Thread by @valeriodeste

Together with many researchers I deeply admire, I have signed a letter written by @veenadubal and others to express concerns about corporate-sponsored research on the gig economy. THREAD 👇🏼

This kind of research is often based on non-replicable or non-transparent data. It is sometimes based on deeply flawed or biased data collection and it is used to push regulators in the direction platforms want, depriving workers of essential labor rights👇🏼medium.com/@gigeconomyres…

Various platforms have contacted me in the past offering to cooperate on research about the gig-economy. I have never accepted such cooperation because it was evident they wanted to control the narrative of the research output. Saying ‘no’ in this case is possible and a duty

To know more about the serious concerns raised about platforms-endorsed research, this piece by @janinemberg and @HannahJx0 is essential and is aptly titled “Too good to be true” journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…

To conclude. Platforms are looking for ways to spin unrealistic narratives depicting bogus self-employment as favorable to workers, while in fact it denies them due protection and is a burden to society 👇🏼

Platforms have always tried to manipulate the narrative to push for deregulation or non-regulation. As more and more lawmakers and courts around the world are now resisting these narratives, platforms want to use “research” to reverse the tide

As they do this, it is essential for academics to resist this cooperation when it doesn’t correspond to academic standards, for researchers and journalists to question the results of corporate-endorsed research and demand full access to the data 👇🏼

Finally, it is essential for policymakers to always be wary of research produced with corporate data that is used to spin deregulatory narratives. We all need more knowledge and research, but it is vital that they are based on transparent and accessible data

@threader_app compile please