Third places in precarious workers’ lives: a scoping review of associated social experiences and outcomes

ABSTRACT

The contemporary increase in precarious employment has shaped lives marked by employment, economic, and social instability for many workers. While research has demonstrated deleterious physical and mental implications of precarious work, less attention has been paid to social implications, including heightened risk for social isolation. Using a 5-step scoping review process, this paper investigates what is known about the types and characteristics of physical and virtual ‘third places’ outside of home and work that help maintain social connectedness and ameliorate social isolation in the lives of precarious workers. Descriptive and thematic analysis of 24 interdisciplinary articles revealed that precarious workers navigating conditions marked by spatial exclusion enact collective agency to create and sustain alternative ‘third places’ that align with the conditions of precarious lives. Although places created could be associated with social risks, obligations, and exclusions, they were also mobilised to address diverse social needs, including: a sense of belonging to a collective of ‘similar’ others; temporary respite from the conditions of precarity; assertion of presence and visibility; and exchange of diverse resources and forms of care. These results inform critical reflections on the kinds of spaces that can serve as ‘third places’ within societies marked by growing precarity.

KEYWORDS:

• Work
• precariousness
• place
• social isolation

Since the mid-1970s, policy reforms have supported shifts away from ‘standard employment’ relationships, a normative conception of work that became dominant in many Western industrialised nations (Kalleberg & Hewison, 2013; Vosko, 2006), towards forms of precarious employment. Precarious work has become an ingrained aspect of many contemporary labour markets (Gunn et al., 2022; International Labour Organization [ILO], 2021) although the rise of precarious employment has occurred in different ways within various national contexts (Burgess et al., 2013; Kalleberg & Hewison, 2013). For example, this rise has been experienced by some workers in industrialised nations as a loss of more secure forms of employment as opposed to precarious work being experienced in some emerging markets as ‘the standard and generally not a wholesale transformation of previous patterns' (Hewison & Kalleberg, 2013, p. 398). Despite these differences, common components of precarious employment relationships and conditions have been identified, including: (i) employment instability and insecurity (e.g. in working hours, work schedule, and/or length of employment); (ii) limited worker power and rights (e.g. lack of non-wage benefits, absence of guaranteed hours, and little control over working conditions); and (iii) poor employment terms, entitlements, and prospects (e.g. low or uncertain wages, no options for advancement, and unsafe work conditions) (Lewchuk et al., 2016; Matilla-Santander et al., 2022; Muoka & Lhussier, 2020; Vosko, 2006).

The rise of precarious employment, fuelled by market demands for a flexible, movable, and cheaper labour force associated with neoliberal globalisation, has enhanced economic vulnerability and insecurity for many workers, particularly in national contexts with insufficient social protection measures (Carr & Chung, 2014; ILO, 2021). Given that particular social groups, such as youth, migrant workers, immigrants, racialized workers, older workers, and workers with low educational attainment are at greater risk of being relegated to precarious employment, its rise has also enhanced economic, health, and social inequities already faced by marginalised groups (Lewchuk et al., 2016; Matilla-Santander et al., 2022; Muoka & Lhussier, 2020; Vosko, 2006). Concomitantly, various crises, such as the 2008 global recession and the COVID-19 pandemic (Gunn et al., 2022; Muoka & Lhussier, 2020), have increasingly extended precarious employment across sectors into ‘categories of workers who in the past were privileged to work in secure jobs with good career prospects' (Lewchuk et al., 2016, p. 88). Although exposure to precarious work does not necessarily lead to broader life precarity given the intersecting influence of various determinants, such as alternative household assets and income and state institutional arrangements (Barnes & Weller, 2020; Campbell & Burgess, 2018), neoliberal politics of retrenchment that have increasingly shifted risks from employers and states to individuals and households amplify risks for precarious lives (Carr & Chung, 2014; Lewchuk & Laflèche, 2017). In this sense, precarious work is a key contemporary mechanism shaping the production and distribution of precarious lives (Strauss, 2018). Concerns have been raised that deepening inequities and wide-spread insecurities will contribute to public health crises, reduced social cohesion, and less efficient economies in the absence of socio-political responses that effectively address the problematic conditions and consequences arising from increasingly precarious lives (Gunn et al., 2022; ILO, 2021).

A substantial body of research has demonstrated negative implications of precarious employment for workers’ physical and mental well-being (Carr & Chung, 2014; Gunn et al., 2022; Vosko, 2006). Although not studied as extensively, deleterious social implications, such as greater family conflicts, poorer work life-balance, and fewer close friendships, are also evident (Lewchuk et al., 2016; Matilla-Santander et al., 2022; Premji, 2018). In addition, decreased social participation is an outcome of precarious work’s irregular and unpredictable temporal, contextual, and financial characteristics, and negative health impacts (Bajwa et al., 2018; Matilla-Santander et al., 2022; Popov & Solov’eva, 2019). In a cross-sectional survey of 401 ‘non-standard workers’ in Sweden, Matilla-Santander et al. (2022) found high levels of social precarity as measured by financial constraints and limits on social activity engagement. Results of surveys completed with precarious workers in Canada pointed to the ‘unequal distribution of many of the non-financial aspects of life that people value including companionship, having a family and having friends' (Lewchuk et al., 2016, p. 87), illustrating that the ‘Precarity Penalty is not limited to economic outcomes from employment but also includes disadvantages in establishing healthy households and being engaged in one’s community' (p. 87).

Critical geographers have called for greater attention to the socio-spatial dimensions of precarious work and precarious lives to deepen understanding of how place matters in the production and experience of precarity and attend to how place can be mobilised to negotiate and resist precarity (Strauss, 2018). Within this paper, we focus on understanding what is known about spatial factors in relation to the heightened risk for social isolation that can accompany precarious employment, particularly when precarity extends more broadly into various facets of life. Social isolation, a multi-pronged concept addressing problematics in objective and subjective dimensions of social connectedness (Keefe et al., 2006; Zavaleta et al., 2014), is a key social policy issue within contemporary contexts (Naito et al., 2021; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2020) due to its deleterious health and social implications (Lewchuk et al., 2016; Matilla-Santander et al., 2022). Policy makers and scholars have emphasised the centrality of place in the sociopolitical production of social isolation, pointing to a greater need for inclusive public places to counter such production (Finlay et al., 2019; Zieleniec, 2008). Moreover, spatial factors have been found to further compound precarious workers’ risks for social isolation, given such workers’ social exclusion from community spaces due to financial barriers and discrimination tied to intersecting social markers of difference (Finlay et al., 2019; Hickman, 2013; Yeoh & Huang, 1998). The absence of stable workplaces may further restrict precarious workers’ access to consistent social connections and places for experiencing belonging (Lewchuk & Laflèche, 2017). Shelter-in-place and public health measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic further intensified spatial elements of social isolation and disconnection amongst precarious workers (Griffiths et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2020).

In seeking to deepen understanding of interconnections among social isolation and spatial factors in precarious workers’ lives, we conducted a scoping review guided by the concept of ‘third places’. This concept of third places, as introduced by Oldenburg (1999; see also Oldenburg & Brissett, 1982) refers to places that can be physical or virtual in nature, exist apart from first (i.e. home) and second (i.e. work) places, and facilitate social interaction, connection, and support (Finlay et al., 2019). Oldenburg’s original conceptualisation proposed that third places such as diners, pubs, and corner stores were defined by their affordance of ‘pure sociability' (Oldenburg & Brissett, 1982, p. 271), or experiences marked by happiness, relief, and suspension of social status differences. Subsequent uptake of this concept has addressed how space can be mobilised to combat social isolation and foster community cohesion (Dolley & Bosman, 2019; Maffie, 2020; Mickiewicz, 2015; Williams & Hipp, 2019). Although critics have pointed to limitations of Oldenberg’s original conceptualisation – for example, its emphasis on places normative in male, middle class lifestyles and its neglect of processes of spatial exclusion (Dolley & Bosman, 2019; Fullagar et al., 2019) – the concept of ‘third places’ has been expanded through contemporary research. Such research has attended to how various types of places beyond normative middle class lifestyles, for example, libraries, sidewalks, public parks, and community centres, facilitate social inclusion in the lives of diverse and marginalised groups such as older adults, linguistic minority community members, and persons living in poverty (Delaisse et al., 2021; Hand et al., 2020; Littman, 2021). As such, we defined the concept of ‘third’ places broadly for this review to include any type of physical and/or virtual places outside home and work that facilitate social interaction, connection, and support.

Design and methods

Scoping review methodology is designed to map and synthesise the nature, characteristics, and key emphases of research in a given area. We utilised the five-step framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), along with recommended enhancements (Levac et al., 2010; Peters et al., 2020), to conduct a rigorous analysis of existing scholarship and identify research gaps.

Study purpose

Our key guiding question was: What is known about the types and characteristics of ‘third’ places that help maintain social connectedness and ameliorate social isolation in the lives of people experiencing precarious employment circumstances? Consistent with scoping review methodology (Colquhoun et al., 2014; Levac et al., 2010), our guiding research question broadly identified the target group, central concept, and outcomes. The target group, persons engaged in precarious work, and the central concept, third places, were defined as noted above. The outcomes of interest, social connectedness and social isolation, were defined to capture the conceptual overlap between these two terms and the multidisciplinary uptake of them.

Study identification

Through consultation with a university librarian, we identified 56 search words and 12 subject areas, along with query combinations, to capture our target group, central concept, and outcomes within eight electronic multidisciplinary databases (Scopus, CINaHL, PsychInfo, Sociological Abstracts, Medline, JSTOR, Communications and Mass Media Complete, Business Source Complete). Following preliminary searches, we adjusted search terms to maximise comprehensiveness and consistency with our definitions (see Table 1). To optimise rigour, two graduate trainees conducted parallel searches in three databases before conducting remaining database searches independently. Covidence, a web-based platform, was utilized to import results for screening and remove duplicates. A total of 2752 records were identified; 503 duplicate studies were removed, resulting in 2249 studies for screening.

Table 1. Keyword and subject heading terms.

Categories	Keywords and subject terms
Concept Terms: Place	Keywords: place OR space OR ‘third place' OR ‘public place’ OR ‘social place' OR ‘social space' OR ‘public space' OR ‘physical place' OR ‘physical space' OR ‘virtual place' OR ‘virtual space' OR online OR ‘online community' OR ‘virtual community' OR community OR ‘shared space' OR ‘shared place' OR ‘therapeutic landscape' OR ‘social landscape*'
	Subjects to search: public place, social space, online community, virtual environment
Outcome Terms: Social	(social* W/2 (connect* OR engag* OR interact* OR capital OR network OR support OR relation* OR inclu* OR isolat* OR exclu*)) OR belonging OR loneliness
	Subjects to search: social connection, social interaction, social isolation, belonging, loneliness
Population Terms: Precarious Work	(job OR work* OR employ*) W/2 (precari* OR temporary OR atypical OR contingent OR casual OR flexible OR non-standard OR insecur* OR unprotected OR unstable OR gig OR non-permanent OR ‘non permanent’ OR fixed-term OR ‘fixed term' OR ‘side hustle' OR contract OR part-time OR ‘part time' OR cyclical OR seasonal)
	Subjects to search: precarious work, part time employment, job insecurity

Screening

In phase one of the selection process, two graduate trainees independently screened titles and abstracts using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included studies that were: written in English, published from 2012 to 2022, peer-reviewed, research-based, reported findings pertaining to places outside home and work, linked place to social connections and/or social isolation, and had a sample primarily composed of adults experiencing precarious employment. Studies focused on persons permanently detached from the labour force, grey literature, and non-peer reviewed articles were excluded. The screening form was tested on the first 50 abstracts for agreement and then amended and utilised for all remaining titles. A primary researcher resolved disagreements as needed. A total of 237 studies were accepted at this phase.

Phase two involved a full-text review of the 237 studies. Two primary researchers independently reviewed articles and recorded rationales for exclusions; a graduate trainee resolved conflicted decisions, yielding 20 studies for data extraction. Hand searches of reference lists for these 20 articles identified articles not captured by database searches. Identified articles underwent the same screening review process; an additional 4 studies resulted from hand-searching, resulting in a total of 24 studies (see Figure 1 for PRISMA flow chart).

Figure 1. PRISMA diagram of scoping review process and resulting articles.

Data extraction and critical appraisal of research

Data were extracted and studies were appraised using a form that included sections for descriptive, research, and sample characteristics, as well as research quality based on Tracy’s (2010) appraisal criteria. Following a trial extraction, two research trainees extracted data with the primary researchers’ oversight and review.

Collating, summarising, and interpreting findings

In the final step, data were exported into documents corresponding to each extraction form section. Comparing data across articles, research trainees summarised quantifiable data. The primary researchers, drawing upon critical interpretive analysis techniques (Benjamin Thomas & Laliberte Rudman, 2018; Dixon-Woods et al., 2006) and a thematic analysis approach (Harris et al., 2017), independently coded extracted qualitative data, meeting to review notes, refine codes, generate themes, and distil critical interpretations.

Results

In the first section of our results, we provide a brief description of the 24 included articles, the types of ‘third’ places addressed within them, and key characteristics of these third places that emerged as aligned with the realities of precarious lives. We then explicate thematic findings pertaining to the social experiences and outcomes associated with third places in precarious workers’ lives. Table 2 lists the included articles, showing their connection to these types and key characteristics of third places as well as five sub- themes addressing social experiences and outcomes.

Table 2. Summary of included articles by third place characteristics and subthemes related to social experiences/outcomes.

Authors (year)	Geographic location of research	Type(s) of third place	Characteristics of third places aligned with precarious lives^a	Social experiences/outcomes sub-themes(s)^b
Allison (2012a)	Japan	Pre-existing fixed	1, 4, 5, 6	1, 3, 4
Allison (2012b)	Japan	Pre-existing fixed	1, 3, 4, 5	1, 2, 3, 4
Aquino et al. (2022)	Singapore	Marginal	1, 2, 3	1, 2
Basok and George (2021)	Canada	Pre-existing fixed	1, 3, 4, 5	1, 2, 3
Bonner-Thompson and McDowell (2020)	United Kingdom	Pre-existing fixed	1, 4, 6	1, 2, 4
Gandini and Cossu (2021)	Italy; United Kingdom	Pre-existing fixed	1, 3, 5	1, 3
Hamid (2015)	Singapore	Marginal	1, 3, 5	1, 2, 3, 5
Hamid and Tutt (2019)	Singapore	Marginal	1, 3, 5, 6	1, 3, 5
Hoang (2016)	Taiwan	Pre-existing fixed	2, 3, 6	1, 2, 4, 5
Kudejira (2021)	South Africa	Pre-existing fixed	3, 4, 5	1, 3, 4, 5
Landau (2018)	Kenya; South Africa	Pre-existing fixed	2, 4, 5, 6	1, 4, 5
Maffie (2020)	United States	Marginal; Pre-existing fixed	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6	1, 2, 4
Monticelli and Baglioni (2017)	Italy	Pre-existing fixed	1, 4	1, 5
Petrou and Connell (2019)	Australia	Pre-existing fixed	3, 6	1, 3, 4
Piocos (2019)	China	Pre-existing fixed	3, 5, 6	1, 2, 3, 4
Rossitto and Lampinen (2018)	Sweden	Pre-existing fixed	1, 2, 3, 4, 5	1, 2, 3, 4
Soriano and Cabañes (2020)	Philippines	Pre-existing fixed	2, 3, 4, 5	1, 3, 4
Straughan and Bissell (2022)	Australia	Pre-existing fixed	2, 3, 4, 6	1, 4
Tan (2021)	China	Pre-existing fixed	1, 2, 3	1, 2, 4, 5
Tassinari and Maccarrone (2020)	Italy; United Kingdom	Marginal; Pre-existing fixed	1, 2, 3, 6	1, 3
Tungohan (2017)	Canada	Pre-existing fixed	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6	1, 2, 5
Wright et al. (2022)	United Kingdom	Pre-existing fixed	1, 2, 3, 4	1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Wu (2021)	Australia	Pre-existing fixed	1, 4	1, 5
Yao et al. (2021)	United States	Pre-existing fixed	1, 4	1, 2, 3, 4, 5

^a Key characteristics: 1, Low financial, geographical, or other barriers preventing access; 2, Predictable availability with low obligation, commitment, or judgment; 3, Accommodating of diverse levels and types of use; 4, Facilitative of communication and receipt/exchange of support and/or resources; 5, Marked by shared purpose, collective activities, and/or collective identity among users; 6, Removed from surveillance of dominant others.

^b Sub-themes: 1, Achieving a sense of belonging to collective of ‘similar’ others; 2, Experiencing temporary respite from the conditions of precarity; 3, Asserting presence and visibility; 4, Participating in exchanges of diverse resources and forms of care; 5, Managing social risks, obligations and social exclusion.

Descriptive findings

The included articles were authored from a range of disciplinary perspectives, most frequently sociological (n = 8), geographical (n = 5), and anthropological (n = 3). As displayed in Table 3, this diversity is also reflected in publication locations crossing many disciplinary and interdisciplinary spaces, such as anthropology, leisure studies, migration studies, cultural studies, urban studies, work and organisational studies, social media and communication studies, political geography, and others. This diversity resulted in a rich collection of understandings regarding various types, characteristics, and social implications of physical and virtual ‘third’ places in the lives of precarious workers.

Table 3. Journals of publication for included articles.

Authors (year)	Journals
Allison (2012a)	Cambridge Anthropology
Allison (2012b)	Anthropological Quarterly
Aquino et al. (2022)	Annals of Leisure Research
Basok and George (2021)	International Migration
Bonner-Thompson and McDowell (2020)	Emotion, Space and Society
Gandini and Cossu (2021)	European Journal of Cultural Studies
Hamid (2015)	Pacific Affairs
Hamid and Tutt (2019)	Construction Management and Economics
Hoang (2016)	Ethnic and Racial Studies
Kudejira (2021)	Anthropology Southern Africa
Landau (2018)	Urban Studies
Maffie (2020)	Industrial Relations
Monticelli and Baglioni (2017)	Contemporary Social Science
Petrou and Connell (2019)	Journal of Australian Political Economy
Piocos (2019)	Plaridel
Rossitto and Lampinen (2018)	Computer Supported Cooperative Work
Soriano and Cabañes (2020)	Social Media + Society
Straughan and Bissell (2022)	Urban Geography
Tan (2021)	Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Tassinari and Maccarrone (2020)	Employment and Society
Tungohan (2017)	Space and Polity
Wright et al. (2022)	New Technology, Work and Employment
Wu (2021)	Asia Pacific Viewpoint
Yao et al. (2021)	Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Research primarily occurred in Asia (n = 9) and Europe (n = 6), with a smaller number of studies in North America, Australia, and Africa (see Table 2). Half of the articles (n = 12) focused on foreign temporary migrant workers, while the remaining articles addressed workers in various forms of precarious work (e.g. contract, freelance, seasonal, day labour, gig work). Participants’ demographic characteristics were not reported with uniform clarity across studies, thus preventing a comprehensive summary of sample characteristics.

Although most studies (n = 23) employed qualitative approaches, ten articles did not identify a specific methodology and almost one-third did not describe how data analysis was conducted. Just over half of the articles (n = 14) lacked information required to fully ascertain research quality; the most common omissions related to research rigour, sincerity, and credibility. Implications drawn from this set of sources must be understood with these limitations in mind.

Types of third places

Although only 2 of the 24 articles explicitly incorporated the concept of ‘third’ places, all articles focused on physical or virtual places connected to social experiences and outcomes in precarious workers’ lives. Situated in the conditions of precarious lives, such as restricted financial resources, geographical segregation, and processes of othering, the types of places extended beyond those proposed within original conceptualizations of ‘third’ places. Indeed, articles pointed to the inaccessibility of many mainstream third places for precarious workers. For example, Monticelli and Baglioni (2017) highlighted clubs, pubs, gyms, and markets as inaccessible to young unemployed workers in Italy due to reduced finances, while Bonner-Thompson and McDowell (2020) found that young men in coastal English towns discontinued use of arcades and bars that served as reminders of their ‘worklessness and precarious living' (p. 4). Wu (2021) detailed how spatial segregation of Timorese seasonal foreign migrant workers in Australia resulted in restricted access to shopping facilities, recreational facilities, and other public places in urban areas, while Tungohan (2017) found that prevalent xenophobic attitudes in a Canadian city meant that temporary foreign workers felt unwelcomed in many public spaces. Within these constraints, precarious workers created, maintained, and participated in a range of alternative physical and virtual places to meet interconnected social, material, and emotional needs, with such places often largely occupied by similar others. Examples of alternative physical places included alleys, curbs, streets, parking lots, and vacant lots, while alternative virtual places included social media groups, gig work applications, and online messaging applications.

Within this diversity of places, two main types were common: marginal places, such as alleyways or vacant lots, transformed to meet particular needs; and pre-existing fixed places, such as public parks and not-for-profit centres, that workers accessed in ways that supported coming together (see Table 2). Several studies addressed how precarious workers transformed spaces on the margins of a community that others did not occupy for social purposes. For example, Hamid (2015) and Hamid and Tutt (2019) described how migrant construction workers in Singapore, who were restricted from using various public places such as shopping malls and main sidewalks, used ‘leftover’ spaces such as street drains and back alleys to create ‘little pockets of space for themselves' (Hamid & Tutt, p. 528). Aquino et al. (2022) interpreted female migrant domestic workers’ repurposing of a vacant lot to play volleyball each Sunday as an ‘active reconfiguration of the urban environment’ that created ‘arenas of economic, social and political migrant resource generation' (p. 13). Studies addressing gig workers highlighted how ‘free spaces’ such as delivery waiting points outside restaurants (Tassinari & Maccarrone, 2020) or a parking lot available after business hours (Maffie, 2020) were used to build bonds with similar workers.

In other studies, precarious workers mobilised pre-existing fixed places to create meeting points or communication venues. As one example, virtual and physical places to share work-related resources, space, and information were also mobilised for social purposes. Straughan and Bissell (2022), for example, attended to how ‘generative sociality' (p. 3) occurred through extending engagement in gig work applications beyond selecting gigs to experiencing social encounters. Gandini and Cossu (2021) found that collaboratively run co-working places were used to facilitate ‘ties within and beyond the space' (p. 444). Only a few studies examined spaces specifically designed by organisations, governments, and broader communities to attend to precarious workers’ social needs, such as Allison’s (2012a, 2012b) exploration of regional living rooms in Japan, and Basok and George’s (2021) attention to community-organised events for migrant farmworkers in Canadian churches and community centres.

Key characteristics of third places aligned with precarious lives

Several common characteristics of third places emerged across these studies, including: low financial, geographical, or other barriers preventing access; predictable availability with low obligation, commitment or judgment; accommodating of diverse levels and types of use; facilitative of communication and receipt/exchange of support and/or resources; marked by shared purpose, collective activities, and/or collective identity among users; and removed from surveillance of dominant others (see Table 2). These characteristics aligned with the precarious nature of workers’ lives as well as their marginal status in the communities in which they worked and lived. For example, third places that supported diverse levels and types of use were important to accommodate the uncertainty in precarious workers’ daily routines and responsibilities. Rossitto and Lampinen (2018) discussed that Hoffices, a type of co-working space, were intentionally created to have loose structures, allowing members to utilise the space for paid work, personal tasks, or social events. Tan (2021) found that the physical and temporal openness of community squares ‘catered to diverse needs to different user groups' (p. 4695), affording opportunities for leisure, exercise, and business for temporary migrant workers. Predictable places with limited obligations or commitment for use also were supportive for people experiencing social precarity. Soriano and Cabañes (2020), drawing on Madianou’s (2016) concept of ambient co-presence, showed how open forum social media groups allowed online freelance workers in the Philippines to access a community of similarly situated others, and Landau (2018) showed how religious institutions in African estuaries ‘allow people to be in a place but not of it' (p. 516) by prioritising connection with God more so than a commitment to church communities.

At the same time, many third places frequented by precarious workers were often marked by precarity themselves, such that their existence was tenuous, sometimes contested, and often reliant on the continued capacity of precarious workers to sustain them. As one example, Hamid and Tutt (2019) marked out how experiences of insecurity, restrictions on rights, and vulnerability associated with work extended into how Tamil migrant workers experienced ‘leftover spaces and in-between places’ (p. 527) for eating together, exchanging resources, and other social purposes. Similarly, Aquino et al. (2022) pointed to how discriminatory attitudes and behaviours made female migrant workers fearful that their use of a vacant lot to congregate would be shut down by local residents’ complaints.

Thematic findings pertaining to social experiences and outcomes

Our scoping review findings demonstrate various ways that social contributions of third places extend beyond Oldenburg and Brissett’s (1982) emphasis on ‘pure sociability' (p. 271). These thematic findings point to various ways that conditions of precarity and their implications shaped social experiences and outcomes sought, realised, and valued by precarious workers in relation to third places. We organised these social experiences and outcomes into four sub- themes: achieving a sense of belonging to a collective of ‘similar’ others; experiencing temporary respite from the conditions of precarity; asserting presence and visibility; and participating in exchanges of diverse resources and forms of care. In addition, although Oldenberg’s original conceptualisation primarily focused on social benefits, this body of research highlighted risks and drawbacks associated with third places for precarious workers; these are summarised in a fifth sub-theme: managing social risks, obligations and social exclusion.

Achieving a sense of belonging to a collective of ‘similar’ others

Within studies in which precarious workers were actively excluded from ‘mainstream’ third places, findings addressed how third places shaped by precarious workers enabled participation in ‘alternative socialities' (Landau, 2018, p. 508), that is, forms of social interaction outside of those dominant in the broader community. In turn, such participation was tied to achieving a sense of belonging to a particular social collective. As one example, Piocos (2019) pointed to the ‘community-building' (p. 176) occurring through weekly gatherings of female Filipina domestic workers within a public square in Hong Kong, proposing that workers were generating ‘new imaginaries of community that are crucial to their sense of belonging in transnational spaces' (p. 167). Several studies examining gig workers’ interactions in virtual spaces also highlighted that participants achieved a sense of ‘collective identity' (Maffie, 2020, p. 131) and ‘comfort, as well as a sense of community' (Yao et al., 2021, p. 17).

The sense of belonging precarious workers achieved was often connected to seeing themselves as part of a collective with shared norms, values, motivations, and commitments, which often ran counter to those prevalent in the broader societies of study locations. For example, co-working spaces in Sweden were co-created in ways that resisted a ‘frame of workplaces as sites associated with profit, competition and managerial structures' through embedding ‘central values of trust, self-actualisation and openness' (Rossitto & Lampinen, 2018, p. 968). In some instances, collective belonging extended into collective solidarity through precarious workers’ engagement in processes that enhanced awareness of larger social, economic, and political conditions fostering precarity. In their study exploring the development of workplace solidarity amongst food platform delivery workers, Tassinari and Maccarrone (2020) found that virtual meeting spaces ‘provided a channel to start airing grievances and recognising them as shared beyond workers’ individual experiences, solidifying a sense of collectivity' (p. 45).

Experiencing temporary respite from the conditions of precarity

Third places provided time-limited relief from conditions such as public surveillance, hopelessness, or foreboding uncertainty. In some cases, respite was connected to getting out of spatially segregated work and living environments to interact with others in a centrally located urban space. Hamid and Tutt (2019) found that Tamil migrant workers, strategically ‘dispersed around the edges of Singapore’ (p. 61) by employers, experienced a break from feeling disconnected from home when visiting a central area designated as ‘Little India’. Within Aquino et al.’s (2022) study of temporary migrant workers in Singapore, travelling from overcrowded housing spatially distant from the urban core to outdoor informal sport locations within the city provided respite from incessant work and conflict.

Achieving a sense of respite was associated with experiences of relaxation, excitement, joy, and hope. For example, young British males negotiating precarious work conditions found refuge and relaxation when hanging out in nature-based places that were ‘relatively free from the forms of surveillance they were usually subjected to' (Bonner-Thompson & McDowell, 2020, p. 5). Temporary foreign workers in Canada similarly experienced letting ‘down their guard' (Tungohan, 2017, p. 22) when attending social events at a migrant organisation. Although migrant farmworkers in Basok and George’s (2021) study did not experience a sense of attachment to the community in which they worked, they experienced respite during culturally related festivities within a nearby town, making it ‘possible for them to temporarily forget their loneliness and take their minds off the tensions and conflicts some of the migrants experience in their homes and at work' (p. 105).

Asserting presence and visibility

Precarious workers’ active involvement in third places with similar others was also connected to asserting their presence and visibility and countering social marginalisation. Piocos (2019) analysis of foreign domestic workers’ placemaking activities in a public square found that ‘singing and dancing are ways in which the Filipinas and Indonesians “assert their visibility through spectacle”[and] resist their reduction to domestic bodies at the beck and call, or mercy, of their employers' (p. 505). In a similar way, Hamid and Tutt (2019) pointed to how Tamil construction workers transformed marginal spaces to ‘work strategically to question temporariness' (p. 532). Allison (2012b) found that Japanese youth participation in a club hosting ‘Stop Suicide' (p. 363) open performances was associated with recognition and countering exclusion: ‘Rather than succumbing to social exclusion (or death), one makes their handicaps the very basis for being and belonging in the room' (p. 364).

Participating in exchanges of diverse resources and forms of care

Third places also enabled exchanges of diverse resources required for survival, as well as forms of care and support used to negotiate oppressive conditions. Hoang (2016) found that casual connections made by female Vietnamese migrant workers in places such as prayer temples, parks, and ethnic eateries were transformed into ‘networks of sisterhood and survival' (p. 696) when women experienced employer neglect or job loss. Petrou and Connell’s (2019) analysis of Facebook posts within a group of ethnically-similar seasonal workers pointed to the exchange of ‘useful knowledge about the practicalities of life in a foreign country' (p. 126). Bonner-Thompson and McDowell’s (2020) study of youth navigating precarious work found that reciprocal practices of care were ‘deeply rooted' (p. 4) in the places youth frequented.

Resources shared within third places also encompassed forms of support and capital that enhanced workers’ capacity to negotiate precarious workplace conditions and optimise financial gains, further blurring the line between third places and workplaces. For example, Wright et al.’s (2022) ethnographic exploration of a co-working space in England demonstrated that in addition to providing and receiving emotional support, participants gained ‘instrumental features of social support, such as the opportunity to access talent and grow their business' (p. 67).

Managing social risks, obligations and social exclusion

While findings clearly pointed to third places’ association with desired social experiences and outcomes, precarious conditions meant that such places could also be associated with risks, obligations and social exclusion. Having to manage social risks and obligations limited if and how precarious workers engaged in third places, thereby limiting their realisation of positive social experiences and outcomes. Both Landau (2018) and Hoang (2016) found that migrant workers sometimes maintained social distance from each other in particular places as a means to minimise conflicts related to expectations of reciprocity, thereby lessening their own opportunities for receiving support.

As well, several articles noted that although gathering in particular public places promoted a sense of belonging amongst precarious workers, this sense of belonging was often temporary, rarely extended to other places, and could deepen experiences of exclusion from broader communities. Hamid (2015) pointed to Tamil migrant workers simultaneous experiences of belonging and alienation given that ‘the only space Tamil migrant workers have found comfort and where they feel closest to home is Little India, yet they face exclusion from the residents and citizens there, making it an unhomely space for them' (p. 17). Tan (2021) found that although temporary migrants’ use of a community space promoted a ‘sense of belonging that enabled temporary migrants to escape from work and household chores and to be integrated into urban life temporarily' (p. 4698), that the sense of belonging ‘was not likely to be transferred to other social occasions in other parts of the city' (p. 4698).

Social exclusion was also experienced within third places in ways that reinforced social hierarchies and gendered exclusions amongst precarious workers. Kudejira’s (2021) exploration of the role of food within social relations amongst Zimbabwean workers in South Africa found that certain places reinforced class differences amongst such workers. In relation to gender, Wright et al.’s (2022) attention to the ‘darker side' of coworking spaces pointed to how a masculine culture was experienced as exclusionary given ‘the gendered tone of the rituals and discourse' (p. 69).

Discussion

Our scoping review findings summarise what is known about the types and characteristics of ‘third places’ frequented by people experiencing precarious employment circumstances that extend into social precarity; they also expand understanding of the social experiences and outcomes associated with such places. In particular, this body of research highlights how precarious workers, within conditions marked by various forms of spatial exclusion, enact collective agency to create and sustain alternative ‘third places’. These creative, strategic, and intensive collective efforts parallel findings pertaining to how various marginalised communities strategically negotiate use of public space, thereby adding to a broader literature addressing how space is mobilised to resist exclusion and assert presence (Aquino et al., 2022; Mickiewicz, 2015; Tungohan, 2017). The findings also reinforce the vital role of ‘third places’ in combating social isolation experienced by precarious workers, while also pointing to their centrality in negotiating a range of potential material, emotional, and social implications of precarious work, such as social marginalisation and invisibility, inadequate access to vital resources, giving and receiving care, and building community and solidarity. As such, these findings demonstrate how research with precarious workers, who represent a growing segment of the population in many nations (Gunn et al., 2022; Lewchuk et al., 2016), can serve to broaden the conceptualisation of ‘third places’ in ways that can inform efforts aimed at cultivating and sustaining inclusive public places that more adequately address the social and health implications of precarity (Dolley & Bosman, 2019; Finlay et al., 2019; Fullagar et al., 2019; Mickiewicz, 2015). In particular, findings pertaining to common characteristics of third places aligned with precarious workers’ lives highlight key considerations that can inform how the ‘recognition of diverse others can be built into the planning and design of public spaces' (Aquino et al., 2022, p. 15).

At the same time, these findings illustrate how oppressive and discriminatory power relations shape precarious workers’ exclusion from ‘mainstream’ third places, relegate precarious workers to marginal ‘left-over’ spaces, threaten the sustainability of the third places precarious workers create, and set limits on social outcomes and experiences achieved therein. Across the articles, precarious workers who were struggling to manage financial and social precarity created third places out of necessity given their situatedness within broader dynamics of social exclusion. At the same time, they faced numerous intersecting and compounding barriers to sustaining such places and their interactions within them, including opposition to their use of public spaces by dominant social groups, surveillance and policing of their activities, social policy ordinances governing public spaces, limits on resources, risks of obligations, and exclusionary dynamics related to age, gender, and other social markers. As such, the ‘precarity penalty' (Lewchuk et al., 2016, p. 87) extends not only from the conditions of work to social relations, but also to experiences of places beyond work and home. Although the concept of ‘precarity of place’ originally referred to susceptibility to removal or deportation from physical locations experienced by temporary migrant workers (Banki, 2013), Tungohan’s (2017) use of this concept to elucidate the on-going everyday spatial experiences of Filipino temporary foreign workers points to how this concept can be expanded and mobilised to deepen understanding of spatial precarity as an aspect of precarious workers’ lives. Similar experiences of precarity of place surfaced across the articles within this review, across a diversity of types of precarious workers situated in different national contexts. As noted by Aquino et al. (2022), given that ‘conflicts over access to public spaces and what happens in them are on the rise across major cities’ (p.16), it is vital that studies attend to not only what third places contribute to the lives of precarious workers but also the various ways social relations, practices, and policies can detrimentally extend precarity into experiences of public place.

Several strengths characterise the body of research covered by this scoping review. The integration of diverse disciplinary perspectives and the use of qualitative methodologies to examine everyday experiences of place has generated in-depth knowledge regarding key characteristics and social outcomes associated with third places in the lives of precarious workers. As well, this scholarship brings attention to the agentic practices of precarious workers, while also pointing to complex ways that systemic and structural features bound possibilities for experiencing third places and their benefits. At the same time, key gaps are apparent in this literature. In relation to the focus and location of these inquiries, half of the studies focused on foreign temporary migrant workers and very few studies occurred outside Asia or Europe. Given the recognition that the form, experience and implications of precarious work are shaped by sociopolitical aspects that vary across nation states (Carr & Chung, 2014; Kalleberg & Hewison, 2013), there is a need to extend the study of precarious lives and third places. As well, there was an absence of studies focused on several social groups shown to be at risk for relegation to precarious work (Lewchuk et al., 2016; Vosko, 2006); for example, only a few studies focused on youth, while none focused on racialized men and women who are not migrants, aging and older workers, or persons experiencing cyclical unemployment. In large part, these studies focused on how precarious workers collectively engaged in creating third places, with few examining third places designed by organisations or governmental bodies. At the same time, several studies did address variants of co-working places created by and for precarious workers; a focused scoping review regarding the contributions and drawbacks of co-working places could further generate knowledge regarding how such places may be designed in ways that support the negotiation of precarity. Addressing these gaps could expand understanding of third place characteristics that respond to the conditions experienced by precarious workers and meet needed social outcomes. Moreover, greater reporting of key aspects of methodologies and methods employed, as well as participant characteristics, would enable a fuller evaluation of the current state of knowledge and opportunities for enhancement.

Underpinned by Lefebvre’s (1996) concept of the ‘right to the city’, which emphasises participation in social life and a collectivist approach to shared public spaces (Aquino et al., 2022), the findings of this scoping review can inform critical reflection on the kinds of places that can serve as ‘third places’ within societies marked by enhanced diversity and growing precarity (Delaisse et al., 2021; Finlay et al., 2019). Numerous social and political factors, such as austerity politics, increasing privatisation, enhanced securitisation, and gentrification, have resulted in decreased or restricted availability of publicly supported places that could be designed to function as accessible third places to address diverse social needs (Aquino et al., 2022; Finlay et al., 2019; Fullagar et al., 2019; Tungohan, 2017). Given the increasing embeddedness of precarious employment within contemporary societies, knowledge generation and policy measures designed to cultivate sustainable, inclusive third places that meet the needs of precarious workers are imperative to strengthen public health and optimise social cohesion.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant number: 872-2021-0024).

Notes on contributors

Debbie Laliberte Rudman

Debbie Laliberte Rudman is a distinguished university professor in occupational therapy at the University of Western Ontario. She is an occupational scientist whose research focuses on critically understanding the social and political production of inter-related occupational, social and health inequities.

Sarah Larkin

Sarah Larkin is a research assistant for the Human Occupation, Precarity and Employment (HOPE) Lab at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include how space and place can be leveraged to support occupational participation and justice.

Kassandra Fernandes

Kassandra Fernandes is a Ph.D. student in health and rehabilitation sciences, Western University. Her research interests are in exploring place and the socio-environmental factors related to the promotion of older adults' quality of life and meaningful occupation.

Gorety Nguyen

Gorety Nguyen is a research student in the Human Occupation, Precarity and Employment (HOPE) Lab at the University of Southern California. Her research interests are in how individuals use occupation to make sense of, counter and assert themselves within marginalised spaces.

Rebecca Aldrich

Rebecca Aldrich is a professor of clinical occupational therapy at the University of Southern California. Her research focuses on the navigation and negotiation of everyday life in socially marginalised situations.