Search results

This chapter aims to identify the impact of misbelief and heuristics on the engagement of giggers and customers with gigging organisations. This is of value due to the plethora of gigging opportunities and our lack of knowledge about how and why people choose to take up these opportunities. In addition, the gigs may frequently go unrecorded with payments made through systems such as PayPal which can allow international payments to be made without remittances. This chapter utilises some of the primary evolutionary theories to explore the efficacy and conflict in communications between gigging organisations, their customers and providers (giggers). Those selected are: misbelief in the conscious mind; and heuristics, such as the availability and confirmatory heuristics in the unconscious mind. Misbelief is addressed as a spandrel, and heuristics are discussed through the lens of fast and frugal approaches. Through a text analysis of 77 international gigging organisations, the messages conveyed are assessed against both evolutionary theory and prior research into the gig economy. The findings are that evolutionary psychology provides a useful framework for analysing these messages, as well as aiding understanding of gigging behaviours. HRM practitioners could make use of this form of analysis to support their design of interactions with giggers to ensure clarity on both sides.

In this chapter, the authors critique dominant technocratic conceptions of rigor in management research and elaborate an alternative account of rigor that is rooted in methodology and involves a concern with the quality of scientific reasoning rather than a narrower focus on methods or measurement issues per se. Based on the proposed redefinition, the authors conceptualize how rigor, as an essential quality of reasoning, may be defined and the authors in turn qualify alternative methodological criteria for how they might assess the rigor of any particular piece of research. In short, with this chapter the authors’ overall aim is to shift the basis of rigor to an altogether more legitimate and commensurable notion that squarely puts the focus on reasoning and scientific inference for quantitative and qualitative research alike. The authors highlight some of the benefits that such an alternative and unified view of rigor may potentially provide toward fostering the quality and progress of management research.

Many academics have, as of late, shown commitment to decolonising academic research and/or have (re-)educated themselves, at least to some extent, on Indigenous epistemologies, methodologies and methods. While these efforts seem commendable, they may lead to tenacious expectations by some senior academics that new and emerging Indigenous scholars must use Indigenous research tools when conducting decolonising research with their communities. However, such expectations can create ethical issues in instances where the use of Indigenous research tools may be inappropriate or even harmful due to the ongoing impact of deep colonisation in the community. Such counterproductive expectations also disempower emerging Indigenous researchers as they undermine the researcher’s knowledge of what is and is not appropriate in their communities. In this autoethnographic account, an Indigenous knowledgemaker and her non-Indigenous academic mentor jointly reflect on the tightrope walk between meeting academic expectations and contributing to the decolonisation of Indigenous communities in meaningful, non-harmful ways. Drawing on Edward Said (1979, 2004), we contemplate whether the increasing dissemination of Indigenous scholarship has generated a type of ‘academic neo-orientalism’ that is characterised by academic outsiders exoticising emerging Indigenous scholars in various research matters and thus re-colonise (perhaps contrary to their sincere intentions) Indigenous scholarship.