4>
<h4>Date and Time: Saturday, November 16, 3:00-5:30 pm</h4>
<h4>Location: <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/dCnQhid1eiyLG3DE6" target="_blank">URL</a> (Google Maps)</h4>
<h4>Feminist Internet Research Network: <a href="https://www.apc.org/en/project/firn-feminist-internet-research-network" target="_blank">URL</a></h4>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;">Over the last few months, the Centre for Internet and Society, India (CIS) and the Domestic Workers’ Rights Union (DWRU) have been doing research on the platformisation of domestic work in India. In the first phase of the research, we gathered data through interviews with several stakeholders. More information about the project can be found here: <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-domestic-work-india-announcement" target="_blank">https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-domestic-work-india-announcement</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We now find ourselves in the second phase of the research in which we have prepared a preliminary report and are seeking feedback and inputs from experts. For this, we invite you to a roundtable discussion on domestic workers in the ‘gig economy’.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The participants at the roundtable will comprise of representatives from key stakeholder groups including platform workers (i.e. domestic workers sourcing jobs through platforms), platform companies, domestic workers organisations, civil society researchers and the state labour department.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The event will begin with a presentation of the project and our initial findings. The rest of the time is set aside for a semi-moderated discussion between all participants. To ensure a focused discussion, we are also limiting participation to 30, and are hoping to have a good mix across stakeholder groups.</p>
<h4>If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Aayush Rathi at aayush@cis-india.org.</h4>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/domestic-work-in-the-gig-economy-20191116'>https://cis-india.org/raw/domestic-work-in-the-gig-economy-20191116</a>
</p>
No publisheraayushDigital EconomyRAW EventsDigital LabourResearchers at WorkEventDigital Domestic Work2019-12-06T04:52:11ZEvent A Compilation of Research on the Gig Economy
https://cis-india.org/raw/a-compilation-of-research-on-the-gig-economy
<b>Over the past year, researchers at CIS have been studying gig economies and gig workers in India. Their work has involved consultative discussions with domestic workers, food delivery workers, taxi drivers, trade union leaders, and government representatives to document the state of gig work in India, and highlight the concerns of gig workers.
The imposition of a severe lockdown in India in response to the outbreak of COVID-19 has left gig workers in precarious positions. Without the privilege of social distancing, these workers are having to contend with a drastic reduction in income, while also placing themselves at heightened health risks. </b>
<p> </p>
<h3 dir="ltr">On gig economy during the COVID-19 pandemic</h3>
<p dir="ltr">Supported by <a href="https://www.apc.org/en/project/firn-feminist-internet-research-network">Feminist Internet Research Network</a> led by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)</p>
<ul><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Along with Tandem Research, we spoke to leaders of four unions that represent gig workers across the country about the risks and vulnerabilities that they are having to contend with in the face of the COVID-19 crisis. <strong>Zothan Mawii</strong> (Tandem Research), <strong>Ambika Tandon</strong>, and <strong>Aayush Rathi</strong> share key reflections in this essay published on The Wire. (<a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/gig-workers-need-support">link</a>).</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Based on the discussion, a charter of recommendations was prepared with contributions from participants, and was shared with public and private stakeholders. (<a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/covid-19-charter-of-recommendations">link</a>)</p>
</li></ul>
<div> </div>
<h3 dir="ltr">On domestic workers in the platform economy </h3>
<p dir="ltr">Supported by <a href="https://www.apc.org/en/project/firn-feminist-internet-research-network">Feminist Internet Research Network</a> led by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)</p>
<ul><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">We discussed our ongoing research on the platformisation of domestic work in India with domestic workers, union members, and representatives from the Karnataka Labour Department in November 2019. <strong>Tasneem Mewa</strong> documented the rich discussion from this consultation. (<a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/platformisation-of-domestic-work-in-india-report-from-a-multistakeholder-consultation">link</a>)</p>
</li></ul>
<p dir="ltr">CIS worked with members of the Domestic Workers Rights Union to conduct field research on the lives and challenges of domestic workers in the platform economy. The following essays published on GenderIT capture their experiences of doing this research:</p>
<ul><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Parijatha G.P.</strong> writes about a “gated society management app,” MyGate, and the experiences of surveillance of migrant workers in Bengaluru. (<a href="https://www.genderit.org/articles/domestic-work-platform-economy-reflections-awareness-workers-rights">link</a>) </p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Radha Keerthna</strong> writes about the similarity in the conditions of domestic workers in the traditional and platform economy, particularly the precarity and invisibility of labour. (<a href="https://www.genderit.org/articles/domestic-work-platform-economy-reflections-conducting-interviews-sensitive-issues">link</a>)</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Sumathi</strong>, a union leader, reflects on and her experience as an activist-researcher interacting with domestic gig workers through the course of our study. (<a href="https://www.genderit.org/articles/domestic-work-platform-economy-reflections-difficulty-set-interviews">link</a>)</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Zeenathunissa</strong> shares the difficulty of speaking to domestic workers in the gig economy, especially when workers undergo constant surveillance by employers and companies. (<a href="https://www.genderit.org/articles/domestic-work-platform-economy-reflections-research-and-social-work">link</a>)</p>
</li></ul>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<h3 dir="ltr">On economic, algorithmic, and affective vulnerabilities of gig workers</h3>
<p dir="ltr">Supported by <a href="https://azimpremjiuniversity.edu.in/SitePages/research-grant-overview.aspx">Azim Premji University</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">CIS commissioned a set of four field studies of platform workers delivering food and driving taxis for platform companies in Mumbai and New Delhi. The researchers involved wrote a series of essays that were published by Platypus blog of CASTAC:</p>
<ul><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Anushree Gupta</strong> explores women’s presence as workers as well as passengers/customers in the ride hailing platform economy in Mumbai and related concerns of safety and risk mitigation. (<a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/anushree-gupta-ladies-log-women-safety-risk-transfer-ridehailing">link</a>)</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Sarah Zia</strong> highlights how algorithmic management of work and revenue targets of gig workers impact their everyday lives and plans for the future. (<a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/sarah-zia-not-knowing-as-pedagogy-ride-hailing-drivers-in-delhi">link</a>)</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Kinship networks are a critical source of safety and security for workers in the gig economy. <strong>Simiran Lalvani</strong> writes about the network among transportation workers in Mumbai, also reflecting on implications for those who are excluded. (<a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/simiran-lalvani-workers-fictive-kinship-relations-app-based-food-delivery-mumbai">link</a>)</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Noopur Raval</strong> and <strong>Rajendra Jadhav</strong> describe the unregulated and exploitative temporal structures of gig work, and how work-time of gig workers get configured by customer-facing promises of platform companies. (<a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/noopur-raval-rajendra-jadhav-power-chronography-of-food-delivery-work">link</a>)</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: disc;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">The four researchers, led by <strong>Noopur Raval</strong> (co-PI for the project, held a roundtable discussion to reflect on methods, challenges, inter-subjectivities and possible future directions for research on the gig economy and its workers. (<a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/india-gig-work-economy-roundtable">link</a>)</p>
</li></ul>
The consultants - Noopur Raval, Anushree Gupta, Rajendra Jadhav, Sarah Zia and Simiran Lalvani - involved in this project on mapping digital labour in India’s platform economies (in Mumbai and New Delhi) gathered in <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/platform-work-india-panel-discussion-20190719">Bengaluru on July 19, 2019</a> to share their preliminary field insights along with reflections on what it meant to do such studies, how they went about studying gig-work, and challenges that arose in their work. Watch the livestream from this discussion <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lwpb3jRMQ">here</a>.
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/a-compilation-of-research-on-the-gig-economy'>https://cis-india.org/raw/a-compilation-of-research-on-the-gig-economy</a>
</p>
No publisherAayush Rathi, Ambika Tandon, Sumandro ChattapadhyayGenderDigital LabourCovid19ResearchPlatform-WorkRAW ResearchresearchResearchers at WorkDigital Domestic Work2020-05-19T08:20:20ZBlog EntryPlatforms, Power, and Politics: Perspectives from Domestic and Care Work in India
https://cis-india.org/raw/platforms-power-and-politics-perspectives-from-domestic-and-care-work-in-india
<b>CIS has been undertaking a two-year project studying the entry of digital platforms in the domestic and care work in India, supported by the Association for Progressive Communications as part of the Feminist Internet Research Network. Implemented through 2019-21, the objective of the project is to use a feminist lens to critique platform modalities and orient platformisation dynamics in radically different, worker-first ways. Ambika Tandon and Aayush Rathi led the research team at CIS. The Domestic Workers’ Rights Union is a partner in the implementation of the project, as co-researchers. Geeta Menon, head of DWRU, was an advisor on the project, and the research team consisted of Parijatha G.P., Radha Keerthana, Zeenathunnisa, and Sumathi, who are office holders in the union and are responsible for organising workers and addressing their concerns.
</b>
<p><span>The Executive Summary for the project report is below.</span></p>
<p>The full report, ‘Platforms, power, and politics: Perspectives from domestic and care work in India’, can be found <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/platforms-power-and-politics-pdf" class="external-link">here</a>.</p>
<p>The press release can be found <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/platforms-power-and-politics-press-release-pdf" class="external-link">here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<h3></h3>
<h3><span>Introduction</span></h3>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Paid domestic and care work is witnessing the entry of digital intermediaries over the past decade. More recently, there has been tremendous growth of digital platforms. This holds the potential to impact millions of workers in the sector, which is characterised by a long history of informality and exclusion from rights-according legal frameworks. Digital intermediation of domestic and care work has been a space of high-growth, but also high-attrition. In India, order books of digital platforms providing domestic and care work services were reported to have been growing by upto 60 percent month-on-month in 2016. This is expected to shift the organisation of workers and employment relations profoundly. <br /><br />Broadly, the discourse on digital platforms providing home-based services can be summarised as follows: proponents argue that digitisation will act as a step towards bringing formalisation to the sector, while critics argue that platforms could replicate the exploitation of workers by further disguising the employer-employee relationship. Similar debates around lack of protections and precarity have also taken place in other occupations in gig work such as transportation and food delivery. In fact, the similarity in precarity and the informal nature of this relationship across gig work and domestic work has led to domestic workers being labelled the original gig workers. Domestic work is a particularly vulnerable and unprotected sector, which makes work in the sector qualitatively different from most other sectors in the gig or sharing economy.<br /><br />Through a feminist approach to digital labour, our project aimed to examine the dynamics of platformisation in, and of domestic or reproductive care work. Our hypothesis was that platforms are reconfiguring labour conditions, which could empower and/or exploit workers in ways qualitatively different from non-standard work off the platform. In order to interrogate this further, we studied several aspects of the work relationship, including wages, conditions of work, social security, skill levels, and worker surveillance off platforms.</p>
<h3>Methodology</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We borrowed from ethnographic methods and feminist principles to co-design and implement the research tools with grassroots workers and organisers. Between June to November 2019, we conducted 65 in-depth semi-structured interviews primarily in New Delhi and Bengaluru. A majority of these were with domestic workers who were seeking or had found work through platforms. We also did interviews with workers who had found work through traditional placement agencies to compare our findings, and with representatives from platforms, government labour departments, and workers collectives. Of the workers we interviewed, a majority were women, but men were included as well. Interviews in New Delhi were undertaken by CIS, while interviews with workers in Bengaluru were undertaken by grassroots activists in Bengaluru, affiliated with the Domestic Workers Rights Union (DWRU).</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In implementing the data collection approach, we employed feminist methodological principles of intersectionality, self-reflexivity, and participation. The methodology draws on standpoint theory, which encourages knowledge production that centres the lived experiences of marginalised groups. We were acutely aware of our own positionality as high income, Savarna researchers studying a sector dominated by Dalit, Bahujan and Adivasi women from low income groups. This power differential was softened partially by involving DWRU through the course of the project. Workers across both field sites were also interviewed in spaces familiar to them, most often their homes, in languages that they were comfortable with including Hindi, Kannada, and Tamil.</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Feminist principles also instrumental during the data analysis, with focus on intersectionality and self-reflexivity. We highlighted the ways in which inequalities of gender, income, migration status, caste, and religion are replicated and amplified in the platform economy. In particular, we discussed the impact of the digital gender gap in access and skills on workers’ ability to find economic opportunities.</p>
<h3></h3>
<h3>Findings</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Our typology of platforms mediating domestic work finds three types of platforms – (i) marketplace, or platforms that list workers’ data on their profile, provide certain filters for automated selection of a pool of workers, and charge a fee from customers for access to workers’ contact details, (ii) digital placement agency, or platforms that provide an end-to-end placement service to customers, identify appropriate workers on the basis of selection criteria, and negotiate conditions of work on behalf of workers, and (iii) on-demand platforms, or companies that provide services or ‘gigs’ such as cleaning on an hourly basis, performed by a roster of workers who are characterised as ‘independent contractors’.</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When it comes to the role played by platforms in determining employment relations, there is a wide variation within and across platform categories. There are both weak and strong models of intervention. On one end of the spectrum are marketplaces, with minimal intervention in the recruitment process, and on the other on-demand platforms, that exact control over each aspect of work. Digital platforms reconfigure the conception of intermediaries in the domestic work sector, functioning as next-generation placement agencies. All three platform types contain aspects that provide workers agency, as well as those that reinforce their positions of low-power. Platform design impacts the role platforms play in setting conditions of work, but does not determine it entirely.</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>(Re)shaping the terms of work</strong><br />Across the three types of platforms, wages are slightly higher than or matching those of workers off platforms. Some marketplace platforms have incorporated features to nudge customers towards setting higher wages, such as enforcing minimum wage standards, or informing customers of expected wages in their locality. Conversely, on-demand platforms charge a high rate of commission from workers, despite refusing to recognise them as employees. This indicates that this is a misclassification of an employment relationship, given that workers are unable to set their own conditions or wages for work. Despite the high rates of commission and appropriation of labour by platforms, on-demand workers earn higher wages than workers on other platforms. The relatively high wage is a result of marketing on-demand cleaning as professionalised and more skilled than day-to-day cleaning. Tasks in the sector continue to be distributed along the lines of gender and caste, as has historically been the case. Dalit, Bahujan and Adivasi women are more likely to take up work such as cleaning and washing dishes, while men and women across castes are equally distributed in cooking work. Women dominate tasks such as elderly and childcare, as in the traditional economy. Workers in professionalised tasks such as deep cleaning that requires technical equipment and chemicals are almost entirely men.</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Digital divides and workers’ agency</strong><br />We find that workers are primarily onboarded onto platforms by learning about it from other workers, through onboarding camps held by platforms, or offline advertising by platforms. Such in-person onboarding techniques allows workers with no digital access or literacy to register themselves on marketplace platforms and digital placement agencies.</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, we find that low levels of education and digital literacy continue to impact platformed labour by creating a strong informational asymmetry between workers and platforms. For instance, we find that women workers from low income communities have very little information about how platforms work, causing deep distrust. Workers with digital devices and literacy (and therefore a relatively better understanding of the functionality of the platform), physical mobility and the resources to bear indirect costs that were outsourced to them were at a significant advantage in finding better-paying jobs. Workers who were seeking flexibility and were not necessarily dependent on the platform for their primary income were also better placed than those entirely dependent on platforms. Women workers tended to be disadvantaged on all these counts, limiting their agency and capacity to reap the benefits of the platform economy.</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Across the three types of platforms, systems of placement and ratings add to the information asymmetry, as workers are not aware of the impact of ratings on their ability to find work or charge better wages. Ratings and filtering systems also hard-code the impact of workers’ social characteristics on their work. Workers are unable to exercise control over their data, further undermining their agency vis-a-vis platforms and employers. We identify a clear need for collective bargaining structures to protect workers’ rights, although platformed domestic workers remained distant from both domestic work unions and emergent unions of platform workers in other sectors.</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Intersectionalities of formalisation</strong><br />We find that inequalities of caste, class, and gender that have historically shaped the sector continue to be replicated or even amplified in the platform economy. What remains clear is that platforms in the domestic work sector adopt the logics of this sector, more than the converse. Platformisation is conflated with formalisation, and it is within this vector, from complete informality to piecemeal formalisation, that platforms operate. Labour benefits do not take the form of labour protections or welfare entitlements that are the central function of formalisation processes. Instead, the so-called benefits are intended to transform domestic workers to participate within the logics and vagaries of the market.</p>
<h3>Policy Recommendations</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Recognise and implement labour protections for domestic workers </strong><br />Domestic workers have historically occupied the most vulnerable positions in the workforce, with limited legal protections. Exposed to the regulatory grey areas that platforms operate in, this doubly exposes domestic workers to precarious conditions of work. Despite an avowed move towards formalisation of domestic work, platform-mediated labour continues to retain characteristics of informal labour, even heightening some.</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If pushed to do so, platform companies can be instrumental in resolving some of the implementation challenges that governments have faced in enforcing legislative protections sought to be made available to domestic workers. Platforms have databases of workers, which can be used to mandatorily register them for social security schemes offered by the government. This data can also be used for better policy making, in the absence of reliable statistics particularly on migrant workers in the informal economy.<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Reduce the protective gap between employment and self-employment </strong><br />The (mis)classification of “gig” work within labour law frameworks is still a matter that continues to be hotly debated within policy practitioners, legal scholarship, and civil society actors. Three positions, in particular, have been taken—treating gig workers as employees, independent contractors, or occupying a third intermediate category. More recently, there have been some legal victories guaranteeing employment protections and increasing platform companies’ accountability. However, these successes have been more visible in Global North jurisdictions.</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Regardless of the resolution of these ongoing debates over employment status, labour frameworks should provide some universal protections to all categories of labour. Such protections must include universal coverage of social security, in addition to rights such as freedom of association, collective bargaining, equal remuneration and anti-discrimination. Policies geared towards achieving this objective would be significant in reducing the protective gaps between different categories of labour, and would particularly help historical and emerging occupational categories of workers such as “gig” workers and domestic workers.</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Recognise the specific challenge(s) and potential of platformisation of domestic work </strong><br />Platforms hold the potential of acting as effective facilitators in informal labour markets. Even when they do not replace existing recruitment pathways, they provide alternate ones. Workers were more likely to register on a platform if they were entering the domestic work labour market recently (often distress and migration driven), or had not enjoyed success with informal, word-of-mouth networks. However, platforms also heighten labour market insecurities, and create new ones. These potential risks need to be specifically recognised through appropriate frameworks, such as social security, discrimination law and data protection.</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Tailor policy-making to platform models </strong><br />We identify three types of platforms, each of which intervene to varying degrees in the work relationship. We recommend that digital placement agencies and marketplace platforms be registered with governments and enforce basic protections for workers such as provision of minimum wage, preventing abuse (including non-payment of wages) and trafficking. On-demand companies on the other hand, must be treated as employers, and workers be accorded employment protections including social security.</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In addition to rights-based policy actions, legal-regulatory mechanisms geared towards mitigating the precariousness of platform-based work are required. This can take the shape of clarifying and expanding existing legal-regulatory formulations, or preparing new ones. Such policy making should factor in the power and information asymmetry between domestic workers (and gig workers, generally) and platforms.</p>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, in the absence of health or retirement benefits, risks and indirect costs of operations are shifted from employers to workers. For instance, workers provide capital in the form of tools or equipment, support the fluctuation of business and income, and can be ‘deactivated’ from an application as a result of poor ratings or periods of inactivity. Any regulation aiming to extend employee status should mandate platforms to support such indirect costs.</p>
<h3>Related Publications</h3>
<p>1. <a class="external-link" href="https://www.genderit.org/articles/digital-mediation-of-reproductive-and-care-work">Research notes</a> with reflections from union members. <br />2. The <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/raw/platformisation-of-domestic-work-in-india-report-from-a-multistakeholder-consultation">event report</a> from a stakeholder consultation with workers, unions, companies and government representatives. <br />3. A <a class="external-link" href="https://www.genderit.org/articles/doing-standpoint-theory">reflection note</a> on the participatory approach taken by the project. <br />4. A <a class="external-link" href="https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/singapur/17840.pdf">paper</a> with a comparative analysis of the policy landscape on domestic work in the platform economy.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/platforms-power-and-politics-perspectives-from-domestic-and-care-work-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/raw/platforms-power-and-politics-perspectives-from-domestic-and-care-work-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherAayush Rathi, and Ambika TandonDigital EconomyResearchers at WorkPlatform-WorkFeaturedRAW ResearchHomepageDigital Domestic Work2021-07-07T15:19:37ZBlog EntryDWRU, BBGS & MKU - The Covid-19 Pandemic and the Invisible Workers of the Household Economy
https://cis-india.org/raw/dwru-bbgs-mku-covid19-invisible-household-workers
<b>Domestic Workers Rights Union (DWRU), Bruhat Bangalore Gruhakarmika Sangha (BBGS), and Manegelasa Kaarmikara Union (MKU) have prepared a report on the invisibilisation of domestic workers under the Covid-19 pandemic and a set of demands directed at the government and resident welfare associations (RWAs) for better, dignified and just treatment of domestic workers in Karnataka. We at CIS are proud to contribute to and publish this work as part of the ongoing 'Feminist Internet Research Network' project supported by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC).</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Report: <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/files/dwru-bbgs-mku-covid19-invisible-household-workers-report" target="_blank">Download</a> (PDF)</h4>
<p><em>This report is authored by Geeta Menon, and edited by Aayush Rathi (CIS) and Ambika Tandon (CIS).</em></p>
<hr />
<h3><strong>Introduction</strong></h3>
<p>Up until the first phase of the imposition of lockdown in India, while restrictions were enforced, domestic workers went to work as usual. Domestic workers were aware of the announcements of precautions, but the
employers insisted they come for work disregarding any concerns for workers' safety.</p>
<p>During the phase of strict imposition of the first lockdown, covering the time from March 24, 2020 to the first week of May, several corporate employees “worked from home”. While pictures of employers’ families spending family time, and learning to clean and cook, circulated widely on social media and in press, domestic workers lived in cramped conditions with the fear of rations running out.</p>
<p>In the first 2 weeks of May, a survey of nearly 2400 domestic workers in Bengaluru was conducted by Domestic Workers Rights Union (DWRU), Bruhat Bangalore Gruhakarmika Sangha (BBGS), and Manegelasa Kaarmikara Union. Some of the findings from the survey are below:</p>
<ul><li>2084 (about 87%) of the workers were told not to come for work since the lockdown in March and were not sure if and when they would be called to work again.</li>
<li>341 workers in the areas surveyed by BBGS (87%) and 150 workers in the areas surveyed by Manegelasa Kaarmikara Union lost their jobs entirely during the lockdown.</li>
<li>91% of workers lost their salaries for the month of April.</li>
<li>50% of all workers above the age of 50 lost their jobs during the lockdown.</li></ul>
<p>The report also showcases the tyranny and hypocrisy of resident welfare associations (RWAs) and employers. The period of relaxation of the lockdown has again seen RWAs issuing directives that are demeaning to domestic workers and pose insurmountable barriers to domestic workers’ ability to work. For example, several RWAs issued emails advising residents to ask domestic workers to minimise or avoid usage of the lift and take the stairs instead. They also discouraged domestic workers from waiting in the common areas in between shifts. RWAs also invaded domestic workers’ privacy by mandating the disclosure of personal information without any protocols in place to keep this information secure.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/dwru-bbgs-mku-covid19-invisible-household-workers'>https://cis-india.org/raw/dwru-bbgs-mku-covid19-invisible-household-workers</a>
</p>
No publisherGeeta MenonCovid19ResearchNetwork EconomiesResearchers at WorkDigital Domestic Work2020-06-19T12:34:22ZBlog EntryPlatformisation of Domestic Work in India: Report from a Multistakeholder Consultation
https://cis-india.org/raw/platformisation-of-domestic-work-in-india-report-from-a-multistakeholder-consultation
<b>On November 16, 2019, The Centre for Internet and Society invited officials from the Department of Labour (Government of Karnataka), members of domestic worker unions, domestic workers, company representatives, and civil society researchers at the Student Christian Mission of India House to discuss preliminary findings of an ongoing research project and facilitate a multistakeholder consultation to understand the contemporaneous platformisation of domestic work in India. Please find here a report from this consultation authored by Tasneem Mewa. </b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Report from the consultation: <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/platformisation-of-domestic-work-in-india-report-february-2020/" target="_blank">Download</a> (PDF)</h4>
<h4>Agenda and details of the consultation: <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/domestic-work-in-the-gig-economy-20191116" target="_blank">URL</a></h4>
<hr />
<h3>Introduction</h3>
<p>On November 16, 2019, The Centre for Internet and Society invited officials from the Department of Labour (Government of Karnataka), members of domestic worker unions, domestic workers, company representatives, and civil society researchers at the Student Christian Mission of India House to discuss preliminary findings of an
ongoing research project and facilitate a multistakeholder consultation to understand the contemporaneous platformisation of domestic work in India.</p>
<p>This collaborative project is being led by the the Centre for Internet and Society, India (CIS) together with Domestic Workers Rights Union (DWRU) in Bangalore. The research team comprises of Geeta Menon, Parijatha G.P., Sumathi, Radha K., and Zennathunnisa from DWRU, and Aayush Rathi and Ambika Tandon from CIS. Through a collective research process, this research team has explored the proliferation of digital platforms as a key intermediary in the domestic work sector, and in supporting or challenging deeply rooted structural inequities. For more information on the research project, see the project announcement published on the CIS website [1]. This work forms part of the Association for Progressive Communications’ <a href="https://www.apc.org/en/project/firn-feminist-internet-research-network" target="_blank">Feminist Internet Research Network</a> project, supported by the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.</p>
<p>The multistakeholder consultation was structured in two segments: a) a presentation outlining initial observations and analysis, and b) a semi-moderated open discussion. Together, these sessions aimed to initiate conversations pertaining to the role of digital platforms, the legal classification of domestic and gig workers, and devising regulatory solutions to improve conditions of work. Preliminary findings were based on qualitative in-depth interviews with workers, platform companies, unions, skilling agencies, and labour officials in both Bengaluru and
New Delhi. Feminist approaches were employed in conducting these interviews, and participatory, consensual, reflexive and collaborative research was prioritised.</p>
<p>Situating the lived realities of domestic workers, the event sought to centre the voice of domestic workers in the consultation around the future of their work. The event had attendance from multilingual attendees. The original presentation was made in English, and Geeta Menon translated the presentation and the discussion that followed in Kannada [2].</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Footnotes</h3>
<p>[1] Tandon, A., & Rathi, A. (2019, October 1). Digital mediation of domestic and care work in India: Project
Announcement. Retrieved from <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-domestic-work-india-announcement" target="_blank">https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-domestic-work-india-announcement</a></p>
<p>[2] Rathi, A. (2019, November 16). Domestic Work in the 'Gig Economy'. Retrieved from
<a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/domestic-work-in-the-gig-economy-20191116" target="_blank">https://cis-india.org/raw/domestic-work-in-the-gig-economy-20191116</a>; Tandon, A., & Rathi, A. (2019).
Domestic workers in the ‘gig’ economy [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
<a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/domestic-work-and-platforms-presentation" target="_blank">https://cis-india.org/raw/domestic-work-and-platforms-presentation</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/platformisation-of-domestic-work-in-india-report-from-a-multistakeholder-consultation'>https://cis-india.org/raw/platformisation-of-domestic-work-in-india-report-from-a-multistakeholder-consultation</a>
</p>
No publishertasneemDigital EconomyRAW EventsDigital LabourResearchResearchers at WorkDigital Domestic Work2020-02-17T09:46:52ZBlog Entry