↓ Skip to main content

Decent Work: A Psychological Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
6 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
194 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
255 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decent Work: A Psychological Perspective
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00407
Pubmed ID
Authors

David L. Blustein, Chad Olle, Alice Connors-Kellgren, A. J. Diamonti

Abstract

This contribution, which serves as the lead article for the Research Topic entitled "From Meaning of Working to Meaningful Lives: The Challenges of Expanding Decent Work," explores current challenges in the development and operationalization of decent work. Based on an initiative from the International Labor Organization [ILO] (1999) decent work represents an aspirational statement about the quality of work that should be available to all people who seek to work around the globe. Within recent years, several critiques have been raised about decent work from various disciplines, highlighting concerns about a retreat from the social justice ethos that had initially defined the concept. In addition, other scholars have observed that decent work has not included a focus on the role of meaning and purpose at work. To address these concerns, we propose that a psychological perspective can help to revitalize the decent work agenda by infusing a more specific focus on individual experiences and by reconnecting decent work to its social justice origins. As an illustration of the advantages of a psychological perspective, we explore the rise of precarious work and also connect the decent work agenda to the Psychology-of-Working Framework and Theory (Blustein, 2006; Duffy et al., 2016).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 255 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 12%
Student > Bachelor 28 11%
Researcher 22 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 8%
Other 40 16%
Unknown 84 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 63 25%
Business, Management and Accounting 27 11%
Social Sciences 27 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 12 5%
Arts and Humanities 8 3%
Other 25 10%
Unknown 93 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2023.
All research outputs
#726,758
of 24,132,691 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,478
of 32,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,525
of 305,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#33
of 475 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,132,691 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 475 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.