Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Journal of Digital Social Research

Research Articles

Vol. 4 No. 1 (2022)

It's Crowded at the Bottom: Trust, Visibility, and Search Algorithms on Care.com

DOI
https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v4i1.98
Submitted
July 27, 2021
Published
2022-01-07

Abstract

Trust, visibility, and the deepening of existing inequalities are major themes within the platform care work literature. However, no study to date has applied these themes to an analysis of worker profiles. I investigate both how workers communicate trustworthiness through their profiles on Care.com, the world’s largest care work platform, and which of these profiles are rendered more and less visible to clients. Through a qualitative content analysis of profiles (n=60) sampled from the top and bottom search results in three different US zip codes, I find that visibility is often related to connectivity, response time, and positive reviews, and who is rendered visible mirrors preexisting inequalities. The language of “passion” for the job is common across top and bottom profiles, indicating a contradiction between the deemphasis on professionalization and the high level of connectivity and responsiveness present in top profiles.

References

  1. Arriagada, A., & Ibáñez, F. (2020). “You need at least one picture daily, if not, you’re dead”: Content creators and platform evolution in the social media ecology. Social Media + Society, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120944624
  2. Bajwa, U., Gastaldo, D., Di Ruggiero, E., & Knorr, L. (2018). The health of workers in the global gig economy. Globalization and Health, 14, Article 124. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-018-0444-8
  3. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim Code. Polity.
  4. Bhattacharya, T. (Ed.). (2017). Social reproduction theory: Remapping class, recentering oppression. Pluto Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1vz494j
  5. Brayne, S. (2017). Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 977–1008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417725865
  6. Bucher, T. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1164–1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812440159
  7. Bucher, T. (2016). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086
  8. Burnham, L., & Theodore, N. (2012). Home economics: The invisible and unregulated world of domestic work. National Domestic Workers Alliance. https://www.domesticworkers.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/HomeEconomicsReport.pdf
  9. Bussewitz, C., & Olson, A. (2020, July 5). Gig workers face shifting roles, competition in pandemic. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/gig-workers-face-shifting-roles-competition-in-pandemic/2020/07/05/3589759e-bec8-11ea-8908-68a2b9eae9e0_story.html
  10. Care.com. (2017, June 14). What is the premium membership on Care.com?. Retrieved April 21, 2021, from https://www.care.com/c/questions/29145/what-is-the-premium-membership-on-carecom/
  11. Care.com. (2021). [Homepage]. Retrieved April 24, 2021, from https://www.care.com/ppr.do
  12. Care.com, Inc. (2019). 2018 annual report and form 10K. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Retrieved May 9, 2021, from https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDF/NYSE_CRCM_2018.pdf
  13. Chen, J. Y. (2018). Thrown under the bus and outrunning it! The logic of Didi and taxi drivers’ labour and activism in the on-demand economy. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2691–2711. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817729149
  14. City-Data. (2019). 30032 zip code (Candler-McAfee, Georgia) profile - Homes, apartments, schools, population, income, averages, housing, demographics, location, statistics, sex offenders, residents and real estate info. Retrieved April 18, 2021, from https://www.city-data.com/zips/30032.html
  15. Conger, K., Satariano, A., & Isaac, M. (2020, March 18). Pandemic erodes gig economy work. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/technology/gig-economy-pandemic.html
  16. Cooke, M. (2015, October 31). The Bronx slave market. Viewpoint Magazine. https://viewpointmag.com/2015/10/31/the-bronx-slave-market-1950/ (Original work published 1950)
  17. Data USA. (2018a). Fremont, CA. Retrieved April 18, 2021, from https://datausa.io/profile/geo/fremont-ca
  18. Data USA. (2018b). Park Slope, Carroll Gardens & Red Hook PUMA, NY. Retrieved April 18, 2021, from https://datausa.io/profile/geo/park-slope-carroll-gardens-red-hook-puma-ny
  19. D’Cruz, P., & Noronha E. (2016). Positives outweighing negatives: The experiences of Indian crowdsourced workers. Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation, 10(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.13169/workorgalaboglob.10.1.0044
  20. Dickson, E. (2020, July 3). Coronavirus is killing the working mother. Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/working-motherhood-covid-19-coronavirus-1023609/
  21. Ehrenreich, B., & Hochschild, A. R. (2003). Introduction. In B. Ehrenreich & A. R. Hochschild (Eds.), Global woman: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy (pp. 1–14). Metropolitan Books.
  22. England, P., Budig, M., & Folbre, N. (2002). Wages of virtue: The relative pay of care work. Social Problems, 49(4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2002.49.4.455
  23. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
  24. Farrell, M. B. (2014, August 14). Care.com, the big business of babysitting. Globe Magazine. https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2014/08/14/care-com-big-business-babysitting/4Fjpf5q3YUSw3rMn9GraOM/story.html
  25. Ferrari, F., & Graham, M. (2021). Fissures in algorithmic power: Platforms, code, and contestation. Cultural Studies, 35(4–5), 814–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2021.1895250
  26. Flanagan, F. (2019). Theorising the gig economy and home-based service work. Journal of Industrial Relations, 61(1), 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185618800518
  27. Gerson, E. S. (2019, July 8). Background checks: What every family needs to know before hiring a caregiver. Care.com. Retrieved April 22, 2021, from https://www.care.com/c/stories/3147/nanny-background-checks/
  28. Glenn, E. N. (1992). From servitude to service work: Historical continuities in the racial division of paid reproductive labor. Signs, 18(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1086/494777
  29. Graham, M., & Anwar, M. A. (2019). The global gig economy: Towards a planetary labour market? First Monday, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i4.9913
  30. Gray, M. L., & Suri, S. (2019). Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  31. Grose, J. (2021, February 4). America’s mothers are in crisis. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/parenting/working-moms-mental-health-coronavirus.html
  32. Hochschild, A. R. (2013). The outsourced self: What happens when we pay others to live our lives for us. Picador.
  33. Hsu, A. (2020, September 29). ‘This is too much’: Working moms are reaching the breaking point during the pandemic. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/918127776/this-is-too-much-working-moms-are-reaching-the-breaking-point-during-the-pandemi
  34. Jaffe, S. (2021). Work won’t love you back: How devotion to our jobs keeps us exploited, exhausted, and alone. Bold Type Books.
  35. Kaine, S., Flanagan, F., & Ravenswood, K. (2020). Future of work (FoW) and gender. In A. Wilkinson & M. Barry (Eds.), The future of work and employment (pp. 119–138). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786438256.00016
  36. Macdonald, C. L. (2011). Shadow mothers: Nannies, au pairs, and the micropolitics of mothering. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520947818
  37. McDonald, P., Williams, P., & Mayes, R. (2021). Means of control in the organization of digitally intermediated care work. Work, Employment and Society, 35(5), 872–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020969107
  38. Montgomery, T., & Baglioni, S. (2021). Defining the gig economy: Platform capitalism and the reinvention of precarious work. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 41(9–10), 1012–1025. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-08-2020-0400
  39. Newlands, G. (2021). Algorithmic surveillance in the gig economy: The organization of work through Lefebvrian conceived space. Organization Studies, 42(5), 719–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620937900
  40. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1pwt9w5
  41. Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019). Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science, 366(6464), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax2342
  42. Ollier-Malaterre, A., Jacobs, J. A., & Rothbard, N. P. (2019). Technology, work, and family: Digital cultural capital and boundary management. Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1), 425–447. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-022433
  43. Parker, G. G., Alstyne, M. W. V., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy?and how to make them work for you. W. W. Norton & Company.
  44. Petrescu, P. (2014, October 1). Google organic click-through rates in 2014. Moz. https://moz.com/blog/google-organic-click-through-rates-in-2014
  45. Poo, A.-J. (2017, June 16). Out from the shadows: Domestic workers speak in the United States. OpenDemocracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/out-from-shadows-domestic-workers-speak-in-united-states/
  46. Rega, I., & Medrado, A. (2021). The stepping into visibility model: Reflecting on consequences of social media visibility – a Global South perspective. Information, Communication & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1954228
  47. Schor, J. B. (2017). Does the sharing economy increase inequality within the eighty percent?: Findings from a qualitative study of platform providers. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 10(2), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsw047
  48. Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.),?The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170–183). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n12
  49. Shapiro, A. (2018). Between autonomy and control: Strategies of arbitrage in the “on-demand” economy. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2954–2971. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817738236
  50. Sharabi, L. L. (2021). Exploring how beliefs about algorithms shape (offline) success in online dating: A two-wave longitudinal investigation. Communication Research, 48(7), 931–952. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219896936
  51. Sundararajan, A. (2016). The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. MIT Press.
  52. Tandon, A., & Rathi A. (2021). Care in the platform economy: Interrogating the digital organization of domestic work in India. In B. Dolber, M. Rodino-Colocino, C. Kumanyika, & T. Wolfson (Eds.), The gig economy: Workers and media in the age of convergence (pp. 47–57). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003140054-6
  53. Thurman, N., Moeller, J., Helberger, N., & Trilling, D. (2019). My friends, editors, algorithms, and I: Examining audience attitudes to news selection. Digital Journalism, 7(4), 447–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1493936
  54. Ticona, J. (2020) Essential and untrusted. Dissent, 67(4), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1353/dss.2020.0080
  55. Ticona, J., & Mateescu, A. (2018a). Trusted strangers: Carework platforms’ cultural entrepreneurship in the on-demand economy. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4384–4404. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818773727
  56. Ticona, J., & Mateescu, A. (2018b, March 29). How domestic workers wager safety in the platform economy. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/40541050/how-domestic-workers-wager-safety-in-the-platform-economy
  57. Ticona, J., Mateescu, A., & Rosenblat, A. (2018) Beyond disruption: How tech shapes labor across domestic work & ridehailing. Data & Society. https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Data_Society_Beyond_Disruption_FINAL.pdf
  58. Vallas, S., & Schor, J. B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857
  59. van Doorn, N. (2017). Platform labor: On the gendered and racialized exploitation of low-income service work in the ‘on-demand’ economy. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6), 898–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1294194
  60. Walsh, S. (Director). (2021). The gig is up [Film]. Dogwoof Pictures.
  61. Williams, P., McDonald, P., & Mayes, R. (2021). Recruitment in the gig economy: Attraction and selection on digital platforms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(19), 4136–4162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1867613
  62. Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad big: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616
  63. Wood, A. J., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2021). Platform precarity: Surviving algorithmic insecurity in the gig economy. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3795375
  64. Wu, T. (2016). More than a paycheck: Nannies, work, and identity. Citizenship Studies, 20(3–4), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2016.1158358
  65. Zhou, M., Hertog, E., Kolpashnikova, K., & Kan, M.-Y. (2020). Gender inequalities: Changes in income, time use and well-being before and during the UK COVID-19 lockdown. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/u8ytc