Disruption of legacy infrastructure systems by novel digital and connected technologies represents not simply the rise of cyberphysical systems as hybrid physical and digital assets but, ultimately, the integration of legacy systems into a new cognitive ecosystem. This cognitive ecosystem, an ecology of massive data flows, artificial intelligence, institutional and intellectual structures, and connected technologies, is poised to alter how humans and artificial intelligence understand and control our world. Infrastructure managers need to be ready for this paradigm shift, recognizing their systems are increasingly being absorbed into an emerging suite of data, analytical tools, and decisionmaking technologies that will fundamentally restructure how legacy systems behave and are controlled, how decisions are made, and most importantly how workers interact with the systems. Infrastructure managers must restructure their organizations and engage in cross-organizational sensemaking if they are to be capable of navigating the complexity of the cognitive ecosystem. The cognitive ecosystem is fundamentally poised to change what infrastructures are, necessitating the need for managers to take a close look at the functions and actions of their own systems. The continuing evolution of the Anthropocene and the cognitive ecosystem has profound implications for infrastructure education. A sustained commitment to change is necessary that restructures and reorients infrastructure organizations within the cognitive ecosystem, where knowledge is generated, and control of services is wielded by myriad stakeholders.
Flexible Work and Personal Digital Infrastructures
Flexible, contingent, or 'agile,' working arrangements provide workers with greater autonomy over when, where, or how to fulfill their responsibilities. In search of increased productivity and reduced absenteeism, organizations have increasingly turned to flexible work arrangements. Although access to flexible work arrangements is more prevalent among high-skilled workers, in the form of flextime or co-working, the past decade has also witnessed growth of independent contractors, digital nomadism, digitally enabled crowdwork, online freelancing, and on-demand platform labor. Flexible work arrangements reduce commutes and can enable workers with care-responsibilities to stay in the workforce. Younger workers also see flexibility as a top priority when considering career opportunities.
Flexible working arrangements can also be mutually beneficial, enabling organizations to scale dynamically. Specific skill sets can be immediately accessed by turning to freelancers to fill organizational gaps. A growing number of organizations and workers rely on short-term and project-based relationships, using online platforms such as Upwork or Fiverr to connect.
However, flexible work arrangements often come entwined with precarity cloaked in emancipatory narratives. Fixed salaries and benefits have given way to hourly rates and quantified ratings. Flexible workers often face unpredictability and uncertainty as they carry more risk and responsibility, and are burdened with a great portion of administrative costs (that is, overhead) associated with organizational support systems. Flexible workers at Google, for instance, outnumber full time workers but face far more unpredictability.
Current formulations consider organizations as relatively fixed 'containers', which encapsulate the work performed and the information and communications technology (ICT) systems used to perform it.12 However, flexible work arrangements take place outside of organizational containers. In this new sociotechnical dynamic, flexible workers interact with a diversity of digital tools that defy centralized, top-down standardization or governance.
We capture this diversity of digital tools through the concept of Personal Digital Infrastructures (PDIs), which denote an individualized assemblage of tools and technologies, such as personal laptops, smartphones, cloud services, and applications brought together by workers to perform their work tasks. Yet, flexible workers constantly reconfigure their PDIs as the technology landscape, client-relationship, and task requirements shift.
For flexible work arrangements to be mutually beneficial, PDI integration in ICT systems for work is increasingly necessary, beyond a narrow focus on enterprise systems supporting standard work.
Our collective research on flexible work arrangements indicates that PDIs present non-trivial challenges, but a more effective design of ICT systems for work can facilitate the integration of these bottom-up infrastructures. The nuanced understanding of PDIs presented here highlights their interplay with flexible work arrangements across key dimensions (spatial, temporal, organizational, and technological) and suggests key priorities for technology and platform developers.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1928528
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10276228
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Communications of the ACM
- ISSN:
- 1557-7317
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
The workplace has experienced extensive digital transformation, in part due to artificial intelligence's commercial availability. Though still an emerging technology, emotional artificial intelligence (EAI) is increasingly incorporated into enterprise systems to augment and automate organizational decisions and to monitor and manage workers. EAI use is often celebrated for its potential to improve workers' wellbeing and performance as well as address organizational problems such as bias and safety. Workers subject to EAI in the workplace are data subjects whose data make EAI possible and who are most impacted by it. However, we lack empirical knowledge about data subjects' perspectives on EAI, including in the workplace. To this end, using a relational ethics lens, we qualitatively analyzed 395 U.S. adults' open-ended survey (partly representative) responses regarding the perceived benefits and risks they associate with being subjected to EAI in the workplace. While participants acknowledged potential benefits of being subject to EAI (e.g., employers using EAI to aid their wellbeing, enhance their work environment, reduce bias), a myriad of potential risks overshadowed perceptions of potential benefits. Participants expressed concerns regarding the potential for EAI use to harm their wellbeing, work environment and employment status, and create and amplify bias and stigma against them, especially the most marginalized (e.g., along dimensions of race, gender, mental health status, disability). Distrustful of EAI and its potential risks, participants anticipated conforming to (e.g., partaking in emotional labor) or refusing (e.g., quitting a job) EAI implementation in practice. We argue that EAI may magnify, rather than alleviate, existing challenges data subjects face in the workplace and suggest that some EAI-inflicted harms would persist even if concerns of EAI's accuracy and bias are addressed.more » « less
-
We investigate the privacy practices of labor organizers in the computing technology industry and explore the changes in these practices as a response to remote work. Our study is situated at the intersection of two pivotal shifts in workplace dynamics: (a) the increase in online workplace communications due to remote work, and (b) the resurgence of the labor movement and an increase in collective action in workplaces-especially in the tech industry, where this phenomenon has been dubbed the tech worker movement. The shift of work-related communications to online digital platforms in response to an increase in remote work is creating new opportunities for and risks to the privacy of workers. These risks are especially significant for organizers of collective action, with several well-publicized instances of retaliation against labor organizers by companies. Through a series of qualitative interviews with 29 tech workers involved in collective action, we investigate how labor organizers assess and mitigate risks to privacy while engaging in these actions. Among the most common risks that organizers experienced are retaliation from their employer, lateral worker conflict, emotional burnout, and the possibility of information about the collective effort leaking to management. Depending on the nature and source of the risk, organizers use a blend of digital security practices and community-based mechanisms. We find that digital security practices are more relevant when the threat comes from management, while community management and moderation are central to protecting organizers from lateral worker conflict. Since labor organizing is a collective rather than individual project, individual privacy and collective privacy are intertwined, sometimes in conflict and often mutually constitutive. Notions of privacy that solely center individuals are often incompatible with the needs of organizers, who noted that safety in numbers could only be achieved when workers presented a united front to management. Based on our interviews, we identify key topics for future research, such as the growing prevalence of surveillance software and the needs of international and gig worker organizers.We conclude with design recommendations that can help create safer, more secure and more private tools to better address the risks that organizers face.more » « less
-
We investigate the privacy practices of labor organizers in the computing technology industry and explore the changes in these practices as a response to remote work. Our study is situated at the intersection of two pivotal shifts in workplace dynamics: (a) the increase in online workplace communications due to remote work, and (b) the resurgence of the labor movement and an increase in collective action in workplaces— especially in the tech industry, where this phenomenon has been dubbed the tech worker movement. The shift of work-related communications to online digital platforms in response to an increase in remote work is creating new opportunities for and risks to the privacy of workers. These risks are especially significant for organizers of collective action, with several well-publicized instances of retaliation against labor organizers by companies. Through a series of qualitative interviews with 29 tech workers involved in collective action, we investigate how labor organizers assess and mitigate risks to privacy while engaging in these actions. Among the most common risks that organizers experienced are retaliation from their employer, lateral worker conflict, emotional burnout, and the possibility of information about the collective effort leaking to management. Depending on the nature and source of the risk, organizers use a blend of digital security practices and community-based mechanisms. We find that digital security practices are more relevant when the threat comes from management, while community management and moderation are central to protecting organizers from lateral worker conflict. Since labor organizing is a collective rather than individual project, individual privacy and collective privacy are intertwined, sometimes in conflict and often mutually constitutive. Notions of privacy that solely center individuals are often incompatible with the needs of organizers, who noted that safety in numbers could only be achieved when workers presented a united front to management. Based on our interviews, we identify key topics for future research, such as the growing prevalence of surveillance software and the needs of international and gig worker organizers. We conclude with design recommendations that can help create safer, more secure and more private tools to better address the risks that organizers face.more » « less
-
As we look to the future of natural history collections and a global integration of biodiversity data, we are reliant on a diverse workforce with the skills necessary to build, grow, and support the data, tools, and resources of the Digital Extended Specimen (DES; Webster 2019, Lendemer et al. 2020, Hardisty 2020). Future “DES Data Curators” – those who will be charged with maintaining resources created through the DES – will require skills and resources beyond what is currently available to most natural history collections staff. In training the workforce to support the DES we have an opportunity to broaden our community and ensure that, through the expansion of biodiversity data, the workforce landscape itself is diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible. A fully-implemented DES will provide training that encapsulates capacity building, skills development, unifying protocols and best practices guidance, and cutting-edge technology that also creates inclusive, equitable, and accessible systems, workflows, and communities. As members of the biodiversity community and the current workforce, we can leverage our knowledge and skills to develop innovative training models that: include a range of educational settings and modalities; address the needs of new communities not currently engaged with digital data; from their onset, provide attribution for past and future work and do not perpetuate the legacy of colonial practices and historic inequalities found in many physical natural history collections. Recent reports from the Biodiversity Collections Network (BCoN 2019) and the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020) specifically address workforce needs in support of the DES. To address workforce training and inclusivity within the context of global data integration, the Alliance for Biodiversity Knowledge included a topic on Workforce capacity development and inclusivity in Phase 2 of the consultation on Converging Digital Specimens and Extended Specimens - Towards a global specification for data integration. Across these efforts, several common themes have emerged relative to workforce training and the DES. A call for a community needs assessment: As a community, we have several unknowns related to the current collections workforce and training needs. We would benefit from a baseline assessment of collections professionals to define current job responsibilities, demographics, education and training, incentives, compensation, and benefits. This includes an evaluation of current employment prospects and opportunities. Defined skills and training for the 21st century collections professional: We need to be proactive and define the 21st century workforce skills necessary to support the development and implementation of the DES. When we define the skills and content needs we can create appropriate training opportunities that include scalable materials for capacity building, educational materials that develop relevant skills, unifying protocols across the DES network, and best practices guidance for professionals. Training for data end-users: We need to train data end-users in biodiversity and data science at all levels of formal and informal education from primary and secondary education through the existing workforce. This includes developing training and educational materials, creating data portals, and building analyses that are inclusive, accessible, and engage the appropriate community of science educators, data scientists, and biodiversity researchers. Foster a diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible and professional workforce: As the DES develops and new tools and resources emerge, we need to be intentional in our commitment to building tools that are accessible and in assuring that access is equitable. This includes establishing best practices to ensure the community providing and accessing data is inclusive and representative of the diverse global community of potential data providers and users. Upfront, we must acknowledge and address issues of historic inequalities and colonial practices and provide appropriate attribution for past and future work while ensuring legal and regulatory compliance. Efforts must include creating transparent linkages among data and the humans that create the data that drives the DES. In this presentation, we will highlight recommendations for building workforce capacity within the DES that are diverse, inclusive, equitable and accessible, take into account the requirements of the biodiversity science community, and that are flexible to meet the needs of an evolving field.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- The DOI is not currently available.
