Exploring flexible home arrangements – an interview study of workers who live in vans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to understand the lived experience of workers who live in vans to explore how work and non-work interact when one's living environment is mobile. Design/methodology/approach In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 18 participants. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts, coded while listening to each interview recording, provided a rich account of the interaction of work and non-work life domains. Findings Several themes were identified, including seeing the van as a home, hidden or disclosed identity stemming from living in a van, financial freedom, career freedom and work/non-work synchronization. Overall, findings suggest that flexible home arrangements, the relocation of one's home to adapt to work, aligned work and non-work domains to positively impact their overall work and non-work satisfaction, providing career freedom and expanded career opportunities. Research limitations/implications The understanding of workers who live in vans broadens one’s understanding of mobile work and the work/non-work interface, providing insight into the dual alignment of work and home to accommodate each other, which the authors term work/non-work synchronization. Originality/value This is one of the first studies to consider van living from a work and career perspective and for the first time conceptualizes the notion of flexible home arrangements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".