Global knowledge work and workers

Citation

Nicolopoulou, K., Karatas-Ozkan, M. and Tatli, A. (2007), "Global knowledge work and workers", Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 26 No. 8. https://doi.org/10.1108/eoi.2007.03026haa.001

Global knowledge work and workers

New directions from diversity and equality perspectives

Globalization can be defined as the way that world trade, culture and technologies have become rapidly integrated over the last 20 years or so. The world economy seems to depend to some extent on a new breed of workers, namely "knowledge workers", in order to meet demands for labour that are brought about by globalization, as argued by many scholars. How knowledge is defined and who belongs in the category of "knowledge workers" have been the object of various debates over the years. The concept of "global knowledge workers" denotes unlimited (global) mobility and availability for "the right knowledge-based work assignment, when and where needed". In this special issue, we have sought to problematise and discuss whether the category of "global knowledge workers" as such exists, who the "global knowledge workers" are, how they can be perceived and classified, and how their attributes as well as skills basis are framed from diversity, equality and relational perspectives.

We did not originally suggest to the authors of the articles to employ a multi-layered framework that takes into account micro-individual, meso-relational and macro-contextual aspects, or to explain how individual, relational and contextual dimensions of global knowledge work might lead to advancing the understanding of the subject and addressing diverse needs of knowledge workers. However, a careful perusal of the articles contained herein led us to conclude that this underlying schema provides a unifying framework that explains and reconciles the contributions of the authors.

This special issue contains seven articles and two interviews with practising knowledge workers that, taken together, enhance our understanding of how global knowledge work and workers can be conceptualized by looking into the interlocking nature of individual, relational and contextual elements of the phenomenon. The contextual dimensions, for example, comprise questions pertaining to how globalization impacts on international employment patterns and what the driving forces of change are from a macro-international perspective. It is crucial to understand how the so-called trend of increasing number of "global knowledge workers" impacts upon the industrial relations in specific countries, in terms of the triadic relationship between the employer, state and trade unions. The role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in creating and sustaining the discourses of "global knowledge workers" should also be scrutinized. The question remains as to whether ICTs uphold or weaken a new form of knowledge production. The relational dimension of the subject entails a close examination of what kind of relationships, contracts and commitments "global knowledge workers" develop with their companies; how companies motivate, manage and retain them; and how processes of knowledge exchange between such workers impact on organizational changes and management. Another important issue is the possible interplays between the phenomenon of "global knowledge workers" and "global diversity management". What kind of new inequalities are created by the discourse and practice of "global knowledge work"? What are the negative effects implied by "globality" of "knowledge work" at societal, organizational and individual levels? What are the possible impacts of this globalization on the theory and practice of equality and diversity in local and global contexts? The individual-level dimension requires a careful analysis of what kind of perceptual frameworks, thinking styles, cognitive schemas, ethics and value systems knowledge workers develop. Whether and how do those vary in the context of different countries? Will this impact on the design of products, services and technologies to cater for their needs? Finally, at the interface of macro-meso-micro levels, we need to explicate the cultural and historical factors that established the standards and boundaries of the phenomenon of "global knowledge workers". The interplay between one's gender, sexual orientation, age, race and ethnicity, religious affiliation/belief and nationality, and his/her potential inclusion and acceptance as a "global knowledge worker" should be investigated. How does the diversity and identities of "global knowledge workers" in local and global contexts vary? By raising these questions and arguments, we highlight key points concerning how and why the domain of global knowledge work is topical and unique and what the outcomes of that uniqueness might be.

In his article, Andresen presents knowledge as an important diversity dimension in globally operating companies and illustrates how companies in collaboration with corporate universities proceed in order to achieve knowledge inclusion. Different diversity learning approaches in corporate university programmes are explained in this paper, highlighting the view that knowledge-intensive companies require new learning paradigms such as "diversity learning". This form of learning is considered to be a strategic resource, which implies a potential for generating sustained competitive advantages. The author offers a model, which acknowledges the need to more actively manage knowledge diversity in companies. He maintains that well-coordinated learning processes are necessary to achieve inclusion, during which the diversity of knowledge repertoires and bearers contributes to the generation and build-up of knowledge. With an emphasis on the macro-contextual aspects of knowledge work, the author examines the corporate universities in Germany that are well-known for responsibly dealing with the staff of all hierarchical levels with regard to generating as well as sharing of knowledge. Andresen's work makes an important contribution to this volume through situating the interplay of diversity and knowledge work in a sectoral context.

The second article presents women entrepreneurs in Spain and Portugal as knowledge workers within the context of the EQUAL Community Initiative, an EU programme that seeks to help women to set up their own businesses. Pardo-del-Val and Riberio-Soriana discuss how such public intervention programmes provide a context for integration of a disadvantaged group such as highly skilled women into self-employment in the labour market. Drawing on in-depth interviews with project leaders from the EQUAL Community Initiative, the authors stress the importance of macro-contextual factors that cater for the needs of women in creating new businesses that correspond to their skills set. Support programmes that promote training and the provision of the necessary skills to women are considered fundamental in this paper. Their research highlights two main support lines, namely funding and training. Presenting the difficulties women experience in attracting funding, the authors argue for appropriate training programmes. Through training, female entrepreneurs increase their chances for success and thus the general perception of female businesses, in terms of credibility, could be improved from the perspective of funding bodies. Training is considered, in this article, as a useful vehicle to situate women entrepreneurs as knowledge workers in the global knowledge society of our times. The article provides a most welcome review of an EU level equality initiative. In our times of globalization, studying the impact of supra-national structures on employment and diversity is crucial in order to understand knowledge work. Pardo-del-Val and Riberio-Soriana's study provides an empirical grounding, which will inform future work into the patterns of integration of self-employment, and diversity and equality within the context of the EU led policy and practice.

Moving on to the interplay of macro-contextual and meso-relational factors in shaping knowledge work, the third article explores the capacities of different groups of actors, who initiate, support and control equal opportunities and equal treatment in organizations in Austria. Auer and Welte's paper makes an invaluable contribution to the scholarship in knowledge work and diversity, considering the dearth of empirical studies, which explore the role and resources of equality and diversity professions. Based on the concept of social positioning (Giddens, 1979, 1984) and a qualitative approach, authors provide an analysis of data deriving from 32 interviews with equal opportunity actors, which can be conceptualized as knowledge workers. Their findings illustrate that depending on individual commitment, knowledge and abilities equal opportunity actors have the capacity to influence official equal opportunity policies and to prohibit individual cases of discrimination. The authors also note that there are strong restrictions concerning a limited understanding of gender, an ignorance of more subtle forms of the practising of gender and acceptance of the gendered substructure of organizations. Using the structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), Auer and Welte place an emphasis on the knowledgeability of agents, which is particularly included in strategies they use to achieve certain goals. They highlight the knowledge of equal opportunity actors of the social system they are in, its formal and informal structures and processes. The authors maintain that knowledgeability is a part of social identity (e.g. the capacity to reflect on the position within the social system) and social relations (awareness of the dominant coalitions within an organization). Therefore, they exemplify how macro (i.e. social systems) interacts with meso (social relations) in shaping knowledge work.

The fourth article contextualizes software workers as knowledge workers in the Indian software industry, which is viewed as an "export enclave", catering for the needs of the investors or the multinationals that exploit local labour. The "export enclave" nature of the industry, which enables it to earn high private rates of return on investment, is argued to be serving to misallocate valuable human capital in the economy (Balasubramanyam and Balasubramanyam, 1997; see also D'Costa, 2003). Based on a survey conducted in two software firms located in Bangalore, Vignesh argues in this paper that the Indian software workforce is fairly homogeneous and excludes the disadvantaged groups of the society. This observation strengthens the argument that the Indian software industry reflects a case of uneven and combined development as far as the knowledge workers' social positioning is concerned. This paper contributes to our knowledge in its particular area by generating new insights to the characteristics of the Indian software workforce that is highly qualified, and argues for better inclusion of such workforce in the global knowledge workforce. Demonstrating the significant role played by the IT workforce globally, the author makes the point that the subject is well-researched in the context of the developed countries, whereas the conditions and circumstances are different for the development of such workforce in developing countries, such as India; and therefore, the topic should be studied from different angles. The gap in our knowledge and the resultant need for research examining the multifaceted nature of diverse IT workforce in developing countries, in general, and in India, in particular, have been identified in the paper. Vignesh's conclusions are of significant importance for this special issue as academic scholarship on global knowledge work is concentrated on developed countries whilst the studies, which explore the context and patterns of knowledge work in developing countries, are scarce. Also, further research needs to be conducted in order to uncover spatial dynamics of inequality, discrimination, under-representation and exclusion in the field of knowledge work in different countries.

The fifth article in this special issue discusses the different means to motivate knowledge workers to participate in and contribute to knowledge exchange and creation. We view this paper as a useful example of how meso-relational factors influence micro-individual aspects of knowledge work in the form of individual motivations. Forstenlechner and Lettice provide an examination of motivational factors for lawyers as knowledge workers drawing on an empirical research carried out through a survey in a multinational law firm with global operations. Their findings illustrate that a complex mix of motivational factors appears in shaping the drivers for this group of knowledge workers. Traditional influences such as career prospects, authority, provision of charge codes, recognition among peers or one time incentives have very diverse impact around the globe. This paper makes a useful contribution to our knowledge in its particular area by exploring the different means to motivate law professionals as knowledge workers as the creators and exchangers of knowledge. Furthermore, the article draws our attention into the formal and informal organizational structures, which shape the experiences of knowledge workers, and how these structures and their impact vary across different locations of a global company. In the light of the findings of Forstenlechner and Lettice's study, exploration of organizational level factors, which impact upon equality between and inclusion of knowledge workers of diverse backgrounds in global and multi-national companies appears as another important area of future research inquiry.

Drawing on the literature pertaining to the conceptualizations of highly skilled refugees and their employment situation in the UK from a diversity perspective, Psoinos presents an interesting article exploring the potential of highly educated refugees as knowledge workers in Britain and the active role that they can play in today's knowledge economy. Highlighting the reasons for their exclusion/marginalization as due to structural factors, mainly ongoing discriminatory practices, the author makes the point that refugees' employment situation in Western Europe in general and in the UK in particular is well-researched from the perspective of the service providers, local agencies or ethnic communities who work with refugee groups. However, the topic has not been studied from the perspective of refugees themselves. The gap in our knowledge and the resultant need for research examining the views of this marginalized social group, highly educated refugees, have been well-identified in the paper with a view to exploring their potential in the economy and society, and therefore, suggesting ways in which their potential can be realized. This sixth paper in this special issue shows how micro-individual perceptions and views are shaped against the macro-context. Building on a qualitative research through semi-structured interviews conducted with 15 highly educated refugees residing in the UK, the author reveals that the participants of the study do not perceive themselves as passive and incompetent, as they are often portrayed. They attribute their exclusion/marginalization from the UK economy not to any lack of qualifications and skills from their side but to ongoing discriminatory processes and to the long process of getting their qualifications validated. Psoinos asserts in this paper that highly educated refugees have the potential to become knowledge-workers but certain barriers they face suppress this potential. She maintains that future policies should continuously support refugee agencies and communities that play a vital role in refugees' lives and work-related adaptation and encourage the creation of new ones where they are mostly needed. Raising the whole set of issues around migration, political discourses, mechanisms of exclusion and strategies of survival, the paper offers rich insights to researchers, who set out the understand the interplay of global knowledge work and inequality. The findings of Psoinos' study is not only important for an understanding of the experiences of global knowledge workers in its situated political economy context, but also direct our attention to the ways in which exclusion and marginalization processes take place in the case of highly skilled refugees in the UK.

The final article is by Adelstein, who elaborates on the meso-relational and micro-individual dimensions of global knowledge work in a conceptual paper. She explores the knowledge work discourse that has been transformed over the years, taking into account the triadic power relationship between the knowledge, knowledge worker and knowledge holders (usually organizations, corporations). She argues that from its earliest conceptions, knowledge work as a discourse was conceived as creating a new class of worker who was highly educated, motivated and financially aspirational. Through alignment with significant discourses from such fields of knowledge as economics, the law and technology, knowledge has become an organizational asset, to be secured by technology and protected by law even from those who created it. Discursive transformation shows that knowledge work and those who perform it – the knowledge workers – have become marginalized in the discourses until they have virtually disappeared altogether, according to Adelstein. This article displays how discourses of knowledge work may have a disempowering impact on individual global knowledge workers. The insights provided by Adelstein's conceptual discussion also signals the necessity of further work on the ways in which the processes of disempowerment through discourse are threaded across different categories of disadvantage based on gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, disability and religion and belief.

Two interviews that we carried out for this special issue reflect how global knowledge work is implicated in wider and more diverse social transitions. The first interview is with Ergin Cavusoglu, who is an artist and academic, creating interesting video installations through which he explores the distinctions between work, travel, study and other migrant activities and questions the nature of transitions we undertake when moving between countries. He describes global knowledge work as a multifaceted concept, which can exist in different fields, and exemplifies how it pertains to art. Jan Friedrich, who is an economist, defines knowledge work as all kinds of gainful activity where the application of knowledge is a central element of the job. According to Friedrich, knowledge should be understood broadly as including analytical skills, not just a static set of information. Identifying two components of knowledge work that are an accumulative one, building new knowledge, and a distributional one, making the available stock of knowledge accessible to those who need it, Friedrich attributes the global element with relocation, travel or integration into networks. The interviews echo how diverse the views of practicing global knowledge workers can be; and how these are all implicated in different work practices.

In conclusion, this special issue includes a collection of empirically sound work, which research and conceptualize global knowledge work from different theoretical and methodological perspectives. Situating the employment of high-skilled workers in a multi-national context, the articles in this collection offer insights into different layers of experiences of global knowledge workers and structures, which shape context of global knowledge work. As guest editors, we hope that this special issue will fuel the academic debate and research on the intersectionality of equality and employment in an increasingly globalizing world across different national and organizational settings.

Katerina Nicolopoulou, Mine Karatas-Ozkan and Ahu TatliGuest Editors

ReferencesBalasubramanyam, A. and Balasubramanyam, V.N. (1997), "Singer, services and software", World Development, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1857-61.D'Costa, A.P. (2003), "Uneven and combined development: understanding India's software exports", World Development, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 211-26.Giddens, A. (1979), Central Problems in Social Theory. Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.