Re-framing community in the platform age: analyzing organization and power in BlaBlaCar

Titolo Rivista STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI
Autori/Curatori Davide Arcidiacono, Ivana Pais
Anno di pubblicazione 2021 Fascicolo 2021/1
Lingua Inglese Numero pagine 26 P. 79-104 Dimensione file 327 KB
DOI 10.3280/SO2021-001004
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

The concept of community remains crucial in social sciences and organizational analysis. In recent years, the concept of community has become a sort of buzzword, in particular, with the rise of the so-called sharing and platform economy. This contribution asks what kinds of communities are enabled by collaborative platforms and how power is practiced within these peculiar organizations, considering them as evaluative infrastructures. The article explores these issues through the empirical analysis of one of the best-known sharing platforms (BlaBlaCar) adopting a mixed method approach. The research concludes that the analyzed case presents the main characteristics of a brand community, although it has some specific and original features. Compared to other evaluation infrastructures, in BlaBlaCar the control is more centralized and the power more legitimated, as it is considered a guarantee of security and reliability of the service which increases the loyalty to company’s brand.

Il concetto di comunità continua ad essere cruciale nelle scienze sociali e nell'analisi organizzativa. Negli ultimi anni il concetto di community è diventato una sorta di parola d'ordine, in particolare, con l'avvento della cosiddetta sharing o platform economy. Questo contributo si interroga su quali tipi di comunità siano abilitate dalle piattaforme collaborative digitali e come si esercita il potere all'interno di queste organizzazioni peculiari, considerandole come infrastrutture valutative. L'articolo esplora questi temi attraverso l'analisi empirica di una delle più note piattaforme di condivisione (BlaBlaCar) adottando un approccio misto. La ricerca conclude che il caso analizzato presenta le caratteristiche principali di una brand community, sebbene presenti alcune caratteristiche specifiche e originali. Rispetto ad altre infrastrutture di valutazione, in BlaBlaCar il controllo è più centralizzato e l’esercizio del potere più legittimato, in quanto considerato una garanzia di sicurezza e affidabilità del servizio che aumenta la fedeltà al marchio.

Keywords:Brand community, platform economy, sharing economy, carpooling, algorithmic management

  1. Arcidiacono, D. (2019), Triangulating Net-Nography and Digital Methods to Study the Peer2peer Economy, in Sage Research Methods Cases, -- https://methods.sagepub.com/case/triangulating-net-nography-and-digital-methods-study-peer2peer-economy
  2. Arcidiacono, D., Duggan M. (2020), Sharing Mobilities: Questioning Our Right to the City in the Collaborative economy, London, Routledge.
  3. Arcidiacono, D., Pais, I. (2017), Sharing Economy in Italia: reciprocità, collaborazione e condivisione al tempo della crisi, in Spanò M. and Quarta A. (eds.), Rispondere alla crisi, Verona, Ombre Corte.
  4. Arvidsson, A. (2018), Value and virtue in the sharing economy, The Sociological Review, 66(2), 289-301, DOI: 10.1177/0038026118758531
  5. Belk, R. (2010), Sharing, The Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5): 715-734, DOI: 10.1086/612649
  6. Bolton, G., Greiner, B., Ockenfels, A. (2013), Engineering trust: reciprocity in the production of reputation information, Management Science, 59(2): 265-285.
  7. Bridges, J., Vásquez, C. (2018), If nearly all Airbnb reviews are positive, does that make them meaningless?, Current Issues in Tourism, 21(18): 2057-2075.
  8. Casilli, A., Posada, J. (2019), The platformization of labor and society, in M. Graham, W. H. Dutton (eds.), Society and the Internet; How Networks of Information and Communication are Changing Our Lives (2nd edition), Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.
  9. Edwards, R.C. (1978), The Social Relations of Production at the Point of Production, Insurgent Sociologist, 8(2–3): 109-125.
  10. Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L. Allen, S.D. (1993), Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods, Newbury Park, CA, Sage.
  11. Floridi, L. (2015), The Online Manifesto: Being Human in a Hyperconnected Era, London, Springer.
  12. Frenken, K., Vaskelainen, T., Fünfschilling L. and Piscicelli L. (2020), An institutional logics perspective on the gig economy. In Theorizing the Sharing Economy: Variety and Trajectories of New Forms of Organizing. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
  13. Grabher, G., König, J. (2020), Disruption, embedded. A Polanyian framing of the platform economy, Sociologica, 14(1): 95-118,
  14. Harrison, R., Thomas, M. (2009), Identity in Online Communities: Social Networking Sites and Language Learning, International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 7(2): 109-124.
  15. Kenney, M., Zysman, J. (2016), The rise of the platform economy, Issues in Science and Technology, 32(3): 61-69.
  16. Kornberger, M., Pflueger, D., Mouritsen, J. (2017), Evaluative infrastructures: Accounting for platform organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 60: 79-95,
  17. Kunda, G. (2009), Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
  18. Manzella, F., Sundurarajan, A. (2016), Entering in the trust age, BlaBlaCar Report, https://blog.blablacar.it/blog/trust-report-2016
  19. Miele, F., Tirabeni, L. (2020), Digital technologies and power dynamics in the organization: A conceptual review of remote working and wearable technologies at work, Sociology Compass, 15(6): 1-13,
  20. Muñiz, A., O’Guinn, T. (2001), Brand Community, Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4): 412-32.
  21. OECD (2009), Two-sided Markets. https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/ 44445730.pdf
  22. Origgi, G., Pais, I. (2018), Digital reputation in the mutual admiration society, Studi di Sociologia, 2: 175-193.
  23. Pais, I., Provasi, G. (2015), Sharing economy: a step towards ‘re-embedding’ the economy?, Stato e Mercato, 105(3): 347-377.
  24. Polanyi, K. (1957), The Economy as Instituted Process, in Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C.M., Pearson, H.W. (eds.), Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory, New York, Free Press.
  25. Rastier, F. (2018), Computer-Assisted Interpretation of Semiotic Corpora, in Compagno D. (ed.), Quantitative Semiotic Analysis, London, Springer.
  26. Reischauer, G., Mair, J. (2018), Platform Organizing in the New Digital Economy: Revisiting Online Communities and Strategic Responses, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 57(3): 113-135, DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X20180000057005
  27. Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R. (2002), Trust Among Strangers in Internet Transactions: Empirical Analysis of eBay's Reputation System, in Baye R.M. (ed.), The Economics of the Internet and E-Commerce, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science.
  28. Rheingold, A. (1993), A Slice of Life in my Virtual Community in L.M. Harasim (ed.), Global Networks, Computers and International Communication. London, MIT Press.
  29. Ritzer, G. (2014), Prosumption: evolution, revolution, or eternal return of the same? Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(1): 3-24.
  30. Rochet, J., Tirole, J. (2003), Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4): 990–1029. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493212.
  31. Scholz, T., Schneider N. (eds.) (2017), Ours to hack and to own: The rise of platform cooperativism, a new vision for the future of work and a fairer internet. NY, OR books.
  32. Schor J., Fitzmaurice, C., Carfagna, L., Attwood-Charles, W., Dubois, E. (2016), Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy, Poetics 54: 66-81.
  33. Schouten, J.W., McAlexander, J. (1995), Subcultures of Consumption: An Ethnography of the New Bikers, Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June): 43–61.
  34. 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): 833-861,
  35. Teubner, T., Adam, M.T., Camacho, S., Hassanein, K. (2014), Understanding resource sharing in C2C platforms: the role of picture humanization, in Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 8th-10th December, Auckland, New Zealand, ACIS.
  36. Toffler, A. (1970), Future Shock, New York, Bantam Books.
  37. Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., De Waal, M. (2018), The Platform Society, New York, Oxford University Press.
  38. Wright, J. (2003), One-Sided Logic in Two-Sided Markets, 3(1): 44-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.459362

Davide Arcidiacono, Ivana Pais, Re-framing community in the platform age: analyzing organization and power in BlaBlaCar in "STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI " 1/2021, pp 79-104, DOI: 10.3280/SO2021-001004