SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akademik Açı / 2026 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2

Scientific development of the Digital Taylorism literature: A bibliometric analysis

Dijital Taylorizm literatürünün bilimsel gelişimi: Bibliyometrik bir analiz

Ömer Köksal(ANKARA BİLİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0007-3844-2540
Mehmet Alper Akdemir(ANKARA BİLİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3782-034X
Pages
152–182
Publication Date
2026-10-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

By mapping the fragmented and interdisciplinary structure of the Digital Taylorism literature in a holistic manner, this study reveals the main research streams and emerging themes in the field.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Digital Taylorism refers to the reorganization of the measurement, standardization, and control logic of classical scientific management through algorithmic management, electronic performance monitoring, workplace surveillance, and platform labor.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, 806 English-language articles obtained from the Scopus database were analyzed using performance analysis and science mapping techniques.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By mapping the fragmented and interdisciplinary structure of the Digital Taylorism literature in a holistic manner, this study reveals the main research streams and emerging themes in the field.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Dijital Taylorizm · algoritmik yönetim · işyeri gözetimi

Abstract

Digital Taylorism refers to the reorganization of the measurement, standardization, and control logic of classical scientific management through algorithmic management, electronic performance monitoring, workplace surveillance, and platform labor. This study examines the scientific development, conceptual structure, intellectual foundations, and international collaboration patterns of the literature on Digital Taylorism and related concepts through bibliometric analysis. For this purpose, 806 English-language articles obtained from the Scopus database were analyzed using performance analysis and science mapping techniques. The findings show that the literature has grown rapidly, especially after 2019, and that studies are largely concentrated in the 2021-2026 period. The conceptual structure indicates that electronic performance monitoring, surveillance, and privacy were prominent in the early stages, whereas the focus has recently shifted toward algorithmic management, the gig economy, platform work, and artificial intelligence. Co-citation and bibliographic coupling analyses show that the field has developed at the intersection of platform capitalism, surveillance capitalism, and labor process debates, as well as algorithmic management, job design, and human resource management research. The country collaboration network indicates that the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Australia, and Canada display high visibility within the international collaboration network, while Turkey occupies a more limited position in terms of collaboration. The Multiple Correspondence Analysis further indicates that the field has expanded toward legal and institutional debates on data protection, labor law, and the regulation of algorithmic decision-making. By mapping the fragmented and interdisciplinary structure of the Digital Taylorism literature in a holistic manner, this study reveals the main research streams and emerging themes in the field.

Özet

Dijital Taylorizm, klasik bilimsel yönetimin ölçme, standartlaştırma ve denetim mantığının algoritmik yönetim, elektronik performans izleme, işyeri gözetimi ve platform emeği aracılığıyla yeniden örgütlenmesini ifade etmektedir. Bu çalışma, dijital Taylorizm ve ilişkili kavramlar etrafında gelişen literatürün bilimsel gelişimini, kavramsal yapısını, entelektüel temellerini ve uluslararası iş birliği örüntülerini bibliyometrik analiz yöntemiyle incelemektedir. Bu amaçla Scopus veri tabanından elde edilen 806 İngilizce makale, performans analizi ve bilim haritalama teknikleriyle analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, literatürün özellikle 2019 sonrasında hızla büyüdüğünü ve çalışmaların büyük ölçüde 2021-2026 döneminde yoğunlaştığını göstermektedir. Kavramsal yapı, erken dönemlerde elektronik performans izleme, gözetim ve mahremiyet temalarının öne çıktığını; son yıllarda ise odağın algoritmik yönetim, gig ekonomisi, platform çalışması ve yapay zekâya yöneldiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ortak atıf ve bibliyografik eşleşme analizleri, alanın platform kapitalizmi, gözetim kapitalizmi ve emek süreci tartışmaları ile algoritmik yönetim, iş tasarımı ve insan kaynakları araştırmaları kesişiminde geliştiğini göstermektedir. Ülke iş birliği ağı Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Birleşik Krallık, Çin, Avustralya ve Kanada’nın uluslararası iş birliği ağında yüksek görünürlüğe sahip olduğunu; Türkiye’nin ise daha sınırlı bir iş birliği konumunda yer aldığını göstermektedir. Çoklu Uyum Analizi bulguları ise alanın veri koruma, emek hukuku ve algoritmik kararların düzenlenmesi gibi hukuki-kurumsal tartışmalarla genişlediğini göstermektedir. Çalışma, dijital Taylorizm literatürünün parçalı ve disiplinlerarası yapısını bütüncül biçimde haritalandırarak alanın temel araştırma hatlarını ve gelişen temalarını ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Köksal, Ö., Akdemir, M. A. (2026). Scientific development of the Digital Taylorism literature: A bibliometric analysis. Akademik Açı, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 152–182. https://doi.org/10.59597/akademikaci.1979525

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (59)

  1. Altenried, M. (2020). The platform as factory: Crowdwork and the hidden labour behind artificial intelligence. Capital & Class, 44(2), 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816819899410
  2. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
  3. Ball, K. (2010). Workplace surveillance: An overview. Labor History, 51(1), 87-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00236561003654776
  4. Bellesia, F., Mattarelli, E., & Bertolotti, F. (2022). Algorithms and their affordances: How crowdworkers manage algorithmic scores in online labour markets. Journal of Management Studies, 59(6), 1461-1495. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12870
  5. Bogen, M., & Rieke, A. (2018). Help wanted: An examination of hiring algorithms, equity, and bias. Upturn. https://www.upturn.org/reports/2018/hiring-algorithms/
  6. Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering: An Illustrated Weekly Journal, 137, 85-86.
  7. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. Monthly Review Press.
  8. Bucher, E. L., Schou, P. K., & Waldkirch, M. (2021). Pacifying the algorithm – Anticipatory compliance in the face of algorithmic management in the gig economy. Organization, 28(1), 44–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420961531
  9. Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
  10. Cameron, L. D. (2024). The making of the “good bad” job: How algorithmic management manufactures consent through constant and confined choices. Administrative Science Quarterly, 69(2), 458–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392241236163
  11. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382-1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
  12. Cram, W. A., Wiener, M., Tarafdar, M., & Benlian, A. (2022). Examining the impact of algorithmic control on Uber drivers' technostress. Journal of Management Information Systems, 39(2), 426-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2022.2063556
  13. Delfanti, A., & Frey, B. (2021). Humanly extended automation or the future of work seen through Amazon patents. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 46(3), 655-682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920943665
  14. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
  15. Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., & McDonnell, A. (2020). Algorithmic management and app‐work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12258
  16. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338-342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
  17. Froomkin, A. M. (2000). The death of privacy? Stanford Law Review, 52(5), 1461-1543. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229519
  18. Gal, U., Jensen, T. B., & Stein, M.-K. (2020). Breaking the vicious cycle of algorithmic management: A virtue ethics approach to people analytics. Information and Organization, 30(2), Article 100301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2020.100301
  19. Gandini, A. (2019). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations, 72(6), 1039–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718790002
  20. Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(6), 897-913. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:6 3.0.CO;2-Z
  21. Griesbach, K., Reich, A., Elliott-Negri, L., & Milkman, R. (2019). Algorithmic control in platform food delivery work. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119870041
  22. Hales, T. R., Sauter, S. L., Peterson, M. R., Fine, L. J., Putz-Anderson, V., Schleifer, L. R., Ochs, T. T., & Bernard, B. P. (1994). Musculoskeletal disorders among visual display terminal users in a telecommunications company. Ergonomics, 37(10), 1603-1621. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139408964940
  23. Irani, L., & Silberman, M. S. (2013). Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 611-620). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470742
  24. Jarrahi, M. H., Newlands, G., Lee, M. K., Wolf, C. T., Kinder, E., & Sutherland, W. (2021). Algorithmic management in a work context. Big Data & Society, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211020332
  25. Kaine, S., & Josserand, E. (2019). The organisation and experience of work in the gig economy. Journal of Industrial Relations, 61(4), 479-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185619865480
  26. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366-410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
  27. Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2012). Digital innovation and the division of innovative labor: Digital controls in the automotive industry. Organization Science, 23(5), 1428-1447. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0707
  28. Lee, M. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718756684
  29. Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., & Dabbish, L. (2015). Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1603-1612). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702548
  30. Meijerink, J., & Bondarouk, T. (2023). The duality of algorithmic management: Toward a research agenda on HRM algorithms, autonomy and value creation. Human Resource Management Review, 33(1), Article 100876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100876
  31. Möhlmann, M., & Zalmanson, L. (2017). Hands on the wheel: Navigating algorithmic management and Uber drivers' autonomy. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Seoul, South Korea.
  32. Möhlmann, M., Zalmanson, L., Henfridsson, O., & Gregory, R. W. (2021). Algorithmic management of work on online labor platforms: When matching meets control. MIS Quarterly, 45(4), 1999-2022. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/15333
  33. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
  34. Newlands, G. (2021). Algorithmic surveillance in the gig economy: The organization of work through Lefebvrian conceived space. Organization Studies, 42(5), 719-737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620937900
  35. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
  36. Noponen, N., Feshchenko, P., Auvinen, T., Luoma-aho, V., & Abrahamsson, P. (2024). Taylorism on steroids or enabling autonomy? A systematic review of algorithmic management. Management Review Quarterly, 74(3), 1695–1721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00345-5
  37. Parent-Rocheleau, X., & Parker, S. K. (2022). Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs. Human Resource Management Review, 32(3), Article 100838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100838
  38. Rahman, H. A. (2021). The invisible cage: Workers’ reactivity to opaque algorithmic evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(4), 945–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392211010118
  39. Rani, U., & Furrer, M. (2021). Digital labour platforms and new forms of flexible work in developing countries: Algorithmic management of work and workers. Competition & Change, 25(2), 212-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529420905187
  40. Ravid, D. M., Tomczak, D. L., White, J. C., & Behrend, T. S. (2020). EPM 20/20: A review, framework, and research agenda for electronic performance monitoring. Journal of Management, 46(1), 100-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319869435
  41. Ravid, D. M., White, J. C., Tomczak, D. L., Miles, A. F., & Behrend, T. S. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effects of electronic performance monitoring on work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 76(1), 5-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12514
  42. Rosenblat, A. (2018). Uberland: How algorithms are rewriting the rules of work. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520970632
  43. Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758–3784. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2686227
  44. Sandberg, J., Holmström, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2020). Digitization and phase transitions in platform organizing logics: Evidence from the process automation industry. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 129-154. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14520
  45. Schildt, H. (2016). Big data and organizational design - the brave new world of algorithmic management and computer augmented transparency. Innovation: Organization & Management, 19(1), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1252043
  46. Schor, J. B., Attwood-Charles, W., Cansoy, M., Ladegaard, I., & Wengronowitz, R. (2020). Dependence and precarity in the platform economy. Theory and Society, 49(5-6), 833-861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-020-09408-y
  47. Sewell, G., & Wilkinson, B. (1992). “Someone to watch over me”: Surveillance, discipline and the just-in-time labour process. Sociology, 26(2), 271-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038592026002009
  48. Siegel, R., König, C. J., & Lazar, V. (2022). The impact of electronic monitoring on employees' job satisfaction, stress, performance, and counterproductive work behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 8, Article 100227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100227
  49. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity.
  50. Stark, D., & Pais, I. (2020). Algorithmic management in the platform economy. Sociologica, 14(3), 47-72. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/12221
  51. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers.
  52. Thompson, P. (2010). The capitalist labour process: Concepts and connections. Capital & Class, 34(1), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816809353475
  53. Vallas, S., & Schor, J. B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857
  54. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
  55. Veen, A., Barratt, T., & Goods, C. (2020). Platform-capital’s ‘app-etite’ for control: A labour process analysis of food-delivery work in Australia. Work, Employment and Society, 34(3), 388-406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019836911
  56. Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616
  57. Woodcock, J. (2021). The fight against platform capitalism: An inquiry into the global struggles of the gig economy. University of Westminster Press. https://doi.org/10.16997/book51
  58. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
  59. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629