3.8 Proceedings Paper

Remote Working: A Way to Foster Greater Inclusion and Accessibility?

出版社

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-08645-8_23

关键词

Remote working; Smart working; Working from home; Inclusiveness; Accessibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the widespread adoption of remote working. A study conducted by the University of Perugia and the Ministry of Economic Development found that working from home can improve job satisfaction and support received.
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought several changes in everyday life, one of them being the application of Remote Working (RW). RW is the new way of working, thanks to this new modality all workers, with certain work requirements, were able to carry out their work from home without having to go to the office. Given the strict rules relating to lockdown, if this method had not been applied many people would not have been able to work and today many companies would probably be closed. But which advantages and disadvantages can RW have compared to classical work? Can it bring more inclusiveness and accessibility for every one or only for workers with specific requirements (for example, for workers that need to take care of family members with disabilities)? This paper attempts to answer these questions. The University of Perugia in collaboration with the Ministry of Economic Development has created the Job-satisfying project. In this project 24 participants were divided into two groups (home-space group and office-space group) and each of these had to complete some tasks and complete questionnaires. Generally, no significant difference emerged but some interesting results were encountered: those who took the experimentation from home, that have children, obtained higher scores relating to the sense of working autonomy, support from superiors and satisfaction of relationships at work. This data seems to argue that working from home can improve inclusiveness.

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

3.8
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