**3. Methods**

The study is focused on studies conducted between April and August 2019. The study was mostly based on 41 detailed qualitative interviews of those working on the interactive job channels (i.e., Uber and Taxify). We selected interviewees from among those who replied to the broader survey. A non-random survey of 355 Uber and Bolt drivers was performed, and quantitative data from this more general population was also obtained. Following the claims made by [2], we started our research with a web-based survey designed to hit drivers on leading shared riding platforms: Uber, Uber Eats, Bolts, and others. These businesses consider their network staff as independent contractors and not employees.

We recruited drivers to take part in our mobile online survey in two ways. First of all, we aimed ads to Facebook network drivers. The benefits and drawbacks of using Facebook ads for low-wage jobs can not be overemphasized [2]. The prevalent use of Facebook in South Africa and other developing countries makes it a valuable sampling environment. It should be judiciously compared to the telephone-based means of interviewing [3]. We tailored Facebook advertising for our survey to individuals between 18 and 55 who spoke English and reported working on one of the two channels. The commercial was shown to 47,981 users, some of whom were shown advertising several times, and 4869 users clicked on the survey link, just above 10% of those to whom the commercial was shown. Of those who clicked on a survey link shared in the commercial, 476 described themselves as platform staff started the survey, and 355 completed the study.

Respondents to the study were not indicative of the entire employees of the site. Those who marked themselves as platform employees on their Facebook profile, and those who belong to communities connected to the interactive job platform on Facebook – the two networks from which respondents have been drawn – may be more attached to this job than other platform employees and may also vary from the people of other platform workers in different unexpected ways. Given the lack of data on this digital workforce forum's makeup and experience and the difficulties of accessing this sample demographic through other means, the analysis presented here provides a significant, although the non-representative, reflection of this developing market.

One of the questions posed in our online survey was whether the respondent would participate in an hour-long telephone or in-person interview with R120 as an incentive for participation. We called for contact details from the interviewees who showed a desire to schedule the consultation. Of the 355 people who completed the online survey, most (245 or 69%) showed interest in engaging in the follow-up interview. To determine who contacted the 245, we tried to optimize diversity in terms of age, size, ethnicity, geography, political preference, and family household

*Evaluation of Algorithmic Management of Digital Work Platform in Developing Countries DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94524*

income. We conducted interviews with 41 platform staff or 11 percent of those who showed interest, and interviews lasted at least one hour or less. We use pseudonyms all over to protect the anonymity of the respondents.

Although our survey is not generalizable to the digital network workers' population, interviews have helped us classify processes using reasoning rather than statistical inference and to achieve fullness [4]. Also, we found the same similarities through interviews, which enabled us to trust the findings: that is, identical similarities in the interviewee's account across various platforms. However, we equate different employees' perspectives on other interactive job platforms or the same worker's experience working on multiple platforms. Remarkably, respondents consistently emphasized Uber's higher level of time and task management relative to other networks.

### **3.1 Passengers interviews**

The responses were triangulated by questioning 19 passengers who used or are currently using Uber and Bolt at 6 locations in two cities (Pretoria and Johannesburg). On average, the passengers used the service 4–7 times over three months. Ten of the passengers questioned used both Uber and Bolt, 4 used only Bolt, whereas five used only Uber. The interview aimed to either affirm or disprove the impressions shared by drivers of how passengers use the platform, mainly how drivers are classified and their actions and attitudes towards price increases.

### **3.2 Analyzing archived data: drivers' online forum**

We analyzed the drivers' details on the online forums where all drivers are registered to do so. This is because most drivers said in our interviews that the forums were the primary source of information and places for them to socialize. Two online forums have been observed: one that is not moderated by Uber and Bolt, like different Facebook communities, and the official Facebook pages moderated by Uber and Bolt.

One author who registered as a Bolt driver was granted access to Bolt's (Taxify) and Uber Driver's and Clients 'new driver' Facebook forum, which provides information that is specifically relevant to the business. We also entered other unmoderated private driver groups on Facebook by applying to participate as researchers. This was done to prevent being mistakenly posing as a driver. We have retained a single observation status during this review. To ensure that the method used in [5] was followed, we sampled 142 posts and responses on the online site, noting the algorithmic features chosen from the thousands made over three months.
