Field Formation in the Gig Economy: A Structural and Symbolic Analysis

• In Event: Science, Knowledge & Technology Section Roundtables
  In Refereed Roundtable (60 minute): Table 5: Knowledge Production in the Age of AI

Abstract

The gig economy has inspired a rapidly expanding body of scholarly work over the past decade and a half. Yet, this dramatic growth in publications has not produced a coherent, convergent intellectual field. This article asks why. I argue that the observed fragmentation is not merely an intellectual divergence but a structural outcome of institutional opportunity structures, where differential data accessibility and disciplinary legitimacy systematically shape research agendas. To advance this claim, I combine Regulation Theory as a diagnostic "totality checklist" with Bourdieusian analysis of the academic field. Using bibliometric, keyword, and co-citation analysis of the 1,000 most cited articles and their 4,003 unique references, I map the field's symbolic and thematic architecture. The findings reveal a paradox: while the field exhibits stabilized hierarchies of symbolic capital, its intellectual foundations remain deeply fragmented. Over 95% of canonical references are cited only once, indicating weak canon formation. Thematic analysis shows pronounced dominance of Production (labor process, algorithmic control) and Regulation (legal classification) themes, while the Accumulation regime (financialization, valuation) remains critically understudied. Integrative scholarship spanning these dimensions is rare; work like Vallas and Schor functions as a vital but exceptional bridge. I conclude that the field's structure is powerfully shaped by what is methodologically legible and disciplinarily rewarded. This framework not only clarifies the political economy of knowledge production within gig economy research but also offers a predictive model for understanding the likely development of other contested domains, such as AI and labor.

Author

• Will Charles, Miami University-Ohio