4.6 Article

The future(s) of unpaid work: How susceptible do experts from different backgrounds think the domestic sphere is to automation?

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281282

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to expand the discussion on the future of work to unpaid domestic work and critique the methodology used in previous studies. By using a sociological approach, the study considers how experts' diverse backgrounds shape their estimates. The findings show that, on average, 39% of the time spent on domestic tasks will be automatable within ten years. Japanese male experts were notably pessimistic about domestic automation, possibly due to gender disparities in Japanese households.
The future of work has become a prominent topic for research and policy debate. However, the debate has focused entirely on paid work, even though people in industrialized countries on average spend comparable amounts of time on unpaid work. The objectives of this study are therefore (1) to expand the future of work debate to unpaid domestic work and (2) to critique the main methodology used in previous studies. To these ends, we conducted a forecasting exercise in which 65 AI experts from the UK and Japan estimated how automatable are 17 housework and care work tasks. Unlike previous studies, we applied a sociological approach that considers how experts' diverse backgrounds might shape their estimates. On average our experts predicted that 39 percent of the time spent on a domestic task will be automatable within ten years. Japanese male experts were notably pessimistic about the potentials of domestic automation, a result we interpret through gender disparities in the Japanese household. Our contributions are providing the first quantitative estimates concerning the future of unpaid work and demonstrating how such predictions are socially contingent, with implications to forecasting methodology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据