This study examines how diversity shapes creative platform workers’ access to and exercise of voice within the precarious landscape of platform capitalism. Drawing on Bourdieu’s concepts of capital and field, we explore unique qualitative materials collected from 40 Brazilian literary content creators. The findings show that creative platform workers’ access to and exercise of voice is based on three conditions of privilege: playing the rules of the game; drawing on bundles of resources; and leveraging intermediation capacity. We identify four forms of voice among creative platform workers – shielding, demonstrating, ingroup-focused gatekeeping and affirmative voices – and highlight the relational dynamics of power in this context. This research contributes to understanding diversity in creative platform work through a privilege lens, thereby revealing the complex dynamics of power and dependence that creative platform workers experience with different industry stakeholders. This study contributes to the literature about diversity and voice by: showing that online prestige alone does not ensure voice opportunities; unveiling the variety of targets and agents in the four forms of voice in creative platform work; and highlighting the limitations of collective voice in challenging existing privilege and disadvantage systems.
AhlHeleneMarlowSusan (2021). Exploring the false promise of entrepreneurship through a postfeminist critique of the enterprise policy discourse in Sweden and the UK. Human Relations, 74, 41–68.
BarryMichaelDundonTonyWilkinsonAdrian (2018). Employee voice: Conceptualisations, meanings, limitations and possible integration. In WilkinsonAdrianDundonTonyDonagheyJimmyCovinAlexander (Eds.), Routledge companion of employment relations (pp. 251–265). London and New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BarryMichaelWilkinsonAdrian (2016). Pro-social or promanagement? A critique of the conception of employee voice as a pro-social behaviour within organizational behaviour. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 54, 261–284.
5.
BourdieuPierre (1986). The forms of capital. In John G.Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
6.
BourdieuPierreWacquantLoïc J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
7.
BrabhamDaren C. (2012). The myth of amateur crowds. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 394–410.
8.
CaseKim A.IuzziniJonathanHopkinsMorgan (2012). Systems of privilege: Intersections, awareness, and applications. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 1–10.
9.
ConorBridgetGillRosalindTaylorStephanie (2015). Gender and creative labour. Sociological Review, 63(1_suppl), 1–22.
10.
CotterKelley (2019). Playing the visibility game: How digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram. New Media & Society, 21, 895–913.
11.
CraigDavid (2019). Creator management in the social media entertainment industry. In DeuzeMarcPrengerMirjam (Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and professions (pp. 363–374). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
12.
CutoloDonatoKenneyMartin (2021). Platform-dependent entrepreneurs: Power asymmetries, risks, and strategies in the platform economy. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35, 584–605.
13.
de VaujanyFrançois-XavierLeclercq-VandelannoitteAurélieMunroIainNamaYeshHoltRobin (2021). Control and surveillance in work practice: Cultivating paradox in ‘new’ modes of organizing. Organization Studies, 42, 675–695.
14.
DennissenMarjoleinBenschopYvonnevan den BrinkMarieke (2020). Rethinking diversity management: An intersectional analysis of diversity networks. Organization Studies, 41, 219–240.
DuffyBrooke E. (2015). Amateur, autonomous, and collaborative: Myths of aspiring female cultural producers in Web 2.0. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 32, 48–64.
17.
DuffyBrooke E. (2016). The romance of work: Gender and aspirational labour in the digital culture industries. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 19, 441–457.
18.
DyAngela M.MarlowSusanMartinLee (2017). A web of opportunity or the same old story? Women digital entrepreneurs and intersectionality theory. Human Relations, 70, 286–311.
HeizmannHelenaLiuHelena (2022). “Bloody Wonder Woman!”: Identity performances of elite women entrepreneurs on Instagram. Human Relations, 75, 411–440.
23.
HirschmanAlbert O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
HirschmanAlbert O. (1986). Exit and voice: An expanding sphere of influence. In Albert O.Hirschman, Rival views of market society and other essays (pp. 77–101). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
HuangYun KueiYangWen I. (2014). Using networked narratives to understand internet book reviews in online communities. The Electronic Library, 32, 17–30.
JanssensMaddyZanoniPatrizia (2021). Making diversity research matter for social change: New conversations beyond the firm. Organization Theory, 2(2), 26317877211004603.
28.
JingFenwick F.WilkinsonAdrianMowbrayPaula KKhanMariaZhangHuanpeng (2023). How difficulties in upward voice lead to lateral voice: A case study of a Chinese hospital. Personnel Review, 52, 760–776.
29.
JonesCandaceSvejenovaSilviyaPedersenJesperTownleyBarbara (2016). Misfits, mavericks and mainstreams: Drivers of innovation in the creative industries. Organization Studies, 37, 751–768.
30.
KenneyMartinZysmanJohn (2019). Work and value creation in the platform economy. In VallasSteve P.KovalainenAnne (Eds.), Work and labor in the digital age (Research in the Sociology of Work, Vol. 33) (pp. 13–41). Leeds, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
31.
KuehnKathleenCorriganThomas F. (2013). Hope labor: The role of employment prospects in online social production. The Political Economy of Communication, 1(1), 9–25.
32.
KuhnKristine M.MalekiAmir (2017). Micro-entrepreneurs, dependent contractors, and instaserfs: Understanding online labor platform workforces. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31, 183–200.
33.
LucyJohn A. (1999). Reflexivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9, 212–215.
34.
McCallLeslie (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 1771–1800.
35.
MackenzieEwanMcKinlayAlan (2020). Hope labour and the psychic life of cultural work. Human Relations, 74, 1841–1863.
36.
MeliouElinaLopesAnaVincentSteveÖzbilginMustafa F.GroutsisDimitriaMahalingamRamaswamiRouleauLinda (2024). Social diversity and precarious organizations: An intersectional feminist perspective. Organization Studies, 45, 923–937.
37.
MeliouElinaÖzbilginMustafa F. (2024). How is the illusion of gender equality in entrepreneurship sustained? A Bourdieusian perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 61, 1536–1561.
38.
MilesMatthew B.HubermanA. Michael (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
NayarKavita I. (2017). Working it: The professionalization of amateurism in digital adult entertainment. Feminist Media Studies, 17, 473–488.
40.
NewlandsGemma (2021). Algorithmic surveillance in the gig economy: The organization of work through Lefebvrian conceived space. Organization Studies, 42, 719–737.
O’DonnellGuillermo (1986). On the fruitful convergences of Hirschman’s Exit, Voice and Loyalty and Shifting Involvements: Reflections from the recent Argentine experience. In FoxleyAlejandroMcPhersonMichael S.O’DonnellGuillermo (Eds.), Development, democracy and the art of trespassing: Essays in honor of Albert O. Hirschman (pp. 249–268). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
43.
O’MearaVictoria (2019). Weapons of the chic: Instagram influencer engagement pods as practices of resistance to Instagram platform labor. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119879671
OyetundeKabiruProuskaReaMcKearneyAidan (2022). Voice in nontraditional employment relationships: A review and future research directions. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33, 142–167.
46.
ÖzbilginMustafa F.TatliAhu (2005). Understanding Bourdieu’s contribution to organization and management studies. Academy of Management Review, 30, 855–869.
47.
PalaganasErlinda C.SanchezMarian C.MolintasMaria V. P.CaricativoRuel D. (2017). Reflexivity in qualitative research: A journey of learning. The Qualitative Report, 22, 426–438.
48.
Patrick-ThomsonHollyKranertMichael (2020). Don’t work for free: Online discursive resistance to precarity in commercial photography. Work, Employment and Society, 35, 1034–1052.
49.
RadkeHelena R. M.KutlacaMajaSiemBirteWrightStephen C.BeckerJulia C. (2020). Beyond allyship: Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24, 291–315.
50.
SchüßlerElkeAttwood-CharlesWillKirchnerStefanSchorJuliet B. (2021). Between mutuality, autonomy and domination: Rethinking digital platforms as contested relational structures. Socio-Economic Review, 19, 1217–1243.
51.
SoundararajanVivekSharmaGarimaBapujiHari (2024). Caste, social capital and precarity of labour market intermediaries: The case of dalit labour contractors in India. Organization Studies, 45, 961–985.
52.
SyedJawad (2014). Diversity management and missing voices. In WilkinsonAdrianDonagheyJimmyDundonTonyFreemanRichard B. (Eds.), Handbook of research on employee voice (pp. 421–438). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
53.
TassinariAriannaMaccaroneVincenzo (2020). Riders on the storm: Workplace solidarity among gig economy couriers in Italy and the UK. Work, Employment and Society, 34, 35–54.
54.
TatliAhuÖzbilginMustafa F. (2012). An emic approach to intersectional study of diversity at work: A Bourdieuan framing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 180–200.
55.
ThäterLauraGegenhuberThomasSchüßlerElkeEllmerMarkus (2022). How do workers gain voice on digital work platforms? Hotspots and blind spots in research on platform worker voice. In WilkinsonAdrianDundonTonyMowbrayPaula K. (Eds.), Missing voice? Worker voice and social dialogue in the platform economy (pp. 71–107). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
56.
TomasenaJosé M. (2019). Negotiating collaborations: BookTubers, the publishing industry, and YouTube’s ecosystem. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119894004.
VallasStevenSchorJuliet B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 273–294.
59.
VandaeleKurt (2018). Will trade unions survive in the platform economy? Emerging patterns of platform workers’ collective voice and representation in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Trade Union Institute.
60.
WilkinsonAdrianBarryMichaelMorrisonElisabeth (2020). Toward an integration of research on employee voice. Human Resource Management Review, 30, 100677.
61.
WilkinsonAdrianGollanPaul J.KalfaSeniaXuYing (2018). Voices unheard: Employee voice in the new century. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29, 711–724.
62.
WilkinsonAdrianKnollMichaelMowbrayPaula K.DundonTony (2021). New trajectories in worker voice: Integrating and applying contemporary challenges in the organization of work. British Management Journal, 32, 693–707.
63.
WoodAlex J.GrahamMarkLehdonvirtaViliHjorthIsis (2019). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33, 56–75.
64.
WoodAlex J.LehdonvirtaVili (2021). Antagonism beyond employment: How the ‘subordinated agency’ of labour platforms generates conflict in the remote gig economy. Socio-Economic Review, 19, 1369–1396.
65.
WoodAlex J.LehdonvirtaViliGrahamMark (2018). Workers of the internet unite? Online freelancer organisation among remote gig economy workers in six Asian and African countries. New Technology, Work and Employment, 33, 95–112.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
