results/dissemination

Labour Aspects in the Creative Sector

Paper presented by A. Piliousis and A. Baltzis “Measuring precarious work in the CCIs” at the 6th Conference on Cultural and Creative Industries, December 6-7, 2024

In the context of the research project LaPreSc (National Recovery and Resilience Plan “Greece 2.0”, funded by the European Union – NextGenerationEU, Implementation Body: HFRI – Project Number: 16313, Beneficiary: University of Crete), a comprehensive research initiative has been developed, comprising in-depth interviews and a survey on social cohesion and precarious work in the cultural and creative industries (CCIs). This research is currently underway. The survey is designed to collect quantitative data for the two theoretical constructs, with the aim of investigating the relationship between them within these sectors and in a country where research on artistic and creative labor is relatively limited. This paper addresses issues pertaining to job precariousness. It delineates the process of generating observable indicators for its measurement and elucidates the methodological challenges that arise in analyzing this construct and operationalizing it for empirical research purposes.

The paper considers theoretical analyses and empirical research on labour precarity, which span a considerable time range (see, for example but not limited to: Allan et al., 2021, 2024; Blustein et al., 2020, 2023; Duffy et al., 2017; Kalleberg, 2018; Padrosa, Belvis, et al., 2021; Padrosa, Bolíbar, et al., 2021; Politi et al., 2022; Rick, 2024; Rodgers, 1989). It identifies the dimensions of the construct and addresses the particular indicators associated with artistic and creative labour. The analysis is grounded in the dimensions of the concept, as delineated in the late 1980s by Rodgers (1989). This conceptualization encompasses four key areas:

a. the time horizon of the employment relationship,

b. the extent of individual and social control over working conditions,

c. the level of individual and social protection for employees, and

d. the level of income.

Subsequent researchers, including Kalleberg (2018), Lorey (2015), and more recently Allan and colleagues (2021, 2024), have built upon this initial approach, introducing a greater degree of diversification in the dimensions of the concept. For instance, these include physical and psychological safety conditions in the workplace (see Allan et al., 2021) and the highlighting of the multidimensional importance of job precariousness as a social phenomenon (see, for example, Daovisan et al., 2023; Lorey, 2015).

Some analyses have indicated that the phenomenon of precarious work, along with the corresponding theoretical analyses and political elaborations, is related to the socially and historically determined perception of post-war “Western” societies of the so-called standard employment relationship – SER (cf. Kalleberg, 2018). The latter is defined as a regular and durable salaried employment relationship accompanied by a series of social benefits and employee protection regulations. However, research indicates that this type of employment relationship has never been dominant, as for significant segments of the working population, the employment status differs considerably from that of the SER (Kalleberg, 2018). The largest part of artistic and creative labour is indeed included in this category. Consequently, defining precariousness in these sectors is challenging, and reliable and valid indicators for measuring it are difficult to produce. The discussion in this paper addresses these problems, with a focus on the specific features of labour in the CCIs.

References

Allan, B. A., Autin, K. L., & Wilkins-Yel, K. G. (2021). Precarious work in the 21st century: A psychological perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, 103491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103491

Allan, B. A., Kim, T., & Pham, J. (2024). Disentangling underemployment and precarious work: A latent profile analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 32(3), 560–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727231212187

Blustein, D. L., Allan, B. A., Davila, A., Smith, C. M., Gordon, M., Wu, X., Milo, L., & Whitson, N. (2023). Profiles of decent work and precarious work: Exploring macro-level predictors and mental health outcomes. Journal of Career Assessment, 31(3), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727221119473

Blustein, D. L., Perera, H. N., Diamonti, A. J., Gutowski, E., Meerkins, T., Davila, A., Erby, W., & Konowitz, L. (2020). The uncertain state of work in the U.S.: Profiles of decent work and precarious work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 122, 103481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103481

Daovisan, H., Phukrongpet, P., Wannachot, W., Rattanasuteerakul, K., Mamom, J., & Khamnu, N. (2023). “Why do they leave or why do they stay?” The effect of precarious employment, division of work, inter-role conflict and deviant behavior on affective job disruption. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 35(4), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-022-09418-1

Duffy, R. D., Allan, B. A., England, J. W., Blustein, D. L., Autin, K. L., Douglass, R. P., Ferreira, J., & Santos, E. J. R. (2017). The development and initial validation of the Decent Work Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(2), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000191

Kalleberg, A. L. (2018). Precarious lives: Job insecurity and well-being in rich democracies. Polity Press.

Lorey, I. (2015). State of insecurity: Government of the precarious. Verso.

Padrosa, E., Belvis, F., Benach, J., & Julià, M. (2021). Measuring precarious employment in the European Working Conditions Survey: Psychometric properties and construct validity in Spain. Quality & Quantity, 55(2), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01017-2

Padrosa, E., Bolíbar, M., Julià, M., & Benach, J. (2021). Comparing precarious employment across countries: Measurement invariance of the Employment Precariousness Scale for Europe (EPRES-E). Social Indicators Research, 154(3), 893–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02539-w

Politi, E., Piccitto, G., Cini, L., Béal, A., & Staerklé, C. (2022). Mobilizing precarious workers in Italy: Two pathways of collective action intentions. Social Movement Studies, 21(5), 608–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2021.1940919

Rick, J. (2024). Acutely precarious? Detecting objective precarity in journalism. Digital Journalism, Published online, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2294995

Rodgers, G. (1989). Precarious work in Western Europe: The state of the debate. In G. Rodgers & J. Rodgers (Eds.), Precarious jobs in labour market regulation: The growth of atypical employment in Western Europe (pp. 1–16). ILO (International Institute of Labour Studies), Free University of Brussels.[T1]

For more information about the Conference here.