Search results

This paper aims to build upon the accountability pyramid model by presenting two studies that examine the dimensionality of individual accountability among Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) gig workers.

For the first study, aimed at investigating the dimensionality of individual accountability of gig workers, the authors collected data from MTurkers by administering two surveys in the English and Mandarin Chinese languages with 185 respondents. The authors implemented principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to analyse the data. For the second study, aimed at establishing validation of the dimensionality found in the first study, the authors collected data from an additional 148 respondents.

The results indicated that the intensity and salience dimensions merged into one factor that the authors labelled Accountability Significance, while the process and outcome dimensions merged into one factor labelled Accountability Focus. Additionally, the authors found that individual accountability is a second-order construct encompassing Accountability Significance and Accountability Focus as first-order factors. The authors validated the findings in the second study.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first quantitative study investigating the individual accountability of gig workers. The validation of individual accountability in MTurkers offers valuable insights into MTurkers’s Hybrid Accountability Focus and Accountability Significance.

The purpose of this study is to present ANTi-microhistory of social innovation in education within Robert Owen’s communal experiment at New Harmony, Indiana. The authors zoom out in the historical context of social innovation before zooming into the New Harmony case.

The authors used ANTi-microhistory approach to unpack the controversy around social innovation using the five-step procedure recently proposed by Mills et al. (2022), a version of the five-step procedure originally proposed by Tureta et al. (2021).

The authors found that the educational leaders of the New Harmony community preceded proponents of innovation, such as Drucker (1957) and Fairweather (1967), who viewed education as a form of social innovation.

The authors contribute to the history of social innovation in education by exploring the New Harmony community’s education society to uncover the enactment of sustainable social innovation and the origin story of humanistic management education.