HAL Id: tel-01661515https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01661515

Submitted on 12 Dec 2017

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.

Organizational Space Collapsed, Organizational SpaceExpanded : Experiencing Space with ICT, Affordance

and the BodyAnouk Mukherjee

To cite this version:Anouk Mukherjee. Organizational Space Collapsed, Organizational Space Expanded : ExperiencingSpace with ICT, Affordance and the Body. Business administration. Université Paris sciences etlettres, 2017. English. �NNT : 2017PSLED028�. �tel-01661515�

THÈSE DE DOCTORAT

de l’Université de recherche Paris Sciences et Lettres PSL Research University

Préparée à l’Université Paris-Dauphine

COMPOSITION DU JURY :

Soutenue le par

École Doctorale de Dauphine — ED 543

Spécialité

Dirigée par

Organizational Space Collapsed, Organizational Space Expanded: Experiencing Space with ICT, Affordance and the Body

23.06.2017Anouk MUKHERJEE

F-X de Vaujany

Université Paris-Dauphine

M. François-Xavier De Vaujany

Université Aix-Marseille – FEG

Mme Cécile Godé

Mme Jessie Pallud

École de Management de Strasbourg

M. Christophe Elie-Dit-CosaqueUniversité Paris-Dauphine

M. Stewart CleggUniversity of Technology Sydney

Sciences de gestion

Directeur de thèse

Rapporteure

Rapporteure

Président du jury

Membre du jury

1

ÉcoledoctoraledeDauphine

DRMUMRCNRS7088

OrganizationalSpaceCollapsed,OrganizationalSpaceExpanded:Experiencing

SpacewithICT,AffordanceandtheBody

AnoukMukherjee

2

UNIVERSITÉPARIS-DAUPHINENEITHERAPPROVESNORDISAPPROVESTHE

OPINIONSEXPRESSEDINTHISDISSERTATION;THEYSHOULDBECONSIDEREDTHE

AUTHOR’SOWN

3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................................................................................................................5

1 GENERALINTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................7

2 THEORY....................................................................................................................................................19

2.1 ORGANIZATIONALSPACE.......................................................................................................................192.1.1 PHILOSOPHICALROOTSOFORGANIZATIONALSPACETHEORY.......................................................................222.1.2 THEORIZINGORGANIZATIONALSPACES............................................................................................................332.2 INFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONTECHNOLOGIESANDORGANIZATIONALSPACE.....................432.3 THEORYOFAFFORDANCE......................................................................................................................462.3.1 ORIGINSINECOLOGICALPSYCHOLOGY..............................................................................................................472.3.2 UPTAKEBEYONDECOLOGICALPSYCHOLOGY....................................................................................................562.3.3 AFFORDANCEINIS.................................................................................................................................................582.4 THEORETICALFRAMEWORK..................................................................................................................692.4.1 PHASE1:EXPLORATORY......................................................................................................................................702.4.2 PHASE2:INTENSIVE..............................................................................................................................................73

3 RESEARCHDESIGN...............................................................................................................................82

3.1 OVERALLRESEARCHMODEL.................................................................................................................823.2 RESEARCHOBJECT(S)............................................................................................................................833.3 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................................................853.4 CASEDESCRIPTIONS...............................................................................................................................893.4.1 DESAUTELSFACULTYOFMANAGEMENT–MCGILLUNIVERSITY.................................................................893.4.2 JUDGEBUSINESSSCHOOL–CAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITY....................................................................................923.4.3 DESCRIPTIVECOMPARISON..................................................................................................................................93

4 FINDINGS.................................................................................................................................................94

4.1 PHASE1:EXPLORATION........................................................................................................................944.1.1 SUBPHASE1.1:DISCOVERINGWHATSPACEMEANSFORDIFFERENTACTORSINTHEBUSINESSSCHOOLENVIRONMENT.......................................................................................................................................................................944.1.2 SUBPHASE1.2:UNDERSTANDINGSPATIALPRACTICESINTHECONTEXTOFABUSINESSSCHOOL.........964.2 PHASE2:INTENSIVEPHASE................................................................................................................1204.2.1 CASE1:MCGILLUNIVERSITY–DESAUTELSFACULTYOFMANAGEMENT..............................................1214.2.2 CASE2:CAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITY–JUDGEBUSINESSSCHOOL..................................................................1854.3 CROSS-CASEANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................2504.4 DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................................................2554.4.1 CONTRIBUTIONS..................................................................................................................................................2804.4.2 AVENUESFORFUTURERESEARCH....................................................................................................................2824.4.3 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................................................2824.4.4 MANAGERIALIMPLICATIONS............................................................................................................................284

5 GENERALCONCLUSION....................................................................................................................286

6 LISTOFFIGURES................................................................................................................................288

7 LISTOFTABLES..................................................................................................................................290

8 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................291

9 APPENDICES........................................................................................................................................301

9.1 INTERVIEWPROTOCOL........................................................................................................................3019.2 ISLITERATURESEARCHFORORGANIZATIONALSPACE–TABLEOFRESULTS................................303

4

9.3 FIELDWORKPHASETIMELINE............................................................................................................3049.4 TABLEOFINTERVIEWS–EXPLORATORYPHASE...............................................................................3059.5 TABLEOFINTERVIEWS–INTENSIVEPHASE2.1MCGILL.................................................................3069.6 TABLEOFINTERVIEWS–INTENSIVEPHASE2.1JBS........................................................................3079.7 TABLEOFINTERVIEWS–INTENSIVEPHASE2.2JBS........................................................................3089.8 LONGSUMMARYOFTHEDISSERTATIONINFRENCH–RESUMESUBSTANTIELDELATHESEENFRANÇAIS........................................................................................................................................................309

5

Acknowledgments

This project would have never been possible without the help of a large number ofpeople,institutions,andpublicentities.Firstandforemost,Ithankmysupervisor,François-XavierdeVaujany.Icannotthinkofa better supervisor, both in terms of human qualities and intellectual brilliance. If itwerenotforhim,IdonotthinkIwouldhaveachievedwhatIhaveinthesepast5years.I would like to expressmy gratitude to Cécile Godé, Jessie Pallud, Stewart Clegg andChristopheElie-dit-CosaqueforacceptingtobepartofmyPhDdissertationcommittee.IthankEmmanuelleVaastandMatthewJonesforaccompanyingmeonthisvoyageandopeningdoors–bothliterallyandintellectually.Fundingforadoctoralresearchproject–especiallyoneinvolvingfieldworkindifferentcountries–isalwaysachallenge.Thisisespeciallytruegiventhecontextofleanpublicfinances. I am therefore especially grateful for the support provided by the ÉcoleDoctoraledeDauphine,ParisSciences&Lettres,theconseilregionalÎle-de-France,andtheministèredel'Enseignementsupérieur,delaRechercheetdel'Innovation(MESRI).Iwouldalsoliketothank:Nathalie Mitev for introducing me to François-Xavier and giving me hope when allseemedhopeless.The faculty of my department at Université Paris-Dauphine, especially Jean-FrançoisChanlat,who inspiresmewithwithhis fierypassion;NorbertAlter, forprovidingmewithhisthoughtfuladvice;PierreRomelaer,forhiswelcomingandencouragingwords;HenriIsaac,forgivingmehisprecioustimeandsharinghisideas;AnouckAdrot,alwayslookingaftermywellbeingandthatofothers;LionelGarreau,foralwaysbeingkeentohelpandwithasmile;AnthonyHussenot,who’ssunnypresencealwaysbrightenedupmyday;GregorBouville,forhiskindness;and,EricCampoyforhistremendoussupport.TheISGroupattheLSE–myyearstherewerelife-changingandtrulyunforgettable.Ifitweren’t for Chrisanthi Avgerou, I would have never chosen this career path. Sheencouragedme despitemy doubts and hesitations. Also, Susan Scott, for teachingmethatresearchisastateofmind;JannisKallinikosforhavingapassionforhiscraftandtransmitting it; Shirin Madon for being generous and available when I needed it themost;AntonioCordella,alwaysthequicksmile;SteveSmithsonforhispreciousadvice;and,Magdaforhercontagiousenthusiasmandenergy.StewartCleggformakingmere-discoverthe literarywondersof theEnglish language.WorkingwithStewarthasbeenedifyingandenjoyable.Myco-editor,GiovanFrancescoLanzaraforhiszenattitude.

6

ChrisGreyforhisthoughtfulreflectionsandcounselonmattersfromacademiclifeto…justlifeitself.DvoraYanow,PaulLeonardi, andSaraVärlander for their soundadvicewhenpassingthroughParis.AllofthedoctoralstudentsatDauphinewithwhomIcrossedpathsandtravelledsometime with: Alexandre, Alexis, Anne, Audrey, Bruno, David, Eliel, Fabrice, Fatma,Guillaume, Hélène, Jean-Yves, Julie, Laura, Mélia, Najma, Pierre, Raphaël, Sakura, Sea,Yannis...FlorenceParent,forbeingsuchawonderfulhelptoeachandeveryPhDstudentburstingintoheroffice.OlivierMenacer,CécileChevalierandtheentireCIPteamforhelpingmewithmyprojectattheverybeginning.Julie Fabbri, Anna Glaser, Viviane Sergi, and Annie Camus for their contagiousenthusiasmformakingthingshappen.All of theLSEdoctoral studentswhowerepresent throughout this adventure:Daniel,Nuno,Roser,Wifak,andSavitaHono,forbeingmyintellectualsparringpartner,butalsoacloseanddearfriend.Mahandhiswifefortheirhospitalityandhumour.Allof theacademicsandstudentsatMcGillandtheJBSwhoofferedmetheirprecioustimeforthisstudy.Myownstudents,fromwhomIhavelearnedmuch,throughmyinteractionswiththem,remindedofthechallengesofbridgingthedividebetweenresearchandpractice.Jean-LouisandXavierforremindingmeoftherealitiesoforganizationallife.Allofmyfriendsnearandfar:Anne,Valérie,David,Sheriff,Carl,Alison,Andrew,Patty,Nick,Ben,Charles,Rex…Myfamily-especiallymylovingparents.Julie–foryourlove,support…andespeciallypatience,duringthesetryingfinalmonths.

7

1 GeneralIntroduction

WhereamI?Really,whereamI?WhereamIwhenI’mtextingwhilewalking?Wheream

I when I’m sitting in front of my computer surfing the Internet? Am I here or in

cyberspace?What is cyberspace andwhy do I feel like I’m not really ‘here’when I’m

involvedintheseactivities?Howdoestechnologychangetheexperienceofspace?

Thesereflexivequestionsareat theoriginof thisproject.Behindtheseeminglycasual

natureofthesequestions,isthefeelingofexperiencingsomethingprofoundlydifferent

withregardstospacewhenI’mengagedintheseactivities.Spendinglonghoursinfront

ofascreenworkingontextandimages,Iseemtoforgettheworldaroundme.Although

readingagoodbookgivesmethesame impression, theexperiencewith technology is

comparativelyprofoundlyunsettling.Mybodyisnotadoptingthesamepostureaswhen

I’mreadingabookorevenwriting.Mysensesareorientateddifferently. I findmyself

absorbed,yetperpetuallyunsatisfied.Iclick,type,swipeforhours.WhenIgetup,Iam

surprisedtofindmyselfre-introducedtoanotherworld.Onewithadesk,achair,books,

papers… a room.Wherewas I during all those hours, and how could I have been so

disconnected frommy immediate physical environment? I just realize I had a journal

articlesittingonmydeskrightundermynosethatI’vebeensearchingforweeksfor.Yet

Imanipulatedwitheasethekeyboardandmouse,andwouldbeabletograbmymugof

coffeewithouttakingmyeyesoffthescreen.Itwasasifmybodycouldmergetheworld

inside the screen with that of my immediate surroundings into a single sphere of

experience. Habit would ensure none of this felt strange or surreal. It was perfectly

normaltohaveasingleunitaryembodiedexperiencebothinsidethescreenandinside

theroom.

Althoughthesequestionsemergedfrommypersonalexperience,Iwasconvincedthey

wereofsignificantrelevancetonotonlymypeers,butalsothewiderpublic–especially

thosewhoworkinoffices.Ourworldisdominatedbyscreens.Welookatonealldayat

theoffice, and, increasingly,we lookatoneon the commute toand fromwork, in the

kitchen,inbed–anywherereally.Whydowespendsomanyhoursofourlivesstaring

atascreen?Whyisitthatwecan’tstop?Howdoesthisexperiencecomparetothatof

readingabookorjustsimplywalkingdownthestreetwithoutascreentostareat?

8

Weareall familiarwith thenarrative that ICThas transformedourworld,broughtus

closer together and made our lives easier. We can now send letters online without

havingtostepoutofthehouse(emailanddigitalpost).Wecanordergroceryonlineand

haveitdeliveredtoourdoorstep.Thelistisendless,andwouldboreanyreadertodeath

givenhowbanaltheserealitiesofcontemporarylifeare.Weseemtobenolongerbound

tophysicaldistancelikeweusedtobe.Wecansendinformationacrossthespace-time

continuuminstantlyandgetaccesstohumanknowledgethrough justa fewclicksand

fingerstrokes.Whathasthisdonetospace?Hasitreallybroughtusclosertogether?We

seemtobejustasfarapart,atleastphysically,asweusedtobe.Hasphysicaldistance

beenmadeirrelevant?Istillstruggle, likemostcommuters,togetaroundthecity,and

when there is a problem on the train line, there is no app onmy tabletwhich could

teleportmetomydestination.

Therealityisthatwearejustasboundtoourphysicalenvironmentthroughourbodies

as we have ever been. Yet we often entertain notions of being able to somehow

transcendourbodiesandspacewiththehelpof ICT.Wecannowspeakof friendswe

haven’tseenforyearsbecauseweareup-to-dateontheir latestnews,thankstosocial

media,as ifwehadseenthemfordinner thepreviousevening.Wecan follow inreal-

timethetraveladventuresoffriendsandfamilyhalf-wayacrosstheplanet,asifwewere

withthem.AllofthoseofacertainageareawareofhowICThaschangedourexperience

suchthatwefeellikewecannowaccessamuchbiggerworldfromjustsittinginfrontof

ourcomputer.Doweliveinaneraofshrinkingspace?Oroftheexpansionofit?

Organizational life is just as affected. The experience of workers is disrupted by the

ever-increasing intensity of interactions with ICT artefacts. How does the worker

experience space in these conditions? How do workers interact with the immediate

physicalenvironmentwhentheyarestaringattheirscreens?Howistheexperienceof

spaceproduced,andwhatistheroleofICTinproducingit?

Architecture,urbanplanning,ergonomicsandinteriordesignarefieldsconcernedwith

howour bodiesmove in space. But they are also concernedwith howwe experience

space. The space of cities, buildings and workstations. Much research has been

conducted to understand our experience of moving through the city and inside

9

buildings.But,how is thisexperienceaffectedby thehours staringata screen? Is the

experience of organizational space transformed by ICT? Does it make space less

relevant?Canwejusthavevirtualofficesandnofixedworkstations?Someseemtothink

so–oratleastusedto:

Just as the personal computer revolutionized the workplace throughout the1980s and l990s, recent developments in information and communicationtechnologyareonthevergeofcreatinganewrevolutioninthecomingdecade.Agroup of technologies, including desktop video conferencing, collaborativesoftware, and Internet/Intranet systems, converge to forge the foundation of anewworkplace.Thisnewworkplacewillbeunrestrainedbygeography,time,andorganizational boundaries; it will be a virtual workplace, where productivity,flexibility, and collaboration will reach unprecedented new levels. (Townsend,DeMarie,&Hendrickson,1998:17)

Althoughspatialrealityin2017hasn’tcompletelyliveduptotheexpectationsexpressed

by the authors,we still feel this enthusiasm for the newworkplace unbound from its

traditional boundaries based on geography, or time. It suffices to perform an image

search in Google on the term “work anywhere”. We find our screen inundated with

imagesportrayinghappyworkerssittingwithalaptopinthemostunlikelyofplaces–a

desertedbeach,amountaintoporaforest.Ridiculous?Perhaps.Butwhatthisrevealsis

thatthevisionexpressedbyTownsend,DeMarie&Hendricksonstillstirstheimaginary.

Theliberationfromthe9to5ratracegrindisjustaquestionofgoodWi-Fianddecent

weather.Butnobodyisfooled.

WhatisitaboutICTthatcouldhavethepotentialtotransformorganizationalspaceto

the extent of almost vaporizing it?What compels scholarBillMitchell to speak of the

‘anti-spatial’ nature of ICT (1995), and authors Frances Cairncross and Thomas

Friedmantoannounce‘thedeathofdistance’(2001)andthattheworldisflat(2007)?

ThegeographerStephenGrahambelievesthisdiscourseistheproductofthedominant

cultural assumptions of the West where technology effects change in a linear and

predictable manner (1998). This technological determinism, he says, presents an

obstaclefortheadvancementofunderstandingtherelationshipbetweentechnologyand

space.

The importance of unpacking and understanding the relationship between ICT and

space is imperative. For organizational space,much is at stake. Office spaces, factory

10

floorsandlaboratoriesstillconstitutetheprimaryphysicalcontextofeconomicactivity

(Jones, 2009). The building of these physical organizational spaces represents a very

large share of the 3-trillion USD global construction industry (International Labour

Office,2001).Thistotal figureisclosetothe2015GDPfigurefortheUnitedKingdom.

Anothermorerecentstudyfrom2011putstheaveragecostofaworkstationinParisat

15,000€ (Nappi-Choule, 2011). Any experienced office workerwill tell you stories of

struggle for finding an available meeting room, an office that’s not too close to the

elevator–yetcloseenoughto thecoffeemachineandtoilets,aseat in thecafeteriaat

noon,anoptimalrouteintoworkinthemorning,awaytoavoidpassinginfrontofthe

boss’s office when you’re late, a parking spot close to the door for when you’re in a

hurry, etc. This is the reality of the experience of being an office worker, and has

everythingtodowithorganizationalspace.

Organizationalstudieshavebeeninterestedinspaceforsometime(Clegg&Kornberger,

2006; Dale & Burrell, 2007; Hernes, 2004; Warf, 2009) and this has produced an

accumulationofscholarlyknowledge(Taylor&Spicer,2007).Thisbodyofknowledge

has drawn on several philosophical roots, most notably Cartesianism, Marxism and

Phenomenology.Instarkcontrast,however,istheabsenceofcumulativeknowledgeon

organizationalspace in the IS literature. ISscholars–strictlyspeaking–seemtohave

little interest in the spatial reality of office workers. It is mostly assumed that the

prophecy announced by Townsend, DeMarie & Hendrickson is just a question of

effective use of ICT. This is especially surprising given how much space remains an

intractable problem for organizations regardless of how effectively ICT is used. IS

scholars should displaymore interest, especially given the number of hours workers

spendimmersedintheirscreens.Researchersinotherareashaveshownmoreinterest,

andspaceisoftenimplicit inresearchdealingwithtechnology.Weseethis inHuman-

Computer Interaction (HCI), Mobility Studies, Teleworking studies, Telecommuting

Studies,andHapticSystemsStudiesforexample.Buteveninthesecases,organizational

spaceisnotanexplicitobjectofstudy.Evidenceofthisisinthefactthatalmostnoneof

the studies of this kinddrawon the organizational space theory. There is therefore a

tremendous lack of scholarly understanding about the relationship between

organizational space and ICT. The objective of this empirical study is tomake both a

theoretical contribution to scholarly knowledge on this relationship, but also sketch

11

some promising avenues for future research. It also provides practical insights for

practitionerssuchasarchitects,urbanplanners,designersandmanagers.

Toaccomplishthis,wewillexploreandunpackthespatialpracticesofacademicsintwo

business schools.Theobjectof studywillbe the spatialpracticesof academicswitha

certain focusonICT. Inunpackingthesespatialpractices,wewillunderstandhowthe

academics experience organizational space every day, and how ICT plays a part in

shaping that experience. At the very beginning, a research question was not clearly

defined other than understanding the relationship between organizational space and

ICTinbusinessschools.Aftersomepreliminaryfieldworkandamoreintensereviewof

the literature, the research question was set as follows: How does ICT afford the

spatialpracticesoforganizations?

Whystudyacademicsinbusinessschools?Thefirstpartoftheanswerisbasedonthe

intuition that the specific nature of academic work provides an opportunity to learn

about the relationship between ICT and organizational space when workers are

relativelysociallyunboundfromanyphysical locale.Whencomparedtomostworkers

intraditionalorganizations,academicshaveasignificantdegreeoffreedominshaping

theirworkaday in timeandspace.Thiswasnotonly feltbymyselfasanacademic-in-

training,butitwasalsoconfirmedbythefindingsofthestudy.Beingrelativelyunbound

toaphysicallocale,itwasfeltthatchangestospatialpracticesthatICTmainlyoffered

throughthepossibilityofmobilitywouldcomeintosharperfocus.Thiswouldresultin

clearersignsoftherelationshipandimprovethequalityoftheanalysis.ShouldICTbe

directly responsible for shifts in spatialpractices, itwill likelybecomemoreapparent

comparedtoanorganizationalcontextwherespatialpracticesaresomewhatrigidified

by social norms and contracts. This point is a methodological consideration, and the

varietyofspatialpracticesinthefindingssuggestitwasagoodjudgement.Thesecond

partof theanswer ispurelypragmatic.Accessbeingoneof thebiggest challenges for

fieldwork, it was felt that targeting an organization such as a higher education

institutionwould reduce the risk of being barred fromaccess. Thiswas an important

considerationbecauseitwasinitiallyfearedthelongperiodsrequiredforethnographic

study would make access a tricky endeavour in private enterprise or government

organizations. Higher education was already well known to me and access was

12

essentiallyguaranteed.Italsoofferedthepossibilityofintegratingasmanyasthreecase

institutions formy study.Themost obviouswouldbemyhome institution,Université

Paris-Dauphine. Other possibilities included institutions with which I had some

connectionwith,eitherbybeingpartoftheiralmamatterorcontactsthroughpeers.All

of the possible cases happened to be business schools ormanagement faculties.Why

specifically business schools? Certain recent developments (2014a; 2015), make it

increasingly evident that flexible working arrangements are becoming commonplace

andthedemandforitfromworkersisontherise.Suchdevelopmentspointtoashiftin

thetraditionalspatialpracticesofworkinginanofficewitha9to5rhythmduringthe

week.Thiswouldmeansuchflexiblearrangementswouldbringincreasingpopulations

ofworkerstowardsthespatialpracticesofbusinessschoolacademicswhereonecould

decide to work from home or the office depending on the tasks demanded of them.

Business school academics are less bound to physical facilities such as laboratories

when compared to thewider academic community. The point of similarity in flexible

spatialworkingarrangementsbetweenbusinessacademicsandthoseinotheractivities

suggestsinsightsfromtheworldofbusinessschoolscouldberelevantforothertypesof

organizations.DetailsofthisjustificationcanbefoundintheResearchDesignsection.

Priortothestartoffieldwork,partoftheliteraturewasexploredinordertogainsome

theoreticalunderstandingandafootingwithwhichtoapproachthefield.Muchofthis

understanding was mainly based on the well-established literature on organizational

spaceandtheworkofHenriLefebvre(1974)uponwhichmuchofthisliteraturedraws.

Thenotionofspatialpracticeswasveryusefulindelimitingtheobjectofstudy.Aspatial

practice is essentially any practice stripped down to spatial motion and relations.

Walking is a spatial practice in that it demands a certainmovement from the human

bodyandrequiresa certainphysical environment for it tobepossible. It is apractice

becausewalking isasetofmovementsandrelationshipsrepeatedovertime.Aspatial

practice in an organization can be walking, but also holding meetings, sitting at a

workstation, or gossiping at the coffeemachine.However, at this early stage,missing

wasawaytoconceptualizetherelationshipbetweenICTandorganizationalspace.

Aftersomepreliminary fieldworktobetterunderstandtheobjectofstudyandfurther

explorationof the literature, thenotionof affordance emerged as themost promising

13

way toconceptualize therelationshipbetween ICTandorganizational space.This link

wasmainlybasedon theworkofPaulLeonardiandhisstudyofcomputersimulation

technology for automotivedesign (2011). The concept of affordancehas its origins in

thefieldofEcologicalPsychologywiththeworkofJ.J.Gibson,andhasbeenappropriated

for the study of technology inmany areas,mainlywith the objective of improving its

design(1988).Inthisappropriation,affordanceconceptualizestherelationshipbetween

thephysicalpropertiesoftheenvironmentandtheperceptionofwhattheenvironment

offers the perceiver in terms of actions. According to this theory, ICT, affords certain

possibleactionstoanindividual,andwhetherthesepossibilitiesareperceivedornotis

dependentoncontextualfactorssuchasotherenvironmentalpropertiesandthequality

ofattentionoftheindividual.

A conscious decision was made at the beginning to not limit the study to a specific

technologicalartefact.Thiswasmadedespitesomecriticismfrompeersabouttherisk

of‘black-boxing’technology,aconcernraisedbymanyISscholars(Orlikowski&Iacono,

2001; Weber, 2003). Although these concerns may be valid for many studies of

technology, it was felt that it wasn’t applicable to a study mobilizing Gibsonian

affordance.Thisnotion,asitwasoriginallydeveloped,explicitlyeschewsthenarrowing

of affordances to a limited aspect of the environment. ICTs are part of the physical

environmentanditistheenvironmentasawholethataffordsandnoteachcomponent

part affording in isolation. This is one of the critiques ofmuch of the literature in IS

mobilizing the theory of affordance. For this study, ICT is never defined as either a

specificartefactor function.Theseareallowedtoemergefromthedatatorevealhow

they are embedded in the wider physical environment in the context of a specific

practice.

Being initially inspired by Henri Lefebvre’s work, no clear epistemological stance

emerged at the start of the study. Lefebvre is aMarxist, and as suchwas principally

concerned with questions of spatial power relations and domination. However, his

theory–notablythespatialtriad–iscomposedofthreecomponents,eachrepresenting

differentepistemologicalperspectives. In fact,histheorytakesas itsstartingpointthe

humanbodyandit isdevelopedwithasensitivitytophenomenologicalconsiderations

suchasperceptionandexperience.Thissensitivitywasincorporatedintotheresearch

14

design, with a particular focus on the body. This eventually made possible a

phenomenologicalanalysis in thediscussionwhichallowedthisstudytomakeamore

substantialcontributionthanotherwisepossible.Beinganunder-theorizedarea,itwas

decidedat thestartof fieldworktoadoptagrounded(notbasedonGroundedTheory

(Glaser & Strauss, 1967)) or abductive stance. Each increment in theoretical

understandingoriginating from the literatureor theempiricalworkwouldbeused to

update themodel. The evolution of thismodel is described at the end of the Theory

section.

Giventheexploratorynatureof thisstudy, itwasdecidedtodoaqualitativemultiple-

casestudy.QualitativebecausetherelationshipbetweenICTandorganizationalspaceis

under-theorized and in taking a grounded approach (again, not based on Grounded

Theory), a quantitative study would be inappropriate. Based on interviews with

academics,directobservation,archives,documents,photographs,physicalartefactsand

soundrecordings,datawascodedsystematicallyusingthecomputerassistedqualitative

dataanalysissoftwareNVivo.Thecodingstructuresevolvedwith theanalysisand the

detail of thisprocess is tobe found in theFindings section.Three caseswere initially

selected for this study, however only two were retained in the end – the Desautels

FacultyofManagementofMcGillUniversity(Montreal,Canada)andtheJudgeBusiness

SchoolofCambridgeUniversity(UK).Detailsonthesecasesandtheirselectioncanbe

foundintheResearchDesignsection.

Given the under-theorized nature of the literature informing the research question, it

was decided, as part of the research design, to divide the study into two phases for

fieldwork – exploratory and intensive. The exploratory phase would allow for a

grounded understanding of spatial practices and the development of a robust model

which could then be tested and further developed during an intensive phase of

fieldwork.Bothphaseswouldbedividedintotwosubphasestoprovidesometimefor

reflection on the data collected up to that point. Both phases of fieldwork were

conducted forboth casesoveraperiodof approximately3years involving9 separate

tripstobothsitesinCanadaandtheUK.Eachtripwasethnographicinnature,withas

muchtimeaspossiblespentonsitemakingobservationsandinteractingdirectlywith

15

the community and physical space. Details regarding each phase can be found in the

ResearchDesignsection.

WhatistheresultofthisstudyaskinghowICTaffordsspatialpracticesoforganizations?

After in-depth analysis of the whole corpus of data, we find affordance theory to be

inappropriatefornotonlythestudyof ICTandspatialpractices,butof ICTingeneral.

The manner Gibsonian affordance has been appropriated and mobilized in the IS

literaturedisregardsa critical aspect tohow individualsperceive their environment–

thatofpriorexperience.J.J.Gibsonmadeitclearthathisnotionofaffordancewasbased

on an understanding of visual perception inwhich the structure of light reflected off

objects in theenvironmentcontained informationwhichwouldcall forcertainactions

fromtheperceiver.ThiscannotbetransposedtoICTdueitsphysicalnatureseparating

formfromfunction(Kallinikos,2012).Thefindingsshowadevicesuchasasmartphone

doesn’tcalluponthevisualperceiverasetofactionswithoutanypriorexperienceusing

the functionsof thedevice. It is otherwise, atbest, a smallhard slabofno immediate

obvioususe. It is onlywithprior experience, generatingknowledgeaccumulatedover

time about the physical environment, that the smartphone comes alive with

possibilities. However, this is no longer Gibsonian affordance. As we will see in the

Theorysection,moststudiesofICTmobilizingthenotionofaffordancefailtorecognize

thiscriticalaspectofGibson’stheoryandinsteadusethetermaffordancetoinfactmean

possibilitiesofICT.

While this study fails to answer the research question satisfactorily by mobilizing

Gibsonian affordance, further analysis using Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological

perception provides a solid theoretical foundation for a future study addressing the

samequestionabout the relationshipbetween ICTandorganizational space.Merleau-

Ponty’s phenomenological perception provides us with a set of concepts linking

experiencewiththephysicalenvironment.Intentionality,thebodyschema,theknowing

body, and habitus are all at play to produce an experience of spacewhich can occur

withinthecontextofapractice.Thefindingsshowhowacademics’experienceofspace,

whileengagedinapractice,shapestheirbodilymovements,andhowthisinturnshifts

theirexperience.Theexperienceofspaceistheresultofphenomenologicalengagement

of the body in the world, this engagement being directed at a certain physical

16

environment. This direction of engagement, or posture, is what Merleau-Ponty calls

intentionality.Theintentionalityofanindividualwilldependonhisexperience,butalso

onthepracticeheisengagedin.Forexample,anacademicreadingajournalarticleona

screenwilltakeonacertainpostureassociatedwithreadingonascreenestablishinga

certain bodily relationship with the physical environment. This relationship with the

physicalenvironmentisestablishedthroughthebodyschema.Thebodyschemaisthe

most importantnotion inMerleau-Ponty’sphenomenologybecause it incorporates the

notion of habitus. Habitus connects movements and spatial relationships associated

withaspecificintentionalityandmakesthemavailabletothebody.Itistherepository

ofrenewableaction.Merleau-Ponty’shabitusallowsustomovebeyondthelimitations

of Gibsonian affordance to better understand the relationship between organizational

space and ICT. The full reasoning can be found in the discussion at the end of the

Findingssection.

Asamatterofexperience,spaceisnotrenderedirrelevantwithICT,butratheritisboth

collapsed and expanded simultaneously. The combination of proximate and remote

spacesforagivenpracticeexpandsthespaceinthesensethattheindividualhasathand

morespace(remote),yet it iscollapsedbecause it iscondensedintohisexperienceas

beingathandatthesamelevelasproximatespace.

ThisnewphenomenologicalapproachbasedonMerleau-Pontysuggeststhatitwouldbe

more fruitful to study organizational space from the perspective of experience. We

suggest drawing from calls for an experiential perspective on computing (Yoo, 2010)

anddevelopingthenotionofembodimentintheISliterature.Wesuggestthisandother

avenuesforfutureresearchinthediscussion.

The findings of this study also lead to some interestingquestions about thedesignof

ICT.TheobservedexperiencesofacademicssuggestdistractionfromICTisasourceof

significantfrustration.Thisfrustrationgeneratesnewpracticessuchasworkingincafés

without Internet connections or placing devices out of sight in order to concentrate.

TheseobservationsareconsistentwiththeprinciplesofdesignofICT,allguidedbythe

objectiveofmaximizingattention(Harris,2016;Manzerolle,2014).Eachappordevice

17

is thereforecompetingfortheattentionoftheuserwiththeresultof fragmentingthis

attentionandleadingtofrustration.

Thisdissertationisthestoryofajourney.Anintellectualone,certainly,butapersonal

oneaswell.Asanacademic-in-trainingmyself,Iwasabletoexperiencefirsthandthelife

of anacademic inabusiness school. I engage in the samepractices– reading,writing

andteaching–and inhabit thesameworld. InaveryBourdieusiansense, Isharedthe

samehabitusasmy intervieweesandwas intimately familiarwithmyobjectofstudy.

This is both a strength and aweakness. A strength it is in that Iwas able to quickly

interpret the codes and symbols of the academic world without much effort. My

previous experience in industry also helped in navigating some of the touchier

organizationalissues.ItisalsoastrengthinthatIwasabletonaturallyandreflexively

engage inmystudy, informing theanalysisofempiricaldatawithmyownexperience

andtranslatingthefindingsintorelevantandpracticalconclusionsforpractitioners.Itis

a weakness, because such an intimacy with my object of study presents a risk of

emotional investment and bias. Faced with the same frustrations as my academic

interviewees, it would be inevitable for me to identify with them and possibly

discriminate in favour of some findings over others of equal illuminating value. Iwas

fullyawareof thisandmadeeveryeffort tomaintainacertaindistancefromthefield.

This was helped by two factors. First, I have never experienced many of the spatial

travailstoldbymyintervieweesbecauseIhaveneverhadanofficeinabusinessschool.

Second,myneophyteunderstandingoftheorganizationallandscapeofbusinessschools

meantthatIhad–atleastatthebeginningofthestudy–anaïvegazeuponmyobjectof

study. This personal position in relation to my object of study is considered in the

ResearchDesignandthediscussionintheFindingssection.

Itisimportanttodescribetheaboveintellectualandpersonaljourneyatthebeginning

ofthisdissertationsinceitisthebasisofthestructureoftherestofthedocument.Itis

composedofthreemainsections–Theory,ResearchDesignandFindings.Eachsection

describes the journeyas itpertains to thematterwithwhich itdeals.Theremaybea

certainsenseofrepetition–andIapologizeinadvance–however,thiswastheonlyway

to structure the dissertation without losing the precious details about the journey.

Omitting these details would feel to me to be an exercise in misrepresentation. To

18

recompose this study as an improbable linear sequence between theory, design,

fieldworkandfindingswouldonlydiminishtheplausibilityofthefindingsandobfuscate

theweaknessesofthisstudy.Furthermore,thedetailsofthejourneyonlyenhancethe

theoreticalinsightsfromthefindingsratherthandiminishthem.Itisalsohopedthatit

makesformorepleasantreading.

19

2 Theory

Investigationsontheeffectofinformationandcommunicationstechnologyonphysical

spacehavealreadybeenundertakenintheareaofhumangeography.Thereisasizeable

body of literature on mobility underpinned by information and communication

technology. However little work has been done on the relationship between

organizational spaceand ICT– especially connecteddevices.Organisation studies and

managementliteraturehaveextensivelyexaminedhowphysicalspacesoforganizations

arerelatedtoorganizing,butICTisremarkablyabsent.

Inthissection,wewillfirstreviewtheliteratureonorganizationalspace.Startingfrom

theAncientGreekson to theEnlightenment thinkers,and leadingup tocontemporary

organizational space theory, we trace back the philosophical roots of organizational

space theory. We will then see how organizational space is considered in the IS

literature,beforemovingontoareviewoftheliteratureonGibsonianaffordanceinthe

literature dealing with technology. The final chapter will trace the the theoretical

journeyofthisstudybydevelopingeachiterationofthetheoreticalframeworkusedfor

datacollectionandanalysis.

2.1 OrganizationalSpace1

Organizational space is attracting increasing attention from researchers across a

multitude of disciplines. It has traditionally been taken for granted in organizational

studiesandmanagementliteratures.

Physicalspaceissuchagiveninmuchofourday-to-dayactivities,itseemstodisappear

into the background. It usually becomes a matter of conscious reflection when for

example one visits foreign countries, is asked to design a building or is faced with

significantdisruptiontotheirhabitualmovements(atransportstrike).Physicalspace–

and especially in urban contexts – is what shapes ourmovements (Certeau, Giard, &

1Thischapterisbasedonanearlydraftofthepublishedbookchapter,writtenwithStewartClegg,Théoriedesorganisations:l'espaceperdu?inThéoriesdesorganisations:nouveauxtournantsDeVaujany,F.-X.,Hussenot,A.,&Chanlat,J.-F.(Eds.).2016.Théoriesdesorganisations:nouveauxtournants.Paris:Economica.

20

Mayol,1990;Lefebvre,1974).Theroads,sidewalks,pathways,hallways,stairwellsand

subwaylinesofthecitychannelusfromonepointtoanother.Thesepointswithinthe

urbanlandscapearealsoshapingourmovementsinbothspaceandtime.Wemovefrom

thehome to theplace ofwork in themorning and return in the evening. In between,

other points act as passages or waypoints – a stop at the drycleaners or the station

where one changes from the bus to the tram. These cyclical movements are

'pendulumlike' (Tuan,1977:181)anddefine thedaily routine formost contemporary

activeprofessionals.Theytakethisroutineforgrantedandtheirbodiesinternalizethe

movements (Bourdieu, 1980). The urban space may constrain motion by design

(Lefebvre,1974),butacitywalkercancalluponasetofmovements–or'grammar'–to

modifytheroutineandpossiblytransgressinstitutionalizedboundariessuchaswalking

through private property as a shortcut (Certeau et al., 1990). A similar cyclical

movementoccursduringschoolholidays,whenfamiliesheadtotheseasideorcamping

grounds.Bodiesbecomependulums,andtheirebbandflowdefinethelifeofthemodern

city.

In Kristian Kreiner's words, "Space matters to organizations; and therefore, space

shouldmatter in studies of organizations" (2010). Spacemakes organizing possible.

Althoughsuchastatementmayseemself-evident, it isstriking toascertain thatspace

hasbroadlybeentakenforgrantedinorganizationalstudiesupuntilrelativelyrecently

(Clegg&Kornberger,2006).Infact,Kreinergoesontosuggestthatitisthisverytaken-

for-granted nature of organizational space that makes it of particular concern for

organizational studies. It seemsobviouswhynewlyhiredoffice staffneednotbe told

how to sit at adeskorengage indiscrete conversation inanopenspace. Suchspatial

practices are both socially and materially embedded in our day-to-day movements

withoutusrealizingit.Howthesespatialpracticesdevelopandbecomeknown-without-

knowingisamysteryjustbeginningtobeinvestigatedbyresearchers.

Spaceconsideredinisolationisanemptyabstraction;likewiseenergyandtime.Although in one sense this ‘substance’ is hard to conceiveof,most of all at thecosmic level, it isalso true to say thatevidenceof itsexistencestaresus in theface:oursensesandourthoughtsapprehendnothingelse.(Lefebvre,1991:12)

21

The taken-for-granted nature of space in our day-to-day movements is cogently

capturedbythewordsofHenriLefebvreabove,extractedfromhisveryinfluentialbook

Laproductiondel’espace(1974). It can be especially surprising to discover how little

researchonspacehasbeenundertakenmorebroadlyinthesocialsciences,otherthan

ingeographyandhistory,untilrelativelyrecently(Clegg&Kornberger,2006;Marrewijk

&Yanow,2010;Warf,2009).Organizationalstudiesarenoexceptionandasthissection

–andespeciallythispresentchapter–attest,weareinthemidstofa‘spatialturn’inthis

discipline,somethinghappeningwithinthecontextofabroader'materialturn'.Thisis

not to say that space has been completely ignored in the past. It has been present –

albeitofteninanaustere,staticandlifelessform.Thisisinoppositiontotime,aconcept

thathasbeenseenasrich,animatedandfulloflife(Foucault,1980).

Jammer(2013)believes thatmodernphilosophyhas longbeenunder the influenceof

Leibniz’sassertionthattheflowoftimeisthemanifestationofcausationandthatspace

is simply an instantiation of suchmanifestations. Perhaps this state of affairs is best

illustrated in the way geography faculties have traditionally played second fiddle to

historydepartments inuniversities around thedevelopedworld. It is certainlynot as

Marx had predicted, the ‘annihilation’ of space by time, but rather the domination of

time over space. John Urry (2004) deplores the traditional ‘a-spatial’ approach to

sociology of the 20th century, which has kept geography partitioned from other

disciplines suchashistory, despite the effortsof scholars suchasBraudel (1995).We

willsee,however,thatthetidehasbeenturningandspacehasbeenfindingitsrightful

historicalplaceinthesocialsciences,includingorganizationalstudies(Urry,2004).We

see thisasacritical juncture inorganizationalstudiesandagreewithDale&Burrell’s

viewthat“organizationsandorganizingareasembeddedwithinthematerialworldas

theyarewithinthesocial”(Dale&Burrell,2007:34).

Theobjectiveofthischapteristopresentyouwithanoverviewofthecurrentstateof

theorizing organizational spaces. The most recent theories, concepts and ideas are

borneoutoftheintersectionofafewimportantstreamsofWesternphilosophy.Wewill

thereforetracethephilosophicaloriginsoforganizationalspacetheoryandsituateeach

phaseofdevelopmentintimeandtheircorrespondingparadigm.Thiswillsetthestage

for a review of what we deem to be the most significant contributions to date to

organizational space theory. We will then identify the key stakes and questions

22

regarding theories of space in organizations. More specifically, wewill look at which

orientationsarebestsuitedforstudyingspatialpracticesinorganizationsandwhy.

2.1.1 Philosophicalrootsoforganizationalspacetheory

WesternphilosophyhasbeenconcernedwithspacesinceAntiquityinbothimplicitand

explicitmodes.AncientGreeksdidn’thaveastableandwell-definedconceptof ‘space’

butdevelopedotherrelatednotionssuchastopos(likenedto‘place’)andkenon(likened

to‘void’)(Algra,1995).Toposisadefinedplacewhichhasbeencarvedoutofthekenon.

It is only, however, since the Age of Enlightenment that arguments about the spatial

nature of the social world have been put forward explicitly. The four principal

philosophicalrootsfororganizationalspacetheoryalldevelopoutoftheEnlightenment:

Cartesianism,Neo-Kantianism,MarxismandHusserlianphenomenology.Althougheach

has produced different streams of thinking on organizational space, we will see that

current organizational space theory – along with other disciplines – has so far been

mainly inspiredbybothCartesianandMarxist-inspiredthought.This is theresultofa

historically contingent process and not necessarily due to any weaknesses in other

approaches. In fact, it ishoped thatbeingawareof theepistemologicalalternatives to

studyingspaceinorganizationswillencourageahealthyformoftheoreticalrivalryand

eventually lead to a higher diversity in organizational theory. Although we will now

presenteachoftheseprincipalphilosophicalrootsalongwiththerelationshipsbetween

them,wewillnotdevelopindetailthehistoricalprocessthatledtothedevelopmentof

theseideas.Thiswouldbeataskforanotherwork.

2.1.1.1 RootsinAncientGreece,EnlightenmentandDescartes

AlthoughwehavelabelledthefirststreamasCartesian,thussuggestingrootsintheAge

of Enlightenment, one can, if one so desires, trace its origins back to Ancient Greece.

AtomistandStoicschoolsofthinkingunderpinCartesianideasaboutspace–especially

thenotionofkenon (orvoid) (Malpas,2006).Perhaps it is ironic that it is thanks toa

rivaltoDescartes–IsaacNewton–thattheCartesianconceptionofspacefoundasolid

placeinmodernWesternphilosophy(Jammer,2013).Inthisconception,physicalspace

isessentiallyrectilinear,homogenousandinfinite.Itcanbeobjectivelymeasured–such

asthedistancebetweentwopoints–andremainsconstantovertime.Modernideasof

socialspacewerecloselyaligned,stressingtherectilinear,thegeometrical,thestraight

23

line,andplannedharmony.Assuch,socialspaceservesasacontainer forsociety that

can be manipulated to serve specific social goals such as separating one group from

another, ordering and organizing land, town and cityscapes. Such approaches have

remained the privileged form of spatial analysis since the Age of Enlightenment and

especiallyinthe20thcentury,thanksinlargeparttothedominanceoflogicalpositivism

(Jammer, 2013). Casey, commenting on the neoclassical, post-Enlightenment era in

Europe,says:

The rich significance bestowed on the world by qualitative sensuousness and,more largely, by life and lifelike forms is ignored in favor of the quantitativelydetermined forces and motions that are held to control and rule nature. Theresearchprogramtostudytheseforcesandmotions–aprogramfirstdevisedbyGalileoandDescartes andPascal,HuygensandBoyle andNewton– ispursuedwith unrelenting vigor in the next century. Obsessionwith this pursuit left noplace in "the remainder of things" for the "concrete realities" that prevail ineverydayexperience(1997:181-182)

Despite the dominance of the Cartesian view of a rectilinear neutral container,many

thinkershavecontinuedtograpplewithmetaphysicalquestionsregardingspace.Doesit

reallyexist?Canitbesensed?Isittrulyinfinite?Whatisitmadeof?Isitjustaproductof

themind?Thesearequestionsthatcanapplytotimeaswellandbothhaveoftenbeen

Inset1:TheskyscrapersofMontreal–welcometotheMatrixofCartesianspace

As I sit eating my lunch on the 2nd floor of a nondescript office building in downtownMontreal,Icometorealizesomethingastonishingabouttheurbanspaceondisplaythroughthe panoramic windows. It is dominated by one shape – rectangles. Everything from thewindowstotheparkingspacemarkingson theasphalt isarectangle. Itmakesme thinkofMicheldeCerteau’sobservationofManhattanfromthe110thfloorof thenowgoneWorldTradeCentre(1990)andIimaginemyselfzoomingoutandabovethecityofMontreallikeaGooglemap.Thecityblocks,thebuildings(inallthreedimensions)andthevehiclesmovingon thestreetsbelowarerectangular in shape.Backdowntoearth–orthe2ndfloor–thefacades of the glass and steel skyscrapers look like the graphpaper uponwhich I used todraw in engineering school. The city landscape is a three-dimensional grid. Each unitcorrespondingtoablock,tower,floor,office,shop,window,parkingspot,etc.Just likea3Dmatrix, the spaceofdowntownMontrealhasbeenparceled into interchangeableunits likethe pieces of a Rubik’s cube. Even the basic unit of measurement for the purposes ofexchanging physical space is the square foot or even the cubic foot (for storage andventilation). Of course, I know the story of how the Jeffersonian logic of parceling theAmericanlandscapeintosquaresinthe18thcenturyhasextendedintocitiesandeventuallymanagementpractices(Clegg&Kornberger2006).Butforonce,Iseewithmyowneyeshowspaceandlaborhavebeensubdividedintohomogenous,measureable,andinterchangeableentities. This is what Henri Lefebvre meant when he wrote about the simultaneousfragmentation, homogenization andhierarchizing ofmodern space. It is the 3D rectilineargridironofcapitalism.WelcometotheCartesianmatrix.

24

thoughtaboutjointly,oftenasadualisticwhole(suchasinphysicswiththespace-time

continuum).Itonlytakesamomenttoponderthesequestionstorealizethedifficultyin

conceptualizing space – especially given how essential it is to our experience as

embodiedbeings:we ‘move’ throughspace,weperceivethingsthatarebothnearand

far, we cannot be in two ‘places’ at once, etc. Although philosophers have developed

answerstotheseandotherquestionsaboutspace(andtime),theneutralviewofspace

as a taken-for-granted affordance has been the default perspective for the past few

centuries ofmost social science research. Asmentioned earlier, this is especially true

giventhecontextof intellectualdebates in themodernerawhere timehasdominated

space. However, many of the emergent ideas from the Age of Enlightenment have

producedschoolsofthoughtonspacethatarenowhelpingdevelopalessaustereform

ofspatialanalysisinthesocialsciences.

ImmanuelKant’sviewsonspaceexpressedinCritiqueofPureReasonin1781areinpart

areactiontoCartesianconceptionsviaNewton(1881).Kantisparticularlypreoccupied

with theontological statusof spaceand,more specifically,whether it isdependentor

notonthemind.ContrarytotheCartesianviewofanautonomous‘absolute’space,Kant

arguesthatspaceisanaprioriconcept–onethatisbasedonpureintuitionasopposed

toempiricallyderived.Hecontendsthatthe‘experience’ofspace(throughthebody)is

dependentonapredeterminedrepresentationofit;sucharepresentationprecedesand

anchors such ‘experience’. For Kant, space is ascribed to one’s bodily experience

intuitively, as a way of making sense of this experience (Casey, 1997). This way of

conceptualizing space stems from Kant’s doctrine of transcendental idealism which

posits that empirical reality can only be accessed by our objective – and intuitive –

experience of it. By making space dependent on the mind, Kant not only fueled

contemporarydebatesaboutspacebutalsogeneratednewones,whichinturnspawned

theories.WewillnowlookatthreestreamsinfluencedbyKantwebelievehaveshaped

the theorization of space in the social sciences. One of them in particular has been

dominant in themore recent developments of organizational space theory –Marxism

andcriticalapproaches(Warf,2009).

25

2.1.1.2 Neo-KantianismandSimmel

AccordingtoUrry(2004),GeorgSimmel isthemost importantclassicalcontributorto

theories on space in the social sciences. Although Simmel took a heterodox and

interdisciplinaryapproach to sociology forhis time,hehasbeenwidely recognizedas

neo-Kantian.HisdoctoralthesiswasonKant’sphilosophyofmatter.Simmeldeveloped

the concept of sociation (a type of interaction between social actors dependent on

spatialpositioning),tostudyhowspacesetstheconditionsforsocialinteractionandin

turn how social interactions shape space. He attributes five fundamental qualities of

space as topics for analysis: exclusivity or uniqueness (how a nation-state has

exclusivityovera territory forexample); the subdivisionof space into framedentities

(thewaynation-statesand their territoriesarebounded forexample); the localization

andfixityofsocialinteractionsinspace(thetownmarketsquareforexample);sensory

proximity or distance (how, for example, the smell of a rubbish dump would push

residents away); themobility of individuals in space (Simmel, 2009). Simmel further

develops his conceptualization of space in Metropolis and Mental Life (1997) by

examiningtheeffectofthemodernurbanphysicalspaceonsocialinteraction.

These views on the ever-expanding urban environments of the fin de siècle period,

however,were not convincing for Simmel andWeber’s contemporaries. For example,

Simmel was very much criticized by Durkheim for not grounding his theories in

empirical observation and hisworkwas largely ignored in the development of urban

sociology(Urry,2004).Morerecently,though,Simmel’sideasonspace–especiallyhis

spatial property of mobility – have underpinned the very influential ‘Mobilities’

paradigm developed by Sheller and Urry (2006). Like Simmel's original concepts of

sociation, the 'Mobilities' paradigmwas created to helpmake sense of the sprawling

urbanspacesofourtime.

2.1.1.3 HusserlianPhenomenology

The German philosopher Edmund Husserl is considered to be the father of

phenomenology and was indirectly influenced by Kant in his ideas. It was mainly

through Paul Natorp that Kant’s transcendental idealism became an integral part of

Husserl’sapproachtometaphysicalproblemsincludingspace(Makkreel&Luft,2009).

IncontrasttoKant,Husserl’sfocuswasmoreepistemologicalthanontologicalregarding

26

space. In Ideas (2012), Husserlmade the case for amethod he called transcendental

phenomenology. According to this method, objects we encounter everyday naturally

takeshape inourconsciousness.Our intuition,ora formof innerperception,which is

based on essential structures, guides the way these shapes take form in our

consciousness. He believes our experience of spatio-temporality, as human beings, is

such that embodiment and causation are based on essential apriori structures of an

intentionalconsciousnesssharedbyall(Husserl,1997).Furthermore,heclaimsthatfor

intersubjective experience to occur, onemust assume that the otherswithwhomone

interactsshapetheirspatialperspectivesinthesamemanner.Husserl’stranscendental

phenomenologyisclosertorealismthanKant’stranscendentalidealism.

MartinHeidegger had been a student ofHusserl’s and initially espoused hismentor's

beliefs. However, Heidegger’s developed a phenomenology that eventually departed

from Husserl’s somewhat neo-Cartesian separation of subject and object (Crowell,

2001). This is clearly evident in Being and Time (Heidegger, 2007) in which he

developed theconceptofDasein.Bymovingbeyondanysortof subject-objectduality,

Heidegger’s Dasein describes an ontology based on ‘being-in-the-world’ where one is

immersed in contextual meaning through one’s activities in which neither subjective

representationsnorobjective realities come intoplay:moremundanematters suffice.

Heemploystheexampleofhammeringwherewhenonepicksupahammertodrivea

nail intoawoodplank:one isnotstandingbackandconceptualizingthehammerasa

tool but engaging with it to perform the act of hammering where the hammer itself

showsitselftobe‘ready-to-hand’(Heidegger,2007).

Malpas (2006) suggests that by having the ‘in’ within ‘being-in-the-world’, Heidegger

hadintegratedspaceasanessentialaspectofhisconceptofDaseinfromthebeginning.

In someofhisotherworks,Heidegger illustrates the spatial implicationsofDasein by

developingthenotionof‘dwelling’whereonedoesnotsimplylocateone’sselfinsidea

localebutrather‘dwells’thereimmersedinmeaningandasenseofbelonging(El-Bizri,

2011).With ‘dwelling’, Heidegger mobilizes a very different set of ideas about space

whencompared to theother conceptsdiscussedup to thispoint.Malpas (2006) links

‘dwelling’ with the notions of caring and ‘homeliness’. Heidegger believes that places

suchashomesandparks–whereonecan‘dwell’–aregenerativeofspace.Suchplaces

are not in space but rather space is part of place. This corresponds to the lived

27

experienceofindividualswherespaceisgeneratedfromtheplacesofexperience–such

ashomesandparks (Casey, 1997).WithHeidegger, space comes to lifewithmeaning

andlosesitsCartesianausterity.

Both Husserl and Heidegger’s novel and lively phenomenological approach to space

inspired many thinkers in the early part of the 20th century, notably in France and

withintheemergingexistentialistmovement.Althoughnotentirelyalignedwitheither

theHusserlianorHeideggerianapproaches,Jean-PaulSartredevelopedhisownversion

ofphenomenologyinBeingandNothingness(2012),inwhichhefoundedhisphilosophy

of existentialism. Sartre was soon joined by Maurice Merleau-Ponty who was

particularlyinterestedintheproblemofspacewithinthephenomenologicalparadigm.

It was in Phénoménologie de la perception (1976) where he developed in detail the

concept of spatial corporeity. Merleau-Ponty intended to develop a philosophy of

experiencebasedontheessenceofnaïveperception–thesortachildwouldhavebefore

acquiringmethodsofabstraction.Merleau-Ponty’sphilosophy iscenteredon thebody

and considers bodily movement as generative of space (Casey, 1997). Michel de

Certeau, another Frenchman, would later develop Merleau-Ponty’s spatial corporeity

intoamoderntheoryofspatialpracticescenteredonthebody(1990).DeCerteaulikens

the act ofwalking to speech and develops a categorical framework to analyze spatial

practices that is based on the narrative power of the pedestrian in an urban

environment.

In ‘Walking in the City’, in The Practice of Everyday Life (Certeau & Rendall, 1984),

Michel de Certeau contrasted the ‘panoramic’ view from abovewith the ‘practices’ of

citylifeasitislivedbyitsinhabitants.Whilethecitycanbemappedbya‘totalizingeye’

thelegibilityitcreatesasamappingofsocialspaceisafiction, ‘a"theoretical"(thatis,

visual)simulacrum’whichobscuresthetruenatureofthecityspaceasitislived(1984:

93). Against such rationalizations de Certeau offers the idea of ‘practices’ of life,

conductedeveryday,whichundermineandopposeatotalizingviewofthecity.

Theordinarypractitionersofthecityenjoyanelementaryformofexperienceofthecity;

theyarewalkers,followingthefoldsoftheurban‘text’ofthecity. Thesefoldsarenot

the'geometrical'or'geographical'spaceofvisual,panoptic,ortheoreticalconstructions

(Certeau & Rendall, 1984: 93) found inmaps. Mapping the city creates an organized

28

illusionofthetotalityofthecity,atotalityincomprehensibleintheeverydaylivesofits

citizens.Thewalkerproducesthecityeveryday,journeyingthroughitslabyrinths.The

cityisatext,asystemofsigns.Readingthesesignsrevealthehiddenor‘subterranean’,

thatwhich,indeCerteau’sterms,is‘belowthethreshold’ofvisibility.Walkinginthecity

helpsmaketheinvisiblelegible.

Thecityisnotjustcapital,however:itisaspacepeopled,populated,embodied.Thekey

notion of spatial corporeity for both Merleau-Ponty and de Certeau is strongly

incorporated – implicitly and explicitly – in the ideas about space presentedby other

more recent French thinkers not identified as phenomenologists, such as Pierre

Bourdieu(1980),MichelFoucault(Harvey,1989)andHenriLefebvre(1974).Moreover,

BourdieuandLefebvresharedeCerteau’s linguisticmetaphor forspatialpractices–a

notion first developed by Simmel. Through his concept of hexis corporelle, Bourdieu

centershis theoryofpracticeonthehumanbodyand implies thathabitusdetermines

the spatialpracticesof agivencommunity.Thesecouldbeas trivial as themanner in

whichonesits,walksorwearsclothing.Similarly,Foucault’sanalysisisfocusedonthe

bodythatheconsidersastheelementaryspaceofthesocialworld.AsHarveyremarks,

he“treatsthespaceofthebodyastheirreducibleelementinoursocialschemeofthings,

for it is upon that space that the forces of repression, socialisation, disciplining, and

punishingareinflicted”(Harvey,1989:213).Lefebvreinturndevelopsthenotionofthe

corpsspatialor‘spatialbody’thatisthebasicunitoftheproductionofspace.Notunlike

Foucault, Lefebvre not only sees the body as the starting point for the production of

space,butalsotheelementuponwhichspaceitselfimposesandconstrainsgesturesand

movement.Thefundamentalnotionofspatialpracticesaseverydaypracticescentered

on the body is the principal contribution of this phenomenological stream to

organizational space theory. It ismainly through theworkof sociologists anchored in

other philosophical traditions who have adopted this notion that this contribution is

made.

2.1.1.4 MarxismandCriticalApproaches

Marxism and related critical approaches underpin many of the more recent

organizationalspacetheories.Theseschoolsofthoughthaveacomplexhistoryanddeal

with a wide array of social issues that are embedded in the events of their time of

29

inception.Wewillnotreviewthephilosophyoftheseschoolsofthought,butshowhow

spatialconsiderationshavebeenimplicitlyincorporated.Wewillthenfocusontwokey

contributors:HenriLefebvreandMichelFoucault.

Neither Marx nor Engels had space as a central theme in their works. Both were

especially concerned about the social effects of rapid industrial capitalistic growth on

the fabric of local communities (Urry, 2004). Marxmakes this more explicit by later

criticizing the capitalist compulsion of ‘annihilating’ space by time (2012). However,

theseconsiderationsnever‘materialized’inearlyMarxistresearch.WhileEngels(1845)

paidparticularattentiontothespacesinwhichtheurbanworkingclasslivedin1844he

doessoinalargelydescriptivemanner.Furthermore,inyetanotherironictwist,Marx

has beenwidely accused of having a temporal bias in his critique of capitalism (Soja,

1989;Warf,2009).ThisanalysisisperhapsnotverysurprisinggivenMarxwasinspired

byHegel’sdeeplyhistoricistphilosophy(Hook,1962).Hegeldevelopedviewsonspace

inthecontextofhisargumentwithKantianthoughtbutmostcriticshavenotconsidered

these views coherent or sound (Jenkins, 2010). This deficiency has prompted some

Marxistthinkersinthelatterpartofthe20thcenturytoremedythesituationandtreat

spaceasacentralthemeintheirwork.Oneinparticularhashadasignificantimpacton

organizationalspacetheory.

HenriLefebvreisconsideredtobethekeyfigureinWesternMarxistspatialtheoryanda

forceful proponent for spatial analysis in the critical tradition (Soja, 1989). Spatial

analysisfiguredprominentlyearlyinhiswork,butitwaswithhismagnumopustitled

Laproductiondel’espace (1974) that he expounded in detail his theory. As suggested

earlier,Lefebvre combineshis critiqueof capitalism’spropensity for spatial command

and control with an emancipatory phenomenology. His theory is rich, versatile and

intended to beuniversal. As such, it is difficult to reduce into a simplified framework

thatcanberepresentedinschematicform.Wecanhoweverpresentsomekeyconcepts

thatarerelevant fororganizationalspacetheory. Intheopeningquotetothischapter,

Lefebvre refers to the everyday relationship we have to space: “our senses and our

thoughtsapprehendnothingelse”.ThisstatementrevealsaHeideggerianstartingpoint

in his thinking of space – something hemakes explicit in hismonograph. Adopting a

phenomenological stance, Lefebvre explains in detail how the production of space is

centered on the body. He provides many illustrations of this by referring to banal

30

activitiessuchasopeningandclosingdrawersorwalking.ThroughanelaborateMarxist

critique of capitalism, he develops the core of his theory based on a series of related

conceptualtriads(toavoidoppositions)anddyadsrelatingtospace.Onpages48and49

(1974)hepresents themainsetofconcepts:spatialpractice(theday-to-daypractices

simultaneously shaped by and shaping space), representations of space (space

conceptualizedsuchasbyurbanplannersandarchitects)andrepresentational spaces

(spaceasitisexperienced).Overlayingthistriadareperceived,conceptualizedandlived

spaces.Thesethreeconceptsformaunifiedanduniversalframeworkbringingtogether

physical, mental and social spaces (Elden, 2004). These concepts are summarized in

Table 1. Other sets of related concepts are absolute, real, abstract and social spaces;

intuitus, habitus and intellectus; and, the periphery-center dialectic. All of Lefebvre’s

concepts provide a wealth of analytical categories for the social sciences in studying

space. It isworthnoting that apart fromorganizational studies, Lefebvre’s theoryhas

foundasoliduptake ingeographywith theworkofSoja,GregoryandHarvey(Dale&

Burrell,2007).

Social spaceneeds to bedefined and related to physical space. There are few explicit

definitionsofsocialspace,howeverLefebvredevotesanentirechapterofLaproduction

del’espace(1974)tosocialspace.Inthischapter,Lefebvreaffirmsthat"(Social)spaceis

notathingamongotherthings,noraproductamongotherproducts;rather,itsubsumes

things produced, and encompasses their interrelationships in their coexistence and

simultaneity – their (relative) order and/or (relative) disorder. It is the outcome of a

sequence and set of operations, and thus cannot be reduced to the rank of a simple

object"(1991:73).UsingthecityofVeniceasanexample,heillustratesthisconception

ofsocialspaceas thesetofrelationships–bothsocialandphysical–betweenobjects

andhumansthatistheproductofanongoingprocessalsodefinedbythisverysameset

of relationships. Hence, per Lefebvre's conception, social space comprises of physical

space,butisnotconcomitanttoit.Furthermore,heemphasizesthatagivensocialspace

– such as the city of Venice – comprises of several levels which are intertwined and

imbricatedwithoneanother.HecallsononetoimaginethecityofVeniceandthemany

waysinwhichthesocialspaceofthecityisproduced–bythemerchants,thetourists,

thewaterways,themonuments,thebridges,etc.–andhoweachoftheseinteractswith

theotherstoproducethissocialspace.Thisresultingsocialspacethenshapestheway

31

socialspaceevolvesbasedonbothmateriality(thephysicalenvironment)andthesocial

(codes and institutions). Lefebvre's definition of social space is echoed by Pierre

BourdieuinhisVilhelmAubertMemorialLecturein1995inOslo(1996).ForBourdieu,

socialspaceisthevirtuallandscapeofrelationsbetweenhumanagentsstructuredina

complexhierarchy thatdefineseveryagent'sposition in relation tootheragents.This

virtual landscape is thenmaterialized inphysical spaceandprovides itwitha certain

inertiasuchthatsocialspace isanchored intophysicalspace,requiringmucheffort to

changetheformer.WhatBourdieudoesn'tdiscuss,however,ishowtheexistingphysical

space – apart from anchoring social structures – shapes social space by either

constrainingorchannelingactioninacertainfashion.ForLefebvre,thisisanimportant

point, since he believes that social spacewas originally shaped by the human body's

physicalproperties–size,compositionandsymmetry(rightand left).Fromthisbasis,

the production of space is initiated and sustained. Theway humans experience their

physical environment – what is possible to do or not – is entirely dependent on the

human body’s specific characteristics and its resulting perception of the world. Once

humansfashiontheirphysicalenvironment inaccordancewithbodilyconstraints, this

resultingphysicalenvironment in turnshapeshowhumansrelate toone-another,and

henceshapessocialspace.

Spatialpractice/Perceivedspace• Physicalspace• Spacemadeconscious

Representationsofspace/Conceptualizedspace

• Mental/AbstractCartesianspace• Consciousandinstrumental

projectiononmaterialworld• Relationsofpowergenerally

embeddedandimplicit

Representationalspace/Livedspace

• Socialspace• Subconsciousengagingwithspace• Heideggerianexperienceof

'dwelling'• Modeofpossibilitiesforeither

dominationoremancipation• Relationsofpoweroftenexplicitor

exposedthroughsymbolsorimages

Table1–Lefebvre’sSpatialTriadbasedonElden(2004)(Author)

32

AlthoughnotidentifiedasaMarxist,MichelFoucaultiswidelyrecognizedasoneofthe

mostinfluentialcriticaltheoristsofthe20thcentury.LikeLefebvre,headvocatedmore

spatial analysis in the study of social phenomena.However, unlike Lefebvre, Foucault

didnotaimtoproduceunitarytheoreticalconstructswithuniversalapplicability–each

of his theories was very specific to the context of his analysis (Gutting, 2005).

Furthermore, although spacewas incorporated in his analysis of power, it came into

focusonlyonthemarginsofhiswork.Thisisthecasewiththenotionofheterotopia,a

spatial concept Foucault adopted to theorize space in the social sciences (Dehaene &

Cauter, 2008). Heterotopia denotes spaces existing within society that allow one a

privileged perspective from which to view the normalcy of the social order. Some

exampleswouldbe thespacesaffordedbybrothels, cemeteriesand theatres (Beyes&

Michels, 2011). Foucault focuses much of his work on relations of power within

heterotopic spaces such as prisons (Casey, 1997). Organizational space scholars have

drawninspirationmainlyforthisbodyofFoucault’swork,aswewillseeabitlater.

AccordingtoSoja,bothLefebvreandFoucaultprovidedthe‘reconfigurativearguments’

forthespatialturninthesocialsciences(Warf,2009:18).Both,butLefebvreespecially,

have provided the epistemological foundations incorporating both objective and

subjective accounts of space. In this sense, they havemanaged to bring together the

conceptual richesof thevariousschoolsof thoughtonspace,goingback toKant,with

CartesianismandPhenomenologyateitherendofthespectrum.Thefactthattheyhave

donesofromwithinacriticaltraditionaddstotheconceptualwealth,asweshallseein

the next sectionwherewe look at how the spatial turn in organizational studies has

recentlybuiltuponthefoundationsprovidedbyLefebvreandFoucault.

As a summary, thephilosophical rootsoforganizational space theory, aspresented in

thischapter,aresketchedinFigure1.Kant’sseminalthoughtsinitiatedacascadeofnew

waysofconceptualizingspacethatwouldeventuallycompetewithCartesianism.Wecan

see how each of these branches evolved in relation to each other over time and the

interactions between them. Visually remarkable is how notions of spatial corporeity

fromthephenomenologicalbranchhaveinfluencedthedevelopmentoftheoriesinthe

criticaltradition,notablywithLefebvreandFoucault.

33

Figure1–Genealogyofspacetheory(Author)

2.1.2 TheorizingOrganizationalSpaces

Intracingbackthephilosophicalrootsoforganizationalspacetheory,thestagehasbeen

setforareviewofthemostsignificanttheoreticalcontributionstothisareatodate.In

theprocess,wewillidentifythekeystakesandquestionsregardingorganizationalspace

theory.

2.1.2.1 Somekeytheoreticalcontributions

Before looking at some theoretical contributions key to the study of organizational

spaces,wecantakestockoftheresearchthathasbeenconductedtodate,referringtoan

exercisealreadyperformedbyScottTaylorandAndréSpicer, in theirpaper“Timefor

space: A narrative review of research on organizational spaces” (2007). Their

framework, based on the core categories of Lefebvre’s spatial triad, is an appropriate

waytomapthelandscapeoftheorganizationalspacetheoryliterature.KristianKreiner

appliestheirframeworktoclassifythebodyofworkcontainedinoneofthereferences

onorganizationalspace–OrganizationalSpaces(2010).TheTaylor&Spicerframework

34

categorizestheliteratureintermsofhowspaceisconceptualized.Thesecategoriesare

space as distance, space as power relations and space as experience. If we are to

comparethesecategoriestothoseofLefebvre’striad,theycanbeapproximatelyaligned

with the three categories of conceived space, lived space and perceived space in the

equivalent sequence. However, this correspondencemust be assumed because Taylor

and Spicer do not make it explicit. This ambiguity and uncertainty demonstrates the

limitations in termsofboth thewayLefebvre’scategoriescanbe interpretedandalso

how such a set of categories can be confusing with regards to the emergent

epistemological schools of thought on space presented in the previous section.

Therefore,without significantly affecting the substantive categories of the Taylor and

Spicer review, we propose relabeling the categories as Cartesian, Marxian and

Phenomenological.

2.1.2.1.1 Cartesian

Cartesiantheoriesofspace–orspaceasdistance–makeupthebulkofthecontribution

tothisareaofstudy.Itisalsoacategorywithsomeoftheoldestworksonorganizational

space. Most are concerned with the layout of workplaces and how this affects

productivity, innovation and other aspects of organization. The debate on the

effectiveness of open-plan office spaces is one example of the focus of these types of

study. The advantage of propinquity (physical proximity attributed to open-plan

layouts) versus privacy (physical partitioningwithwalls) is the conceptual axis upon

whichthisparticulardebateislocated.Thekeyepistemologicalassumptionisthatsocial

andphysicalproximityareequivalent(Fayard&Weeks,2011).

Arelativelynewertopicwithinthiscategoryofstudiesdealswiththevirtualizationof

organizational spaces and the effect of such practices as telecommuting. However, as

TaylorandSpicernote, thesepracticesarenotpopularandrelativelyraredespite the

hypeproduced at the timewhendomestic broadband Internet connections started to

becomewidely available. Some recent research points to a slow process of advanced

information and communications technology effecting changes on the spatial

organizationofworkandsuggeststhesocialconsequenceshaveyettobefullyexplored

(Felstead, 2012).Other Cartesian studies are situated at the inter-organizational level

wherethefocusisusuallyonthespatialdynamicsofaspecificindustry.Practicessuch

35

as clustering,where organizationswith trade ties (suppliers and clients for example)

locatethemselveswithinphysicalproximityofeachother,aretheobjectsofstudy.Very

often,thesestudiesfindthatthedevelopmentofsocialnetworksandhumanecologies

arecriticalaspectsofspatialdynamicsatthis level. It is likelyCartesianstudiesareas

commonas theyarebecauseof the easewithwhichphysical space is observable and

mappable.Thecumulativeeffectoftheirknowledgeisthestrengthoftheircontribution

to organizational space theory. However the material determinism of this approach

makes itdifficult to take intoaccount thespatialdynamicsofpowerrelationsand the

roleoftheexperienceofoccupants(Taylor&Spicer,2007).

2.1.2.1.2 Marxian

The approaches belonging to this group are focused onpower relations embedded in

materialorganizationalspace.Hence,theyrelyonanarrowersetofanalyticalcategories

thanthoseprovidedbyeitherLefebvreorFoucaultaspresentedintheprevioussection.

These Marxist analytical categories are generally concerned with spatial modes of

workercontrolatvariouslevelsofpresence–notonlywithinthephysicalboundariesof

theworkplace.Forinstance,somestudieslookathowthebuildingofcompanytownsin

thepasthasbeenmotivatedbythedesiretocontrolboththeprivateandpublicspaces

ofworkers (Dale&Burrell, 2007). SiliconValley canbe considered a contemporary –

andlargerscale–versionofthecompanytown(English-Lueck,2000).

Otherstudiesare interested inhoworganizations incorporate theBenthamiteconcept

of the panopticon in the design of their workspaces and eventually how forms of

resistance emerge. The introduction of information and communication technologies

(ICT) into work practices has allowed for new forms of spatial control (Leclercq-

Vandelannoitte,Isaac,&Kalika,2014).Itisespeciallythroughtheblurringofboundaries

between thehome and theworkplace that thesemodes of control have emerged. For

example,enterpriseapplicationssuchasMicrosoftLyncforinstantmessagingcombined

with mobile technologies and high-speed Internet are increasingly used both at the

officeandthehome(Tangetal.,2013).Thespecificpresenceinformationfeatureofthis

application (an indicator to the other enterprise users about your online status) can

allow managers to be informed about when employees are connected to their work

networks and keep a record of this over long periods of time. When connected,

36

employeescanbeconsideredavailable forworkregardlessofwhether theyare in the

officeorathome.Thisisanewformofcontrolaffordedtomanagersthatdidnotexist

whentheboundarybetweenworkandhomewasspatiallyandtemporallylessfluid.

Interestingly,mostmanagersseemstilltoprefermoretraditionalmethodsofcontrolon

theworkplacesiteratherthanusingnewmodesaffordedtothemwithICT.Perhapsthis

isbecausephysicalpresenceremains themostbasic formofcontrolandalso that ICT

not only allows new modes of control but also new forms of resistance. Taylor and

Spicer alsomention studies that see the city as thematerializationofpower relations

(2007).

Inset2:Fayard&Week’s‘WhoMovedMyCube?’(2011)

Photocopiers/printers are perhaps one of themost frustrating and at times infuriatingworktoolstodealwith.Whohasn’teverhadtodealwithapaperjam,lowtonerorcopiescomingoutsideways because the original wasn’t orientated the right way? It seems, according to Anne-Laure Fayard and John Weeks, this very annoying character of photocopiers/printers isresponsible for much informal and spontaneous social interaction between office workers.Whenacolleagueisstandingbaffledinfrontofthemachine,thereisanaturaltendencyforonetoofferhelpandperhapseventuallytackletheproblemintandem.Connectionsarethereforeestablished in an informal manner at a location and around a tool in thework environmentnever intended for social interaction. Although these interactions are unintended,photocopiers/printers and their localization in office environments are a good illustration ofwhat Fayard andWeeksrefer toas spatial affordances.Centrally located– albeitusually in aretreatedspace–andconsidereda legitimateworkdestination,photocopiers/printers ideallycombinethethreetypesofaffordancestheauthorspropose:proximity,privacyandpermission.Notonlydoesthisencourageinformalconversationbetweencolleagueswhowouldotherwisenothavethechancetointeractoverthecourseoftheday,butalsoprovidesaspaceforprivateexchanges away from the eyes and ears of others. Personal experience concurs with theconclusions of these researchers, although there are some even more interesting twists,especially with the printer function. On more than one occasion on a trip to thephotocopier/printertofetchajob,wewouldcomeacrossinterestingdocumentsthatwewouldotherwiseneversee.Colleagueswouldoftensendtheirjobstotheprinterandpickthemupabit later,perhapson theirway to the restroomor thecoffeemachine. In themeantime, thesedocumentswouldliethereontheoutputtrayofthemachinewithinapileofotherjobs.Intheprocessofextractingourjob,wewould–inaperfectlylegitimateway–seewhatcolleaguesareprinting. A quick scan of these documentswould provide uswith information about what ishappeninginotherteams,aboutimminentrestructuring,orperhapsevenofficeromances!Wewouldeven seewho is printingoutdocumentswecirculateandgetan ideaofwho ispayingattention to our work. All of this afforded by the spatially centralized nature of the printingfacility alongwith the practice of combining a trip to the printerwith a restroombreak. Thespatialnatureofphotocopyingorprintinginanofficespacenotonlyproducesinformalsocialinteraction,butalsounintendeddisseminationofinformationthatcanhaveequallypositiveornegative consequences for an organization. This very contemporary experience of such amundanetaskasphotocopyingorprintinginanofficeisaverygoodexampleofhowmaterialandsocialfactorsshapespace.

37

2.1.2.1.3 Phenomenological

In Taylor and Spicer’s review, this group of studies draws mainly on organizational

symbolism and organizational aesthetics to examine the meaning embedded in

organizational spaces through artefacts such as furniture, clothing anddecorationbut

also office layout and building design (2007). Buildings themselves embody scripts,

narrativesandstoriesthatcanberead,thusnotonlyuncoveringintentionalsocialcues

butalsorevealingscarsofpastandcurrentbattles(Dandridge,Mitroff,&Joyce,1980).

Forexample,thebulletholesontheoutsidewallsoftheÉcoledesMinesandPréfécture

dePolicebuildingsinParisarequiteliterallyscarstellingstoriesofpaststruggles.These

havepossiblybeen leftunrepaired intentionally to tellpassers-bya storyengraved in

stone.TaylorandSpicerciteseveralstudiesfromthisgroupdealingwiththesymbolic

and aesthetic aspects of organizational space (Berg & Kreiner, 1990; Cairns, 2002;

Galison & Thompson, 1999; Goodsell, 1988; Hatch, 1990; Knowles & Leslie, 2001;

Yanow,1995;Yanow,1998).

Other studies have been focused on how occupants can rewrite scripts to disrupt

embedded modes of spatial dynamics, usually present by design to evoke particular

feelings and encourage certain behavior (Cairns, McInnes, & Roberts, 2003; Hjorth,

2005). Cultural studies are also mobilized in explaining how experiences of

organizational space can be influenced by poetic and literary imagery specific to the

culturalcontextoftheorganization.Forthisapproach,TaylorandSpicermakereference

toaseminalworkbyGastonBachelardLapoétiquedel’espace(1957).Theperspectives

TaylorandSpicerattributetothisgroup–whichtheylabel‘spaceasexperience’–seem

tohaveacertainhermeneuticbias.Thisisanenduringcharacteristicofconceptualizing

spaceinthesocialsciencesthatlimitsanalysistothe‘readable-visible’(Lefebvre,1974:

171).

TheresultsthisreviewaresummarizedinTable2below.

38

Epistemological

ApproachKeyanalyticalconcepts Keycontributions

Cartesian

• Physicallayoutofworkspaces

• Propinquityvs.privacy

• Telecommuting• Clustering

(Bresnahan&Gambardella,2004;Fayard&Weeks,2011;Fayard&Weeks,2007;Felstead,2012;Hatch,1990)

Marxian

• Powerrelations• Surveillance• Workercontrol/

resistance

(Dale&Burrell,2007,2010;Panayiotou&Kafiris,2010;Zhang&Spicer,2013)

Phenomenological• Materially

embeddedmeanings

(Berg&Kreiner,1990;Cairns,2002;Galison&Thompson,1999;Goodsell,1988;Hatch,1990;Knowles&Leslie,2001;Rapoport,1982;Yanow,1995;Yanow,1998)

Table2–OverviewofOrganizationalSpaceLiteraturebasedonTaylor&Spicer(2007)(Author)

2.1.2.1.4 Beyondthecategories

Theportraitof the stateof research todateonorganizational space theorypresented

above is a fragmented one (Taylor & Spicer, 2007). Although each approach has

providedawealthof contributions toorganizational space theory, theyare limitedby

theiroftenmutuallyexclusiveconceptualizationsofspace.Thissituationisdeploredby

Taylor and Spicer and has compelled them to develop an integrated theory of space

basedonLefebvre’sspatial triad.Whilstacknowledgingthe importanceof treatingthe

threeconceptualLefebvriancategoriesholisticallyinanalyzingtheproductionofspace,

the authors feel that clear-cut distinctions between these categories are necessary to

facilitate the process of analysis. The three proposed categories are the practices of

distanceandproximity; theplanningof spatializedpower relations; and the imagined

experiences.Althoughthisframeworkcanbeusefulinprovidinginsights,wefeelitruns

theriskofreproducingthesamefragmentedunderstandingoforganizationalspacethe

twoauthorssetouttoovercome.

2.1.2.1.5 PromisingAvenues

WhilstadaptingLefebvre’stheoreticalcategoriesforclassifyingtheextantliteratureon

organizationalspacesisusefulandappropriate,webelieveitservesasapoortemplate

39

for future research. Aswe have seen from the philosophical origins of organizational

spacetheory,thediscussiononspacehasbeenpolarizedbythetensionbetweenobject

and subject; between the real and the ideal; the mental and the material. This is a

tensionLefebvre,alongwithothers,has tried toneutralizeby thinkingaboutspaceas

bothmentalandmaterial.AccordingtoElden(2004),Lefebvredevelopedtheconceptof

lived spaces to overcome the tension between the mental or rescogitans (conceived

space)andthematerialorresextensa(perceivedspace).Livedspacesor thespacesof

representationshouldnotbe treatedas justanotheranalyticalcategorytoputnext to

the perceived and conceived spaces if we are to stay true to Lefebvre’s theory.

Furthermore,inreducingtheconceptofconceivedspacestotheplanningofspatialized

powerrelations,asproposedbyTaylorandSpicer,oneis likelytobetemptedto limit

the scope of their research to looking for embedded power relations in architectural

designs,orindrawingsforofficelayouts,forinstance.Powerrelationscanbepresentin

spatial practices as much as imagined experiences within Taylor and Spicer’s

framework.Theresultingrigidityoftheanalysiswouldlimitthepotentialfortheoretical

contributions.Amuchmoreemergentandgroundedapproachshouldbeencouragedin

understandingorganizationalspaces.

LefebvreandFoucaulthavedevelopednewwaysoftheorizingorganizationalspacethat

benefit from the diversity of thinking on the matter – but it is only a beginning. As

Kreinerreflects,therichnessoftheLefebvrianmodelcanbebothablessingandacurse

(2010).Itisablessingbecauseitfederatesintooneparadigmvarioushistoricalstreams

of thought on space and demonstrates the potential for learning about organizations

fromnovelperspectives.Itisacursebecauseitremainsabstractandthiscombinedwith

its multiple epistemological roots generates a tendency for it to be interpreted as a

reproduction of the fragmented understanding in the extant literature – Cartesian,

Marxian and Phenomenological. A deeper understanding of Lefebvre’s thinking along

with an acute awareness of the history of thinking on space would be helpful in

dispellingthiscurse.Onecanlookfor inspirationinsomerecentandoriginalworkon

organizationalspaces.

Iedema,Long&Carroll(2010) ‘stumbled’upona ‘spatialsurprise’ intheirresearch.In

studyingtheday-to-dayoperationsofaclinicalteaminametropolitanteachinghospital

inSydney,theauthorsrealizedthatabulgeinoneofthecorridorsplayedanimportant

40

roleintheorganization.Thetypeofspaceofferedbythebulgeinthecorridorafforded

staff theability towithdraw from themorepublic spaceof the restof the corridor to

discussconfidentialpatientcareissues.Theauthorsarguethatitisbecausethisspaceis

notdesignatedasfulfillinganyspecificfunctionthatitwasabletotakeonthistypeof

role for the clinical team. They mobilize the concept of interactive affordances of

spatiality tomake sense of their discovery, but also look at how power relations are

enactedthroughthisspontaneousspatialpractice.Weir(2010)‘stumbles’upon–inan

equallyserendipitousmanner– thespatialpracticesof theMiddleEasterndiwan.The

diwan isusuallyasquareroomspecificallyarrangedtoseatguestsoncushionsplaced

alongeachof thewalls. Ithas thespecific traditionalpurposeofhostingassembliesof

local men of influence to mainly discuss political affairs. It is when the author was

invited for an audience with a local leader in a diwan that its very peculiar spatial

practicesbecameapparent.Whatmade thesepeculiarpracticesapparentwas the fact

thatWeirwasan‘outsider’tothisspace.Whatlocalstookforgranted,Weirdidn’tand

therefore had to learn by being keenly aware of his surroundings andmovements of

otherguests. Itwasalso theobservationofother ‘outsiders’ thathelpedhimdecipher

the rules of this specific space. What both of these examples show is that studying

organizational space needs to be opportunistic and grounded in everyday work

practices. It is only once these taken-for-granted spatial practices emerge from the

environmentthatitcanbecomerelevanttoseekanappropriatetheoreticalframework.

Inpracticalterms,itwouldbehighlyadvisabletoengageinsomegroundedpreliminary

fieldwork before committing to a specific framing of the study of an organizational

space.Also,asWeirshows,disruptionto thetaken-for-grantedspatialpracticesof the

diwan(thearrivalof‘outsiders’)putsthemintosharpfocus.

Iedema,Long&Carroll, andWeir raise twomethodological issuesspecific tostudying

organizational space. First is the device of ‘spatial surprise’.Mundanework practices

performedinunexpectedspaces,suchasabulgeinthehospitalcorridors,aregemsto

be discovered. However, researchers can actively seek these ‘spatial surprises’ in

organizational spaces and always turn up unexpected practices. It is especially the

mundaneandtaken-for-grantedspatialpracticesthattendtoproducethemostfruitful

‘spatial surprises’ for organizational space theory. Second is the notion of reflexivity.

Any researcher studying organizational space must engage with the field with a

41

completeawarenessofhisorherbodyaspartofthatfield.Theresearcher’sbodyserves

notonlyasaninstrumenttoobserveandcollectdataonthespaceunderstudy,butalso

asanactivebodilyparticipantinspatialpractices.Whataresearcher’sbodycanperform

onthespaceisjustasimportantaswhateffectthespacehasonthebodilymovements

oftheresearcher.

The‘reconfigurativearguments’ofbothFoucaultandLefebvrehaveprovidedabasisfor

newtheoreticalframeworkstostudyorganizationalspaces.FayardandWeeks’(2007)

triad of proximity, privacy and permission, and Dale and Burrell’s (2007) triad of

enchantment, emplacement and enactment are two very good examples of how

theorizingaboutorganizationalspacesneednotbelimitedtothetriadofLefebvrebut

canbeinspiredbyit.TheessentialspiritofLefebvre’stheoryoftheproductionofspace

is to not treat the mental and the material as separate but as one and the same.

Sociomaterialityisanemergentareainorganizationalstudiesthatabidesbythisspirit.

The sociomaterial approach conciliates the object-subject and ideal-real dualisms and

develops concepts with mutually constitutive elements. Perhaps one of the most

edifying works on organizational space we have come across is John Harwood's The

Interface:IBMandtheTransformationofCorporateDesign,1945-1976 (2011). It is the

story of a project entirely reshaping – both socially and materially – the IBM

corporation.Man,machineandbuildingareconsideredasoneharmonioussystemthat

can be designed as a totality. The idea is to make IBM's organizational space reflect

managerial desires to simply turn the organization into a model of the modern

corporation.Thestudyisanexcellentexampleofasociomaterialapproachtostudying

organizationalspaceswheremanagerialvaluesandconcretearemutuallyconstitutive.

ThefieldofGeographyshouldbelookedatfortheoreticalstimulation.Asmentionedin

theprevioussection,Geographyisoneofthefieldsthathasgreatlybenefittedfromthe

rich heritage philosophers have left in their lengthy arguments and written

deliberationsonspace.SchellerandUrry’s(2006)Mobilitiesparadigmisinpartbased

onSimmel’sconceptofmobilities–acomponentofhistheoryofsociation–andinpart

throughengagementwithcontemporaryurbangeography.Itstemsfromanincreasing

concernaboutthesocialimplicationsofthemovementofpeople,informationandthings

across space and time. Somehave called this trend the 'mobility turn'. TheMobilities

paradigm is of particular interest for organizational space researchers. Although this

42

framework has mostly been appropriated by human geographers (Cresswell &

Merriman, 2011), we also see some emerging interest in the organizational studies

literature (Costas, 2013; Vaujany &Mitev, 2013). The concept of the 'space of flows'

developedbyManuelCastells(2010) isofparticularrelevancetoorganizationalspace

research because of how it allows for the theorization of the role of new digital

technologiesintheshapingofspace.

Inset3:Dale&Burrell’sriparianmetaphorfortheproductionofspace(2007)

KarenDaleandGibsonBurrellprovideperhapsthemostsuitablemetaphortoillustratetheproductionoforganizationalspacebycomparingittothecourseofariverovertime(Dale&Burrell2007,p.213-215).Theflowofariverisguidedandrestrictedbyitsnaturalchannel,yetitisthisverysameflowthathassculptedthechannel(theriverbedandriverbanks)overtime. Ifone likens the flowofwater todailypractices ofworkers and thechannel to theirphysical environment, we can see how each shapes the other in the production of space.Hydraulic events and effects over time such as the erosion of the riverbanks or thetransportationofsedimentsoverlongdistanceschangethecourseoftheriver.Thenatureofthechannel–includingsuchcharacteristicsasthetypeofrockorsoil–willdeterminehowthischangewilloccur.Anorganizationalspacewillguideandconstrainthespatialpracticesofworkers,butliketheflowingriver,thesespatialpracticeswilleventuallychangetheshapeoftheorganizationalspace.Howthisshapingoccurswilldependonthecharacteristicsoftheorganizational space.AlthoughDale&Burrelldeveloped thismetaphorwithaclear social-materialdichotomyinmind–theriverrepresentingthesocialandthechannelrepresentingthematerial – it can easily be transposed to amorenuanced conception of space such asLefebvre’stheoryoftheproductionofspace.Inthiscase,thechannelcanbejustassocialasmaterial.Flowcanbeguidedandconstrainedbothphysicallyandsocially.Forexample,theformation ofaqueueat abusstopwillbedeterminedbothby thephysicalaspectsof thespace (widthof thesidewalk forexample) and thesocial conventionsofqueuing (orderofarrivalforexample).Somecommutersmay,overtime,repeatedlybreaktheconventionsandstandinadisorderlymannerforthebusperhapsevencuttinginfrontofotherswhohavebeen waiting longer. Should this type of behavior persist with a sufficient number ofcommuters,thespatialpracticeofqueuingwillbereplacedwiththatofbargingandpushingto get on the bus. Commuters will no longer feel guided and restrained by the socialconvention of queuing. Getting back to our riparian metaphor, the social (and spatial)practiceofqueuingwouldbebothpartof theriverchanneland theflow–onereinforcingthe other. The repeated breaking of the convention of queuing would be a forceful andsustaineddisturbanceintheflowof theriver thusmodifyingtheshapeofthechannelandperhapsevendivertingitthroughadifferentpaththrougherosion.Howeasilysucherosionoccurswilldependonthestrengthoftheexistingchannel–inthiscasethesocialconventionofqueuing.

43

2.2 InformationandCommunicationTechnologiesandOrganizationalSpace

AttheadventoftheInternetAge,predictionsabouttheincreasingirrelevanceofspace

for economic activity were abound. Advanced telecommunications infrastructures

providing high-speed broadband Internet access to homes and businesses alongwith

increasinglypowerfuldataprocessingequipmentwouldmeantheendofthetraditional

officeatthetime(Townsendetal.,1998).Butthishasproventobeamythgroundedin

populartechnologicaldeterminismpredominantintheWest(Graham,1998;Graham&

Marvin, 1996). Instead, more thoughtful observation has found a more complex

relationship between digital technologies and the traditional work space (Bakke &

Julsrud, 2008; Costas, 2013; Elliott & Urry, 2010; Felstead, 2012). Developments in

digital technologies over the past 30 years represent a step change in the capacity to

store,processand transmitdata–more thanat anyother time inhumanhistoryand

haveunderpinnedsomebroadspatialtransformationsofglobalsociety(Castells,2010;

Jones, 2009). It is what Henri Lefebvre would refer to as a change in relations of

production in the context of the production of space (1991). The unpacking of the

complex relationship between digital technologies and organizational space has

significantimplicationsforISgivenhowcriticalspaceistoorganizing.Theimportance

of an understanding of this process has been evident to many researchers in

organizationalstudies,buthasyettotakeholdinIS.

Oneofthemostobviousmanifestationsofchangestoorganizationalspacefacilitatedby

ICTisthepossibilityofremotework.TheideaofusingICTforworkingawayfromthe

officeisnotanoveltybyanymeans.Telework,forexample,hasbeenaroundsincethe

1970sandappears tobegrowingdramatically in the last fewyears.Despite a lackof

recentstatisticaldataandaproblemindefiningwhatconstitutesthepractice(Bailey&

Kurland,2002),theevidenceofitsriseisverysolid.Althoughtelework–atermcoined

by JackNilles in1973–hasbeenassociatedhistoricallywiththeemergentpracticeof

working remotely, myriad terms have appeared lately: mobile work, agile work,

distributedwork,remotework,smartworking(intheUK)andworkshifting(inCanada)

(Lister, 2016). These terms evoke various aspects of the transformation of work

happening over the past decade or two. Some of the most visible evidence of this

transformationfromaspatialperspectiveareheadlinessuchas'Theofficeisdead!Long

44

livetheoffice!' (Maitland,2016)or,onthepublicpolicy front, thedecisionsbytheUK

Governmenttoextendflexibleworkingrightstoallworkers(2014a)andtheEuropean

Commissiontoimplementteleworkandflextimepoliciesaspartoftheirmodernization

programme (2015). The somewhat fragmented statistical evidence confirms the

underlying trend: up to a quarter of workers in the US telework at some frequency

(Lister,2016)andatleastathirdoftheUKlaborforceworksremotelyallorsomeofthe

time(2016b).Bothreportsforecastexponentialgrowthinthenextfewyears,however

someanalystspourcoldwateronbullish forecastsgiventhegradualnatureofchange

uptonow(Felstead,2012).Suchtrendsinthetransformationofworkprovidelucrative

opportunities forprivateenterpriseandmanagementgurus.Cisco, forexample,offers

courses and its own suite of technological solutions to "Give companies the ability to

deliver physical and virtual workplace solutions that are designed to meet the

challengesoftoday'sworkstyles"(2016).Perhapsadoptingasubtlerstrategy,Citrix(a

technology giant like Cisco) funds high profile studies on flexible work by reputable

bodies suchas theCentre forEconomicsandBusinessResearch (2014b)or theWork

FoundationatLancasterUniversity (2016b).Bookswith titlessuchas "Remote:Office

NotRequired"(Fried&Hansson,2013)orthemoreambitious"The4-HourWorkWeek:

Escape the 9-5, Live Anywhere and Join the New Rich" (Ferriss, 2007) have become

bestsellers and specialized consultancy services on how to manage office space and

workpracticeshavebeengrowingatarapidpace.

Teleworkhasbeensubjectofmuchscholarlywork(Bailey&Kurland,2002;Clegg&van

Iterson,2013;Rockmann&Pratt,2015;Taskin,2010)andwouldseemlikeapromising

areafortheorizingtherelationshipbetweenICTandorganizationalspace.Rockmann&

Pratt (2015) look at what happens to the perception of the office when a large

corporationallowsitsworkerstotelecommuteflexibly.Theyfindthatatippingpointis

reached once a certain criticalmass of employees take up this opportunity andwork

fromhome.Thistippingpointhappenswhenasufficientnumberofabsentworkersin

theofficediscouragesotherstocomeinanditeventuallyresultsinsustainedabsences

intheoffice.This,theyfound,resultedinareductioninworkermotivationandprovided

some recommendations to manage telework. ICT only figured in this study as the

assumedneutralsupportstructure for telework.Taskin(2010)supports thenotionof

déspatialisationoforganizationswiththearrivaloftelework.LikeinRockmann&Pratt

45

(2015), Taskin sees ICT as a support structure which only makes telework and the

‘despatialization’oftheorganizationpossible. Inbothstudies, it isassumedthatICTis

neutralandnofurthertheorizingisnecessarytounderstandtherelationshipbetweenit

andorganizationalspace.

The case of the literature on telework is typicalwith regards to the theorizing of the

relationship between ICT and organizational space in other literatures. However, the

absence of organizational space from the IS literature is particularly striking. Just a

simple Google Scholar searchwith the terms "organizational space" and "information

systems" demonstrates this paucity. A glance at the tracks for the 2017 International

Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) shows that organizational space – or any

proximate topic – is completely absent. In comparison, the European Group for

Organizational Studies (EGOS) has incorporated three sub-themeswith space in their

titles for its 2017 colloquium – one of them is even explicitly linking technology and

space(Sub-theme34:MaterialityinOrganizing:Space,Technology,Artefacts).TheAsia-

PacificResearchers inOrganisationStudiesConference (APROS) in2015hadspaceas

one of its central themes. Although space appears to be absent from the IS agenda –

especially when looking at conference programmes – a little scratching below the

surfaceisnecessary.

At thebeginningof this study, in2013, I attempteda relatively thoroughapproach to

testtheinitialhunchIhadaboutresearchonorganizationalspaceinIS.Forthis,Ihad

developedasimpleyetrigorousmethodbasedonacombinationofexistingknowledge

onISliteratureandadvancedbibliographicdatabasetoolsatmydisposal.Theresultsof

this approach confirmedmy initial hunch about the lack of interest in organizational

spaceinIS.

A total of27articleswere retained from this exercise.The results are summarized in

tabular form in Appendix 9.2. Of the 27 articles listed, only 10 of these are from

publications appearing on the AIS Senior Scholars' Basket of Journals2(Avital, 2014;

2ForajustificationforlimitingtotheAISSeniorScholar’sBasketofJournals,seeAvital(2014)andStendal,Thapa,&Lanamäki(2016)

46

Stendal,Thapa,&Lanamäki,2016). Thisresultpointedtoacertainlackofcumulative

research on the relationship between organizational space and ICT in IS. Theories

backedbyempiricaldatahadyettobefullydeveloped.

Of course, my literature search didn’t stop at that, and as we will see later how the

theoretical framework evolved over time, it was imperative I find empirical studies

theorizing the relationshipbetween ICTandorganizational space.Theexercisewould

provefrustratingsincesuchalinkwaselusivenomatterwhereIlooked.Aswewillsee

in the Theoretical Framework chapter, I attempted to adapt Lefebvre’s theory of

production of space by integrating ICT. It seemed sensible to draw on the most

dominant theory in the organizational space literature. It was simply unworkable.

Fortunately I was able to locate a study (Leonardi, 2011) that mobilized affordance

theory for the study of routines in an organization. Seeing that routines could be

conceptually linked to spatial practices, I felt that affordance theorywas a promising

route.Itwasthereforedecidedtocommittothisframeworkandseewhereitwouldtake

us.Practical imperatives requiredme to focusonoperationalizing the frameworkand

forgingaheadwithfieldwork.

Thankfully,aconceptualmodelbasedonMerleau-Ponty’sphenomenologyofperception

wasdevelopedwithgrounding fromwithin thedata.Thedifficult search for away to

theorize the relationshipbetween ICTandorganizational spacewas ceased.However,

this could imply some potential missed insights from other studies as well as

contributionsfromthisstudy.

2.3 TheoryofAffordance

The expression ‘to afford’ something has always been associatedwith the capacity to

either spare a resource – such as time for someactivity – or topurchase a goodor a

service.Onewouldsayperhaps‘Ican’taffordtospendtimeinthismeetingwithallthe

papersIneedtograde’or‘Ican’taffordanapartmentinthisneighborhood’.However,in

commonparlance,neverdoesthetermaffordancecometospeech. It isaveryspecific

termwithaveryspecifichistory.

47

2.3.1 OriginsinEcologicalPsychology

The conceptof affordancehas itsorigins in ecologicalpsychologyand took formwith

theworkof James J.Gibson in1977with the chapterTheTheoryofAffordancesin the

book titledPerceiving,Acting,andKnowing:TowardanEcologicalPsychologyedited by

Robert Shaw and John Bransford. Affordance as developed by Gibson is the range of

possibilitiesofferedbyanenvironmenttoaperceivingbeing,orasheputsitinalater

work,“Theaffordancesoftheenvironmentarewhatitofferstheanimal,whatitprovides

orfurnishes,eitherforgoodorill”(Gibson,1988:119).Asthebeinginteractswiththe

environment,itwillperceiveavailablepossibilitiesforaction.Itiswithinthiscontextof

possibleactions–oraffordances–thattheactorwillpursuetheirobjectives.Abirdof

preylookingforaperchtoeatamealafteralonghuntwillperceivetheledgeonacliff

as offering a safe zone to land and eat in tranquility away from the harassment of

scavengers.Asquirrel seekinganescaperoute fromahuntingcatwillperceivea tree

trunkasofferingrefugewhereas thecatwillperceive the treeasan impasse. In these

two examples from the animal world, it is these differing perceptions which allow

certain species to survive (squirrel) or thrive (bird of prey). The very process of

evolutionhasprovidedthebirdofpreywiththeabilityforflightandthesquirrelwith

theabilitytoclimbtrees.Manyprimates,andevenbirds,havedemonstratedtheability

fortoolmaking.TheNewCaledoniancrowisknownnotonlyfortoolmaking,butalsofor

being able to solve complexproblemswith tools and even fashion toys out of objects

availabletothemintheirnaturalsetting.Thesimplicityoftheconceptprovidedtousby

GibsonwasmadecleartomeonedayasIsatintheforestwhereIcycleregularly.AsI

lookedaroundme,ItriedtothinkofwhatIcoulddowiththesurroundingobjects.Ilook

atarockandthinkof itasaweight, thenasaweaponorperhapsabuildingblockfor

shelter.Myperceptionwoulddependonmyimmediateneeds.Onawindyday,Iwould

possiblysee therockasaweight. In the faceofa threat,asaweapon.To takeshelter

fromthewind,perhapsIwillusetherockaspartofawall.Therockseemstoofferme

these possibilities just by looking at it. If I look up to the clouds, none of these

perceptionsareevident.Rockscallforthactionsthatcloudsdonot.TheNewCaledonian

crow forexample, is able toperceive the relativedensityof rocksand isawareof the

possibilityofwaterdisplacement. Inareal-lifeenactmentofAesop’s tale,experiments

have shown these animals to select the specific rocks which would displace enough

48

waterinatubewhichwouldallowthemtoreachthefloatingmorseloffoodwiththeir

beaks. Some more advanced experiments have even shown them to be able to

distinguish between hollow rocks and full ones. These experimentswith crows show

howtheperceptionofaffordances in thenaturalenvironmentare integral tosurvival.

Just like my perception of the affordances (and lack of) of rocks and clouds shows,

human beings are no different from crows in possessing this form of perception.

Humansare champion toolmakers, and thereforehave themost sophisticated formof

perception of affordances. Whether consciously or subconsciously, by design or

accident, we actively construct and arrange our physical world according to this

perception.Wetendtositonflatandlevelsurfacesthatarelargeandrobustenoughto

supportourweight–acardboardboxorthesloping(andslippery)bonnetofacarwon’t

do.Infact,somebussheltersintheUnitedKingdomhavebenchesthataredesignedto

allow passengerswaiting to rest their weight by leaning on a slightly sloped ledge –

sittingisimpossible.SomebenchesintheParisMetronetworkarelikewiseslopedand

thereforediscouragethehomelesstoliedownandsleeponthem. Theexampleofthe

doorknobisoftenusedtoillustratethenotionofaffordance,butmanyothereveryday

examples can be thought of, such as the handle of a suitcase, a pole on a bus, a light

switch, a bannister on a stairway, a spoon, and so forth. Of course, the perceived

affordances of these objects depend on what your objectives are at the instant of

perception.

J.JGibson’s ideas regardingvisualperceptionemergedat theheightofbehaviorism in

psychology.Herejectedthetheoryonthebasisofexperimentsheconductedandused

theresultstodevelopaframeworkthatseesanimalsandhumansbeingattunedtotheir

environmentas they interactwith it.Thisconceptionofperception is incontradiction

withthemoredominantcognitivestanceatthetimewhichsawanimalsandhumansas

passivelyconstructingtheworldbasedonstimulireceivedfromtheenvironment.This

raw sensation would be arriving to the agent and processed to create an internal

representationoftheenvironment,alongwithfeelingsofattractionorrepulsion(Heft,

1989).Although J.J. Gibsonwas initially closer to a cognitive stance, he slowlymoved

towardsamoreinteractionistviewofperceptionwhereperceptionwaspartandparcel

ofananimal’sorhuman’sinteractionwiththeenvironment.Thisfocusontherelations

between agents and the environment became a school of thought within the field of

49

psychologycalledEcologicalPsychology.TheworkofJ.JGibsonisconsideredtobethe

foundationofEcologicalPsychology.Thisschooladvocatesthestudyoftheenvironment

inordertounderstandperceptionandbehaviorinanimalsandhumans(Greeno,1994).

The school’s central concept of affordance has remained for long a controversial idea

andcontinuestogeneratedebateinthebroaderfieldofpsychology(Heft,1989).

TheinteractionistviewsonvisualperceptionofJ.J.Gibsonwouldbearadicalshiftfrom

themoremainstream stimulus-response view of perception. In themainstream view,

agents would be passive receivers of stimuli in the environment with each stimulus

generating an automatic response. By studying the visual perception of pilots when

landingtheiraircraft,herealizedthatperceptionwouldnotonlyvarywithstimulation,

butwiththerelativemotiontotheenvironmentoftheagent.Thismeansthataperson

wouldnotnecessarilyhavethesameresponsetovisualstimulidependingonwhether

thepersonisinmotionornotrelativetotheirenvironment.Thetypeofmotionandits

variationwillalsoaffectperception(Mace,1977).So,perceptionforapersonwalkingin

the forest will shift when they come to a stop. The same could be said for a person

standing in themiddleofarapid flowsuchasashallowriverandrowingaboat in it.

Averse to the term ‘stimulus’, which Gibson felt would have too many mainstream

connotations, he chose to use information to represent the structure of the source of

visualperception–thatistosaytheinformationcarriedbylightabouteventsoccurring

intheenvironment.Gibsonmadesuretodistinguishthisconceptionofinformationfrom

that of Shannon’s theory of information which provides a statistical model for the

understandingcommunication.InformationforGibson,isthedynamicstructureoflight

converging from all angles on a single point of observation. This structure exists

independentofanobservingagent.Thedynamicstructure,whichisrepresentedasan

opticalarray,evolveswitheventsintheenvironment.Theobservationpointwouldbe

immersedinthisopticalarray.Forananimaloraperson,theimmersioninthisoptical

array exposes them to the entire flow of environmental events. The eye of a person

would represent the observationpoint immersed inGibson’s optical array andwould

access informationregardingenvironmentalevents fromlightreachingtheretina.The

informationwouldallowthepersontoperceivewhethersurfacesofsubstancesarerigid

ornon-rigidandtheirgeometry.ItishowIcandistinguishbetweenacloudandarock

intermsofhardnessorsoftnessalongwithdensity.Thesameinformationwillprovide

50

the person with adaptive values of objects or environmental events – in essence its

usefulness.Howusefulisacloudformydefensefromattackers?Arock?Thesearethe

affordancesGibsondefineswithinhisperceptualsystem.Theopacityoftherockandthe

translucidnatureofthecloudsarevisualcues.Theseareimportantforeverydaylife–

the opacity of a brick wall does not suggest it as a free passage, whereas the

transparencyofairdoes.Similarcuesareprovidedthroughcolor(forripenedfruitsfor

example)orpatterns(theforestlandscapeasahidingplaceforcreatures).Allofthese

perceptionsaredependentonthesize,formandcapabilitiesoftheobserver.Thisiswhy

theusefulnessofatreetrunkismoreevidentforasquirrelthanaperson.Theexercise

ofcataloguingallpossibleaffordancesintheenvironmentforallpossiblecreaturesisa

nonsense.Affordancesneedtoalwaysbeconsideredwithaspecificcreatureinmind.As

Macesays:

Some typical examples of affordance descriptions of environmental propertiesare walk-on-ability, grasp-ability, injury, collision and nutrition. One says thatenvironmentalpropertiesaffordtheaboveactivities;forexample,acoffeecupatroom temperatureaffordsgraspingbyhumans.Althoughdefined relative toanorganism,affordancerelationsexistindependentofconsciousexperienceoranysubjectivestatesofanorganism.Apersistentsurfacewhichisstrongenoughtohold the weight of an animal can be said to afford support for it whether theanimalisinastateofrealizingitornot.(1977:59-60)

Although these possibilities can be considered essential aspects of the surroundings,

theycanonlybedefinedinrelationtoanactorsituatedwithinit.Wearethereforevery

farfromtheidentificationofindependentobjectivepropertiesofobjectsthatonewould

typicallywanttoundertakeinphysics.However,Gibsongoesevenfurtherinhissystem

ofperceptionbasedonaffordancesbyintroducingtheconceptofmodesofattention.It

isnotsufficienttospeaksimplyofaffordancesforagivencreatureatagivenmoment,

thiscreaturemustbeinastatepreparedtoperceivetheseaffordances(Mace,1977).I

couldperhapslookuponarockandseeitasa‘use-it-for-hitting-something’ifmymode

of attention was that associated with the intention of killing a large spider that had

snuck intomy tent in the forest.Another time, it couldbe seen as ‘keeping-sheets-of-

paper-from-getting-blown-away-by-the-wind’ when writing some notes on a picnic

tableinthepark.Or,itcouldsimplybejustarockthathappenstocomeintoviewwhen

lookingat thegroundandIdon’treallypayattention. Inthesethreecases, Iwouldbe

attuned to the environment, but in different modes of attention. Therefore, I would

perceiveaffordancesdifferentlyineachone.Heftpointsoutaveryimportantaspectof

51

affordance theory inecologicalpsychology,which is thatone’sbehavior ismoreoften

constrainedthanencouragedbytheenvironment(1989).Forexample,a2-metrestone

wallwillmoreoftenconstrainmovementthansuggestasurfaceuponwhichtopaintor

leanagainst.Althoughtheconstraintonmovementthewallpresentstothewalkermay

stopmovementaltogether,itwillmostlikelyonlyalterthedirectionofmovementofthe

walkerandthereforeshapehistrajectoryinspace.

Thenotionofmodesofattentionhasinterestingechoesofphenomenology,andGibson

hasoccasionallymadereferencetothiscurrentofphilosophystudyingthestructuresof

experience and consciousness (Heft, 1989; Jenkins, 2008). Although Heidegger never

developed the notion of affordance, his idea of being-in-the world incorporated

affordance.InBeingandTime(2007),heuseshisfamousexampleoftheperceptionof

the ‘hammer-thing’, and our primordial relationship to it as we take possession of it

throughsight, touchandmovement,to illustratethenotionof ‘readiness-to-hand’.The

‘readiness-to-hand’, or the inherent meaning of ‘use-it-for-hitting-something’ in this

case,arenottheresultofacognitiveprocesswhereobjectivepropertiesregardingthe

hammersuchasweight,formandmanipulabilityaretransformedintoanunderstanding

of what the object can be used for. The hammer itself oozes this meaning through

interaction,bothvisualandtactile.Itisonlywhenweponderthehammerfortoolong,

asHeideggersuggests,dowelosethisessentialmeaningoftheobject.WhenIdoindeed

try this exercise with a common claw hammer at home – trying to decompose its

function by simply looking at it – I end up seeing ameaningless formwhich could at

timesappeartobehuman.Thehammercouldstanduponitshandleandlookingatits

profile,thepartusedtohitnailslookslikeaface–indeeditiscalledthat–andtheclaw

in thebackcould look likeamullet-likehairstyle. It is thereforenocoincidence thata

hammer is formally decomposed into parts such as the face, head, neck and eye.

Meaningssuchas‘use-it-for-hitting-something’arealsoeasilyseenintheenvironment.

Walking towards the edge of a cliff, one is immediately seized by a sense of danger

which comes from the perception that the cliff is a ‘falling-off place’. As explained by

Heft, “This meaning is carried in the structure of reflected light. It is a perceivable

ecologicalfact,notamentalconstructionthatisimposedonsensoryinput”(1989:3).

52

Gibson’smodesofattentionhaveanevenmoreinterestingechointheworkofanother

phenomenologist that we have seen in our review of organizational space theory,

MauriceMerleau-Ponty.Thelinkisthroughthenotionofintentionality.Merleau-Ponty

wasaFrenchphilosopherandcontemporaryof J.J.Gibson(theywerebornonlya few

years apart at the beginning of the last century). Although separated by an ocean

(Gibsonwasbased in theU.S.) andperhaps an evenwider gulf in termsof discipline,

boththinkersseemtohavebeenkeenly interested intherelationshipbetweenpeople

and the environment, andmore specifically perception. This could perhaps be partly

explainedbytheinfluenceofKurtKoffka’swork–andhisGestaltpsychology–onthe

ideas of both. Koffka’s assertion that an object appears attractive or repulsive before

appearingasbeingblackorblue,circularorsquareisanexplicitcritiqueoftheideaof

thepassiveperceivingagentor‘feeler’ofpuresensation.Merleau-Pontywrote“Jeviseet

jeperçoisunmonde”rightatthebeginningofPhénoménologiedelaperception(1976:xi)

to set the tone for the rest of the work. Merleau-Ponty based much of his work on

contemporaryneurologicalstudiesandotherempiricalworkinpsychology,forexample

amputees.

Theworld,orlandscapeasMerleau-Pontyoftensays,isstructurewhichspontaneously

espousesthe intentionsofanagentatagivenmoment.Theworldofa fleeingsquirrel

will takeonaveryspecificstructurecomposedofescaperoutes.Thesquirrelwillnot

needtoassessthepropertiesofthebarkoneachtreetocalculatetheseroutes,thetree

trunkswill take on the character of escape instantaneously at themoment of danger.

Thisdoesn’timplyofcoursethatthetreesdidn’texistpriortothismoment–theywere

just as intimately linked to awarenesswhen the squirrelwas foraging the ground for

food(Merleau-Ponty,1976).Awarenessisusedinthecaseofanimalsandconsciousness

forhumanswhicharethesubjectsMerleau-Pontywasinterestedinprimarily.Muchthe

same way the beam of a searchlight may illuminate a point of focus in the distance

whilstkeepingthesurroundingsvisible,thebeamofintentionshiftsalongthelandscape

frommomenttomomentdependingoneventsintheenvironment.Merleau-Pontyuses

the analogy of a diffuse horizon upon which a beam of attention can be focused to

illuminateanobject.However, thisveryobjectwouldhavebeenpresentpreviously in

consciousnessalongthediffusehorizonuponwhichpartthebeamofattentionhasnot

53

illuminated yet. Merleau-Ponty describes these beams of attention as ‘threads of

intentionality’.

With striking similarity toHeidegger’s hammer,Merleau-Ponty uses the example of a

pairofscissorsathandto illustratethephenomenalbody(1976:123-124).Heargues

that one nevermobilizes their objective body, but their phenomenal body. A person,

whenfacedwithascissorandthetaskofcuttingfabricintoacertainshapedoesn’tneed

tothinkabouttheirbodies,themovementofthelimbsorthemannerinwhichtousea

pairof scissors– it justhappensbecause theirbodiesarealready in theworldand in

contactwithobjectssuchasthescissorthroughperception.Oncegrasped,thescissors

becomeahub for action – they call for a certain action for the situation at hand.The

phenomenal body is the engine of intentionality from which multiple threads of

intention spread out towards the environment (Merleau-Ponty, 1976: 128). Merleau-

Pontydescribesobjectsofintentionassolicitingthephenomenalbodywithoutanyform

ofrepresentation(1976:161).ForMerleau-Ponty, it isonlywhenapersonadoptsthe

right attitude,with all of the associated threads of intentionality radiating from their

phenomenalbody,thatanobjectwillbeactivatedtosolicitacertainactiononthepartof

thebody.Inotherwords,itisonlyinthepresenceofacertainattentiononthepartof

thepersonthatanobjectintheenvironmentwillcomealivewithacallforcertainacts

or reactions. Going back to the analogy with the searchlight, it is when an object is

illuminated that it becomes potent with action that beckon the person’s phenomenal

body. Merleau-Ponty uses the example of seeing blue or touching a hard surface to

illustratethispoint–hesaysthatitisonlywhenhehastherightattitudelookingatan

object,thathewillseeitasbeingblueorhard(1976:248).

The bodywas very important forMerleau-Ponty, and he developed the notion of the

body-schema. The body-schema is, unlike the objective body, the phenomenal body

being intheworldbutalsoprojectingacertainenvironmentwithradiatingthreadsof

intentionality.Itis‘pre-logical’inthatthereisnoneedtocalculateor‘think’aboutwhat

thebodyisdoingorexactlywhereeachlimbisorhowfarthehandleisfromthehand

(1997:269).Whenonesitsatthediningtable,onedoesn’tneedtothinkabouthowthey

willmobilize theirmembers and theirmouths to eat dinner. The body-schema is the

being-in-the-worldwhichmeansthatthebodyisnotseparateorcontainedintheworld,

54

butjustinitandtheforkistouchingthehandjustasmuchasthehandistouchingthe

fork. There is no order or causal process of interaction through raw sensation and

mechanical motion, the body-schema is what allows us to be-in-the-world without

having to thinkabout it. Just try theexperimentof calculating themovementsofyour

handtopickupyoursmartphoneonyourdeskasifyourarms,handsandfingerswere

simplymechanicalassemblageslikeonarobot. Itseemscompletelyunnaturalandthe

tendency is to simply stop the effort of thinking and allowing the natural flow of

movementtotakeover.Thisisthebody-schemaincharge.Theassociatednotionofthe

properbody simply conceptualizes thephenomenalbodyas the envelope fromwhich

thebody-schema is in theworld. Inorder tobephenomenologically in-the-world,one

cannot think of their bodies as a mechanical assemblage of parts which act together

much likea robotwith calculatedactionsand judgements. Inmuch the samemanner,

perceived objects are assimilated into the environment projected by the phenomenal

bodyactivatingtheiractionability.Theobjectsarequasi-extensionsofthebodyinthat

they are neither external nor internal (as amental representation), but transcendent.

Thisisperhapsthemostdifficultnotiontograsp,sinceweallgrowupbelievingobjects

are appropriated by the senses and recreated in a mental space which we can then

manipulate.However, according to bothGibson andMerleau-Ponty,what’s ‘out there’

and‘inyourhead’arethesamethingasfarasperceptionisconcerned.Macecoinedthe

aphorism“asknotwhat’sinsideyourhead,butwhatyourhead’sinsideof”(1977)–the

titleofhischapter– tocondenseGibson’s thinking.This idea isexactlywhatMerleau-

Ponty tries to conveywhen he says “Lapenséen’estriend’«intérieur»,ellen’existepas

horsdumondeethorsdesmots”(1976:213).

Merleau-Ponty provides us with some helpful concepts and a certain philosophical

foundation to complement J.J. Gibson’s theory of affordance. The concepts of

intentionalityandthebody-schemaallowonetoescapefromtheundeniabletendency

to see affordance as a process involving various steps, or transactions, between the

organismandtheenvironment.Thetermtransaction isoftenusedbysometoexplain

affordanceand that it isnot the resultof rawsensationor cognitivedeductionwhere

there is a strong separationbetween the subject and theobject.However, transaction

impliesaprocess,anumberofstepstofollow.Itisatermwhichstillseemstoevokea

strong separation between subject and object – after all, a transaction in common

55

parlance refers to an exchange between two social agents. This is far from the

phenomenological affordance perceived by organisms and people which can only be

seenasaunitaryphenomenonataspecificmoment.There isnoobjectorsubject,but

pure perception, experience and action. “Ce n’est pas la conscience qui touche ou qui

palpe,c’est lamain,et lamainest, commeditKant,un«cerveauextérieurde l’homme»”

(Merleau-Ponty,1976:365)

Merleau-PontyalsocontributestoanextendedunderstandingofGibson’saffordancein

lightofthefactthatthelatterhaslargelybeenfocusedonvisualperceptionandcouldbe

easilythoughtofasbeingrestrictedtothefieldofvision–onlywhatcanbeseenbythe

observer’seyecounts.However,asMerleau-Pontypointsout,we ‘see’ justasmuch in

frontofus,allthewaytothehorizon,asbehindus.Justthesamewaywecouldvisualize

aphonograph(ortelevisiontobemoreuptodate)thatwecouldhearintheroomnext

door, we see objects that are beyond our physical field of vision. There are always

hiddensurfacesontheobjectsofoureveryday,butwecaneasily ‘see’them(Merleau-

Ponty,1976:321).Acoffeemugturnedinacertainwayobscuringthelineofsighttothe

handlewillbe‘seen’withitshandle.We‘see’thefrontofacarwhichisdrivinginfront

ofus.Whenwecalltoafriendastheywalkaway,wealways‘see’themaswhole–the

face is ‘visible’ at all times. Likewise, as we sit in our chair at our desk, we ‘see’ the

bookshelf behind us along with the rest of the apartment without needing to turn

around or get up fromour chair. The beamof light used earlier to illustrateGibson’s

modeof attention thereforedoesn’tnecessarily limit visualperception to the circleof

light, but it hasmuch further reach and reverberation than onewould think ofwhen

consideringvisionobjectively.

As mentioned earlier, Gibson’s ideas on perception caused waves in academia,

particularlyinthefieldofpsychology.Hisecologicalapproachtovisualperceptionwas

swiftlycriticizedbycolleaguesinthefield,butsolicitedsufficientinterestfromothersto

spawnseveralstudiesusingthisapproach(Gibson,1988).AnInternationalSocietyfor

Ecological Psychologywas instituted in 1981, holdingmeetings every other year, and

thejournalEcologicalPsychologystartedpublicationin1989.Thetheoryofaffordances

expoundedbyJ.J.Gibsonisbyhisownaccount,incomplete(Stendaletal.,2016).Mace

even qualifies it as being a meta-theory requiring further development (1977).

56

Nevertheless,Gibson’s ideashavehadanimpactbeyondhisownareaindiversefields

such as anthropology, archeology, architecture, complex systems, design, ethnology,

film, musical performance, musical appreciation, philosophy and sociology (Gibson,

1988:xxvii-xxviii).

2.3.2 UptakebeyondEcologicalPsychology

It is inparticularGibson’sconceptofaffordancewhichhasfounduptakefarandwide.

This is largelycreditedtoDonaldNorman’sbook ‘ThePsychologyofEverydayThings’

(1988)whichexamines the relationshipbetween the subjectand theobject indesign.

Norman’swork is verymuch focused on how the design of everyday objects such as

kettles, door handles and all appliances with buttons depend on the principle of

affordanceandhowusersoftheseobjectsintuitivelyappropriatethemin-use.Norman

appliesGibson’secologicalpsychologytotheengineeringofeverydayuseoftechnology.

Betterdesignof technology leads tobetteroutcomes is thepremiseofNorman’sbook

and it has been particularly influential in the interactive design community (Gibson,

1988).Asistobeexpected,Normanandotherresearcherseitherskewordepartfrom

Gibson’s original notion of affordance in order to fulfil their objectives. For example,

accordingtoSiegert,Norman“distinguishesrealaffordances(features,properties)and

perceived affordances” (2015: 49), which is a conflation of physical properties and

Gibsonianaffordances.InGibson’stheory,affordancescanonlybeperceivedandcannot

be independent of the perceiver. This makes the notion of ‘real’ affordance either

confusing (because it is really just referring to physical properties) or evidence of a

misunderstandingofoneoftheprincipaldifficultiesGibsonwasattemptingtoovercome

withhiswork–thesubject-objectduality.Anothersourceofconfusionistheuseofthe

term‘constraint’inoppositiontoaffordances(Leonardi,2011;Leonardi&Barley,2010;

Majchrzak & Markus, 2012; Norman, 1999: 41; Riccio & Stoffregen, 1988) since

affordance integrates the notion of constraint. If one’s environment calls for a certain

action, and hence perceived affordances, it is by definition constrained since other,

objectivelypossibleactions,arenotperceived.Theseareunfortunatedeparturesfrom

Gibson’soriginalthinkingaswelosemuchofthepowerofthetheorytoovercomethe

subject-object dichotomy. However, Norman’s influence on the social sciences –most

notably in studies of technology – is indisputable. The intense application of Gibson’s

57

affordancesintechnologystudies,suchasergonomicsorhuman-computerinteraction,

has spawned new theoretical insights and practical applications. This shouldn’t be

surprising, as Jenkin’s notes, since it is in these areas that lie the most accessible

illustrationsofaffordance(2008).

As we have just seen, and just like organizational space theory, the tension between

objectandsubjectiseverpresentinapplicationsofaffordancetheory.AccordingtoHeft,

affordanceshavebothobjectiveandsubjectivequalities(1989).Meaningandproperties

are inseparable. Phenomenologically speaking, affordance is a unitary experience

encompassing the perceiver and their environment at a givenmoment. The absolute

subject-object is explicitly rejected by Gibson (Fayard&Weeks, 2014). IanHutchby’s

paper‘Technologies,textsandaffordances’(2001)isapoignantandelegantcalltoavoid

falling into the trap of either technological determinism or radical constructivism by

mobilizing the theory of affordances. Hutchby was responding to a recent and quite

forceful anti-essentialist movement in the sociology of science and technology. He

gracefully countered many of the radical constructivist arguments by re-interpreting

their empirical studieswithaffordance theory. It seemsGibsonprovideda theoretical

escape route for many studying technologies who felt trapped between perspectives

based on realism (artefacts determine the actions of individuals) and those based on

constructivism(individualsandtheirdiscursiveactionsdeterminetherealpropertiesof

artefacts).AlthoughHutchby’scallhasn’tbeenleftunheeded,manyscholarscontinueto

operateatonepointonthespectrumthatisboundedonbothendsbyobjectivismand

subjectivism. AlthoughNorman has somewhat attempted to limit the damage (1999),

the tendency to privilege one over the other is very common in studies mobilizing

affordancetheory,especiallythoseregardingtechnology.

AsGibson’s theory of affordance ismobilized for various investigative aims, a certain

fragmentation intodifferent categoriesand typesofaffordances is inevitable.Wenow

for example have social affordance, cognitive affordance, physical affordance, sensory

affordance and functional affordance (Jenkins, 2008).Much of this typology has been

generated within the human-computer interaction (HCI) design literature. Fayard &

Weeks(2007)seebothGaver(1996)andHutchby(2001)aspavingthewayfortheuse

ofaffordancetheoryinthestudyofsocialinteractionsandattempttodevelopatheory

58

ofsocialaffordancesofinformalinteraction.Althoughsocialaffordancetheoryhasbeen

developed in the HCI design literature, Fayard & Weeks, along with some other

researchers (Van Dijk, Berends, Jelinek, Romme, & Weggeman, 2011) have used

affordancetheoryforthestudyofmateriality(notexclusivelyICT)andsocialinteraction

withinorganizationalsettings.Intheir2007article,Fayard&Weekslookathowcertain

liminal spaces in workplaces afford informal interaction which would otherwise be

difficult. In a later article, Fayard & Weeks (2014) propose to shift the focus from

affordancesoftechnologiestoaffordancesforpractice.Thiscanbeseenasanattemptto

developatheoreticalapparatuswhichhelpsresearchersavoidthetrapoftechnological

determinismand focusing theirstudyexcessivelyon the technologicalartefactsrather

than how these artefacts are used in practice.However, apart from these studies, the

vastmajorityofstudiesmobilizingaffordancetheorytobetterunderstandorganizations

andorganizing,focusontheaffordancesofICT.ItisthereforeprincipallythroughtheIS

fieldthatorganizationtheoryhasbenefittedfromGibson’sideas.

2.3.3 AffordanceinIS

The Gibsonian theory of affordance entered the field of Information Systems through

HCIresearch.Looking forabetterway todesigncomputersorotherdevices, scholars

foundGibson’sideasappealinganduseful.Thepurposeofdesignis,afterall,torender

objects of everyday use as usable as possible. Discussions about Norman’s (1988)

appropriationofaffordanceforthepurposeofdesignhasgeneratedarobusttheoretical

foundationinthedesignliterature,andmorespecificallyinHCIthankstotheeffortsof

WilliamW. Gaver (McGrenere&Ho, 2000). However, as is normally the casewhen a

theoreticalconceptisappropriatedinonefieldbyanotherone,muchcriticismhasbeen

madeabout themanner inwhichGibson’s ideashavebeen interpretedandcirculated

within the HCI literature. Since it is thanks to Norman that the HCI community has

appropriatedGibson’s ideas (Stendal et al., 2016), it is of no surprise that adistinctly

‘Normanperspective’(Faraj&Azad,2012)hastakenrootintheirresearch.Faraj&Azad

are critical of the ‘affordance-is-in-the-object’ view that the ‘Norman perspective’

implies. They see it as reducing Gibson’s ideas to an instrument in determiningwhat

‘good’or‘bad’couldbeandneglectthevariabilityofcontextsandusersfortheobjectin

question.

59

TheconceptofaffordanceisnotwellestablishedintheISliteratureandthereisawide

varietyofinterpretations(Pozzi&al.2014).Hutchby(2001)wasthefirsttoapplythe

concept of affordances to ICT artefacts (Pozzi & al. 2014) in demonstrating the

technological shaping of sociality. However, it is onlymuchmore recently that the IS

communityhasadoptedtheconceptand,therefore,lacksmaturity(Stendaletal.,2016).

AfewreviewsofhowISresearchershavemobilizedtheconcepthavebeenconducted

and all conclude that the concept is in its infancy in how it has been adopted for IS

(Pozzi,Pigni,&Vitari,2014;Stendaletal.,2016).

Many calls for a new approach to overcome the technical-social divide in IS research

have been made, with some specifically calling for the mobilizing of affordance to

address thedeterminismspresent in themore recent literature (Faraj&Azad, 2012).

Specificallyregardingaffordances,manysawtheconceptasawayofbringingbackthe

materialintotheconversation(Bardini,1996;Faraj&Azad,2012).Somealsosawitas

onemanneroftakingasociomaterialperspectiveonstudiesoftechnologyinsocietyor

organizations(Faraj&Azad,2012;Leonardi,2011;Ulmer&Pallud,2014).Beyondthe

overcoming of dichotomies and determinisms, it would make sense to mobilize the

concept of affordances if one seeks to provide materiality – or the Gibsonian

environment–withitsrightfulattentioninanystudyofhowpeopleinteractinsociety

or inorganizations.Theconceptofaffordance itself callsuponour intuitionabout the

non-negligible influence our environment has on our moods, our relationships and

certainlyonhowwegetaround.Thematerialworldcannotbesetasideforthestudyof

anysocialphenomena.

As we have seen in the HCI literature, Gibson’s affordance has undergone much

fragmentation and reinterpretation. The sameprocess is observable in themanner in

whichISscholarshaveappropriatedtheideasfromEcologicalPsychology.Notonlydo

we see n types or levels of affordances emerging, they often endup on either side of

some well-worn dualisms – subjective/objective, structure/agency,

determinism/voluntarism,simple/complexandmaterial/social.Whatisironicisthatin

appropriating Gibson’s ideas, many researchers were seeking to overcome these

historical dichotomies. Frustrated with how other approaches such as duality-of-

60

technology, technology structuration, and technology-in-practice have failed to

overcomethesedichotomies(Faraj&Azad,2012;Leonardi&Barley,2010),ISscholars

haveturnedtowardsaffordancetheoryonlytoreproducetheveryframingstheywere

attemptingtoflee.

Faraj&AzaddeplorethesuperficialdevelopmentofaffordancethatisevidentintheIS

literature(2012).Forexample,Zammutoetal.(2007)proposefivetypesofaffordances

reflecting the features of technology and organizations considered simultaneously,

whichaccordingtoFaraj&Azadsimplyaccountfortechnologyasanexternal forceto

theorganizationand that each is considered tobeadistinct entity characterizedbya

certainsetofproperties.Weareveryfarfromthenotionofaffordanceputforwardby

Gibsonwherethereisaunitycomposedoftheagentandtheenvironmentandbackinto

the subject-object dualism. The vast majority of IS articles either theorizing or

mobilizingaffordance theoryresort tosome formof categorizationwhichnullifies the

unitaryapproachGibsonoriginallyproposed.

Stendal,ThepaandLanamäkihaveproducedanup-to-dateandquiteincisiveliterature

review of the concept of affordance in the IS literature (2016). They raise many

questionswhichrevealtheconfusionaroundtheconceptofaffordancesreigninginIS.

Using a systematicmethod for locating articles based on Boell and Cecez-Kecmanivic

(2014)alongwithWebsterandWatson(2002), theauthors find12articles in theAIS

seniorscholars’basketofjournals.Thefactthatonly12articlesworkingwiththenotion

ofaffordancewerefoundinthetopISjournalsindicateshowemergenttheconceptisin

the field. Furthermore, the authors found that the literature defined affordances as

containing ‘objectwithproperties’, ‘actorswithgoal’, ‘actionpossibilities’, and ‘actor’s

capability’(2016:5274).Weseethattheobject-subjectnexusreappearsandisstronger

than ever. The recurring definitions could also indicate that IS scholars are more

dependentontheHCIliteraturethanEcologicalPsychologyandGibson’soriginalwork

to their understanding of the concept of affordance. There is quite a strong design

orientation to the terminology, and indeedmuchof IS research is concernedwith the

design of information systems in organizations and how to make themmore usable.

Thus,thereviewersfoundthatthemainstreamofISresearchonaffordanceisentitative

(concernedmainlywithentities).Theauthorsalsofoundthatmostofthearticleswere

61

notclearofwhereaffordancewasfoundintheirobjectsofstudy.Theygoontosuggest

thatISresearchersmayattributeanametoanimaginaryaffordanceandthenproceed

withlookingforwhattheyhavemadeup.Theprocessbywhichaffordances‘emerge’is

missing from the research so far according to the authors. Another aspect of the

reviewed literature which didn’t seem to impress the authors was that the reported

affordanceswereallfunctional–thatistosaydefinedasbeingindependentoftheactor.

Theauthorsalsoraiseanumberofquestionsregardingthereviewedliterature;whatis

thepurposeof introducing thenotionof constraints (suchasLeonardi (2011)) if it is

alreadyimpliedinaffordances,andifwearetostickwiththenotionofconstraints,what

is its relationship to affordances? Despite these questions, constraints seems to have

become accepted as the pendant to affordances and we now have ‘Technology

AffordancesandConstraintsTheory’(Majchrzak&Markus,2012).Perhapsthisisdueto

the common understanding of the word affordance as something which allows or

permits rather than constrain. Such common interpretations of affordance would be

quickly remediedbya thoroughunderstandingofGibson’soriginal ideasalongwitha

reviewofhowhisideashaveprogressedintothefieldofISthroughtheHCIliterature.A

readingofYvonneRoger’spaperwouldbeagoodstepinthatdirection(2004).

Perhaps quite representative of the state of confusion is another literature review

writtenbyPozzi,PigniandVitari(2014).TheauthorsalsofollowWebsterandWatson

(2002)intheirmethodology,howeverdon’tspecifyclearlytheirmethodofselectingthe

journals to search for articles for review. They found 25 articles for in-depth review,

which although double the number, is similar in scale to the review performed by

Stendal, Thepa and Lanamäki (2016). Pozzi, Pigni and Vitari include journals from

Management and Organization Studies such as Academy of Management Review and

OrganizationSciencefortheirreview,whereasStendal,ThepaandLanamäkilimittheir

review to the top IS journals.Theconclusion frombothnumberscanonlybe that the

affordancelensisstillinitsearlyyearsinISresearch.Inasurprisingmove,theauthors

choosetousetostructuretheirreviewtheframeworkdevelopedbyBernhard,Recker

and Burton-Jones (2013) investigating affordances in information systems with the

purpose of producing a conceptual processmodel. Thismodelwould be destined for

designers of information systems and therefore have a very design-oriented view of

affordances. Furthermore, this model would not allow Pozzi, Pigni and Vitari to let

62

definitions and concepts emerge from the literature. Instead, the result is a review

classifying the literatureaccording to support for eachof the stages in the conceptual

processmodel.Thismodel,composedofaseriesofconstructsconnectedbyatemporal-

causal relationship, assumes that affordance can be expressed as a process of four

stages:cognition,recognition,behaviorandeffect.Notonlyischaracterizingaffordance

as a four-stage causal chain of events completely incompatible with the original

Gibsonian unitary notion, it describes affordance as the result of a cognitive process

whichispreciselywhatGibsonwastryingtomoveawayfromindevelopinghisconcept.

TheseareradicaldeparturesfromhowaffordanceisdevelopedinEcologicalPsychology

andevenhowthenotionismobilizedintheHCIliterature.Despitethis,noexplanation

orjustificationforthesedeparturesareprovided,andthereforesupporttheobservation

madebyStendal,ThepaandLanamäki(2016)thattheimaginationofscholarsfillsmuch

ofthegapsinthedevelopmentofideasaroundaffordanceinIS.Thereisoneinteresting

detail providedby thePozzi, Pigni andVitari reviewand that is that only8 of the25

reviewedarticleswereempiricalstudiesbasedonprimarydata.This furthersupports

thejudgmentthataffordanceisinitsearlydaysinIS.

Granted the two reviews discussed above are conference papers and not articles

publishedinpeer-reviewedjournals,buttheybothreflect–eachintheirownmanner–

theprevailing lackofdepth inunderstandingofaffordancetheory.Stendal,Thepaand

Lanamäki(2016)makethepointofquestioningthesoundnessof theappropriationof

the notion of affordance inmuch of the IS literature reviewed. Pozzi, Pigni andVitari

(2014)ontheotherhandseemtoreproducethesamelackofdepthinunderstandingas

theliteraturetheyreview.BothareevidencethatmuchworkneedstobedoneinISto

developanunderstandingofaffordancetheoryandofhowithasbeenappropriated–or

misappropriated–inotherfields.Otherwise,theconceptofaffordancerisksbecoming

just a shelldevoidof anyconceptualvigorandusedasa label foralreadyestablished

notions which were in need of a makeover. IS scholars need to also ask themselves

whethertheconceptisappropriateforthestudyofinformationsystems.Kaptelininand

Nardi(2012)judgeGibson’sconceptofaffordancetobeinadequatefortheconceptual

needsofHCI.OthersintheHCIcommunitybelievethattheconceptsoriginsshouldbe

revisited:“Astheconceptofaffordancesisusedcurrently,ithasmarginalvaluebecause

it lacks specific meaning. Returning to a definition close to that of Gibson’s would

63

solidify the concept and would also recognize that designing the utility or functional

purposeisaworthwhileendeavorinitsownright”(McGrenere&Ho,2000:8)or

Thedownsideoftheconceptofaffordancebeingpopularizedinthiswayisthatthe richness and contextual background of the original theory has been lost,making itdifficult toappreciate itssignificanceother thanatasuperficial level.Somemayarguethatthisdoesnotmattersinceithasprovideddesignerswithanew way of thinking and talking about design that they did not have before.However, others would argue that it can distort their way of thinking aboutinteractiondesigntotheextentthatitoverlyconstrainsthewaytheydodesign,assatirizedbyNormaninhisCHI-websitequote.(Rogers,2004:10)

Similar critical reflexivity needs to be injected in the IS literature dealing with

affordancetheory.

In addition to Leonardi’s study of computer simulation technology for automotive

design(2011),whichappearsinbothofthepreviouslydiscussedreviews,thefollowing

empirical studiesmobilizing affordance are of note: Thierry Bardini’s study ofmouse

buttons (1996);Anne-LaureFayardand JohnWeeks’ studyof informal interactions in

photocopierroomsinthreeorganizations(2007);WilliamGaver’sstudyofthephysical

properties of paper and electronic media (1996); and, Galadrielle Ulmer and Jessie

Pallud’sstudyofEnterpriseSocialNetworks(2014).

Leonardi’s study of computer simulation technology for automotive design is of

particular interest since it has provided theoretical contributions to the notion of

technology affordance based on empirical work (Faraj & Azad, 2012). Paul Leonardi

lookedathowengineersintheautomotiveindustrywereaffordedorconstrainedbyICT

intheirdailyroutinesandhowconstraintswereoftenovercomebyadaptingtheICTto

theirneeds(Leonardi2011). Inthisstudy,Leonardidevelopsaconceptual framework

relating the essential properties of ICT with the daily routines – or practices of the

engineers – to analyze how they responded to the affordances on offer from, and

constraintsimposed,bythetechnology.Healsodevelopstheconceptoforganizational

infrastructuresupportingdailyroutines,andhowthesedailyroutinesinturnconstruct

this infrastructure. The key idea in Leonardi’s study is the metaphor of imbrication

between human and material agencies enacted by daily routines. Like Lego bricks,

human and material agencies are distinct but interdependent blocks which can be

conjoined through imbrication. People, by either shifting their daily routines or

64

modifying material and social agencies, will reconfigure the material and social

environmentinasociomaterialflux.Itwillbethroughtheaffordances(andconstraints)

oftheexistingenvironment–orframeworkasLeonardicallsit–thatthesechangeswill

be affected.These changeswill in turnproducenewaffordancesor constraints in the

environment,which inmany caseswill be intended by the users. However, as others

note, Leonardi does not detail how this mechanism works by pointing out how the

existingaffordances (or constraints) emerge in the firstplaceand thenhow theseare

reconstructedtore-emergesoastobeperceivedinthewaythatisintended(Fayard&

Weeks,2014).ThequestionsaskedbyStendal,ThepaandLanamäki(2016)regarding

the introduction of the concept of constraint as a complement to affordance remains

valid. Despite these critiques, Leonardi is one of the few to have produced a

comprehensive framework based on empirical support and therefore allow others to

producetheirowninsightsintoaffordancesoftechnology.ThisiswhyUlmerandPallud

choseLeonardi’sframeworkaspartoftheirsociomaterialapproachtostudyEnterprise

SocialNetworks.

When considering affordances of ICT, there is a significant break fromothermaterial

artefacts in that the form rarely reveals the function through perception (Kallinikos,

2012).Forexample,thefunctionofatoolsuchasahammerorascrewdriverisfarmore

obvious than that of a software. This break between form and function has

phenomenological consequences in that affordance for ICT is perhaps much more

dependent on, say, Bourdieu’s habitus than for other aspects of the environment. So

withuseovertime–perhapsstartingoffwithatrainingcourse–peopledevelophabits

whichmean certain features or properties of ICTmodify the environment and hence

theirperceptionofaffordancesintheenvironment. It isas if therockorthecloudhas

been transposed into theoffice in the formofan ICTartefact– itbecomespartof the

environment and therefore of the affordances perceived by an individual. This

phenomenologicalpointisofimportanceinordertomovebeyondtheissuesidentified

aboveregardingtheinterpretationoftheconceptofaffordance.WhenISscholarsseek

toreturntothematerialintheirstudiesofICTinorganizations,theywilllogicallyfocus

onatechnologicalartefact.Thishasbeencalledforbymanyscholars,especiallythose

advocatingasociomaterialapproachtoISresearch(Orlikowski&Iacono,2001;Weber,

2003).AlthoughthisisanappropriatecallformanytypesofresearchinvestigatingICT

65

in organizations, it is not so for affordance studies unless explicitly departing from

Gibson’s ideas, in which case affordance, as mentioned earlier, becomes an empty

conceptualhusk.Onemightaswelladoptmoreclassicconceptsfromdesignliterature

such as properties and features. Affordance is a holistic concept which requires a

phenomenologicalapproach inorder for it tobeuseful inproducing insights intohow

technology affects organization and the social world more broadly. Affordance

originatesfromecologicalpsychologyforareason–itisallabouttheenvironmentand

those beings which are part of that environment. Whether considering a built up or

naturalenvironment(likeapristineforestorabarrendesert),weperceiveaffordances

aswhollybelongingtoourexperienceinthistotalenvelope.Isolatingaffordancestoone

particular part of the environment – say a sidewalk or a dune–would be obfuscating

everythingelsethatispartoftheexperienceofeitherbeinginacityoradesert.Ifone

walksonthesidewalkorclimbsatopadune,itisnotasiftheseactsandentitiesexistin

avacuumorinisolation,butarepartofatotalexperience.Walkingonasidewalkina

deserted city – apart from pure habit – would seem bizarre. When city streets are

pedestrianized for festivalsorotherevents,mostwalkers feel thestreetoffers thema

freedomandspacewhichthesidewalkdoesn’toffer.WhenaTuaregnomadclimbsupa

dune, he does so with the awareness that there will be an unobstructed view of the

surroundingsonceatthetop.The‘walkability’ofthesidewalkor‘lookoutability’ofthe

dunearecompletelydependentonthesurroundingphysicalenvironment–inthecase

ofthedune,thiscouldbetherelativeheightofsurroundingdunes,whetheritisdaytime

ornight,whetherthereisasandstormornot,whetherthereisariskofquicksand,etc.

Alsointhecaseofthedune,thesecouldbecoupledwithsocialfactorssuchaswhether

anenemylurksbehindtheduneorwhetheronlytheeldestof thegroupisallowedto

climbthedune.Allofthesewillhaveacontributiontotheaffordanceperceivedbythe

individualmovingwithin this environment, ofwhich he or she is a part of. Although

investigation of affordance in the IS literature have considered contextual factors for

their study, they are almost always exclusively focused on the social and take the

physicalastheartefactinisolation.ItisforthisreasonthatISstudiesofaffordanceneed

to consider how ICT affects the environment and hence the affordance perceived by

thosemovingwithin this environment. Isolating the ICT artefact from the rest of the

physical environment impoverishes any insights andmake them less transposable to

otherareasofstudy.Unfortunately,thehistoryoftheISfieldalongwiththerecentcalls

66

for a material turn have pushed researchers into narrowing their focus onto objects

whichareinrealitypartofawider‘infrastructure’whichcomposesone’senvironment.

AcallforaphenomenologicalorholisticapproachcomesfromTurner(2005)intheHCI

literature,butdoesn’tseemtohaveresonatedintheIScommunity.Turnerremindsus

thataffordance,useandcontextareone.Hegoesontosuggestthatforthepurposeof

design, itmaybebettertoconceptualizeaffordanceasaboundaryobjectbetweenuse

anddesignforuse.

Sincewe are interested in organizational space for this study, it is interesting tonote

that the concept of affordances has already been used for spatial considerations in

previous studies in theHCI literature (Gaver, 1991). In his paper, Gaver develops the

twinnotions of sequential affordances andnested affordances. Sequential affordances

“explainhowaffordances canbe revealedover time” andnested affordancesdescribe

affordances that are “grouped in space” (1991: 82). The idea of considering how

affordancesaregroupedinspaceisastepinthedirectioncalledbyTurner(2005).

Although,notresponding to thecallbyTurner(2005) foramoreholisticapproach to

the study of affordance, some IS research attempts to provide a more balanced

framework.ThisiswhatFayard&WeeksproposeinAffordancesforPractice(2014)by

taking intoaccountsocialaffordancesalongsidetechnologicalones inorder toavoida

deterministicapproach.Intheirview,practicesinorganizationsareunderpinnedbythe

range of social and technological affordances offered to actors by the environment.

Thesesetsofaffordancesaredescribedasaffordancesforpractice.

Aswehaveseen,theconceptofaffordancehasnotonlybeendevelopedintermsofthe

possibilities offered by the interaction an actor haswith the environment, it has also

beendescribed intermsofconstraints(or limitationofpossibilities).Theresultof the

actor-environment interactionthereforecanresult inconstrainingaction justaseasily

as affording it. If we are to accept affordance rooted in essential properties of the

environment,thesameessentialpropertiescanleadtoconstraint.Inthesamewaythat

Fayard&Weeks(2014)entangle thesocialand technological, constraint isdependent

on the social context as much as affordance. Although the explicit consideration of

67

constraints as the other side of the same coin as affordances is limited to psychology

(Ricio & Stoffregen 1988), it is frequently presented as its pendant in more recent

literature in InformationSystems,OrganizationalStudiesandManagement(Majchrzak

&Markus2012).Affordanceandconstraintarethereforeconceptuallytheresultofthe

samesituatedinteractionbetweenactorandenvironment.Withthisview,theconcept

ofaffordanceincorporatesbothpossibilitiesandconstraintsatthesamelevel.

68

Inset4:MakingthelinkbetweenGibsonianaffordancesandICTwithdistraction?

A television advertisement shows a sequence of apparently headless and armless peoplefrombehindastheywalkinthestreet.Whatisthisadvertisementfor?Seemsabitcreepyatfirst.Intheendthough,theheadsandarmspoprightoutandwerealizethattheyhavebeenbusyontheirmobilesthewholetime.Suchascenariodoesn’tendupbeingcreepyatallforacontemporaryaudience.Theexperienceofhavingtowalkwithpeopleabsorbedbythetinyscreens of their mobiles is almost a daily occurrence. We end up doing it ourselves. Ourperceptionsofspaceandourmovementthroughitarealteredaswetrytosplitourattentionbetweenanewmessageandtryingnotto(embarrassingly)walkintoothersoralamppost.Wherearewewhenthishappens?Whathappenstoourembodiedpresence?Arewethereinthestreetoroutthereincyberspace?Coulditbebothatthesametime?There seems to be a lot more going on here than what happens when one loses sensoryawarenessofsurroundingsbylisteningtomusicorreadingabook.Whenlisteningtomusicinpublic,wearesomewhatisolatingourselvesfromtheaudibleenvironment.Thiscouldbetheaim,butoftenitisbecauselisteningtomusicisenjoyable,especiallywhenitcanbedoneanytimeandanywhere.Ontopofmakingthelistenerunawareoftheaudiblesurroundings–which can prove to be dangerous in the urban environment – they are in part sociallyisolated.Althoughvisualinteractionremainspossible,apersonwithapairofheadphonesintheir earswill likely be seen as unapproachable for spontaneous conversation. Perceptionand experience of space by the listener and those around (others may steer clear whilewalkingbehindbecause thepersoncan’thear footsteps or sit furtherawaybecause of thedisturbancecausedbythevolumeofthemusic)ismodifiedbytheuseofthelisteningdevice(Tuan,1977).Abook(includingelectronicones)engagesthereaderinacompletelydifferentmanner.Itneedstobeheldandrequiressustainedfocus.Readingismuchmorecognitivelyintensive than listening tomusicandwilldivert thereader’sattentionaway frommuchofwhat is happening in their surroundings. This is perhaps why it is more common to seepeople listening to musicwhilewalking rather than concentrating on a book. A book alsoallows the reader to engagewith itwhen it is convenient and not toodistracting. Perhapswhensittingonacommutertrainoratbedtime.Regardlessofhowabsorbingabookcanbe,itwillneverringorvibrateforattention.Thesameappliestobasicportablepersonalmusicplayers.Mobile phones, along with other mobile connected devices, are a different kettle of fishaltogetherwhencompared totheaboveexamples.Twokeydifferencescanbenoted.First,mobile connected devices have the ability to interrupt. Calls, reminders andmessages canpopupatanymomentanddemandtheuser’sattention.Second,andrelatedtothefirstone,theydemandamuchhigherintensityofengagementfromtheuserthanabookforexample.These two differences stem from the intensity of interaction offered by mobile connecteddevices– interactionswithotherswho are normallynotco-located.This is something thatneverexistedbeforeonsuchamassivescale.WhenonacallwithsomeoneoveramobileortextingviaSMSor socialmedia,attention to theconversationcannoteasilybecoordinatedwith what the immediate surroundings impose upon the user. As a result of design(manufacturers,operatorsandbusinessesareclamoringforattentiontomakeaprofit)usersareconstantlybombardedwithalertsandmessages.Theveryhumandesiretostayintouchwithothers(especiallywhenfastresponsesareexpected)willmeanthatmostinterruptionswill at least be given some consideration. Is it someone I want to hear from? Is it animportantdocument?Evenwhennothingischiming,theywillregularlychecktheirdeviceincaseanythinghasbeenmissed.Chatting(online)withothers(especiallywhensittingnexttoeachother)isagreatwaytobeatboredomduringapresentation.Mobileconnecteddevicespullone’sattentionawayfromtheimmediateembodiedphysical spaceandtransportthemtoanotherspace–cyberspace.

69

2.4 TheoreticalFramework

Thischapterrequiressomeexplanation.Asmentionedintheintroduction,thischapter

wouldhavebeenexpectedintheResearchDesignsection.However,giventheconstant

evolutionintheconceptualmodelduringthestudy,Ithoughtitwouldbeappropriateto

tell the story of this theoretical journey from within the Theory section. Before

embarking on this journey, it would be beneficial to have an idea of the planned

itinerary.

As with many qualitative research undertakings, the development of the theoretical

framework followed a non-linear iterative process. Given that there was very little

theorizingoftherelationshipbetweenICTandorganizationalspaceintheliterature,it

wasmostsensibletostartwitheitheracompletelygroundedinductiveapproachoran

abductiveone.Intheabductiveapproach,onecouldstartoffwithsomeintuitionsbased

on existing theorizing in the literature regarding both organizational space and

informationsystems(Alvesson&Sköldberg,2009).

According to Silverman (2008), a researcher needs theory in order to critically

understandthephenomenatheyarestudyingandorganizeaccumulatedknowledge.He

cites Strauss and Corbin 'Theory consists of plausible relationships produced among

concepts and sets of concepts' (1994: 278) in making the point that without these

concepts and interrelationships, the cumulative scientific approach to understanding

our social world is impossible. At a more practical level, theory also serves as a

sensitizingdevice(Walsham1995)intheundertakingof fieldworkforthestudy.With

thesetwoprinciplesinmind,wecandevelopatheoreticalframeworkforstudyingthe

relationshipbetweenICTandorganizationalspace.

The process of theorizing was in reality experienced in two broad phases, each

corresponding to the two phases of data collection in the field. The details regarding

datacollectionwillbecoveredintheResearchDesignsection–thephasesarelabelled

exploratoryandintensive,buttheycorrespondtodiscoveryandexploratoryasdefined

byBenbasat,GoldsteinandMead(1987).Thelabelsgiventoeachphaseofthisproject

aremorereflectiveofthemannerinwhichtheresearchplayedoutineachphase.Each

70

ofthesephaseswouldalsobedividedintotwosubphasescorrespondingtothestageof

evolution of the theoretical framework and progress in fieldwork. The framework at

each phase and subphase are now exposed along with some explanation of how

fieldworkprovidedsupportforintuitionsornewelementstohelpinthedevelopmentof

theframework.Thefinaltheoreticalframeworkwillbepresentedinthediscussionafter

thefindingssection.

Althoughastudyonspatialpracticesoftheworkadayinthecontextofglobalizationand

changecannot ignore temporality, I explicitlyput considerationsof temporality to the

sideinordernottoincreasethecomplexityofthetheoreticalmodel.Instead,Iwilltake

aninductiveapproachtotemporalityinthisresearchbylettingthisdimensionmanifest

itself in thedata and analysis. This is inevitable given that any examinationof spatial

practiceswillyieldinsightsintothetemporalityofsuchpractices.Thereverseisequally

valid. Temporality will therefore be looked at, in relation to spatial practices, in the

discussionsection.

2.4.1 Phase1:Exploratory

Intheexploratoryphase,theframeworkstartedoffwiththemostrobustandaccepted

theory for organizational space – Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space

(1991).Theframeworkonlyslightlychangedafteradditionalliteraturereviewanddata

collection.Intheexploratoryphase,thetheorizationofICTismuchlessdevelopedthan

intheintensivephase.Eachsubphaseoftheexploratoryphaseispresentedbelow.

2.4.1.1 Subphase1.1:Discoveringwhatspacemeansfordifferentactors inthebusinessschoolenvironment

In this subphase, the approach was very grounded given that no model had been

developedorevolvedfromtheliteraturereviewconducteduptothatpointintime.The

only strong theoretical element is a goodunderstandingofHenri Lefebvre’s theoryof

theproductionofspace(1991).Thiswasbasedonanintuitionthatthistheorywasthe

most promising, along with the fact that it was the most prevalent in studies of

organizational space. Unfortunately, theorizing ICT with Lefebvre’s ideas proved

difficultespeciallysincefewstudies inISeverconsiderorganizationalspaceexplicitly,

71

letalonemobilizeLefebvrianideas.Therefore,onlysomevagueLefebvriannotionssuch

asspatialpracticesandappropriation/reappropriationofspacewereusedtoapproach

thefield.Noresearchquestionhadbeendevelopedatthisstage.

Although a theory of social practices has been developed by sociologists such as

Bourdieu(1980)ordeCerteau(1990),andapractice-basedperspectivehasbeentaken

up by many research streams in Management and Organizational Studies (Brown &

Duguid,2001;Geilinger,Haefliger,vonKrogh,&Rechsteiner,2016;Vendeløetal.,2010;

Whittington,2003),thestudyofspatialpracticesinorganizationshasremainedlimited

for many years. This is despite the fact that spatial practices are generative of

organizational space and that all evidence points to the importance of space in the

organizing process. Henri Lefebvre’s theory on the production of space provides the

most useful (and used) conception of spatial practices (1991). According to him, a

spatialpracticeallowsamemberofsocietytoconnectdailyroutineswiththenetwork

composedofplacesandroutesmakinguptherealityofurbanlife.Itisapractice(within

theperceivedspaceofhistriad)simultaneouslyshapingspaceandshapedbyspace.Itis

theperceptionofspacethatdetermineshowthesedailyroutinesevolveandeventually

structuredailylifeandsocialreality.

2.4.1.2 Subphase1.2:UnderstandingspatialpracticesinthecontextofabusinessschoolInthissubphase,atheoreticalmodelstartedtoemergeafterhavingconsideredthedata

collectedinsubphase1tobetterunderstandhowLefebvre’stheoryoftheproductionof

spacecanbemobilized for thestudy.The theoreticalmodeldevelopedat this stage is

theresultofadeeperunderstandingofLefebvre’sworkmorethannewdiscoveries in

the literature.Unfortunately, ICT remaineddifficult to theorize,however themodel at

thisstageattemptstoputitatthecenteroftheframework.Theresearchquestionatthis

stage is: How do ICTs and spatial practices shape each other in a higher education

setting?

The basis for staying with Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space lied in its

appropriatenessforthephenomenonunderinvestigation–theongoingmutualshaping

of ICT and organizational space – along with its established status in organizational

spacestudies(Clegg&Kornberger,2006;Dale&Burrell,2007),includingthosefocused

72

onhighereducation(Apple,Ball,&Gandin,2010;Gulson&Symes,2007).However,no

empiricalstudyoforganizationalspaceexplicitlyusing thissortof frameworkhadyet

beenlocated.

Aswehaveseen,Lefebvre’stheoryoftheproductionofspaceiscomplex,however,for

the purposes of developing the proposed conceptual framework, it was necessary to

expandonekeyidea.MuchlikeGiddens’structurationtheory(1984),theproductionof

spaceisarecursiveprocesswheretheexistingstructureofsocialspaceconcomitantly

restrictsandenablesaction toeitherconserveorchange theexistingstructures. This

cyclicalprocessisdrivenbyaseriesofactionscalledspatialpractices.Spatialpractices

aresocialpracticeswhichareoftentakenforgrantedbutshapethespacewelive in–

openingandclosingadrawer,walkingandnotsittinginanofficehallway,orhanginga

picture at eye-level are just a few mundane examples. The practice of convening

students into an amphitheater at an appointed time for lectures is an example of a

spatialpracticeinauniversityenvironment.Spatialpracticesaretheanimatingforceof

theworldwe live in on a daily basis according to Lefebvre’s theory. One shapes the

spaceoftheinteriorofabuildingbysimplywalkingthroughit.Spatialpracticesyielda

space that then shapes these very practices and so forth. This is the core of the

proposedframework. SinceICTneedstobeintegratedintothisframeworkinrelation

to spatial practices, it will need to be considered as being constituting of spatial

practiceswhilstatsametimeasbeingconstitutedofspatialpractices.Essentially,they

are both embedded in each other. The resulting framework can be represented

schematicallyasseeninFigure2.

73

Figure2–FrameworkrelatingICTwithspatialpractices(Author)

Spatialpracticesarekeyfortheproposedconceptualframework.Inordertocodeand

give sense to these spatial practices, Lefebvre’s theory provides a set of associated

spatial concepts mainly in the form of dialectics and triplicities such as

perceived/conceived/livedspaceorinclusion/exclusion.

In alignmentwith the proposed conceptual framework, the objects of studywill be a

pairingbetweenasetofspatialpractices(withinabuilding)andasetofassociatedICT

artefacts(seeFigure3).

Figure3–ParingbetweenspatialpracticesandICT(Author)

2.4.2 Phase2:Intensive

Attheendoftheexploratoryphase,enoughconfidencewasgainedaboutthenatureof

theobjectof study– spatialpracticesof academics inbusiness schools– todevelopa

more detailed and supported framework. The exploratory phase also provided some

timetomakediscoveriesintheliteratureandlocatenewtheoriesthatwouldallowfor

theintegrationofICTintothemodelbasedonLefebvre’sspatialpractices.Theintensive

Space&

Space&

Space&

Space&

Space&

ICT&

Spa*al&

Prac*ce&Spa*al&

Prac*ce&

Spa*al&

Prac*ce&

Spa*al&

Prac*ce&

Spa*al&

Prac*ce&

ICT$and$Spa*al$Prac*ces$

embedded$in$each$other$

74

phasewouldproducethemostintermsofdatacollectedandthetheoreticalframework

developedwouldallow foramuchmorestandardizedandsystematiccollectionwhen

comparedtoPhase1.

2.4.2.1 Subphase2.1:ExaminingspatialpracticesinrelationtoaffordancesofICTAfterhavingbeenbereftofanytheoreticalbasistointegrateICTintoLefebvre’stheory

of the production of space in Phase 1, the discovery of Leonardi’s study of computer

simulation technology for automotive design (2011) seemed to provide the missing

pieceofthepuzzle,establishingaconceptuallinkbetweenspatialpracticesandICT.The

puzzlepieceprovidedbyLeonardiwastheconceptofaffordance.Wehavereviewedthe

literature on both organizational space and the notion of affordance in information

systemsandshould thereforebeable todevelopa framework that isgrounded in the

extantliteratureandwhichwouldallowthisstudytomakeatheoreticalcontributionto

bothliteratures.Theresearchquestionatthisstageis:HowdoesICTaffordthespatial

practicesoforganizations?Theframeworkdevelopedatthispointisusedfortherestof

the study for data collection. The research question mobilizes two main concepts –

affordance of ICT and spatial practices in organizations – and seeks to study the

relationshipbetweenthetwo.

As seen in the literature review,many studiesmobilize Lefebvre’s spatial triadwhen

examining organizational space. However, few actually focus on the daily routines in

detail.Itisatthislevelthattheprocessoftheconstitutionofspacecanbebrokendown

into well-defined and organizational parts. Despite this gap in knowledge of spatial

practices inorganizations,manystudiesonsocialpractices,morebroadly,exist in the

literature.

AccordingtotheLefebvrianworldview,spatialpracticeshaveaphenomenologicalbasis

centeredon thehumanbody. Thegeometricandmechanicalproperties– thespecific

mannerinwhichourorgans,bonesandjointsareputtogether–determinethescopeof

possibilities for spatial practices. Walking and sitting are some of the basic spatial

practicesmadepossiblebyourbodiesandalsosharedwithourprimatecousins.More

evolvedandcomplexspatialpracticessuchasopeningandclosingdrawers,sittingata

dinnertabletoeatorjusttypingawayonakeyboardarejustasmuchbasedonthebasic

75

propertiesofthehumanbodyassittingandwalking.Spatialpracticesaresotakenfor

granted, it almost seems ludicrous to conceptualize them.Sittingat adeskorwalking

into a shop are all spatial practices which seem like obvious and inevitable ways of

spatiallyorganizing thewidevarietyofhumanactivityof our contemporary societies.

However, as Lefebvre and others point out (Marrewijk& Yanow, 2010), these spatial

practices are the result of a combination of what our bodies and the physical

environment afford along with a historically contingent social process ensuring one

practicebecomesinstitutionalizedwhilealternativesdon’t.Whysitatadiningtableto

eat when one can sit on the floor? AnyWesterner not ever having been invited to a

traditional(otenrural)familyhomeinIndiawillfindsuchaquestionquitestrange.That

isbecausespatialpracticesaretheresultofsocialprocessesthatbecomesoembedded

indailyroutinesovertime,thatquestioningthembecomesunusual.Itisthistaken-for-

granted aspect of spatial practices that makes their study so challenging and yet

incredibly fascinating. Our focus will be on the relationship between these spatial

practicesandtheaffordancesofICT.

Inordertoconceptualizetherelationshipbetweenspatialpracticesandtheaffordances

ofICT,Leonardi’sstudyofcomputersimulationtechnologyforautomotivedesignseems

appropriate. By adding a Lefebvrian ‘twist’ to Leonardi’s framework,we can focus on

spatial practices (as part of daily routines) and equally narrow infrastructure to

organizational space. The resulting theoretical framework can then be visualized in

Figure 4. The illustration reflects a process in the ongoing interaction between the

essentialpropertiesofICTandthespatialpracticesofactorsinorganizationalsettings.

76

Figure4–TheoreticalframeworkbasedonLeonardi(2011)(Author)

Leonardi (2011) provides two major contributions useful for this study. Firstly, he

firmly establishes, based on the literature, the proposition that there is a strong

relationship between ICT and organizational routines. Secondly, he proceeds with

developing this relationship based on the notions of affordance, constraint and the

imbricationofhumanandmaterialagencies.Theorganizationalroutines inLeonardi’s

studycanbeconsideredtobepartofspatialpractices.Sincetherelationshipbetween

organizationalroutinesandICTcanbeconceptualized,socantherelationshipbetween

spatial practices and ICT. In order to do this, we will need to adapt Leonardi’s

framework.

In his study, Leonardi focuses on the imbrication of human andmaterial agency, and

howthiseffectschangeeitheronorganizationalroutinesortechnologyovertime.The

mannerinwhichtheimbricationtakesplaceisdeterminedbytheperceptionbyhuman

agentsofwhatisafforded(orconstrained)byeitherexistingorganizationalroutinesor

technology.Althoughequalconsiderationisgiventotheaffordances(orconstraints)of

organizational routines and technologies, Leonardi’s framework and study focus on

technology.

Although never making any specific references to organizational space, Leonardi’s

framework lends itself very easily to a study of organizational space using Gibson’s

77

conceptofaffordance.Leonardimakesthepointthatitistheperceptionofaffordances

offeredbytechnologythatisofinterestratherthananyessentialpropertysincewhatis

enactedasanaffordancedependsontheperceptionofthehumanagent.Thisisidentical

toLefebvre’sconceptofperceivedspaceaspartofhistheoreticaltriad.

In this framework,wedefineaffordanceas therangeofpossibilitiesorconstraintson

organizational practices resulting from the interaction between a situated actor and

essentialpropertiesofICT.AlthoughthismayseemtofollowthedeterminismFayard&

Weeks try to address (2014), the taking into account of the situatedness of the

organizational actor should ensure that social affordances (or constraints) are not

negated.This thereforemakes itpossible to isolateaffordances(orconstraints)of ICT

forthepurposeofaddressingtheresearchquestionstatedabove.

2.4.2.2 Subphase2.2:LookingataffordancesofICTforspatialpracticesInthissubphase,forwhichtheoreticaldevelopmentoccurredinrealityaftertheendof

thedatacollection,thediscoveryofFayardandWeeks’paper“Affordanceforpractices”

(2014)waswelcomesinceitprovidedtheconceptualtoolsforaddressingmanyofthe

weaknesses of the framework based on Leonardi’s work on computer simulation

technology for automotive design (2011). Leonardi’s focus on routines instead of

practices made the theoretical link between affordances of ICT and spatial practices

tenuous.Thispresentedmanyproblemsinsubphase2.1sincethesubstitutionofspatial

practicesforroutineswouldn’tquiteworkontologically.Althoughapracticecanbecome

routine–theyareverydifferentconceptsandthe literatureconfirmsthis.This iswhy

Fayard & Weeks’ focus on affordances for practice provided an appropriate

conceptualization of the link between affordances and practices. Although the

theoretical insights offered by Fayard andWeekswere not used for the collection of

data,itwaskeptasaresourceforthecodingandanalysis,shoulditberequired.

Theresultoftheactor-environmentinteractioncanresultinconstrainingactionjustas

easilyasaffordingit.Ifwearetoacceptaffordancerootedinessentialpropertiesofthe

environment,thesameessentialpropertiescanleadtoconstraint.Inthesamewaythat

Fayard&Weeks(2014)entangle thesocialand technological, constraint isdependent

78

on the social context as much as affordance. Although the explicit consideration of

constraints as the other side of the same coin as affordances is limited to psychology

(Riccio & Stoffregen, 1988), it is frequently presented as its pendant in more recent

literature in InformationSystems,OrganizationalStudiesandManagement(Majchrzak

&Markus,2012).Affordanceandconstraintarethereforeconceptuallytheresultofthe

same situated interaction between actor and environment. The concept of affordance

canincorporatebothpossibilitiesandconstraintsatthesamelevel.Acriticaldrawback

of this approach to ICT affordances and constraints within specific organizational

contextsisthatitcanleadtomyriadpossibleinterpretationsandthepotentiallyendless

processof identificationofessentialpropertiesof technologywithspecificaffordances

orconstraintsforagivenorganizationalcontext(Fayard&Weeks,2014).

ToaddresstheaforementioneddrawbacktothemostprevalentuseofaffordanceinIS

research, Fayard&Weeks propose in Affordances for Practice (2014) the taking into

account of social and symbolic structures alongside technological and material

affordances in order to avoid a deterministic approach. In their view, affordances are

generated inpracticebyboth thesocialandphysicalconstructionof technologyalong

withthematerialenvironment.Thesesetsofaffordancesaredescribedasaffordances

for practice. In other words, affordances become only relevant in organizational

contextswhen they can bemobilized for specific practices such as communicating or

collaborating.Itbecomesunnecessarytoexhaustivelyresearchallthepossiblemanners

withwhichtheaffordancesofaspecifictechnologicalartefactcouldbeinterpretedand

leveragedinanorganization.Affordancesareinsteadlookedatthroughthepracticelens

and the starting point is a specific organizational practice. For example, should the

practiceinquestionbemeetings,aprojectorwillonlybeconsideredintermsofwhatit

affords to the practice of meeting and not what it would afford a personwanting to

watch filmson theirown.The samecanbe saidof thematerial environment– in this

case the chairs, tables and walls will be considered with a meeting in mind and not

interviewing candidates for jobs for example. When considering affordances of

technology,Fayard&Weeksnotethatitisjustasmuchaboutthephysicalpropertiesas

the social conventions associated with an artefact. It is easily conceivable that it is

sociallyacceptableforthemeetingroomprojectortobeonlyusedfortheprojectionof

presentations or even films and not as a form of lighting or heating. This sort of use

79

would likely not enter theminds of those coming across the artefact given how it is

sociallyconstructedasameanstoprojectimagesonascreenorawall.Inanycase,the

analysisshouldbeboundedtoaspecificorganizationalpractice,and inthis instancea

specific spatial practicewhich is ameeting. The authors augment their framework to

include social and symbolic structures as social affordances bymobilizing Bourdieu's

notion of habitus. These social affordances are reflected bywhat is considered to be

socially acceptable inaparticular situation,witha certain setof artefacts andagiven

group of individuals – in otherwords a specific organizational practice (Czarniawska,

2016).Thesocialaffordancesassociatedwithanexecutiveboardmeetingwilllikelybe

divergent from the social affordances associated with a union meeting in a given

organization.Thehabitusofboardmembersandunionmembersarenotthesameand

result in a different set of social affordances for a given organizational practice. In

combiningmaterialwith social affordances, Fayard&Weeks propose a sociomaterial

entanglementwhichproducesaframeworkfortheanalysisofaffordancesforpractice.

ThisentanglementisrepresentedinFigure5below.

Figure5–Entanglementbetweensocialandtechnologicalaffordances(Author)

TheframeworkinFigure5canbethebasisofanypractice-basedstudyofaffordancesin

an organization. The material and the social are clearly conceptualized and hence

analyticalcodesandcategoriescanbedelineatedforaspecificpracticeunderstudy.For

example, for the practice of boardmeetings in a specific organization, one can collect

data regarding the habitus of board members and note those affordances that are

specifictoboardmeetings(forexampleobserveanumberofboardmeetingsconducted

over a certain period). Technological and social affordancesmay get intertwined and

80

produce sociomaterial affordances which are associated to a specific situated

organizationalpractice.

As the example of the organizational practice of meetings suggest, the spatial

implicationsofICTaffordancesareever-present.Adaptingtheframeworkproposedby

Fayard & Weeks (2014) for the study of the spatial dimensions of ICT affordances

requirestheanalysistofocusonthespatialimplications–anythinghavinganimpacton

thebodiesof individuals and theirmovementaspartof anorganizationalpractice. In

thecaseofameeting,dothetechnologiesinpracticefacilitatestandingorsitting?How

are the affordances interpreted inpractice?Howdoes this vary according tohabitus?

Whatimpactonthematerialenvironment?

To help understand the manner in which ICT affordances in practice help shape

organizationalpracticesandinturnbeshapedthemselvesbythesesamepractices,the

riparianmetaphorisborrowedfromDale&Burrell(2007).Habitus(socialaffordances)

and technological affordancesmake-up an imaginary landscapewhere habitus can be

thepeaksandvalleys,whilethetechnologicalaffordancesarethedownwardslopes.The

organizationalpracticesareliketheflowingwaterofriversandfollowthepathofleast

resistancethroughthe landscapeofhabitusandaffordances.Astheflowsbedintothe

landscape, theystabilizeandbecomepartof the landscape itself.However, the flowof

the rivermayat somepointpushon theaffordanceorhabitus toyield to its forceor

adapttoachangeinaffordanceorhabitusandchangethecourseofthewaterandhence

modify the landscape. The push would correspond to the actions of individuals in

changing the organizational practice (for example by insisting on standing meetings

insteadofsittingmeetings)andchangesinaffordanceorhabituscanhappenwhennew

technologiesareintroducedorsocialchangeoccursintheorganization(hiringofanew

cohortofrecruitsforexample).Theriparianmetaphorispowerful inthat itcaneasily

transposewhat occurs in the natural landscape to the organizational setting – and to

organizational space in particular. Just like flow of the river (practices) and the

landscape (habitus and affordances) shape each other, organizational space changes

overtime.TheriparianmetaphorisrepresentedinFigure6below.

81

Figure6–Riparianmetaphorforaffordance,habitusandpractice(Author)

Thepracticebasedapproachtostudyingthemutuallyconstitutiverelationshipbetween

ICT and organizational space presented above is based on the reality of the dynamic

nature of organizational life and at the same time avoids the determinism or

voluntarismofmoretraditionalapproaches(forexampleusingessentialistconceptions

oftechnologicalaffordances).Organizationalpracticesareaffordedbythesociomaterial

dynamicsoftheircontext.Organizationalspaceispartofthesedynamicsandisinturn

shapedbytheresultingpractices.HoweverwhenapplyingaframeworksuchasFayard

& Weeks (2014) to the study of organizational space and ICT, it is difficult not to

eventually fall into the trap of determinism since the affordances of technologies are

conceptualized as perceived by individuals. In order to detect these perceptions, a

researcherisobligedtoeitherasktheindividualhowtheyperceiveaffordancesorinfer

basedinobservationofothers'actionsandone'sownexperienceinsimilarcontexts.A

morephenomenologicalapproachbasedonMerleau-Ponty'sbodyschema(1976)which

would observe bodily interactionswith ICT artefacts and organizational spacewould

avoidthepitfallsofobjectifyingtheartefactsororganizationalspaceandfalling intoa

material determinism based on the classic assumptionswe are trying to avoid in the

firstplace.

Althoughthisframeworkwasnotusedfordatacollection,ithelpedintheanalysisofthe

datacollectedfortheintensivephase.TheinsightintoMerleau-Pontywouldprovetobe

decisive.

82

3 ResearchDesign

Aswithmostresearchprojects,thisundertakinghasbeenajourneyonalongwinding

roadwithmanysteephills,stalls,pausesandoccasionallyaU-turn.Ithasn’tfolloweda

linearpaththatisoftensuggestedbyorthodoxtextsonresearchmethodologywherea

literature review is performed, an interesting gap in the knowledge identified, a

research question formulated, a case identified, design developed, data collected,

analysisperformedandeventuallyadocumentwrittenup.Inreality,thisprojectstarted

withsomeintuitionsandwasfuelledbycuriosity,asexplainedintheintroduction.This

non-linearpathhasimplicationsforresearchdesignandmethodologyforthestudy.

A research design is the overall strategy to logically and coherently pull together the

variouscomponentsofastudyensuringtheresearchquestioniseffectivelyaddressed.It

canbelikenedtoablueprintforthecollection,measurement,andanalysisofdata(De

Vaus & de Vaus, 2001). The logic and flow of the design follows Silverman's (2008)

nomenclature forbasic terms in research (Ch.2). Itwill consistof the following three

sections: Overall Research Model, Research Object(s), Methodology, and Case

Description.Abriefdescriptionofeachphaseoffieldworkisalsodescribed.

3.1 OverallResearchModel

As mentioned in the General Introduction, this study didn’t start off with any set

epistemological stance. Although theoretical inspiration was drawn from Marxist

thinkerHenriLefebvre(1974),thestudywasnevermotivatedbyaninterestinpower

relationsorspatialemancipation.ThereasonforthechoiceinLefebvreissimplydueto

hisun-paralleled status as the space theorist of reference in the literature. This study

wasrathermotivatedbycuriosityaboutthemysteryofICTandspace,aswesawinthe

General Introduction,without an agendaother thandiscovery.This is reflected in the

travelling narrative that I have chosen to adopt for this dissertation. The overall

researchmodel, therefore, is perhapsmore easily described as grounded. It must be

madeclearthatwhatismeantbygroundedisnotGroundedTheory(Glaser&Strauss,

1967), but rather a relatively neutral stance with regards to commitment to broad

paradigms.Suchastanceseemedtobealuxuryatthebeginningofthisstudy,giventhe

under-theorizednatureoftherelationshipbetweenorganizationalspaceandICT.That

83

said, those paradigms, ontologies and epistemologies which I find unsuitable or

inappropriate for this study are clear. A logical positivistic approach to the study of

organizational space would only re-inforce its obscurity. Conceptualizing space as

distance,asTaylor&Spicershowmostoftheliteraturedoing(2007),woulddisqualify

anyotherinsightsuchasexperienceasinvalidorsubjective.Itisthisveryexperienceof

space, as Lefebvre reminds us, that pushes us tomove in a certainmanner. Physical

spacewill be important in shaping thismovement, however, notnecessarily themost

important.Taylor&Spicer’sliteraturereviewshowusthatexperienceisconsideredto

becentralforthestudyoforganizationalspace.However,giventheliteraturereviewin

this study hasn’t yielded a corpus of research on the relationship between ICT and

organizational space, I have chosen not to align methodological orientations to any

dominantparadigm in theorganizational space literature.Thiswillmean that choices

willbemadesolelybasedontheresearchproblemathandandtheobjectsofresearch.

Wewillnowdefinetheobjectsofresearchandreviewthemethodologicalchoices.

3.2 ResearchObject(s)

Bothresearchquestionsemergingfromthetheoretical journeyoftheprevioussection

havetwoidentifiableobjects–ICTandspatialpractices.Wecanconsiderorganizations

as the context of spatial practices. We need to define more fully these two research

objectstoinformourmethodologicalchoices.

In this researchproject, itwasdecidedearlyon tonot focusona single technological

artefact since academic research is undertaken in diverse contexts andwith different

combinationsofdevicesandsoftware.Tohave focusedona singleartefactwouldnot

only have had a limiting effect on inferences, but would have been risky since, with

perhaps the only exception being Microsoft Word, there are few standardized or

universal tools adopted by researchers to undertake their work. Academics in

Management or Organization Studies are often autonomous in selecting their tools of

workandveryoftenadheretotheBYODprinciplewheretheyimproviseusingtheirown

personal devices and software. On the contrary, keeping a broad scope in terms of

technologygivesroomfordiscoveryofhowresearchersimproviseorresorttoaformof

bricolagetooptimizetheirworkaday.ICTwillthereforebroadlyrefertothesetoftools

usedinthecontextofpracticeastheyemergefromthedata.Wemayeventuallychoose

84

to focusononeartefact should it becomeevident that sucha focuswouldbenefit the

study. As seen from the works of others (Weir, 2010) it is better to engage in some

groundedpreliminaryfieldworkbeforecommittingtoaspecificresearchobject.

ConsideringwewillbeusingGibsonianaffordance,itwouldbeinappropriatetofocuson

a single ICT artefact. This is due to the notion’s principle that affordances cannot be

narrowed down to a single part of the environment. ICTs are part of the physical

environment,anditistheenvironmentasawholethataffordsandnoteachcomponent

partaffordinginisolation.

WewilldefinespatialpracticesaccordingtoLefebvre–apracticeseenthroughaspatial

lens.Practices canbedefinedas the recurrent actionsof individuals (Schatzki,Knorr-

Cetina,&Savigny,2001). In studyingpractices inorganizations,we focuson thedaily

activitiesanimatingorganizationallifeintermsofroutinesandimprovisation,andseek

tounderstandhowtheyaregeneratedandsustainedovertime(Feldman&Orlikowski,

2011).Within suchaperspective, spatialpracticesare justpractices seen through the

lens of the daily movements of individuals in space. Routines can be examined for

patternsofmovementinbothspaceandtime,thechangesthatoccurinthem,andhow

individuals react to unexpected events. A spatial practice can be sitting at a desk for

certainhoursof theday, takingthebus tocommutetowork,ormeetingcolleaguesat

thecoffeemachine.

Since our case study is looking at the academic environment, andbusiness schools in

particular,we can define some spatial practices that are familiar tomost. Conducting

lecturesinanauditoriumoraclassinaroomarespatialpractices.Thepracticeofthe

common table (breaking breadwith fellows in your college) in Oxford or Cambridge

Universities isaspatialpractice.Asaresearchermyself, Icanthinkofotherpractices,

suchasreadingjournalarticlesorwritingpapers.Allofthesepracticesinvolvecertain

movements and spatial dispositions. Sitting at a computer in a relatively calm

environment,standinginfrontofagroupofstudentsfacingyou,orsharingatableata

certainhourforlunch.

85

Research collaboration was the choice for research object at the beginning of the

intensive phase of the study. It was thought that this would allow a maximum of

generalizability of the findings from the academic world to the world of business.

However, it was realized from coding that this was too limiting and was quickly

abandoned in favourof letting the relevant andmostdata-richpractices emerge. Like

ICT, I decidednot to focusonone specific practice for academics inbusiness schools.

Thedatawascodedbyspatialpracticeastheyemerged.Thepracticeswhicheventually

emergedwouldbelookedatindividuallyintermsofgeneralizability.

3.3 Methodology

The research questions that emerge from the theoretical journey described in the

previoussectionarebestsuitedforaqualitativeapproachsincetheaimistounpackthe

manner in which spatial practices are deployed in a specific setting – the research

settinginbusinessschoolsinthisinstance.Contextualsensitivity(Benbasatetal.,1987;

Silverman & Marvasti, 2008) can only be ensured with a qualitative method since a

quantitativeapproachwouldrequireacertainlevelofabstractionthatwouldnumbthe

researcher to the localeof thephenomenonas it unfolds.This is especially important

giventheresearchquestionislocatedinanunder-theorizedpartoftheliterature.

This research project uses amultiple case-study strategy following Silverman (2005),

Yin (2008)andBenbasatet al. (1987). In linewith theearlieraffirmation regardinga

qualitativeapproach,Benbasatetal.arguethatacasestudystrategy iswellsuited for

problems in the very early stages of theoretical development and especially those

dealingwith situated action that can only be studied in context (1987). They further

argue that investigations of the rapidly evolving area of information systems in

organizationsmakethemparticularlygoodcandidatesforthecasestrategy.

Benbasatetal.presentacasestudyasexamining"aphenomenoninitsnaturalsetting,

employingmultiplemethodsofdatacollectiontogatherinformationfromoneorafew

entities(people,groups,ororganizations).Theboundariesofthephenomenonarenot

clearlyevidentattheoutsetofresearchandnoexperimentalcontrolormanipulationis

used." (1987:370).This researchprojecthasas itsobjectivehypothesisgeneration in

followingthetraditionalphasesofknowledgeaccrual(Benbasatetal.,1987)andwould

86

beconsideredasexploratoryaccordingtoYin'sframework(2008).Inshort,theaimis

tofirstdiscoveranddescribethephenomenonofresearchinbusinessschoolsandthen

to proceed in exploring the process that shapes the organizational space. In pursuing

thisaim,themostsuitableunitofanalysiswillbedeterminedbytheresearchquestion.

In this case it points either to a specific technology or a specific research practice. It

would be more appropriate to study a specific research practice since researchers

employ myriad technologies to support their work. Focusing on one would

unnecessarily limit the scope of the investigation and fragment it across several

practices. Focusing on a specific practice is also coherentwith the chosen theoretical

frameworkthatiscenteredonapracticeviewoftheorganization.

Given the fact that the phenomenon under study is not yet very well understood, a

multiplecasestudystrategyisappropriate(Benbasatetal.,1987;Silverman&Marvasti,

2008;Yin,2008).Theselectionofcaseswillbebasedonaliteralreplicationlogic(Yin,

2008)andeaseofaccess.Literalreplicationistheresultofamultiplecasestudywhere

similar results are expected. This is in opposition to theoretical replication where

contradictory results are expected. With the current level of knowledge of the

phenomenon being investigated, it is very challenging to assess beforehand the

likelihoodofcontradictoryresults.Thevarietyofinstitutionsandresearchpracticesin

theacademicworldcombinedwiththecomplexityofapoorlyunderstoodphenomenon

make the prediction of results a risky act of speculation. However, a combination of

factorscharacterizingtheworldofresearch inthebusinessandmanagementdomains

wouldsuggestthataliteralreplicationlogicwouldbebettersuited.Thesewouldbethe

broad diffusion of information and communication technologies (whether they be

provided by the organization or personally sourced), internationalization, increasing

levels of collaboration, increased competition and a homogenization of research

standards across the globe. All of these factors could be partly explained by a well-

documented trend of organizational isomorphism (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983) in the

higher education sector around the world (Christensen & Eyring, 2011). Such a

characterizationof thecontemporaryworldof researchwouldsuggest thatresults for

several cases – or institutions –would be similar. However, the set of selected cases

must be reasonably representative and any significant divergences in characteristics

likelytoimpacttheresultsneedtobeexplicitlyidentified.Giventheinternationalization

87

of research, it would be appropriate to select cases from different national contexts.

These national contextswill likely represent the biggest source of divergences in the

resultsandthereforeneedtobewellidentifiedinthecasedescriptions.Thisexerciseis

essentialfortheundertakingofthecross-caseanalysis.

Fieldwork is also conditioned by access to organizations and this is a key part in the

selection of cases for this investigation. Access to three suitable higher education

institutionsinthreecountrieswassecuredopportunisticallywiththehelpofestablished

contacts.Muchoftheselectionwasbasedonotherpracticalconcernssuchasfundingof

fieldwork abroad, difficulty of undertaking research in certain countries (visa

restrictionsforexample),availabilityofinterviewees,andlanguage.Onlytwositeswere

retainedintheendduetobudgetaryconstraints.Detailsforeachsitecanbefoundinthe

casedescriptionssection.

Time in the fieldwould followanethnographicapproach.Each trip to thesiteswould

involve spendingasmuchaspossibleon-site.Thiswouldbe tododirectobservation,

butalsotakephotographsandinteractwithpeoplespontaneously.Beingfamiliarwith

theacademicenvironment,thiswasnaturalforme.

In selecting methods for this multiple-case study, we will apply Yin’s four tests for

judgingthequalityofcasestudies:constructvalidity,internalvalidity,externalvalidity,

and reliability (2008). Foreachof the following choices, these criteriawill beusedas

basisfortheirjustification.

Data collection methods will be varied and include documentation, archival records,

interviews,directobservationandphysicalartefacts(Benbasatetal.,1987;Yin,2008).

The interviewprotocolmaybe found inAppendix 9.1. Theuse ofmultiple sources of

evidence is important for construct validity in case study research (Yin, 2008).

Converging lines of inquiry limits the likely bias of a limited set of data sources and

allows for triangulation that lends support to conclusions of findings (Yin, 2008).

Furthermore,itpreventstheover-relianceonmanufactureddatathatisoftentheresult

ofopen-endedinterviews(Silverman,2017).

88

As mentioned in the previous section, we followed a phased approach to research

identical to the one Benbasat et al. (1987) recommend. Fieldwork was divided into

exploratoryandintensivephases(SeeFieldworkPhaseTimelineinAppendix9.3).The

exploratory phase consisted of getting familiar with the research environment in the

caseinstitutions,leadingtoadescriptiveaccountofthephenomenonunderstudy.This

resulted in adjustments to the overall research design – especially the case study

protocol.

Being an academic-in-training myself, the risk of bias and identification with my

intervieweeswasalwayspresent.For this Imaintainedacertain levelof reflexivity in

my interactionswith them.Thiswasespecially important for those intervieweeswith

whomIhadapreviousrelationshipwith.Giventhefactthatspatialpracticesarepartof

theobjectsofstudy,itwasalsoimportanttoexperiencespaceliketheacademicsinthe

caseinstitutionsbywalkingthroughthesamehallwaysandpushingthesamedoorsas

them.

All datawasprocessed through theNVivo software inorder to assistwith the coding

and analysis. Analysis was mainly performed by pattern matching and performing

queriestoseekstronglinksbetweencategories.This isonetactic identifiedbyYinfor

ensuringinternalvalidity.

Being a multiple case study, the likelihood of the findings being generalizable are

increased compared to a single-case study. This addresses Yin’s criteria of external

validity. Furthermore, in performing a cross-case analysis, we further enhance the

potentialdepthofthefindings(Miles&Huberman,1994).

All interviewswere recorded and transcribed either bymyself or professionally. This

was necessary for processing the data in NVivo. Photographs, archives, observation

noteswereallalsoprocessedwithNVivo.Althoughnoseparatecase-studyprotocolhas

beenproduced, all significantdecisions regardingcodingare recorded in theFindings

sectionandqueriesperformedonNVivohavebeenrecordedalongwiththeirresults.All

oftheseelementsareretrievableandcanconstituteacase-studyprotocolalongwiththe

89

interviewguide.Althoughnotnecessarilytheobjectiveofanexploratorystudysuchas

thisone,itwouldaddressYin’scriteriaofreliability.

3.4 CaseDescriptions

For each case, we will present a brief description with elements which may be

particularly relevant for the cross-case analysis. We mainly focus on the spatial

characteristicsofeachcase(architecture,numberoffaculty,urbancontext,etc.).

3.4.1 DesautelsFacultyofManagement–McGillUniversity

McGillUniversity is located in the centerofdowntownMontrealand the institution is

deeplyembeddedintheurbanfabricofthecity.McGillwasfoundedin1821andthesite

occupiesahilloverlookingtheheartofthecommercialandbusinessdistrict.Itislocated

on Sherbrooke Street, which runs almost the entire length of the island of Montreal.

SherbrookeStreetwas,atthefoundationoftheuniversitythemainaxisforthehubfor

thecity’selite.Thishub,alsoknownasTheGoldenSquareMile, isasmallareawhere

wealthy merchants and bankers – mostly Scottish settlers – used to live at the time

Montrealwasamajorcommercialandbankingcenter.McGilluniversitywasanintegral

partofthisecosystem,andasthenameofthefounderindicates,verymuchconnectedto

theScottishoriginsof themost influentialMontrealersof the time.Muchof theurban

developmentof thecitysince the foundationof theuniversityhasbeendonewith the

site of theuniversity as the centerpiece.Theperspective from theplazaofPlaceVille

Marie (see Figure 7), the first skyscraper built in Montreal with a unique cross-like

design, shows the wide McGill College Avenue providing a clear view towards the

historic center of the McGill University campus represented by the dome-topped

building(slightlyobstructedbytrees).Thecampusseemstodominatethecommercial

center of the city, which is where many graduates – especially from the Desautels

FacultyofManagement–endupworking.Thisproximitytothebusinesscommunityis

thecontinuationofa longhistoryofcloserelationshipbetweentheuniversityandthe

businesseliteofthecity.

90

Figure7–PerspectiveofMcGillcampusfromPlaceVilleMarie(Author)

91

The Desautels Faculty of Management was originally founded as the Department of

Commercewithin the Faculty of Arts ofMcGill University. It is located in the Samuel

Bronfman building since 1972 (see Figure 8). This building is directly situated on

Sherbrooke Street and it occupies a somewhat separate space from the rest of the

campus in that it looks likeanyofficebuilding indowntownMontreal.The locationof

thebuildingmakesitdirectlyaccessiblefromthemainthoroughfareandisinconstant

contactwiththemovementofthedowntowncore.

TheDesautelsFacultyofManagementhadin2016atotalof2,540studentsregistered,

including 64 PhD students. 100 professors work at the faculty3. The building has

undergoneseveralrenovationsrecentlyandspaceconstraintsarepromptingthefaculty

toexpandintoadjacentbuildings.

Figure8–TheBronfmanBuilding,SherbrookeStreet,Montreal(Canada)(Author)

3Thesefigureswereretrievedonthe6thofMay2017fromMcGill’sinstitutionalwebsite:http://www.mcgill.ca/desautels/about/quick-facts

92

3.4.2 JudgeBusinessSchool–CambridgeUniversity

TheJudgeBusinessSchool,locatedinCambridge,England,wasfoundedin1990initially

as the Judge InstituteofManagementStudies.Theschool is located in therefurbished

old Addenbrooke’s Hospital, first built in 1766 (see Figure 9), facing the prestigious

Fitzwilliam museum. It was inaugurated in 1995 and is an original instance of

architecture,bothoutsideandinside(seeFigure10).

Figure9–TheJudgeBusinessSchool,Cambridge,UK4(JBSInstitutionalWebsite)

4Photoretrievedonthe6thofMay2017fromtheJudgeBusinessSchool’sinstitutionalwebsite

93

Figure10–ViewoftheJBSatriumfromthe3rdfloor(Author)

The JBS has 55 faculty members and approximately 420 registered students5. There

approximately40PhDstudentscurrentlyattheJBS.

3.4.3 DescriptiveComparison

Bothinstitutionsarelocatedinthehistoricheartofurbancentres,withMontrealbeing

significantlylargerthanCambridge.However,incomparison,Cambridgeanditsvicinity

are very densely populated and has been experiencing a large increase in population

over the past few years. Both institutions are also experiencing significant space

constraint issues with the increase in number of students and executive training

courses. Both have embarked on site expansion projects involving extensions onto

adjacentsites.Thiscomparisonwillbemoredetailedinthecross-caseanalysis.

5Figuresretrievedonthe6thofMay2017fromtheJBSinstitutionalwebsite

94

4 Findings

The identity of the interviewees has been anonymized in the text. You may find the

descriptionforeachintervieweeanddetailsontheinterviewsinAppendices9.4to9.7.

4.1 Phase1:Exploration

Aresearchquestionwasformulatedonly insubphase1.2.Subphase1.1dealtwiththe

broader relationship between information and communication technologies and

organizationalspacewithafocusonhowtechnologiesaffectedthedailyworkpractices

of those working in business schools. No single community or activity was targeted

initially and hencewe have a variety of interviewee types such as students, facilities

managers,andprofessorsinthetwodifferentcaseinstitutions.Itshouldbenotedthat

two interviews from this phase were at my home institution of Université Paris-

Dauphine. These interviews were with the e-learning and digital transformation

managers.Althoughtheseinterviewswerenotatthetwocasesselectedforthisstudy,

theywouldbeusefulforunderstandingthebroadercontextofbusinesseducation.The

objectiveofthisphasewastodeveloptheresearchquestionandnarrowthefocusofthe

studyonspecifictechnologiesand/oractivities(thisobjectivewasquicklyabandoned).

4.1.1 Subphase 1.1: Discoveringwhat spacemeans for different actors in the business

schoolenvironment

Twointerviewsoutofsixinsubphase1.1ofthefieldworkweredonewithmembersof

thehomeuniversityoftheresearcher–UniversitéParis-Dauphine.Thefourotherswere

done with members of McGill University – a student, a member of faculty, a staff

member and a professional consultant working for the Desautels Faculty of

Management.

Being the first contact with the field and not having much in terms of theoretical

grounding or a very targeted research question, this subphase of data collection

provided a very disparate set of data regarding the organizational spaces of business

schools.Theinterviewswereveryopenendedwiththeonlyguidebeingtheverybroad

questionabouttherelationshipbetweenspaceandtechnology.

95

4.1.1.1 SummaryofDataWhatemergesfromtheseconversationsisapictureofthebusinessschoolenvironment

as being in a state of flux and under tremendous pressure from both students and

competitiontomodernizetheirfacilities.Theadministrativecoordinator(nowretired)

fortheDesautelsFacultyofManagementofMcGillUniversityverystronglyindicatedthe

organizationwas close to breaking point in terms of space andwas looking to other

Canadianuniversitiesforinspirationonhowtohandletheprocessofmodernizationand

expansion. Thiswas clearly echoed by the FacilitiesManagement Consultant hired by

the Faculty to help in dealing with the pressure. Renovation of the fifth floor of the

Bronfmanbuildingwas underwayduring the interviews, andmuchof the discussion

wasonhowthiswasplannedandmanaged.TheuseofotherbusinessschoolsinNorth

America as models of excellence was brought up on several occasions. Therefore, a

themeofenvywasevidentearlyonintheinvestigation.

More specifically regarding technology, Dauphine University’s leader of digital

transformation spoke at length about thepressures on thehigher education sector to

not only modernize facilities, but transform the pedagogical model to adapt to new

technologies such as MOOCS and also new ways of learning such as FabLabs and e-

learningplatforms inuniversities.Hewasextremelyworriedabout theupheaval such

transformationswouldproduceforbothprofessorsandstudents.Flexibilityofteaching

spaces alongwith common spaces such as libraries and student loungeswill become

increasingly important. Having robust Wi-Fi connectivity becomes a key factor in

successfulpedagogicalpractices.

Thefirstoftwointerviewswitha2nd-yearIndustrialRelationsstudent(undergraduate)

atMcGillUniversityandtheconversationwiththeco-directorofITLearningServicesat

DauphineUniversitydescribedhowinnovativeapproachestoteachingarebeingtaken

upbyprofessorsthankstonewtechnologiestheyhaveputinplace.Theseapproaches

areflip-the-classroom(watchinglecturesathomeanddoingexercisesinclass),blended

learning(mixingdistancelearningwithon-siteteaching),podcastingcoursesandvirtual

officehours.Addingtothethemeofenvy,the2nd-yearIndustrialRelationsstudentwas

specifically impressed by the technologymade available in the Bronfman building at

McGillUniversityhousingtheDesautelsFacultyofManagement.

96

4.1.1.2 AnalysisThissubphasebasedonsixverydisparateinterviewsintermsofrolesandgeographical

location provided a broad contextual picture of the international business school

environment.WeseethattwodifferentinstitutionsinCanadaandFranceareexposedto

similarpressuresandarerespondinginsimilarways.Muchofthefocusisonproviding

students with the best services and investment and resources are mostly directed

towardsthis. Improvingclassrooms,providingmorecommonspacesandadoptingthe

use of the latest technologies are all actions both institutions are actively engaged in.

Other activities that are at the core of business schools is research and this has not

emerged as a critical dimension in terms of organizational space,which is surprising

givenhowimportantresearchisfortheseinstitutions.Forthisreason,itwasdecidedto

interviewPhDstudentsopportunistically.This iswhatwillbe investigated in thenext

subphase–thespatialpracticesofresearchersinbusinessschools.

4.1.2 Subphase1.2:Understandingspatialpracticesinthecontextofabusinessschool

At this stage of the study, the theoretical framework was still not well defined (as

mentioned previously), however major theoretical concepts regarding organizational

spacefromLefebvre(1974)andfromtheinformationsystems(Orlikowski,2000,2010)

fieldwereavailabletoofferinsightsandstructuretheinquiryprocess.Inthissubphase,

morefocusisonthepracticesofthoseproducingresearchinbusinessschools,soPhD

students were approached as a first step since they were themost accessible (I had

previouscontactwiththePhDstudentsattheDesautelsFacultyofManagement).Allof

theinterviewsinthissubphasewereconductedattheMcGillUniversitysiteinMontreal.

4.1.2.1 CodingBefore formally coding, some striking aspects from the interviews of this phase show

how important theembodiedexperience is for interviewees.Almostall thesensesare

involved in the way the interviewees recount their daily experiences in the research

setting: smelly, dark and dingy offices (interview#13with an external PhD student),

noise(interviews#10,#14and#15withPhDstudents inManagement), theweightof

paper and laptops (interviews #10 and #15 with PhD students in Management) and

fresh air (interview #12 with an external PhD student). The reason why this is

97

importantisthatallofthesesensualsolicitationscontributestronglytotheshapingof

theperceptionoftheorganizationalspace.Eachofthesepointsdeservetobelookedat

inmoredetail.

4.1.2.1.1 Smelly,darkanddingyofficesInterviewee#13isafirst-yearPhDstudentinSociologyatMcGillUniversity.Although

she isn't a student at Desautels, through her husband who is, she managed to get a

shared office space in one of the PhD rooms. Shewas driven to abandonher original

workspaceinoneoftheSociologybuildingsbecauseitwas"…smelly,inthebasement.It

smells like a cheese factory… it's very dark because it's in the basement. Very, very

dark".

4.1.2.1.2 NoiseSilence to enable concentration was very important for some (interviewee #14), for

othersitwasnoise(interviewee#15)andinsomecases,itdependedonthetaskathand

(interviewee#10)wherenoisewouldbesoughtafter(workingincafésforexample)or

avoided(readinglongtextsathome).

4.1.2.1.3 WeightofpaperandlaptopsThe weight of paper is implicitly referred to (interview #10) when referring to the

inconvenienceofcarryingitfromoneworkspacetoanother(mainlybetweenthehome

and office) and in one case (interview #10) one of the reasons for going 'paperless'.

Similarly, the weight of laptops is implied when referring to the organization of IT

equipmentacrossworkspaces(interview#10)wherepreferenceisgiventothesetting

upof fixeddesktopswith synchronization at each locale andusing just a smartphone

when on the move. Laptops are also referred to explicitly (interview #15) as an

inconvenienceformobility.

Imyselffoundtheembodiedexperiencetobeofimportancewhilemovingaboutthetwo

case sites. In the Bronfman building, I would find some of the doors of the 5th floor

(wherethePhDstudentsarelocated)veryheavytoopen,soIeventuallydevelopedthe

habitoftakingcertainroutestogetaroundthefloortoavoidcertaindoors.

98

The fact that the embodied experience is important for the interviewees is important

given that this is exactly what Lefebvre meant by the body being the basis of the

production of space. We see that what he calls the 'texture' (1991) of space is the

juxtapositionofsensualstimuliandthepossibilitiesofbodilymovement.

Insomeinstances,(interviewee#10andinterviewee#13),thephysicaltheftoflaptops

wasdeterminantindecidingonhowtoorganizetheirworkspatially.Interviewee#13:

"So I'mnotsure if I'mgoing to thebathroom, if I can leaveallofmystuffhere totally

safe"(…)"…youhavetogotothebathroomwithyourcomputer".Sowhilelaptopswere

providingacertainformofmobilitytotheinterviewees,theywerealsorestrictedbynot

only the cumbersomeness of the objects, but by their vulnerability to physical theft.

Smaller devices such as smartphones were considered (interview #10) to be more

practicalformobilework,albeitforalimitedsetoftasks.

During the interviewing, itwas revealed that twoof the intervieweeswere 'squatting'

office space (interviewee#13and interviewee#12).This is to say that theywerenot

allocated the space they were occupying and were present with the informal and

implicitpermissionofothermembersofthecommunity.Thismeantthatthelegitimacy

of their presencewas constantly being questioned (interviewee #12: "… I should not

have an officewith this small connection. (laughter)", referring to her contactwith a

professoratDesautels).Interviewee#12foundwaysto'stayofftheradar'andremain

discretebyusingsocialmediaandmobiletechnology.Shewouldforexampleusethese

technologies toavoid theembarrassmentofgoing to thegraduatestudent loungeand

beingunable toenterbecausenobodywouldbepresent toopen it forher.Shewould

thereforecheckonsocialmediaorsendatextmessagetotheotherswhohadaccessto

ensure theywere present in the lounge before leaving the office. Shewould also use

technology to avoid being visible in the hallways and exposing herself to the risk of

beingconfrontedonherpresence.Insteadofpoppingouttoseeotherstudentsinoffices

onthesamefloor,shewouldrelyonsocialmediaandSMS.Socialmediawouldalsobea

waytotakeabreakandavoidhavingtoleavethedeskandbemadevisibleoutsidethe

office.Otherwisesomebreaksoutside theofficewouldbe takenoutdoors togetsome

'freshair'.

99

4.1.2.1.4 ParadoxesInterviewee#15says"…IthinkaPhDstudentiskindofastrangeanimalinthesense

thatwereallydon'tneedmuch.Wedon'treallyneedalotofspace.Wedon'tneedbig

offices. As long as we have the hardware we need and the printer for printing the

papers, I thinkweareprettyOK."What isparadoxical inthisverbatimisthatthePhD

student doesn’t seem to think that much is required in terms of space, however he

makes the point during the interview that he needed a big screen, a place to take a

break, a noisy environment to stay motivated, printers (to print papers that would

eventuallytakeupalotofspace)andyetsays“...wereallydon'tneedmuch".IsthisPhD

student judging ‘much’ relative towhat a he believes a professor or a lecturerwould

needorisitbecausealloftheotherspatialaspectsheattributedimportancetoareafter

allnotveryimportantorperhapshedoesn’tthinkaboutwhatprinting,takingabreakor

beinginanoisyenvironmentdemandintermsoforganizationalspace?

Undergraduate and graduate students alike go to work somewhere in what they

considertobefavorableworkingconditionstobearoundothersandyetthey lookfor

silenceandisolationusingsocialmedia(interviewee#8, interviewee#12, interviewee

#15andinterviewee#10).Isthereatensionhereinterestingtoinvestigateintermsof

organizationalspace?

One PhD student seemed to be torn between the temptation of technological

distractions (app notifications) and social distractions (bumping into people)

(interviewee #10). This could be another interesting tension to investigate – what

differencedoesthismakefortheshapingoforganizationalspace?

4.1.2.1.5 OtherinterestingpointsnoticedintheinterviewtranscriptsFor the undergraduate student (interviewee #8) and the two external PhD students

(interviewees #12 and #13), business schools and management faculties were

considered to be excellent work environments, especially from the point of view of

students working in other faculties such as Sociology (interviewee #13). This is

perceived tobedown to a questionof funding.Also, having a reliablephone signal is

important at all times as is remarked by interviewee #12 when she was originally

100

assignedanofficeinthebasementatherhomeinstitutionwheremobilereceptionwas

verydifficult.Thesameintervieweealsoremarkedthatshefoundthefactthatshedidn’t

have an access card (as a squatter from another institution) prevented her from

accessingcertainareasofherworkenvironmentsuchas thekitchenor lounge.These

physical barriers along with the non-possession of a card made her feel slightly

unwelcome and limited hermovements not only to those areas she didn’t have card

accessto,butalsotocommonareaswherenocontrolswereinplace.Manyinterviewees

mentioned the separation between work and personal environments, with some

specificallymentioninghowtheyusetechnologytoenactthisseparation–what is the

structuringroleofICTanddoesitgeneratetheneedtoseparateevenmoreoractasjust

atooltoenhanceexistingseparation?

Systematic open coding of the transcripts of interviews from the exploratory phase

using Nvivo yielded 27 categories of topics, which in the end were grouped in the

following high-level categories: Distractions, Envy, Minimal requirements for PhD

students, Other research (categories kept for future projects), Sociality, Territoriality,

Thebody,andUsing technologyeveryday.Unfortunately, theversionofNvivorunon

Mac doesn’t allow for the production of reports, and therefore a screenshot of the

categories(orNvivonodes)ispresentedinFigure11onthefollowingpage.

101

Figure11–NVivonodesforExploratoryPhase(Author)

Although there is a separate category ‘Using technology everyday’,many of the other

categories can be put into relationwith this category specific to technology. It is this

relationshipbetween technologyand spatialpractices thatweare trying tounpackat

this stage. Before looking at this relationship specifically, it will be interesting to

understand how the topics emerged in the first place during open coding. All of the

topicslistedappearedtoberecurringandofimportance.

4.1.2.1.6 DistractionsInterviewees #8, #9, #10 and #14 made specific reference to how they manage

distractions and temptations toprocrastinatewhen they are supposed tobeworking.

Interviewee #8 (a 3rd-year Industrial Relations student at McGill) made specific

referencetohowhemanagestechnology-baseddistractionsbyeitherputtinghisphone

102

asout-of-sightaspossible,“Iputitinmybackpackallthewayatthebottomonsilent,

unlessI’mhaving…likeonSaturdaysandSundaysIusuallykeepitinmypocketifI’mat

thelibrary,becauseIfeellikeIdeservetohavealittlebitofsocialcommunicationifI’m

atthelibraryontheweekend”,shuttingdownInternetconnectivitycompletelyonother

devices,“Idon’tconnectwhenIgotoSecondCupintentionally,becausethenifIdotake

outmylaptopormyiPad,thenIdon’thaveaccesstoFacebook,socialmedia,messages,

allthatstuff”or“(…)sometimesIshutdownmyWi-FiwhenI’minthelibrarytotryand

disconnectforasecondandnotletanythingpingme”.Interviewee#10(aPhDstudent

in Management) expressed his frustration at technology not being designed “(…) at

lettingyoucompartmentalizeyourtimeandyourresources ingeneral(…)I think it is

veryinvasive”. Interviewee#9(a3rd-yearPhDstudentinManagement)suggeststhat

effortsbyorganizationstoblockaccesstosocialnetworkingsitesarecounterproductive

since users end up spending more time trying to circumvent these restrictions.

Interviewee#14(aPhDstudentinManagement)evensuggestedthathemightaswell

turnoffhislaptopaltogethertoavoidemailsandnotifications.Thisthemeofthebattle

against technology-based distraction is recurrent with the interesting paradox of the

needfordistraction(tothepointofmakingeffortstomaintainaccesstothese)andthe

constant battle against them. The interviewees felt that having the freedom to decide

whentheygetdistractedwasimportant,yetatthesametimefeltfrustratedbytheeffort

requiredtomanagethisaspectoftheirdailyroutines.

Interviewee #8 made an interesting observation regarding non-technological

distractions in the library: “(…) and I always face this direction because the flow of

peoplecomesdownthemiddle.Soifyou’refacingthiswayinmyperipheralIseepeople

comingin,distraction.Ilikeseeingthemoststeadyareaofthelibraryaspossiblesothat

itagainremindsme thateveryone’shereworking,not thepeoplewhoarepopping in

andpoppingout”.Thissuggeststhatcorporalityplaysanimportantpartintheshaping

oforganizational space.Thenatureof thehumanbody, it’sgeometryandconstitution

determineshowweorientourselves inspaceandhowweperceive thisspaceaswell.

This issomethingLefebvrediscussesat length in “TheProductionofSpace” (1991). It

would be interesting to see how this role of corporality in the shaping of space is

influencedbyICT.

103

Interviewee #9 abandons technology altogether in order to be distraction-free for

certaintasks:

SoIcan’treadonmylaptop,andI…Andinretrospect,Ithinkitwasagoodthing.It’sbeenayearalreadyI’vebeen…SoIcanonlyworklikewritingifI’mhereorathome, but yes. Very… I don’t know, if I want to work somewhere else, thengettingridofdistractionsandgettingridof…IwilltakeanotebookandI’llwrite.And at least ideas, and maybe some paragraphs. And then I’ll bring that to acomputer later and type it in. It’s better than… Yes. It’s simple. There’s moresimpleway.Soyes.

Andthisisastrategywhichseemstobeshared:

ThefirstandforemostproblemthatI'vehadwithgoingvirtualisthatIwashalfpaperlessandhalfwithpaper.Ittookmeaverylongtimetogetridofthepaperbecause it wasn't possible to stay only with paper, but going paperless alsowasn't possible. Like, reading and commentating a text is obviously done onpaper.Mostofthelongerreadingsarebetteronpapersincemostofthedevicesweusearemultitask.They justmakeyou too jittery.All the time, you'regoingback and forth between two applications instead of readingwhat you have toread.Nowit'sbeenmorethantwoyearsthatItriedtobeallpaperless.Idon'tsaythatitwaseasy.Thatwasmymainvirtualvs.realworlddilemmathatIhad,andIhaveitstill.(interviewee#10)

Although thisdeclarationby interviewee#10seems tocontradict therestofhisstory

wherehedescribeshowhehasbeenworkingongoing completelypaperlesswithhis

workandhowthishasbeenacompletesuccess.

4.1.2.1.7 EnvyThesensethatbusinessschoolsarebetterequippedandhavebetterfacilitieswasquite

strongamongsttheinterviewees.Beingmarriedtointerviewee#9,interviewee#13(a

1styearPhDstudentinSociology)believedthatshewouldgetadeskandanofficelike

her husband when starting her thesis in Sociology but ended up having to share a

basement office that smelled like a “cheese factory”. This drove her to squat her

husband’sofficeintheBronfmanbuildinginordertoescapewhatsheconsideredtobe

difficult conditions in her home department of Sociology. Referring to her home

department,shesays“It’sreallyoneofthepoorpartsofSocialScience.Youhavetodeal

with it”. However, she says that she has reservations about the amount of private

fundingandelevatedtuitionfeesatbusinessschoolswhich“(…)Idon’tfinditgreat”and

104

“Yousellkindofyoursoul”.Interviewee#8feltthattheBronfmanbuildinghadaspecial

statusaspartofMcGillUniversity:

Q:Doyouconsideritoncampusbytheway?That’soneofthequestionsIasked.A:Yes,IconsiderBronfmanoncampus.Q:Okay,alrightA:It’shardlyoncampus,though.Itcouldeasilybesomethingthatseemslikeit’snotpartofMcGillcampus,butIwouldstillconsideritpartofMcGillcampus.

Hegoesontomentionwineandcheesereceptionsandaspecialattirethatgeneratesa

certain“vibe”whichdoesn’texistelsewhereoncampus.Healsomentionshowstudents

fromalloftheotherfaculties(otherthanManagement)wouldneverhaveanybusiness

goingtotheBronfmanbuildingwhichaddstothesensethatthebuildingisnotonthe

campusandisaseparateentity.

RegardingICTspecifically,interviewee#13wishesthattheSociologydepartmentwould

provide fixedworkstations toPhDstudents like theDesautelsFacultyofManagement

since“Itchangesalot(…)I’llgotothebathroomthinkingIcanleaveit,andcanleaveit

atnight.Ihavenoproblem.Soforme,Ithinkthisisgreataboutbusinessschool.They

providecomputers”.

Evenmore interestingly, some felt that other business schools (other than theMcGill

DesautelsFacultyofManagement)werebetterequippedandhadbetter facilities.The

marriedcoupleofPhDstudents(interviewees#9and#13)werevery impressedwith

the facilities at HEC Montréal and interviewee #9 refers to a certain “vibe” in the

building(locatedinanotherpartofthecity)andfeelslikethePhDstudentsbasedinthat

buildingcanbenefitfromhavingagoodvarietyofworkspaces–closedofficesandvery

cavernous common spaces on the ground floor (in part corroborated by the

interviewer). Having a large space is important. Interviewee #13 reiterates her

reservationsaboutthefeelingthatoneneedsto‘selltheirsoul’inordertogetaccessto

suchfacilitiesinbusinessschoolsandthatthistrade-offdoesn’texistinSociologywhere

onecanmaintaintheirintellectualindependence.

105

4.1.2.1.8 SocialityAllof the intervieweesnaturallyhadsomethingtosayregardinghowtheirday-to-day

interactionswithotherswouldaffecthowtheyexperiencedspace.Interestingly,thetwo

most recurring topicsunder theheaderof Sociality is “Avoidingothers” and “Pushing

eachother intoaworkmood”.Weseeaparallelwith theearlier themeof the tension

betweenconcentrationanddistraction–hereweseeacleartensionbetweendesiring

beingrelativelyisolatedandbeinginthecompanyofothers.Interviewees#12and#13

are PhD students fromother faculties and therefore have perhaps amore compelling

reason to avoid others in the Bronfman building. Their use of ICT, however, for this

challengeisinteresting.Forexample,interviewee#12likestousesocialmediatomake

sureshewillnotberoamingthehallwaysonherowntoooftenorneedlesslygetoutof

theofficetolookforsomeoneshewouldliketotakeabreakwith.Contactwithothers–

ariskshe feelsgivenher ‘outsider’status–canbereducedbyusingsocialmedia.Not

havingabadgeallowinghertoaccesscertaincommonareasofthebuilding,suchasthe

PhDlounge,sheensuresthatwhensheheadstherefora lunchbreakforexample,she

wouldbesurethatsomeonewouldbetheretoopenthedoorforher.Thefactthatshe

doesn’t have a badge – and therefore ‘illegitimate’ remains concealed that way. It

appears that certain technology-based barriers (badge-controlled access) are

circumvented–alongwiththeassociatedsocialstigma(bybeingrefusedentry)byusing

othertechnology-basedtoolssuchassocialmedia.Theinterviewee’smovementsseem

tobemodifiedbybothtechnologies,buthowdoesthishappen?

ICT seems to add the issue of trustwhen sharing spaces. Interviewee#13mentioned

oneofthereasonsforrelocatingtotheBronfmanwasthefeelingthatshewasamongst

people she could trust leaving her laptop or smartphone with when going away

momentarilytogotothebathroomforexample.Otherwiseshewouldfeelcompelledto

takethelaptopwithher(sheexperiencedtheftinanothersharedenvironment),which

representedacertainhindranceintermsofmobility.Thislinkswellwithotherremarks

about how bulkier mobile devices such as laptops can represent not only a physical

burden in terms ofweight, but also a hindrance tomovement due to the high risk of

theftinandaroundthecampus.

106

Thetensionbetweenconcentrationanddistraction iswellrepresentedby interviewee

#13whosaysshelikestobealoneintheoffice(sharedwith3otherPhDstudents)but

withthedoorslightlyopensothatshecanseeandhearwhathappens inthehallway,

“(…) so the fact that there’s movement, it helps”. This contrasts somewhat with

interviewee#15who,asmentionedearlier,saysthattotalsilencedistractshimandthat

hepreferstoworkinanoisyenvironmentwithmanyotherspresent.Heattributesthis

tohisexperienceinhishomecountry,Italy(whichhecharacterizesasa‘loud’country),

andespecially thathegotusedtoworking in largestudyroomswheremanystudents

wouldwork at the same time, “Being alonewithmyself really distractsme. I cannot

concentrate.IfIfocustoomuchonsomething,Ican'tconcentrate.It'slikemymindtakes

over and I gooff thinking aboutwhatever else”.This is in complete contrastwith the

experience of interviewee #14 (PhD student in Management) “(…) who is like really

sensitivetonoiseanddistractions.LikeI’mthepersonwhowould,youknow,comment

topeoplewhoweretalkingtooloudinthelibrary.Soitreallydoesn’t.Itneverworksfor

me”.ThisPhDstudentprefers tonotbewithothers towork individually and isquite

sensitivetonoise.

The ‘Pushing each other into aworkmode’ is the other side of the coin to ‘Avoiding

others’becausemanyof the remarks regardingworking in thepresenceofothersare

spoken in the same breath as the feeling that being in the presence of others pushes

them toworkmore diligently and keeps them fromprocrastinating (almost the same

codes appear under these two categories). Interviewee #9 says “But I like coming in

becauseof…Youhave…Imean,youtalk topeoplewhoaredoingthesamething,you

canpusheachothertobeinthisworkmood,andtobeproductive”and“beingaround

peoplewhoaremaybedoingthe…Goingthroughsimilarthings”and“Ifyou’rehere,just

byshowingup,you’reputtingyourselfinmodeofwork,andIdon’tknow.If…Nobody

will say a thing, but maybe you change your behavior because there is somebody

watching,andtherearepeoplegoing,andyoudon’twantto…Imean,youdon’twantto

goofaroundthewholeday”.Thesesentimentsareechoedbyinterviewee#8whosays

“(…) just having other people aroundme that are taking school really serious at that

moment,itkindofinspiresme.Itremindsmethatit’snotjustthatIhavetofinishthis.

It’slikeIhavetocompetewithpeopleessentiallyattimestomakesurethatI’mdoing

thebestIcanandkeepitaslikeamentallikeyouneedtodothisandareminder”.The

107

motivations of a PhD student and an undergraduate student are likely to differ (the

undergraduatestudentisperhapsmoremotivatedbythecompetitiveaspectofstudies

withexaminationsandgrading),andthisperhapsexplainswhythetwocharacterizethe

presenceofothersdifferently– for thePhDstudent, it is about sharinganexperience

anda‘mood’aswellasappearingtobeaseriousworker,whereasfortheundergraduate

student,thepressureofseeingotherstudents–someofwhichwouldbetakingthesame

classes–isaboutrelativeperformanceandsocialacceptabilityaswell.

Interviewee#9 characterizes thePhD student as a ‘social animal’ (hence the label for

thiscategory).Regardingtheresearchprocess,hesays,“Sothisisactuallyaverysocial

process.It’snotaninside,andputmeinacave,andIwillcomeoutwiththebestpaper.

It’s…Youneedtotestsomething,andsometimesyouthinkaboutsomethingforawhile,

andjustasitcomesoutofyourmouth,thatyouexplaintosomeone,looksverystupid,

and then you say,whywas I thinking about it that time?Thatmuch?”.He goes on to

complain about the lack of a faculty room for new faculty to socializewith their new

colleaguesandthatthePhDloungeisnotusedappropriatelyasasocialspace.

4.1.2.1.9 TerritorialityAsenseofterritoryandmobilitywerestrongintheintervieweesresponses.Themost

recurringthemewas‘Separation’–separationbetweenhomeandofficespaces,between

professors and PhD students, between the city and the campus grounds. The most

importantseparationisbetweenofficeandhomeenvironmentswithmanyexpressinga

strongdesireforthisdivision.Forinterviewee#10,workcanbeperformedbothinthe

officeandathomedependingonthetaskathand

I find that,both forcreativeworkandanalyticwork, likea lotofconcentrationandalotofcreativity.ForbothIneedcalm.Reading,forme,dependsonwhatIread, but if I read an article that is important and Iwant to integrate it inmysystemofthinking,thenIreallythinkIneedthecalmathome.Itdoesn'tworkformeanywhere else.Youhave to imagine thatduring theday I have a lot of sunthereand it's just really calm.There'snonoise. It's reallybright. I feel goodaswell.It'snotonlythatit'shome.It'salsothatsetting.Sothathelpsmealot.WhenIwanttobecreative,itshouldbeatnight.Evenformyphotos,Idoitatnight.Idon'tknowwhy.It'sjustlike(.)IguessI'mmoreschizophrenicatnight.Imaketherelationsbetter–theunrelatedrelations.Ifindthembetteratnight.Forboth,Ineedalotofcalm.Imakealotofharmonyoutofit.

108

However, for theothers,homewasnon-conducive towork. Interviewees#8,#13and

#14 felt that their home environments would provide too many distractions and

therefore would prefer another environment such as the library or the office.

Interviewee#13says,regardinghishomeenvironment,

A: Just the fact that it’s pretty small and like the bed is really close you know,whereveryougo.Sothere’seitherthebedorthekitchen.SoIendupyouknow,eithernappingforawhile,youknow.Justgoinglike,yesI’mgoingtonapfortwohoursand thenyes I’m justgoing to fix something toeatand then likeanothertwohoursgoby.Q:Sodistractions.A:Yes.Butalsolike,evenifitwasagianthouse,it’sjustreallyhardto,tonotgotobedlike.

Others like to maintain a more conventional separation between home and office,

interviewee#15says“Idon'twanttoworkfromhome.Because,it'smainlypersonal.I

like to keep work, the office as a place for work. And home as a place for

relax/fun/freedomandpeaceofmind”.

Despitethedeepsenseofseparation,thePhDstudentsappreciatethefreedomofbeing

abletochoosewheretheywork.Muchof this freedomisattributedtoICTandmobile

devicesinparticular,butalsothatPhDstudentsarenotexpectedtobepresenteveryday

(interviewee#9:“Buteverybodyknowsthatstudentsareneverherefivedaysaweek”).

Interviewee #9 also notes how Eduroam (an international arrangement allowing

academics from different institutions to use the network services of those they visit)

allows him to work from any other institution where he feels more inclined to be

productive–inthiscaseHECMontréal.Interviewee#10says,“InoticedthatthemoreI

wentvirtual,themoreIwasmobile”referringtohiseffortstogopaperless.Hegoeson

tocreditICTforgivinghimthefeelingthathehasmorefreedomanddoesn’tget“stuck

inoneenvironment”.ThisPhDstudent inManagementprovides somedetails onhow

ICThasprovidedhimwiththissenseoffreedom:

WiththenewsynchronizationmethodsthatGooglehasit,Applehasit,Dropboxfacilitates it. Now the computers at my work, the desktops, are alwayssynchronized.LikeIcanleavewhereIaminthetext,openanothercomputer,it'sthereandIcancontinuewriting

I can do the tasks that I like here, the tasks that I like at home,without reallyhavingtogothroughthisprocessofyeah,thesefiles, Iclosethem,thenhavetoputthemheretofindthembackathomewiththekeyorwhatever.Thatbecame

109

seamlessbetweenthethreecomputers.It'saweirdthing.Ididn'tthinkitwouldwork,butitactuallyworks

I'mnotabigfanofwritingstuffonGoogleDocs,forexample,becauseIknowithasanofflineservice,butit'smainlymadetoworkonline.Idon'tdothat.MostlyIhavefilesonremoteservices–let'ssayDropbox–sothat'ssynchronized.Beforegoingoutofmyplace, I let itsynchronizecompletely.WhenIgoout, Ihavethelastversionofthefile.Ithappenstometowriteonthebus.Soit'snotnecessarilyconnectedatthemoment,butgoodsynchronizationservices–andGoogleisnotamongthem–theydon'thaveaproblemidentifyingwhatisthelastversionandresolvingthesynchronizationconflicts.Evenif IeditonlineandthenIsync, it'sgood

Even on the phone I take a lot of notes now. Imade folders formy notes. It'sbecomemyMoleskin–thefamousnotetaking...It'saluxurything.Allthewritershave one. I really have a hard timemanaging papers nowbecause I have verylittlepaper.Itrytotakenotesonthephone.Turnsoutitworks!Thephonehavebecomemuchbetter,sowiththephone,Itakenoteseverywhere.Inthestreet,inthebus,whilewalking

Itusedtobethat,ifIhaddecidedtoworkonthispaperathomeandthenonedayIhadtomovetoschool,IwouldlosethatdaybecauseeitherIwouldhavetotakeallofmypaperswithmeor... Itwouldn'tbeaneffectiveuseoftimeanywayifIwasat theschoolwithoutmypapersand Iwanted to sit andworkonmyownpaper.NowIdon'thavethat.IfIhaveameetingwithintenminutes,Icancometothe school and stay for a couple of hours, stillwork onmy papers, everythingopenonmycomputer.AndthenifIwanttogobackhomeagain,Igobackhomeagain.Sointhatsenseithasgivenmealotoffreedom

Allofthesecitedfeaturesoftechnologyseemtohelpinterviewee#10choosewhereand

whenheworkswhichevokesasenseoffreedom,howeveronequestionarisesfromthis

interview–doestheintervieweereallyfeelhecanchoosewhereandwhenheworks?

Also, another part of the interview reveals that this PhD student had expendedmuch

effort in order to achieve the seamless relaying between devices. This effort is well

understoodbymyselfsinceIhavebeenundertakingthesameeffortasinterviewee#10,

although I havenot yet achieved the level of seamless operation. Interviewee#9 also

findstheabilitytousehissmartphoneonpublictransporttodealwithhisemailsand

organizehisdaybeforehearrivesattheofficeveryconvenientandhelpsgetmoreout

ofhisday.

110

For others, though, ICT doesn’t always necessarily translate into more mobility or

freedom in terms of space. For interviewee #15, computational power is important

becauseoftheneedtoperformquantitativemodelling.Therefore,hefindsthelaptophe

uses–whichhejudgestobenotpowerfulenoughforhisrequirements–istooheavyto

beportable.Hewouldprefer to have a fixedworkstationwhichhas the right level of

processingpowerandforgoanymobilitycomputing-wise.

The fact thatmobile devices (laptops especially) are physically transportable doesn’t

necessarily translate into mobility. Physical characteristics such as processing power

andweightdonotmake themdesirable tocarryoruseon themove.Theriskof theft

alsomakesthemimpracticaltouseinpublicspacessuchaslibrariesorcafés.According

to the information provided by the Facilities Manager at the Desautels Faculty of

Management, the building is prone to a lot of theft due to its location directly on

Sherbrooke Street – a main thoroughfare – and the fact that much of the student

populationcarriesalotoftechnologywiththem.Tabletsaremoretransportable,butas

interviewee#15remarks,theycanbedifficulttouseforworksuchaswriting.Havinga

tablet,myself,Icanconfirmthatevensimpletaskssuchaswritingonawordprocessor

onatabletisnotassimpleasitmayseemandrequiresgoodknowledgeofhowsoftware

worksonbothacomputerandtablet.However,asinterview#9mentions,tabletscanbe

goodforreading.

Physicalbarrierswerealsoquitefrequentlymentionedsuchasbadgecontrolledaccess

doors,thewallsanddoorsofofficesandtheperimeteroftheMcGillUniversitycampus

(includingbarriersformunicipalconstructionwork).

Interviewee#7(facilitiesmanageratDesautels)mentionedhowprofessorswerevery

sensitive about having to abandon their offices during the renovations and how this

created a lot of anxiety formany of them during the year it took for thework to be

completed. This is a clear show of territoriality, although not necessarily related to

technology.However,itcouldbeinterestingtoinvestigatewhetherthosewhofeltmore

mobilewiththeirworkusingmobiledeviceswerelesspronetobeterritorialthanthose

whodidn’thavethismobility.

111

4.1.2.1.10 Usingtechnologyeveryday35referencestotechnologyfrom6interviewsmaketechnologyusethemostcommon

theme (although this is expected asmany questions were asked regarding this). The

interviewsrevealed,asistobeexpected,quitealotofvarietyoftechnologiesinusein

termsofdevices, softwareandnetworks.Theuseof thesedevicesdependedonmany

factorssuchasprocessingpower,weightandformatalongwithconnectivity.

One recurring theme was impracticalities regarding laptops as mobile devices.

Interviewees #9 and #15 cite the weight of laptops as a hindrance in using them as

mobiledevices.Bothdescribetheirlaptopcomputersascumbersomeandheavywhich

discourage them from taking them on the go. Thiswasmentioned earlier as a factor

limitingthesenseoffreedomofcertainintervieweessuchasinterviewee#15:

Q:Doyoubringyourlaptopwithyoueverywhere?A:Itendnottodoitbecause,asyoucansee,it'snotreallyportable.Imean,itisportable,butit'sstillratherheavy

Interviewees#9and#10pointedout that theypreferredtoworkonemailsonpublic

transportwiththeirsmartphonesbecausethisdevicecombinedwiththisenvironment

areamenabletothissortoftask–worknotrequiringlongperiodsofconcentrationora

lotofwriting.

Anotherimpracticalityregardingthepracticalimplicationsoflaptops–whichisrelated

totheweight–isthehighriskoftheftinpublicspaces,includingtheBronfmanbuilding

where the Desautels Faculty of Management is housed. Here are interviewee #9

reflectionsonthisaspect:

And the other thing I dislike about public spaces is really the…Like you knowhereinthewinter,youhaveyourcoat,youhaveyour…Andthenyouhaveyourbagwiththelaptop,let’ssay.Andifyou’reworkingatStarbucks,byyourself,wellareyouleavingallthisstuffandthengoingtothebathroom?Orgoandgetmorecoffee?It’sveryannoying.Andthosethings,theydisappearin30seconds,ifyoulookaway.Imean,theydisappearinsideBronfman.Theyreporttheft,especiallyinthesecondfloor,allthetime.Theundergrads.Soyoudon’twanttodothat.Soeverytimeyouneedtopackyourstuff,andthentakeyourstufftothebathroom,andthen30secondslateryoucomeback,andthenyourtableisnolongerthere.Sothat’salsoabitannoying.

112

Interviewee #9’s wife (interviewee #13) shares this perspective and specifically

mentionshownotbeingabletogotothebathroomwithouttakingthelaptopwithheris

ahassle.Shealsopointsoutthattheadvantageofhavingafixedworkstationinanoffice

isthebulkinessactingasadeterrentfortheft,whereasalaptopismucheasiertosteal.

Asmentionedearlier,ontopofbeingdisappointedbytheweightandresulting lackof

portabilityofhislaptop,interviewee#15foundthatitlackedtheprocessingpowerhe

needed towork effectively. This is the same complaint as interviewee #10 regarding

lackofpoweroflaptopsfor“quantitativeanalysisordatacrunching”,howeverthisPhD

student finds a solution for his powerful computational needs andmobility by either

using hosted servers (Amazon for example) which were accessible via the Cloud or

designatingadesktopasaserverandgivinghimselfaccessfromanywhereallowinghim

toperformthe“datacrunching”onthemoveaslongashehadanInternetconnection.

Asexpected,connectivitywasalsoanimportantfactorforusingdevicesonthemoveor

using multiple devices for executing the same tasks. For example, interviewee #10

mentionshowmuchhereliesonthesynchronizationbetweenhisdevicesviatheCloud

so that he can work on the same document across different devices seamlessly

throughout the day. These devices include smartphones, tablets and desktops. The

quality of synchronization features offered by online services such as Google Docs or

Dropbox are of particular importance since the seamless switching between devices

depends a lot on this capability. For this to work, excellent connectivity is required

whetherthroughbroadbandWi-Fiormobile(forexample3G)networkconnections.

Theformatofdevices(acombinationofweightandsize)wasimportantfordetermining

how suitable they were for various tasks such as reading or writing. Most of the

interviewees agreed that smaller devices (such as smartphones) are not suitable for

readingorwriting:

Q:Doyouhaveanyothermobiledevicethatyoutakewithyou?A:Usually,Ihavemysmartphone,butIcan'treallyuseitforwork.AndIhaveatablet at home, but I try to use it sometimes and if I have to use it forwritingdown some small notes, it's ok.But I cannot reallyworkor readorwrite on atablet.SoifIhavetodosomeactualwork,Icomehere.EvenifIhaveacomputer,likeIhaveanotherlaptopathome,butit'sreallyold.Andit'slikefifteeninches,

113

soit'sreallyuncomfortabletocarryaround.Idon'tknowwhy,butItendnottouseitforwork.(interviewee#15)

Largescreensondesktopswerefavoredforlongperiodsofwork:

Toputtechnologybackinthediscussion,Inolongerhavealaptop.Sowith…I…Idon’tknow.I liketo…SoIhavean iPadtoread,andit’sverygoodtoread,andwriteshortthings,nottowritelongpapers,butyouknow,writenotesandstufflike that.But thenwhen Iwork, like seriouswriting, I like tobeatadeskwithlarge screens, because then you need to pull up not only the document you’rewriting, but references. And then laptops are not good for any of those things.Eitherforreading,justreading,orforwritingwithotherthings(interviewee#9)

Unfortunately, I'd say that I print out a lot of papers, so I'mnot really good atworking on screen, but I tend to use these two screens. As I said before, thatappliestocomputers,tovirtualdesktopspaceaswell.IneedasmuchspaceasIcan.(interviewee#15)

Aswesawearlieronthethemeofdistractions,certainPhDstudents(interviewees#9

and#10)wouldabandontechnologyaltogetherinfavorofpapersothattheycanavoid

distractions, we also see that some have a strong preference for paper because this

mucholdertechnologyoffersthemsomethingadevicecannot:

I tendto,whenpartofour job is toread,sowhenI justhave toread, I tendtoprintoutpapersandgosomewhereinacaféor insomeopenspacebecauseasyou can notice, there are no windows, which kind of drives me crazy.(interviewee#15)

Interviewee#12usesonlinesocialnetworkingtogetaroundtheproblemofnothaving

anaccesscardandbeingidentifiedasan‘intruder’:

Youdon'tfaceanyotherpeoplethatmuchintheday.Justifyougoknockontheirdoor,you'llfindotherpeople,butotherwiseit'skindofblocking.Evenforlunch,weuseFacebooktoseeifanyoneisgoingfor lunch"We'llbeatthe lounge".Sothat'sthewaypeoplegetaround.It'snotlikegoingtoseethepeoplephysically.

Regardingtheirdailyuseoftechnology,somehadsomeveryspecificfeedbackregarding

certain technologies and what they allow them to do. For instance, interviewee #9

lamentshowfewofhisfellowPhDstudentssharetheirworkusingCloud-basedservices

such as Dropbox. He compared the situation as a PhD student to that when he was

workinginaprivatecompanybeforemovingintoresearch.Inhisexperienceinprivate

enterprise,hefelthiscolleagueswerekeenertousetechnologytosharetheirwork.Asa

PhD student, the feeling is quite the opposite.Hewent on tomention how important

114

face-to-face contact is, for example in academic conferences, in order to be able to

continueworking at adistanceusing technology for collaboration. Interviewee#10 is

obviously a technology buff and is quite enthusiastic about experimenting with new

technologiesandfeaturestohelphimwithhisproductivity.Hisobjectivehasbeentogo

all-digital and get rid of paper. Although amitigated success (he complains about the

poordesignofcertainproductsandthedistractionpotential),thisPhDstudenthasbeen

very committed to achieving going ‘paperless’. He has identified many benefits,

including goingmobile, “Also, I noticed that themore I went virtual, themore I was

mobile”.Hisdrive to gopaperlesshas even incitedhim touseapen thatdigitizeshis

handwritingashewrites.Asmentionedearlier,inordertomakethishappen,thisPhD

student has needed to deploy a lot of technological solutions such as Cloud-based

computing,synchronizedfolders,documentversionmanagement,transcriptionengines,

etc. As we saw earlier as well, he was very critical of the distraction potential of

technologiescharacterizingcertaindevicesas‘jittery’or‘invasive’anddifficulttoadapt

todifferentcontextswhendistractionscouldbemorewelcome(forexampleathome).

However,theabilityofbeingmoremobileseemtomaketheseissuesminorannoyances.

Interviewee#14foundthathecouldclearlyseparatehisworkandhomeenvironments

technologically:

Butthisyearlike,Iboughtatablet.SothenIkindofdecidedthatthetabletisforthe apartment, like the tablet is for the fun stuff and towatchmovies and thatstuff.Andthelaptopisfortheoffice.SonowthereisaveryclearseparationandIdidn’tworkevenonedayfromtheapartmentthisyear.

Interviewees#14and#15mentionedhowduringtherenovationofthe5thfloorinthe

previous year, all PhD students were allocated laptops so that they may work from

anywhere.Theselaptopswerenottakenbackanditwasassumedthatoncethestudents

would get their offices back that theywould keep using these portable computers as

theirmainworktool.Asmentionedbyinterviewee#15,

Idon'treallyappreciatethechoicebecause,intermsofcomputationalpower,itislesspowerful.Andevenifit'sportable,it'snotasportableasyouwouldexpect,soithasn'tbeenareallygooddeal.

The imposition of this solution has not been universally appreciated. It would be

interesting to investigate the reasons for this choice by the Faculty andwhether any

spatialstrategyisbehindit.“Thepressureisthatwedon’thaveenoughspace”saysthe

115

facilitiesmanager at the Desautels Faculty ofManagement, so it is easily conceivable

that the Faculty has intentionally provided laptops to encourage more mobile work

practices to make the use of space more flexible and ease the pressure on space

allocation.Inasecondinterviewwiththefacilitiesmanager,shesays

Andeverybodywantstheirownoffice,right,andwhetherornotthat’snecessaryfor their job is something thatwe’re thinkingaboutandwhetherornot there’sways to improve the technology to help them do their jobs, but do it moreremotely.

The Bronfman building, again according to the facilities manager, was originally

designedfor1500personsandtodaythereareapproximately3000personsusingthe

building on a daily basis. Also, very clear is the intention to provide more space for

undergraduate students to work in groups, hence more open spaces with flexible

arrangementsseemstobethevisionforlargepartsofthebuildings.The2ndfloorofthe

Bronfmanbuildingwithitsremovableglasspartitionsandhighlymobilefurnishingsisa

goodexampleofthisstrategyputtoexecution.

AlthoughtheinterviewwiththeFacilitiesManageryieldedcodesthatdidn’tcompletely

intersectwiththespatialpracticesofPhDstudents,theydidprovideconcretefactsand

someinterestinginsightsintotheday-to-dayroutinesinthebuilding.Forexample,the

facilitiesmanagerplansher schedulearound theclass schedules toavoid the rush for

the elevators by students in between classes. So, staffmeetingswould be planned to

startorendbeforeorafterthesetimes.Also,theexpansionoftheBronfmanbuildingis

limitedbycertainbylawsrequiringcertainbuildingsinthedowntownareatonotstand

higher thana certainnumberof floors inorder tokeep the sightlines toMountRoyal

(themountainat the centerof the islandofMontreal) clear.Manyof theotherbitsof

informationprovidedbythefacilitiesmanageraremainlyfocusedonteachingpractices

and responding to the needs of students. Research did not specifically feature in the

conversation and seemed to be left to academics to figure out how to organize

themselvesforthisactivitywhetheritwasregardingcollaborationorfocusedindividual

work.

116

4.1.2.2 AnalysisThis exploratory phase of the study has revealed many themes and topics. What

emerges are three overarching themes linking both organizational space and

technology: the tension between concentration and distraction; the relationship

between the body, space and technology; and, the offer of technology in terms of

mobility and sociality. In each of these overarching categories, the role of technology

appearsasadeterminantfactorinshapingorganizationalspace.

4.1.2.2.1 Concentrationanddistraction

Althoughseenasproductivitytools,ICTdevicesarealsoverydisruptiveofworkgiven

theirdesigntoconstantlystimulatetheuserwithnewinformationthroughnotifications,

pop-ups,sounds,etc.Thisiswhatoneintervieweecallsthe‘jittery’natureoftechnology.

Theresultisanevidentandconstantbattletokeepdevicesfromdistractingworkwhile

trying as much as possible to exploit the features for productivity. This paradox

generates interesting effects on the organizational spaces of those working in a

university environment (PhD students principally). Some develop strategies to avoid

devices altogether or seek ways to disconnect from the Internet to concentrate. The

formerusually involvesprintingdocuments toworkon themaway fromdevices.This

usually involvesmoving away from locationswheredevices are usually present – the

officeorhome.So,papersareprintedandthenbroughttocafésorcommonspacestobe

readandannotated.ThelattersolutionwouldeitherinvolvegoingtoaplacewhereWi-

Fi is unavailable to work on a device or to completely switch off the feature on the

device.GettingawayfromWi-Fiusuallyimpliedgoingtoacaféorapublicspacewhere

thedevicesarenotusuallyconnectedtotheInternet. Inbothofthesecases–working

withpaperordisconnecting–involvesworkinginalternatespacestotheofficeorhome.

AllofthisbecauseofthetremendouscapacityofICTtodistract.

4.1.2.2.2 Therelationshipbetweenthebody,spaceandtechnologyLight devices, large screens and fixed desktops all had attractive attributes for the

interviewees.Allofthesehadtodowithhowthehumanbodyrelatestoorganizational

space and artefacts in them such as ICTdevices.A lightdevice is easily transportable

117

andallowsonetoworkonemailsonthebus.However,arelativelylightdevice–suchas

a laptop – is vulnerable to theft and thereforemakesworking alone in public spaces

impractical.Fixeddesktopcomputersaremuchlesspronetotheftduetotheirbulkiness

and their location in controlledareas suchas offices. Large screensareergonomically

suitableforlongperiodsofreadingandwriting;however,theyrequireanofficespace.

Thehumanbody,spaceandtechnologyinteractinallofthesecasestoproducechanges

inspatialpractices.Sometasksarenownolongerperformedintheoffice,butoutside

the workplace altogether (in public transport for example). Use of public spaces are

limitedduetotheimpracticalitiesofcarryingdevicesandexposingthemtotheft,orare

simply now used for specific tasks not requiring the use of ICT (reading printouts of

papers for example). These characteristics of both the ICT artefacts, the human body

alongwith the environment combine to shape how interviewees organize theirwork

spatiallythroughouttheday.Thereseemstobeanintricatelinkbetweenthetechnology

andorganizationalspacethroughthehumanbody.

4.1.2.2.3 TheofferoftechnologyintermsofmobilityandsocialityTechnology’sroleinbothmobilityandsocialityisevidentintheconversationshadwith

theintervieweesuptonow.ICTbreaksdownboundarieswhilehelpingcreatenewones.

More canbedoneon themovewith ICT and at the same time certaindevices canbe

designatedasfor‘fun’andothersforwork.Technologyisalsoresponsibleforenforcing

physicalbarrierssuchasaccess-cardaccesscontrolinbuildings.However,thesecanbe

circumvented by exploiting the sociality offered by technologies (such as social

networks)allowingonewithoutauthorizationtopass throughwith theaidofanother

personwithauthorization.Thesametechnologiescanalsohelpavoidundesiredcontact

withotherswhilenotfallingintoisolation.ICTalsoseemstohaveanimportantrolein

shaping the patterns of collaboration with others. Although face-to-face contact is

important, it seems thatonce trust isestablished,collaboratingatadistance issimple

with somereadilyavailable technologies suchasDropboxandGoogleDocs. Increased

mobility and freedomalsomean the intervieweeshave theneed to bemore active in

managing their spatialworkingarrangementsonadailybasis.Thisoften involves the

exploitationoftechnologiesandtheir featurestohelpthemdothis.Althoughthismay

seem to create a circular and deterministic logicwith technology driving new spatial

118

practices and at the same time these new spatial practices needingmore technology,

technology only underpins and facilitates a process of organizational change that is

constructed socially. Furthermore, technology use generates new problems that

eventually may require old-style solutions or the exclusion of technology altogether.

Aversionoftechnologyhas,onoccasion,producednewspatialpractices.

With these three overarching themes coming out of the fieldwork in the exploratory

phase,wefinallygetaglimpseathowICTandorganizationalspacecanbeconnectedat

aconceptuallevel.

Theexploratoryphaseofthestudyallowedforthefollowing:

• Theselectionofaspecificspatialpracticetostudy

• Theselectionofaspecificpopulationtostudy(inrelationthespatialpractice)

• Theformulationofafocusedresearchquestion

• Thedevelopmentofatheoreticalframework

Avarietyofbroadspatialpracticesinbusinessschoolsareundertakenonadailybasis–

teaching, admissions, research, dining, socializing, etc. Each of these broad categories

may be broken down into sub-categories. For instance, teaching can be broken down

into lecturing, evaluation, coaching, etc. The selection of both a spatial practice and

populationforthestudydependedonseveralfactors:

• Easeofaccess(forinterviews,observations,documents,etc.)

• Managerialrelevance

• Interest(bothpersonalandforthecommunity)

• Fitintotheliteratureandaddressingresearchquestionsnotyetaddressed

• Priorknowledgeofthepractice

Onthebasisofthesefactors,itwasdecidedthatthe intensivephasewouldbefocused

on the collaborative research practices of academics in business schools.6The initial

populationtargetedwerefaculty(lecturers,professors,researchfellows,etc.),butwas

broadened toPhD students to include any researcherwith a physical presence in the

6Thisnarrowfocusoncollaborativeresearchpracticeswaseventuallyabandoned

119

building and undertaking any form of collaborative research. Other spatial practices

were either deemed too specialized to be generalizable to broader management

research, or not of any relevance in the context of a business school (the case of the

business schooldoesn't bring any added interest). For example, focusingon teaching

wouldproduceastudywithmaincontributionspertainingtotheliteratureonpedagogy

inhighereducationratherthananypracticesthatcouldbegeneralizabletoothertypes

of organizations. Research activity isn't limited to academic institutions. There are

researchers working in the private sector (research institutes, think tanks, large

corporations) as well as governmental agencies. Much of the work undertaken is

collaborative in nature (projects involving more than one researcher). Some

consultancies undertake research and are actively involved in the production of

knowledge regardingmanagement practices in organizations. There is also very little

knowledgeonthistypeofactivityinorganizationsandthisisreflectedintheliterature

(seeliteraturereview).OneadvantageoffocusingonthisactivityisthatIalreadyhave

prior practical experienceworking in collaborative research projects and am familiar

with thebusinessschool researchenvironment. It isalsoofmuchpersonal interest to

me.

120

4.2 Phase2:IntensivePhase

During the exploratory phase, some new theoretical insights were made available

throughthedataand,more importantly, somediscoveries in the literature.Leonardi's

frameworkseemedto fit thestudyandeasilyadaptable (seeresearchdesignsection).

Thisadaptedframework,throughtherelatedconceptsofconstraintsandaffordancesof

ICT,providesasensitizingdevice(Walsham,1993)fortherelationshipbetweenICTand

organizationalspace.Thedatacollectedduringtheexploratoryphaseindicatedacertain

roleofmutual structurationbetween thecharacteristicsof the technologies (affording

or constraining) and spatial practices. This ismost evident in how those interviewed

described their efforts in partitioning their time-space intowork and home/personal

spheres and how their effortswould either be stymied or supported by technologies.

Interviewee#10,forexample,describeshowhehasleveragedtheCloudtofreehimself

fromtheconstraintsofeithercarryingalaptoparoundoraUSBkeywithallofhisfiles.

On the other hand, he is frustratedwith theway technology is intrusivewith lack of

controlovernotificationsandotherformsofdistractions.

Althoughthedatacollectedduringtheexploratoryphasewasnottargetingthespecific

practiceof collaborative research,many themes regarding collaborativework and the

constraintsoraffordancesoftechnologiesemergedandcontributetotheempiricalbasis

fortheinquiryathand.

Thecodingofdata–undertakenwiththehelpofNVivo–was(Bazeley&Jackson,2013)

performedwiththehelpofastartercodingsystembasedonthetheoreticalframework

developedearlier (see theoretical framework section).Threeprincipal related themes

wereestablishedtostart

• ICTAffordances

• ICTConstraints

• Spatial practices – research collaboration (changed later in the coding to just

Spatialpractices–researchwithasub-categoryoncollaboration)

121

The first two themes encompass the characteristics of ICT. These three themeswere

addedto theresultingcodestructure fromtheexploratoryphasebeforeactualcoding

began.

4.2.1 Case1:McGillUniversity–DesautelsFacultyofManagement

4.2.1.1 CodingCodingforthisphaseusingLeonardi’sframeworkhasturnedouttobeverydifficult.The

startercodingsystemproposedbasedonthethemesofICTAffordances,ICTConstraints

and Spatial practices – research collaborationdidnot yieldmanypassages of interest

and were very limiting in conceptual scope. Presenting a specific challenge was the

identificationofclearICTaffordancesorICTconstraints.Inmostcases,whenspeaking

ofusingtechnologydaily,intervieweeswouldeitherpresentamixedbagofaffordances

and constraints or speak of the same feature of a technology as helping as well as

hinderingtheirwork.Distinguishingperceivedaffordancesfromconstraintswhenusing

technologyfromtheinterviewdatawouldprovetobefutileandwouldinfactseemto

be a reductionist exercise. Precious information about the complex relationship

intervieweeshadwith technologicalartefactswouldseemtobe lostbyseparating the

‘positive’perceptionsoftheirbenefitsfromthe‘negative’ones.Thedatafromboththe

exploratoryandintensivephasesshowthatconstraintsandaffordancesoftenmanifest

themselvestogetherasasingledimension,muchlikethetwosidesofthesamecoin.The

same passages would end up getting coded in both categories thus making their

separationredundant.Whatemergesearlyfromthecodingoftheintensivephaseofthe

McGillcasewithregardstoICTaffordancesandconstraintsisacertainparadox–where

affordancesandconstraintsarepresent in thesame instanceofpractice.Forexample,

thesensethatatabletcanofferthebenefitofavoidingtheluggingoflargeamountsof

papersforreadingisexpressedinthesamebreathasthefrustrationofnotbeingableto

properlyannotatethepapers(eventhoughthisfeatureisavailableinmostofthecases).

This led to the creation of a new category ‘Affordance paradox’ to capture these

instances.Whilst this capturedmost of the data regarding practices reliant upon ICT,

there remainedmany instances where there was a clear expression of affordance or

constraint.Theseinstanceswouldbeclassifiedunderthecategoriesof‘ICTAffordances’

and ‘ICT Constraints’ as per the starter coding structure. Other new categorieswhich

emergedduringthissubphaseofcodingfortheMcGillcaseare:Habits&Routines,Place

122

asamindset,Generatingstress,Timezones,Isolationbubble,Copresence,Privacyornot

disturbing others, Freedom from connectivity, Teaching duties, Addiction, Mess,

Administrative collaboration, Anytime, Attachment to place, Data Security, Heavily

dependentontechnologyforresearch,Seamless,Printing&Paper,Loneliness,Looking

professional,MinimalICTRequirementsforJob,andThirdSpaces.Therefore,atotalof

23newcategoriesforcodingwhenincludingAffordanceparadox.Othersources,suchas

observationsandphotosofthesites,werecodedoncethesenewcategoriesemerged.

Outofthese23newcategories,thosecontainingsignificantamountsofsourcesdeserve

tobeexaminedinsomedetailsincetheywilldeterminethemannerinwhichthecoding

structurewill evolve. These categories areHabits and Routines, Affordance Paradox,

ICT Affordances and The Body. In examining each of these categories, I will develop

subcategoriestobetterstructurethedataforanalysis.

4.2.1.1.1 Habits&Routines(65references)Although the category Spatial practices – research collaboration (changed later in the

codingto justSpatialpractices–researchwithasub-catogoryoncollaboration)inthe

starter coding structure based on Leonardi’s framework would capture habits and

routinesforresearchcollaboration,itwasquicklyrealizedthatmuchdataregardingthe

dailyhabitsandroutineswouldhavebeenlostsincetheywerenotexplicitlylinkedtoa

researchactivity.Itwasthereforedecidedtocreateanewcategory.Sincethehabitsand

routines of academics in business schools are centered around the three activities of

teaching, researchandadministration, limiting thecoding topurelyresearchactivities

wouldhavebeenpenalizing. Eachof these three activities influence eachother in the

waytheystructuretheoverallregularspatialpracticesofacademics.Furthermore,most

oftheintervieweeswouldexpresstheirworkadayasamixofdifferenttaskswhichwere

difficult to isolate given their interrelated nature. Within this new category, 4 sub-

categoriesemergefromthedata:Organizingtheworkadayintimeandspace;Managing

ICT;Managingpaper;and,Cycles.

123

4.2.1.1.1.1 Organizingtheworkadayintimeandspace

When describing their daily routine, most of the academics interviewed would state

whatperiodsofthedayorweekwouldbespentwhere:“Ispendmostofthetimeinmy

officeactually,frommorninguntileveningandafterusuallyIgobackhomeataround7

or 8 o’clock in the evening” (interviewee#18); “So fromMonday to Friday I come to

office.It’sveryrarethatIcometoofficeontheweekends,butotherthanthatIcometo

officeoften.IfI’mnotoutofcountryI’llbeinmyoffice.”(interviewee#21);and,

Q:Okay.Soyousaidtwodaysaweekyouworkfromhome.A:Yes.Onaverage.”(interviewee#20);

Inthecaseofinterviewee#18,thereisasuggestionthatthedaily/weeklyroutinesfor

himself and his colleagues are determined by the distance between home and the

workplace:

Q. So, do you very frequently, go to the office during the weekend, or in theevening,doyouever?A.Yeah,yeah,ifthere’sanythingIneedtobring,Icandropbyanytime.YeahyeahQ.OK.A.ButnormallyIcometoschooleveryday,so…Q.Everydayandeventheweekends?A.Yeah,Icanstopbyduringtheweekend.Yeah,yeahQ.Alright,ummm,probablythelast…yeahgoon..A.Ithinkthisnotatypicalpatternformostofthepeople…Q.Atthefacultyhere?A. Yeah, yeah,most of the people live further away from the office, yeah yeah(interviewee#18).

This is not a point raised by his colleagues in the other interviews. However, other

factorsseemtoinfluenceroutines.Oneofthemisfamilyobligations:

Sobasically Ihavetwoworkspaces.One ismyofficehere,andIalsohaveahomeoffice.SoduringtheweekdaysIcometomyofficeeveryday.So…Infact,forthetimeI’mteaching,anddoingotheradministrativework,I’dresearchinmyoffice,sofromI’dsayeightthirtytofourthirty, that’smyregularhoursthatI’minmyoffice.AndthenbecauseIhaveayoungdaughter,Ihavetopickherupandthengohomeand…SoIdo…Alittlebitofworkintheevening.Mostlyafternine,ninePM.SofromninePMuntil, I don’t know,maybe for one or twohours, I do somework inmyhomeoffice.Andduringtheweekend,occasionallyIalsoworkinmyhomeoffice.Sothat’smykindofweeklyroutine.(Interviewee#23)

For others, the daily orweekly routine doesn’t follow a set pattern in time, however

followscertainpatternsasafunctionofthemoodofthedayorthefamilycontext:

124

Butactuallyitreallychangesfromonedaytoanother.LikeifIfeellikeI’mgoingtobeokayworkingathome,I’mgoingtostayathome,butifIcanI’mtryingtocometotheofficebecauseIfeellikeIhavemuchfewerdistractions.LikeIhavetowork, like there’s nothing else I cando. Like at home I candodifferent things.(Interviewee#19)Q:Okay.Doyoueverfeellikeyou…Possiblynotwiththisweather,butanytimewhenyoufeellike,okay,I’vehadenoughofsittinghereinthisoffice,Ihavetogotoacoffeeshop?A:ThathappensquitealotQ:OkayA: Yes, actually that happens. Like in the foyer, I was just saying as well, youknow, if Iwanttocomehereaswell forarelationshipwe’vegot it,because if Iwanted at somepoint to take abreak, I know that I have [inaudible] or I have[anonymized],IhavepeopleIcangoandtalktoorIhave…Youknow,sothat’sniceaswell. Ineedtotakeabreakfromtimetotime, ithappenstomeaswell,andI’mdoingthatmoreandmorenowthatI’mpregnant.I’mdoingthemorninghere,likeuptotwoandthree,andthenIgohomeandIfinishthedaywithmoremanualtasks.Likeeasytaskathome.(Interviewee#19)

In the caseof interviewee#19, there is also thematterof sharingboth thehomeand

workplaceofficeswithherhusbandwhoisaconsultantandfrequentlyalsoworksfrom

homewhichhasconsequencesonpatternsandmovements:

Yes, one thing that’s tough, that if there is only one office space, and sowhenmyhusbandcomeshomeontheweekends,thenwefightforofficespace,right?Sothat’sanissue.SoithappenedthatactuallyIsendhimhere,andhe’sworkingfromhere,andI’mworkingfromhome.Orwhenweneedtoworkontheweekend,whenwe’rebothworking,ortheopposite,Icomehereandhestaysathome.Butwecannotworktogetherinthesame…Intheapartment.Soifweneedto…Ifthetwoofusneedtowork,oneiscominghere.(Interviewee#19)

For interviewee#16, theroutine isamatterof strictdisciplineandregularity in time,

“I’malways imposingonmyself anine to fiveand then I rarelyworkoutsideof these

hours” and when referring to meeting colleagues about the writing of a paper for a

publication, “everyweekwemeetat thesamehour, sameday foranhour”.Discipline

comesupininterview#20intheformofastruggletomaintainastrongpsychological

separationbetweenworkandpersonallife,

AndIwouldfeelcompelledtodoit.AndI’vestoppedworkingonweekendsonlyforabout18monthsnow.SoIfearthatlike,likeanalcoholicIcouldgetbacktodoingso.Iwouldfeargoingbacktogoingtomyolderhabitsofworkingtoolateatnight,overtheweekendsandallthat.

125

Interviewee#20 also describes how some old habits fromher days as a PhD student

staywithhertoshapeherroutineasanacademic,

Well I collaboratewith some colleagues at HECMontreal. So I,well. At least onceevery other week or sometimes every week.When the week they work I will gothere, especially when I was working with my former advisor, it stays with you.You’retheonethatgoesthere.ForalongtimeIwasworkingthereontheweekandnowIhaveanothercolleaguesoIgoeveryotherweek.Soyes.Iworkthereaswell,butmoreasakindofavisitthing.SoIhaveafewthingstherethatbelongstome.Iusedtohavealaptopthereandallthat,butjustthat.

Others, such as interviewee #23 are more flexible regarding their routines at home

dependingonworkdemands,“Yes.Sothat’sprobablythe…SobutwhenIhaverevisions

thatIneedtofinishurgently,Iworkuntillateatnight.”Inthecaseofinterviewee#17,

thedayisstructuredbasedonnaturalproductivitylevelsandexternalconstraintssuch

asmeetingsandroadtraffic,

Whatelse?Itendtotrytoorganisewritinginthemorningsbecausethat’swhenI’mbest.Andthen,meetwithpeople intheafternoons, if Ineedtodothat.Sometimesyoucan’tcontrolit,youhavetogotomorningmeetings.Iusedtoworkquiteearlyinthe morning, like I started at 6:00, and would work… Try to work withoutinterruptiontillmaybe10:00orso,andthenI’dmissthetrafficifIhadtocomein.

Interviewee#17specificallymentionshavingbuilt-ina sense that callswithacademic

collaborators in other time zones happen at specific times of the day: “So I’ve gotten

usedtothatsortof,okay,endofdayistherighttimeforthoseAustraliacalls.”

AccordingtoInterviewee#19,thetaskssheisrequiredtoaccomplishduringthedayare

determinanttodecidingwheretoworkonagivenday,“SoItendtodobigtasksatthe

office.Like[inaudible]writingresearchhere.IfIhavetojustgradepapers,forinstance,I

candothatathome,”and,“IthinkIhaveactuallyatendencytowriteattheoffice.”

The local climate and urban environment offers opportunities for interviewee#21 to

changeherroutineanddiscoverthirdspacessuchascoffeeshopsduringtheweekends:

Q:Okay,youmentionedaboutgoingtocoffeeshops.A:Yes.Q:Whendoyoudothat?A:Thatwillbetheweekends.Q:Okay,thatwillbetheweekends.A:Yes.Q:Andwouldthatbethatthosearecoffeeshopsclosetoyourhome?

126

A:No, Imean inMontreal, ImeanyouknowMontreal, it’snot reallybig andafterlivinginNewYork,Montrealreallyisn’tthatbig.Ijustgrabmypapers,mytabletandthendiscoveracoffeeshop.(Interviewee#21)

4.2.1.1.1.2 ManagingICT

Asexpected,ICTfeaturesprominentlyasafactorintheshapingoftheworkadayofthe

academicsinterviewed.Someofthesefactorsarepresentedasoutrightconstraints:

Idon’tknowwhy,maybeitcouldbemymisunderstanding,butdatastream,whenIrun data stream I can’t really do anything else on my desktop efficiently. Sosometimes I just come here, run the data stream and leave, go back home.(Interviewee#21)

However,mostof thetime,habitsareformedoutofstrategiesmakingthemostof the

opportunitiesforproductivitypresentedbyICTwhileminimizingtheeffectsofvarious

technical constraints (for example, cumbersomedevices) ordistractivepotentials (for

example,persistentemailnotifications).

When Iwas bringingmyMac here, I preferred to bringmyMac to the classroom.Whichmeantbringingmyadapterandbringingallof thestuffwithme.But itwasstillabetterdeal than todo theUSBkey,becauseyou’vegot tenminutesbetweenclasses.SooneyearIwasbacktobacktobackinthesameclassroom,itwasworth…If I’mthreehourssomewhere, it’sveryoftenworthto installmystuff.Foranhourand25minutes,andcomingbackandstayinganhourorso,it’seasierovertheUSBkey.ButnowI’mnotbringingmyMaceveryday,soaUSBkeyiswhatIhavetodo.There’scrazy littlestuff like IoftenuseaPdf filewith financialstatementson, likePowerPoint slides. So I’ve been alt tabbing to something else for a long time.(Interviewee#22)

Interviewee#16,likehisstrict9to5workroutine,enforcessomestrictrulesregarding

hisuseof ICT,especiallyhis smartphone“Ihaveazerounreadmailboxpolicy”, “but I

turnitoffatnight”.Interviewee#16suggeststhat,althoughhevaluestheconvenience

of a smartphone – allowinghim to checkhis emails on the go –he is cognizant of its

potential todisrupthissleep.Thisdisruptivepotential isall themore importantgiven

that he has put in place a policy of ‘zero’ unread emails. Policies regarding unread

emailsandthespeedofresponsehelpshapethehabitsofotherinterviewees:

ButiPhone,Imeanmyemails,yes.That’sgoodtobeabletocheckemails,seethereissomething of importance.At any time.But I’musually answering emails relativelyfast,soonthat,yes,ifIhaveanemailthat’s…Ineedtoanswer,andIhaveitonmyiPhone,Ijustdoitrightaway.Ineverleavelikemorethanfiveemailsunreadinmyemailbox.(Interviewee#19)

127

AndnowI’mlookingatmyself,maybe it’snoteverytwominutes,but it’severy10minutes.Mystudentsgenerallyreceiveananswerfrommewithinanhourlet’ssay,theworstcasescenario.(Interviewee#21)

However,interviewee#19citesthosetimesshe’saccompanyingherhusbandononeof

his business trips as an occasion when her ability to check emails is limited and

therefore her need to check them is diminished, “But it’s… I don’t need to accessmy

emails100%ofthetime.Ineedtoaccessthemmaybethreetimesaday,inthemorning,

atlunch,andatnight.Butthat’sit.So…”Itseems,inthiscaseatleast,theneedtocheck

andprocessemails isdetermined inpartbyhoweasy it is todo soandwhereone is

located.

Having multiple devices and computers, interviewees didn’t feel the need to carry a

laptop with them everywhere they went, “No I just leave my laptop at home”

(Interviewee #18), especially given they readily use tools to synchronize their files

across the devices or at least give them access from any device connected to the

Internet, “Yes, Imean I’musingDropbox all the time” (Interviewee#19). Interviewee

#23describeshowheusestheinstitution’snetworkdrivetogetaccesstohisfileswhen

teachinginclassrooms:

A:SoIputmyslidesonthenetworkdrive,andthenIgotoclassroom.IloginwithmyIDandpassword,thenIcanopenthefile.Soonlybringinglikethelaserpointersandsyllabus,thosethings.Q:Bysyllabus,youmeanpaper?A:Yes.SometimesIneedtofindsomeinformation.Q:YoubringyouriPhone,Ipresume?A:No.

Interviewee#20describeshowforapastcollaborationshehadaccesstoalaptopand

networkresourcesinanotherinstitutioninMontreal–HEC:

A:ForalongtimeIwasworkingthereontheweekandnowIhaveanothercolleaguesoIgoeveryotherweek.Soyes.Iworkthereaswell,butmoreasakindofavisitthing.SoIhaveafewthingstherethatbelongstome.Iusedtohavealaptopthereandallthat,butjustthat.Q: Okay andwhat.What kind of Imean do you use, I guess you have an accountthere?AtHEC?A:IusedtobutI’mnotsurebecauserecentlyIhaven’tloggedonthere.ButIworkwith(…)butyeahtheyusedto.Andthesecretariesarenicetomeaswell.Theydostuffforme,soIkindofwasabletorecreateabitofaset-up.

128

4.2.1.1.1.3 Managingpaper

Paper carries great importance to those academics interviewed, and this is a critical

factorinshapinghabitsandroutines.Ofparticularconcernfromaspatialstand-point,is

the question: How do academics physically manage the paper they produce and

subsequently use? In the following case – interviewee #19 prints out those journal

articleswhichshefeelsarethemostimportantforherliteraturereviewandkeepsthem

asastackonherdesk.Aseachpaperisprocessed,theyaredisposedof:

Q:Okay.Sowhenyousayworkonapaper,you’retalkingaboutworkingonpaperyou’rewriting…A:No,no,notnecessarilyapaper I’mreading.Like I’mreadingaswella lot, tobeabout[inaudible].Usuallymyreviewofliterature,likeallthepapersI’mreallygoingtociteinapaperI’mwriting,Ilikehavingastack,andthenIcanjusttakethemandokay,ofthecitation,beexactlysurewhatthey’resaying.So…Q:Okay, that’s interesting.Andwhat… Just to stayon thatpoint,doyouever scanthemandputthem…Howdoyou…Doyoucarrythemwithyou?A:WellIusuallyhavetheminDropbox,butI’musingthemonlytoprintthem.Q: Right, but in terms of the annotations, how do you keep that information? Doyou…A:No,Idon’tscanthem.They’reonmydeskforallthatIneedthem,andthentheygotothetrash.So…No,Idon’tkeeptheinformation.Q:Youdon’tkeepit,okay.A:No.

Inthecaseofinterviewee#20,thepracticeisslightlydifferentinthatsheprintsoutthe

documentsintheofficetothentakehometoprocess:

Iwouldusuallyprintthemandbringthemhometoread.Forexampleif Ihavemystudents’papertoassess.UsuallyIknowiftomorrowIwanttodoandI’llworkfromhomethenI’llprintitherebefore.

Althoughprintingisdeemedimportant,someofthoseinterviewedwouldnotgetoutof

their way to get documents printed, “but like on a morning like I have to print

something,Iwouldn’tcometoschooljustforprinting”(Interviewee#21).Interviewee

#22iskeentoavoidpaperaltogether.

Intriguingly,itseemsthatwhenitcomestodealingwithstudentevaluation,gradingon

papercarriesmorelegitimacy:

SowhatIdoisIhavegradersandwhatIusuallydoisthatIhavethemprintallofit,thenwritewitharedpenthecorrectionandthenIhanditbacktostudentsfor10minutes, they hand it back to me and then I keep it in one of my drawers(Interviewee#16)

129

This preference for paperwhen dealingwith students is echoed in the new category,

Affordance Paradox where instances like this occur when academics deal with

colleagues.

4.2.1.1.1.4 Cycles

Although the habits described by the interviewees were generally concerned with

quotidian or weekly routines, some cyclical aspects of the academic calendar were

deemedquitecriticalindefininghabits.Formanyoftheacademics,thedesertedoffice

landscapeduringthesummerholidaysisconsideredtobeasadinterludeonlyendedby

the great surge in activities at the beginning of the academic year – “in September

everybody’s coming back” interviewee #16 says happily referring to this moment.

Another key moment in the academic calendar, especially for collaboration, is the

conference season – generally through themonths of April,May, June and early July.

Accordingtointerviewee#18,hegoesawaytoconferences“Threeorfourtimes”ayear.

For interviewee #17, being at the head of a research team, means the organizing of

yearlyretreatsforallmembers:“So,onceayear,wespend,Idon’tknow,anywherefrom

threetosevendaystogethersomewhere,wherewecanallbephysicallypresent”.

TheclimateofMontreal isalsocitedasan influencing factor inshapingdailyroutines

aroundseasonalchanges:

A:Soit’ssplitalittlebitandit’slesstiring.Butyes.Imean,[inaudible]aswellwe’reinMontreal, so depending on theweather, that is going to impactmy decision tocome to the office or not. Right, there were some days in January that were justhorrible, completely icy.Andagainbeingpregnant Iwas like, I’mnotworking, I’mworkingtotheoffice.I’mnotworkingbythisweather,Imightjustfalland…Sonogood.Q:Yes.AndIsuppose…Sothenyoustayathomeandyouworkfrom…A:Fromhome.Q:Fromhome,okay.A:I’mdoingmybesttoworkfromhome.(Interviewee#19)

OncewinterpassesMontreal isbeautiful,soI’llgotoparksor juststepoutside.Soagain it’s going to be… the thing is that if theweather is nice I can actually leaveofficeataround4p.m.(Interviewee#21)

130

4.2.1.1.2 AffordanceParadox(63references)Inanechoofthetensionsfoundinexploratorysubphase1.2(technologicaldistraction

vs.hallwaydistractionorsilencevs.noise),ICTuseshowsupasasourceoffrustration

where interviewees find it difficult to reconcile all the benefits offered by technology

withcorrespondingannoyancesandlimitations.Inmostcases,thismanifestsitselffirst

as expressionof enthusiasmabouthowa specificdeviceor IT service increasesone’s

productivity, quickly followed by how such devices or services either distracts them

(such as notifications) or hinders their productivity more directly (such as lack of

connectivity).

These affordance paradoxes can be divided into four broad subcategories: Paper,

Unevendistributionofaffordance,Ergonomicissues,andDistraction.

4.2.1.1.2.1 Paper

AlloftheMcGillacademicsinterviewed–withonenotableexception(interviewee#22)

–preferredtoworkwithpapercopiesofdocumentsoverelectronicversions.Thiswas

the case regardless of seniority, although, the most senior academic interviewed

(interviewee #17, now retired) was particularly reluctant to use ICT – even for

qualitative coding. Evenwhen in possession of a laptop and on themove, shewould

prefertheexpenseofhavingdocumentsprintedatalocalservicecentre.Herpreference

forpaperwaswidelysharedbycolleagues.

Interviewees#18,#19,#20and#23mentionthetactileandintuitivenatureofpaperas

reasons for their preference for reading and annotating documents. Interviewee #18

says“becausesometimesIliketoholdthepaperinhand,andit’salsoeasiertoreadthe

paperonahardcopy”.Interviewee#20saysshelikesto“scribbleonthings”andthatshe

couldnevergetusedtoworkingondocumentsinpureelectronicformat–althoughshe

has started reading novels on a tablet. She adds that the only casewhere shewould

resorttousinganelectronicversionis“IfI’mreallystuck.ThatI,youknowI’monthe

go,going toameetingand Igeta file that Ihave to,otherwiseno”.Both interviewees

#19and#23preferpaperversionsofdocuments for reading,butalso forannotating.

Forinterviewee#23,

131

I think theprintout actuallyworksbetter forme.Forpure reading, I can readoff-screen,butforlikereally…Likeforrevisionsforexample,Ihavetoreadthereally…Ihave to concentrate, and I have to, you know, sometimesmake notes. So for thatpurposeIthinktheprintoutworksalotbetter.So…

Inthecaseofinterviewee#19,“I’mstillliketheolder…Likemypenandhighlightingin

coloursandthingslikethat.So…IfIneedtoworkonapaper,Iusuallyprint”.However,

shedoesgotomentionhowshewouldliketotrytolimitherprintingbecauseofboth

budgetaryandenvironmentalconcerns.

Thispreferenceforprintedmatterbyacademicscomesintosharpfocusinanotherway

from the interviews. Interviewee #22 has the explicit goal of avoiding paper in a

“massiveway” so thathecanaccessdocumentselectronically fromwhereverhe finds

himself.However,hiseffortsarefrustratedbyothers’preferenceforprintedmatter.He

complainsthatofficestaffandcolleaguescirculatepapercopiesofdocumentsbydefault.

Hecitesadministrativemeetingsasoneexampleofhowdifficult it istochangehabits.

Although he tries to attend thesemeetingswith electronic versions of documents, he

often finds those versions outdated and that the most recent versions are in paper

formatdistributedforthemeeting.Expressinghisfrustration,hesays,

So I’m usingmy iPhone verymuch. Imean, I think I’ve pissed offmy dean a fewtimes, because instead of going to see him with a piece of paper, I call it on myiPhone,andIdon’tthinkhe’sveryhappyaboutthat.

Interviewee #22 also laments the fact that teaching duties – especially for grading –

oftenrequiretheprintingoutofhundredsofstudentdocuments(assignmentsorexam

copies),

Soyes,it’salittlebit…Imean,theprofessorsarepartofthat,mostofmycolleaguesthatdoelectronicendupprintingeverything.AndfranklyIthinkit’sawasteoftime.Sothat’swhyifI’mabouttoprintthatforastudentprinting,ittakes30seconds.Formetoprintitforeachstudentis30secondstimes250.Andthatwouldbeacoupleofhours.Icandosomethingbetterwithmytime.

Interviewee #16 even suggests that the grading of student assignments has more

legitimacywhenitisperformedonprintedmatterthanwithelectronicversions,

Istilllike…Istillthinkthatifyouprintitandthenyougradeitwitharedpenitfeelsbetter. Imean I think to thestudent I think it feelsmore likeanactualgrade thanhavingacomment inaWorddocument. Icouldhaveabettersystem.(…)…sothewhole thing is like students have to believe that the grading system is strong,

132

because if theydon’tbelieve it then they’regoing tostart fighting itbackandthenI’mgoingtohavealineofpeopleliningdownmyofficeaskingmetolikemake,likehave a second lookat a gradeor something like that. So for the system to lookasstrongaspossibleIthinkaprintedversionwitharedpenisactuallythebestwaytodothat.

4.2.1.1.2.2 Unevendistributionofaffordance(dependentonplace)

Althoughallof theacademicsatMcGillwereapparentlysatisfiedwith the ICTat their

disposal to perform their professional duties, it would eventually emerge – usually

towardstheendoftheinterviews–thatthereweresomelackings.Thesemostlycame

up as specific issues preventing the seamless use of ICT and services across space –

usuallybetweenthehomeandtheworkplace.

GiventhepreferenceofMcGillacademicsforprintedmatter–ofteninlargequantities–

it is no surprise thatmany issues arose from this need in terms of the availability of

printingacrossspace.Interviewees#19,#20and#23expressedtheirneedforregular

high-capacity printing. The fact that thiswas only available to them at theworkplace

wouldensureapresenceintheofficeonaregularbasis.Thesehigh-capacitymachines

werecombinationcopier-printer-scannersthatwouldbesharedbystaffandservicedby

theMcGillITservices.Interviewee#19regretsnothavingthesamecapabilityforhigh-

capacity printing at home, whilst interviewee #23 keeps an individual printer in his

office forquick jobsand in case there is aqueue for thehigh-capacity sharedprinter.

Forinterviewee#18,nothavingaprinteratallathomeisabigreasonwhyheworksin

hisofficeinsteadofathome.Interviewee#19expressedthedesiretohavesomeformof

solutionformobileprintingthatwouldbepractical.

Connectivity across space was another area throwing up isssues for interviewees.

Interviewees #22 and #23 complained of too many locations where Wi-Fi is not

available,thusmakingseamlessaccessacrossspacedifficulttoachieve.Interviewee#22

specificallymentions not having access in other universities and complains about the

excessivecostofdataplanswithmobileoperators.Interviewees#19and#23findthat

theslowerspeedofInternetconnectionsintheworkplacehindertheirproductivitytoa

certain degree. Interviewee #19 specificallymentions being unable to show YouTube

videosinclassandinterviewee#23findsthespeedoftheconnectiontobemuchfaster

133

athome,yetisdiscouragedbythesmallscreenonhislaptopthere.Ontheotherhand,

interviewee#18isforcedtousearemoteconnectiontohisofficecomputerifhewishes

toworkfromhomesinceitrunssomespecialsoftwareheneedsforhiswork,

One thing is because even if I use remote desktop, it’s not very efficient, and theconnectioncanbeveryslowsometimes.Someoftheiconscannotshowcorrectlyonthe screen so I prefer to, and also my home is very close to office so, just a fewminuteswalk,so

Therefore,hemakestheshortwalktohisofficeinsteadofworkingfromhome.Thisis

ontopofthefactthathisdesktopintheofficehasmorecomputationalpowerthanhis

laptop at home. Interviewee #19 cites a similar reason for preferring to work at the

office:

My desktop is actually better. My laptop has three years now, so I think I’meligibletochangeit inJuly,andI’mlookingforwardtothat.Becauseitstartstogetabitslow.Butotherwise,itworksokay.Butmydesktopismore…It’smoreperformance, it can never crash like my laptop crashes. Like I have the bluescreenofdeathveryregularly.

Other issues cited are Klickr not compatible with iOS which makes using an iPad

impracticalforclasses(interviewee#16);poorprojectorconnectivityinclassroomsfor

iPads (interviewee #22); not having the same setup across shared computers

(interviewee#22); and, being obliged to store sensitive data on the Cloud due to the

designoftheiPad(interviewee#22)

4.2.1.1.2.3 Ergonomicissues

Thelimitationsofthehumanbody–initsinteractionswithICTartefacts–hasemerged

asamajorfactorimpactingtheeffectivedailyuseoftechnologybyacademics.Thesize

of thedevices and their screens, theirweight alongwith their keyboard interfaces all

appearasobstaclestousingmobiledevicestotheirfullpotential.Bothinterviewees#16

and#23feelthattheirsmartphonesareonlyappropriateformonitoringemailsandnot

replyingduetothedifficultiesinreadingandtypingonsuchasmalldevice.Bothwould

waituntiltheyhaveaccesstoabiggerdevicetogivemoreattentiveconsiderationand

eventuallyreply.Hereisanextractoftheexchangefrominterview#23whendiscussing

smartphoneuse:

Q:Okay.Anddoyoufindyourselfdoinganything…Wouldyoureadanarticleonyour…Orwouldyoulookat…?

134

A:Onmysmartphone,veryrarely.Isometimes,youknow,there’sanewsarticle,orevenlikeemail,ifit’slong,ifit’sdenseemail,I’drather,youknow,readit…Iquicklycanscanit,butItrytoreaditfrombiggerdevices.EitheriPad,mylaptop,ormydesktop.

Eventhemuchbiggertabletscreensareconsideredtoosmallforseriousworksuchas

readingdocuments(interviewee#18). Anaddedissueregardingtabletsisusingthem

for typing large amounts of text and the resulting conundrum this has caused for

interviewee#22:

Ihaven’tdonethisyet,butIseethenumerouslittleBluetoothkeyboardsforiPads,andsomyiPadwouldstillworkwiththis.ButIhadakeyboard,butIdidn’tlikeit.But I’m still reluctant to have this, because if Iwant to carry a laptop, I’ll carry alaptop.But I’m seeingpeoplebeingefficient anddoingemailwith these things. Sothat’ssomethingI’lldefinitelyconsider.ButIdon’twanttolosethenotionthatIhavesomething in my hand just to read, and so I have to find the right keyboard, orsomethingthatIcanjustremoveeasily,andnotcarryaround.SoIboughtanApplekeyboardtodothis,butI’mnotusingitthatmuch.MyAppleBluetoothkeyboardI’mnotusing.AsmuchasIthought.IusedtodothiswhenIwoulddoanupdatedcopy,andthenIwouldtypemycommentsatthebottom.Ifoundoutthatit’seasiertojustsendittomyemailandforwardthefiletopeopleandtypemycomments.

Interviewees #18 and #23 also prefer, by far, the comfort of the large screen of a

desktopcomputer in theoffice to thatof their laptopswhichare locatedathome. An

added inconvenience of laptops is their weight and the hassle they represent when

goingthroughairportsecurityaccordingtointerviewee#19.

A:Sothat’sonethingIcould.Otherthanthat,Iliketohavetwoscreens.Q:Yessure.A:Yesthat’s the, it’s theITmanagerwhosuggestedthattomea fewyearsago.AndwhenIworkonqualitativeanalysis,onpapersorevenIworkonsomethingmyemailisopenandIlovethat.SoIdon’tknowifit’srelevant,butIlovethat.Mytwoscreens.Imissthatathome.Q:Okayveryinteresting.A:Mybiglaptopandmytwoscreens.(Interviewee#20)

4.2.1.1.2.4 Distraction

The tension between the productivity offered by technology and their distractive

capacities carries over from the exploratory phase into the intensive phase. This

manifestsitselfatnumerousmomentsduringtheinterviews.Likeinterviewees#8,#9,

#10 and #14 in the exploratory phase, interviewees #16, #17 and #21 developed

strategiestoabatethedistractive–anddisruptive–potentialofICT. Interviewee#17

135

uses a lakeside log-cabin in the Great Lakes region of Canada as a calm retreat for

creativework and specifically ensured itwasnot connected in anyway electronically

(Internetorphone):

Andsowe’vedecidedfornow,wedon’twanttobeconnected,becauseittransformsthatplaceintoasortof100%workandconnectivity,whichwe’djustsoongetawayfrom, and I know that might seem like an anathema. Anyway, that’s how we’vehandleditnow.

Interviewees #21 and #23 explicitly refer to ‘addiction’ when speaking about their

relationshiptoconnecteddevices.

Well to behonest, since I startedusing smartphone, it’s a really nicedevice. But Iguess it becomes an addiction. There’s huge variation in terms of addiction. Butbecause I don’t think I need to actually… So like thismorning, Iwas checkingmyemailwithmysmartphone,andIthought,reallyIdon’tneedtocheckmyemailthatoften,right?LikewhenIdidn’thaveasmartphone,Ididn’tdothat,butlifewasokayactually,withoutdoingthat.(interviewee#23)

It’s almost a habit I think. So I always put it in my pocket, and then… So I evenwithout…Unconsciously, I think, it’swithme.And it’ssometimes,youknow,whenyoudon’thaveyour iPhone,my iPhoneactually I think itmakesmeabitnervous.That’s a signof addiction I think. So that’s…Those are themoments I think aboutthis,maybeIshouldcutdownonusingsmartphone.(interviewee#23)LikewhenIwasdoingmyPhDIhadthisoneprofessorwhotoldusthathehadthisaddiction of checking his email every two minutes and he was actually like that.WheneverIsenthimanemailhewouldreplybacktomejustintwominutes.AndIwaslikeIwasshockedbythat.AndnowI’mlookingatmyself,maybeit’snoteverytwominutes, but it’s every 10minutes. My students generally receive an answerfrommewithinanhourlet’ssay,theworstcasescenario.EvenifIdothatIthinkit’stoomuch. It’s like Ineed tobedisconnected time to time. It’s like it’snot that I’mbeingon the Internet, it’s not like I’m reading scientific papers all the time. I readtabloids.It’slikeYahoo.comandthenthestupidnews.Soit’ssometimesit’slikeifIforcemyself not to have that kind of access, it’s good, it’s beneficial. (interviewee#21)

Like interviewee #17, interviewee #21 seeks freedom from connectivity by working

fromthirdplaces:

Here’sthething,sometimesIactuallydeliberatelylookforacoffeeshopthatdoesn’toffer freeWi-Fi, because thatwill forceme to readmypapers. If I haveWi-Fi I’mgoingtocheckmyemailandthen fewminutes I’mgoingtochecknewspapersandthen suddenlyendupwatching catvideosonYouTube. So that’swhysometimes Iactuallyforcemyselftogotocoffeeshopswherethere’snofreeWi-Fi.I’ll justreadmypapers.

136

Interviewee #16 uses a different approach to manage the disruptive capacity of his

smartphone–byturningitoff:

So forproductivity it’sprettygood,but Ido thinkat somepoint, youknow, if youreallywanttobefocusedononethingyou just turn itoff. Idon’t thinkyoucanbeveryproductivewithlikeaniPhoneonyourlap.

A feeling that technology diminishes the collaborative experience was also quite

prevalent. Interviewees #17 and #20 have an explicit preference for face-to-face

contact for collaboration. Interviewee #17 seeks funding for regular ‘team retreats’

because,

AndIdon’tthinktheSkype…Wehavealotofteamcalls,butit’snotaseffectiveintermsofbuildingasenseofcommunity,andbuildingasenseofusbeing…Workingtogether,misunderstandingsaremorelikelytooccurandthatkindofthing.

However, she finds it increasingly difficult to justify the funding because of the

expectationfromfundingbodiesthatthesephysicalmeetingscanbereplacedbyvirtual

ones:

Q:Okay.Didyoustillhavethosegetaways?Didyoustillhavethose?A:Yes,wedid.Q:Okay.A:Andthen,Ibudgetedforthemtwiceayear.Q:Okay.A:Andthegrantsweremoreacceptingofthatthantheyarenow.Onceayearwaskindof,youdon’treallyneedthis,butallright,we’lldoit,youknow,kindofthing.Q: And you think that that’s because they expect you to be able to manage with[inaudible]?A:Absolutely.Q:Right.Okay.

“YesIhatethephone”saysinterviewee#20.Shewouldespeciallydislikethismodeof

communicationwhenitinvolvesacollaboratorwhoisco-located,“ForexampleifIhave

totalktosomeoneinthisbuilding,formeevenifit’sanotherfloor,theideaoftakingthe

... I’ll get out and I’ll go see them. I never phone my colleagues”. Her dislike of the

telephoneissostrongthatshediscourageshercolleaguestoleavevoicemail“BecauseI

neverthinkofcheckingmyvoicemail.”

In more indirect ways, some of the interviewees lamented the ease with which

technologycandiminishthesocialexperienceatworkandthepeaceofthehome. For

interviewee #21, although technology allows her to work from home, she prefers to

137

cometotheofficeonaregularbasistomaintainaface-to-facesocialcontactwithothers.

Sheevendecidedagainst theconvenienceofhavingaprinter inheroffice so that she

would be obliged to travel to the printer room to fetch jobs andhopefully bump into

other people to socialize. In the same vein, while interviewee #17 appreciates the

convenienceoftechnologyforkeepingcontact,shebelievesitisimportanttomaintaina

physical presence in theworkplace, especially for office hours. She regrets not seeing

enoughofher students inpersonand the fact that they seem tobemorecomfortable

withkeepingtouchviaelectronicmodes.Thisprofessor–onthevergeofretirementat

the time of the interview – suggests that younger generations like to be constantly

availableonline,“Ihaveaniecewho’sin…AtUniversityofMichigan,who’s…Whouses

Skypeforherphone.Andsowheneversheseesmeon,shelikestocallandchat—Idon’t

likethat”.Inthecaseofinterviewee#20,theconvenienceoftakingworkhomethanksto

technologyhashadconsequencesforwhichshehashadtomakeeffortstoattenuate:

So,ItryathomenottopileupthingsthewayIusedto.SouptillnowI’mprettygoodatbeingbetteratkeepingamore,Idon’tknow,Zenenvironment.Sothatwould.AndalsoIthinkitwouldbringallthedetails,theannoyingobligationswithme.

Interviewee#21sharesheradmirationforoldergenerationsofresearcherswhowere

abletoworkwithoutcomputersandtheirattendantdisruptivedimensions.

4.2.1.1.3 ICTAffordancesThiscategorycaptures those instanceswhere ICTwaspresentedasclearly facilitating

practices perceived as beneficial. Clear productivity benefitswhich emerged from the

interviewsallstemmedfromasenseofnotbeingobligedtoworkinonespecificplaceor

having the feeling of being able to work from many different places. Three related

subcategoriesemerge:Seamlessworkacrossspaceandtime,Easeofsharingfileswith

others,Workingpaperless.

4.2.1.1.3.1 Seamlessworkacrossspaceandtime

AllintervieweesfromMcGill,withthenotableexceptionoftheprofessorwhowasonthe

vergeofretirement(Interviewee#17),foundICTallowedthemtoreplicateandspread

their work environment across space and time. Although, as seen in ‘Affordance

138

paradox’, this replication would not be as seamless as suggested in the title of this

category.Furthermore, this replicationalsopresentedmanycomplications in termsof

managing their attention throughout the day. However, it was clear from the

conversationsthatthiswasthemainbenefitICTbroughtthemintermsofflexibilityand

productivity.Smartphones,laptops,cloud-computingandquasi-ubiquitousconnectivity

combine to produce an almost seamless work environment regardless of where the

person finds themselves. Cloud-computing, specifically cloud-based storage services

suchasDropboxorGoogleDrive,meanthateachpersonhasaccesstothesamefilesas

on their desktop at theworkplace as on their tablet, laptop or smartphone anywhere

they can get an Internet connection. Calendars and other resources can also be

replicated across various devices using the same cloud-based services. The fact that

workcanbeperformedofflineandremainsynchronized(updatesareperformedoncea

network connection is available) means that there is further flexibility in where and

whenintervieweescanwork.

IhaveGoogleDriveandIloveit.IthinkI’vebeenmaintainingthislikehierarchyoffolders for like, I don’t know, like 10 years or something like that and I’d be likechanging it over and over. It’s amazing. Every single aspect of my life is on thisGoogleDriveinvariousdifferentfolders.(Interviewee#16)

Yeah,yeah,IalsouseDropboxonmyiPhone.Soforinstance,beforeIteachaclass,IusemyiPhonetochecktheslides,tomakesureeverythingisfine.Yeah,soIchecktheslidesonmyiPhone.Yeah,yeah…(Interviewee#18)

So…AndI’musingDropbox,soIalwayshaveallmyfoldersthatIhaveattheoffice,Ialwayshavethematwork.Soit’sreallynotanissueformetoworkeitherathomeorattheoffice.Ihaveaccesstotheexactsameinformation.(Interviewee#19)

Yes,ImeanI’musingDropboxallthetime,soforfolders,it’sthesame.Likelet’ssaytodayI’mworkingonapaper,I’mgoingtomakemodificationstoit,I’mgoingtostartworkingontheresponseletter.Totheeditor.Well,iftomorrowIdecidetoworkathome,IknowthatIhaveaccesstoDropbox,andIhavethelatestedits.(Interviewee#19)

ButImeanit’sbecauseIhavealaptopwithmewhereIam.AsIsaid,Dropboxhasmadeahugedifferenceinmylife.BecauseIusetocallherlike,okaycouldyougoinmy office. Log on. Files should be there and can you email it to me. Now withDropboxIcan.Soshe’sprobablyveryhappy.(Interviewee#20)

139

Andwhat’s,probablythesmartphoneisnicebecauseforawhileIhadthecalendar.IforgotI’musingthatalotandthefactit’ssynchronises,it’swonderfulandIcanmakeappointmentsandeverythingis.(Interviewee#20)

On top of cloud-based solutions allowing access to the same files, some interviewees

mentionedothersolutionsreplicatingtheirworkenvironmentathomeusingtoolssuch

asavirtualprivatenetwork(VPN)orsimplyensuringthesamesoftwareisavailablein

bothplaces.

So forwhatIhaveaccesstothesamething,aswell I’vebeensettingon…Bothmycomputershave the samesoftware, so for statistics for instance, I’mgoing tohave[inaudible]SPSSonbothcomputers.SoIhaveaccesstothesamething.AndthathasbeensetupbytheMcGillITdepartmenthere.Sotheyputthesamething.Theexactsamesoftwareonmylaptopandonmydesktop,so…(Interviewee#19)It’slikeintermsoftechnology,itreallyisn’tabigdeal.It’slikemylaptop,I’mhappywithmylaptop.Andit’sjustathomeyoucanworkwithyourpyjamas.Iguessthatwill be the only difference. Otherwise it’s like it’s the same work. Being at homedoesn’taffectmenegativelyorbeinghereatworkdoesn’taffectmenegatively.Icandothesamework.AndalsoIuseTeamViewersoIcandoremoteaccess.SoevenifI’m at home and if I have to use data stream, I can actually remotely access mydesktopandthenrundatastream.Althoughmydesktopdoesn’tlogefficientlyeverysingletime,butstill.(Interviewee#21)

Interviewee#18alsousetheVPNprovidedbyMcGilltoreproducehisofficecomputing

environment at home, however he usesMicrosoft’s Remote Desktop instead of Team

Viewer.Aswesawearlierin‘Affordanceparadox’,thiswouldnotalwaysrunsmoothly

andwasperceivedasahindranceforworkingathome.Interviewee#17usestheMcGill

VPN for amore limited use of simply connecting to the network drives at the office.

Although the home office can be replicated even further afield as mentioned by

Interviewees#17and#21.

Yes,noIappreciatetechnology.Ilovetechnology,that’sonething.Andanotherthingis in termsofmywork for instance from January9until February9 Iwas able tospendonemonthinTurkey.That,Imeanitwasn’tvacation.Iwasstillthereworkingthankstotechnology.ItdidnotaffectmyworkhereatMcGill,becauseasIsaidIhadremotedesktop,IhadmylaptopandaslongasyouhaveWi-Fiyoucanhaveaccessto anything. I had VPN, which means I was also able to access to McGill libraryresources.SowithouttechnologyIwouldn’tbeabletodothat.SointhatsenseIamveryappreciativeof technology. If I feelunderweather I can stayathome. I don’thave to likecome toofficeat9a.m. likemanyother jobs require.And then in facttechnologyallowsustodothat.Imeanonepartisthenatureoftheprofessionthatwe’re in and the other part is the technology. I do accounting research, so I don’tneedalab.AllIneedismylaptopandeverythingisonline,sowithoutthatitwillbedifficulttodomywork.(Interviewee#21)

140

Althoughsmartphonesandothermobiledevicessuchastabletscanintheoryreplicate

theofficeenvironmentintermsofmakingfilesandresourcesavailable,thelimitsofthe

ergonomics, as seen in Affordance paradox, doesn’t make this practical. However,

certain shorter tasks, such as reading and replying to emails, are feasibly done on a

commute toand fromwork inpublic transit thanks tomobile Internetas interviewee

#20explains:

Idon’tneedthelatestversionbut,nowthatIhaveasmartphone.Itakecareoflotsofemails.Idecidednottohaveacaranymore,soIusethepublictransport.SooftenItakecareofemailsonthegowiththat.Sothat’satool.(Interviewee#20)

Liketakingcareofemails,Idoitalotonmysmartphone,whichisdifferentthanitusedto.AndI likeitbecausethere’s lotsof, likebasicthingsthatIcantakecareofduring time that anyhow I’m in transit so it’s. I don’t feel I am losing time.(Interviewee#20)

In some instances, while travelling farther afield where roaming charges can be

prohibitive,gettinganInternetconnectionrequiressomeextraeffort:

Yes, which usually in hotels is okay, because we have always… Like if a Wi-Ficonnectionisnotgreat,whichhappens,theyalwayshaveanEthernetcable.Soandthenthat’sfast.Soit’snotaproblem.(Interviewee#19)

At the airport, yes. If I… I think therewere a couple times I had really… I had toconnect the internet to something urgently. And at that time the airport didn’tprovidefreeWi-Fi,soIhadtobuythehotspot,thatkindofthing.Likeacouple…Fewdollarsperhour.Yes.(Interviewee#23)

What is interesting is that McGill is ready to pay for their academic staff’s Internet

connectionsathome:

Yes,itactuallyisasuper-fastWi-Ficonnectionathome,becauseIamstreamingalotofvideos,somyTV, likeonmylaptopandmyTV.SoIactuallyget fastaspossibleWi-Ficonnection.McGillwouldtechnicallypayforit,likeIhaveapossibilitytohaveMcGillpayformyinternetconnectionathome,I’mjustpayingformyselfbecauseI’musing the McGill money for… My budget for other things. But it’s the same. Nodifference.(Interviewee#19)

Asseenin ‘Affordanceparadox’,Interviewee#23pointsoutthatworkingacrossspace

andtimeisn’tyetasseamlessasitcouldbeideally:

A: So theonly thing I am sort ofwish I… I thinkwe’ll probably get there in a fewyears,butnowIhavetoinstallthesoftwareonmylaptopanddesktop.SothatIcanusethesamesoftware.RegardlessofwhichdeviceI’musing.Butifit’salllikeCloud-

141

based,whichisaccessiblefromanydevice, thenactually itreally…Your…Thewayyouworkwill not be affected bywhere you are, right? So that’s kind of the idealsituationI’mkindofenvisioning.Ithinkreallywearegettingthere,yes.Q:Okay,soseamless…A:Yes,seamlessconnection,yes, inboth…In termsofboththesoftware,data,andalsotheconnection.Becausestillwehavelimitedconnection,right?Youhavetobein thehotspot tobeable togetconnection.So ifyouhave likepublic…FreepublicWi-Fieverywhere,thenit’sreallyseamless.

4.2.1.1.3.2 Easeofsharingfileswithothers

Anotherperceivedbenefitof ICTexpressedby the interviewees is theeasy sharingof

fileswith collaborators. Interviewees#16and#17use cloud-based sharing solutions

suchasGoogleDriveorDropboxtocollaborateonresearchorteaching:

Althoughwhen I have research assistants orwhen I have teaching assistants Ishare with them like the specific folder where I keep my slides or whatevermaterial and then I have them upload new documents and things like that.(Interviewee#16)

Inthecaseofinterviewee#22,itistheconvenienceofbeingabletocorrectexampapers

with the help of his wife on two iPad tablets where one would read the exam and

evaluatewhilecallingoutthegradingwhiletheotherwouldenteritonagradingkeyon

theother iPad. Although this is collaboration inperson–not takingadvantageof the

benefits of working at a distance with one’s collaborators – it was perceived by this

professorasbeingamajorproductivityenhancementovermoretraditionalmethods.

4.2.1.1.3.3 WorkingPaperless

Although, as part of the Affordance paradox described above, interviewees expressed

theirattachmenttopaperandprinting,afewwerestillcognizantofthebenefitsofgoing

either partly paperless or completely paperless. In the case of interviewee #20, the

advantageofgoingpaperlessisspecificallytomaintainthefeelingthatnoinformationis

lostandthatanydocumentcanberecoveredatanymomentintimeinthefuture.She

perceiveditasalsoanadvantageintermsoffreeingupspaceinherofficesincethereis

lessofaneedtostorepaper.Forinterviewees#16and#22,goingpaperlessappearsto

havemoreofanideologicalpurposebehindit:

142

Ineverprint…no,Iusuallydon’tprint.Idon’tseethepoint.(Interviewee#16)

Q:Anddoyou…Intermsofprintingrequirements,what…Doyouuse…Imean,youwerementioning…A:I’mtryingtodoas littleasIcan.SoI’mPDFinga lotofthingstokeep.AndthenmostoftheprintingIdoisonmyownprinterorhere,butit’swhenIabsolutelyhaveto.Q:Okay.Allright.A:Itransfer…Insteadofdoingaprintout,IoftentransferstufftomyiPadtocheckandtoproofreadandthingslikethis.SoI’musingmyiPadasapieceofpaper.Q:Okay.How’sthatworkingout?Isit…?A:Amazingwell,infact,Ihavetosay.LikeImean…ButyouhavetoPDFyourfilestodothis.Andit’soneofthemainreasonswhyIPDFmostofeverythingIdo.Becausetransferring it to the iPad is seamless. TransferringWord files to the iPad is notperfect.There’sstillsomepainintheneckwithPDFingfiles,sometimeswhereyouendupwithsixorsevenoreightdifferentfileswithtablesandstuff likethis.ButIwouldsaythatmostofmyacquisitionofknowledge,whichisreallytoreading,IdoonmyiPadtoday.LikeImean,ifIgotoaseminar,Idon’tprintthepaper.I’musingthisonmyiPad.ThisiswhatIcarrywithme.EventhoughIhaveaniPadone.StillhavemyoldiPadone.(Interviewee#22)

Q:Okay,interesting.Comingbacktotheresearchside,howmuchwouldyousayintermsofproportion…Imean,doyoueverprintnow,anypapers,orthat’sit?You’vegonedownto…Okay.A:IfIprintitIloseit,orIkeepprintingit,andit’s…LikewhatI’mtendingtodo,ifIworkonresearch,IPDFpaper,IhavethemonmyiPad,andIworkonthescreen.Sothat’s how I’m… My iPad replaces paper as much as I can make it happen.(Interviewee#22)Q:Okay.Anythingelse?A:Well,I’mdreamingofmytextbook.Q:Okay,yes?A:Idon’tusethis,they’vejustsentthemtome.WheneverI’musingsomething,I’maskingtogetacopy.ToputonmyiPad.BecauseIhaveallofthemwithme.Q:Okay.A:WhereI’mgoing.Sothat’s important forme. InthesamewayasI’msayingthatI’mdoingmyknowledgeacquisitionthroughmyiPad.That’s trulywhatImean.Sothat’s an important tool forme to do this. So I don’t thinkwe should have any ofthesethingsontheshelves.Q:Okay,that’sinteresting.(Interviewee#22)

4.2.1.1.4 TheBodyErgonomic issues emerged as an important sub-categorywithin ‘Affordance paradox’

andthisisakeyaspectoftherelationshipbetweenthehumanbodyanddevicesinthe

dailypracticesofacademics.However,thisrelationshipemergesinother,oftensubtler,

143

ways, not directly dealing with the interaction between the user and device. This

relationshipappearsmoreembeddedinthebodyandmind,assortofautomatismsor

reflexes.Thiscategory, ‘Thebody’emergedintheexploratoryphase,butyieldedthree

newsub-categoriesintheintensivephase:Attention,Intimatebodilyrelationshipwith

ICT and Addiction. References coded in sub-categories from the exploratory phase,

‘Clothingwhichputsyou inaworkingmood’and ‘Thebodyandspace’,were recoded

either into the new sub-categories or the other categories developed in the intensive

phase.Referencesfromanothercategoryfromtheexploratoryphase,‘Distractions’and

itssubcategory,‘Procrastination’,werealsorecodedeitherintothenewsub-categories

under ‘Thebody’ortheothercategoriesdevelopedinthe intensivephase. Includedin

the recoding were all references from the exploratory phase. The relic subcategories

fromtheexploratoryphasewerethendiscardedastheywereredundantwiththenew

sub-categories.

As mentioned above, ergonomics is clearly apparent as a factor in shaping the daily

workpracticesofthoseinterviewedatMcGill.Giventheconversationwascenteredon

the use of technology,many of the factors raised could be categorized under human-

computerinteractionasthisfollowingextractindicates,

Q:Arethereanyspecificthingsthatyouwouldpreferdoingathomethanintheofficeorviceversa?A:Forprogramming,sometimeIneedtowritesomecodes,computationalcodeandforthatkindofjobIprefertodoitintheofficebecausethescreenisbiggerandthecomputationalpowerisstronger.(Interviewee#18)

Asseenintheothercategoriessuchas ‘Affordanceparadox’,thesizeofscreensandof

mobile devices are important factors in how users perceive their usability in various

environments.However,apurelyHCI interpretationwouldbeareductionistapproach

given that these considerations are not uniquely related to the point of interaction

between users and devices, but extends into the relationship users have with the

technologyevenwhennotinteractingwiththematafunctionallevel.

Asseenearlier, intervieweesstrugglewithdistractionsatworkandathome.Whether

they involve noisy environments or notifications on their smartphones, ensuring

uninterrupted concentration on the task at hand is of great importance to the

interviewees:

144

WhilewhenI’mhomeIguessthatitcomestomindthatIcouldwatchagoodTVseriesor readanovelordo things thatwouldbemoreenjoyable. (Interviewee#20)I reallyneed tobe inmyzonewithoutanydistractions.And I findagainat theofficeI’min…Almostlikeinabubble.Likethere’sreallynothinghappening,I’mnotdistracted.SoIguess,youknow,mostpeoplewouldsaytheopposite,theygetdistracted at the office, but that’s… Forme, I am actually less distracted at theoffice.(Interviewee#19)WellasIwassayingatthebeginning, itgetskindofcapturedattention.There’snothinghere.Ihavemymusic,butthat’sit.Likethere’snophoneringing,thereisnoTV, there is no food. There’s no break really possible. That’s the first thing.(Interviewees#19)(…)but if I can I’m trying to come to theofficebecause I feel like Ihavemuchfewerdistractions.LikeIhavetowork,likethere’snothingelseIcando.LikeathomeIcandodifferentthings.(Interviewee#19)

Interviewee#19findstheofficeenvironmenttobeconducivetoconcentrationontasks

requiring it. She uses the terms ‘captured attention’ and ‘bubble’, which seems to be

what interviewees seek to regulate by having a certain control of their environment.

How technology helps or hinders themanagement of ‘captured attention’ is an issue

frequentlyraisedintheinterviews:

Academiclife is likethat,asyouprobablyknow.It’snotsomethingyoucanlikeshutoffand thencomeback tomorrow. It’s…Youthinkaboutyourresearchallthetime,yourteachingallthetime.Butwiththehelpoftechnologyactually,thattendencyactuallybecomesstronger,Ithink.(Interviewee#23)Yes,IhaveaniPhone6pluswhereIcheckmyemails,butIturnitoffatnight.Ilike…Ihatetheideaoflikemyphone…soifIhaveanewemailthatarrivesIneedtoreaditinstantlyandsothat’sactuallywhy…ImeanIneedtolikeknowwhat’shappening and then I’m going to start thinking about it and I’m going to startlike…I’mgoingtothink,okaywellIneedtoansweritnow.Andusuallywhenit’sastudentorsomethingI’malmostansweringinstantlybecauseI’mthinking,okaywelllet’sjustgetitdone.Ihaveazerounreadmailboxpolicy,soInever…ImeanwhenIhaveanunreademail it reallybothersme,so I’mkeeping themfor thatpurpose,likeIhavethereviewtodoandIkeepthisunreademail,soIhavelikethreeunreademailsrightnowinmymailboxanditreallypissesmeoff.So,likeI’mjustgoingtobehappywhenit’sdone,butI’mkeepingthemlikethatbecauseIwanttokeeptrackofwhataretheongoingtasks,youknow,thatIneedtodo.(Interviewee#16)Andit’slikealwayslikeyoureceivesomanyalerts,likeI’mtryingtodisablelikeall the alerts I can like fromFacebook and things like that, because they try toalertyouwhenanythingishappening,thenyouwanttolookatitanditjusttakesyououtofwhatyouweredoing,youknow.SolikeFacebookisthefirstone,like

145

there’soh,newalert,someonelikesyourpost.You’relikeIdon’tgiveashit.Likeyou know, it’s great but I can look at it tomorrow or I can look at it today orwhatevertonight.(Interviewee#16)

We see in the extracts above; the implicit pull of technology affects where the

interviewees’ attention gets directed evenwhen away from their desks andnot using

theirdevices.Aswe saw in the exploratoryphase, some interviewees sought toput a

physical distance between themselves and their devices in order to not feel this pull.

Interviewee#8forexamplewouldputhissmartphoneatthebottomofhisbagsothat

hewouldnotseeitandbedistractedbyitspull.Thispulloftechnology–orperceived

quasi-permanentconnectionwithit–revealsanintimaterelationshipbetweenthebody

anddevices:

SoIguessmypointislikewhenIgotobedatnightandjustturnitoffsothatIdon’thavetolikewakeupinthenightandsay,okaywellwhat’shappening.AmIreceiving emails fromstudentsor fromotherprofessorsor something? I reallydon’twanttobeinthatmindsetatnight,so.That’salsoprobablywhyIwillnotbuyanApplewatch,becauseIdonotneedmoretobemoreconnected.IthinkI’mconnectedenough.(Interviewee#16)ifyoureallywanttobefocusedononethingyoujustturnitoff.Idon’tthinkyoucanbeveryproductivewithlikeaniPhoneonyourlap.(Interviewee#16)

Interviewee#16likenshissmartphonetoawearableaccessorynotonlyhavingavery

close contact with the body, by also establishing an intimate connection with an

awarenessofitsavailability–ofitbeingathand.Interviewee#23alsodescribeshowhe

feels like always putting his smartphone in his pocket wherever he goes so that he

doesn’tlosethatconnection.This,hesays,isareflexanddoesitwithoutthinkingabout

it.This reflex isput into sharp focuswithhishabitofnot takinghis smartphonewith

himtoclasswhenteaching

Q:Okay.Andhowdoyoufeelaboutthat,whenyou'rewithoutyoursmartphoneinclassand…?A:Because I’m teaching, right, I don’t even like recognise it during…While I’mteaching.Q:Okay.A:AndbecauseI’vebeendoingthatforseveralyears.Itbecamemyroutine.SoIdon’t even like almost think about it. I just put it on my desk and then go toclassroom,andthencomeback.Andthen…Yes.(Interviewee#23)

Although Interviewee#23 leaveshis smartphoneonhisdeskwhengoing to class,his

body’srelationshiptoitremainsasintimateaswhenheputsitinhispocketsinceitis

146

describedas anautomatism internalizedby thebody.Hedoesn’t ‘thinkabout it’.This

automaticawarenessofthelocationofdevicesandtheirperceptionofbeingathandis

furtherrevealedbyinterviewee#22whendiscussingtheadvantages,hefeelsinherent

toworkingwithdigitaldocumentsinsteadofpaperones:“Ifit’sinmycomputer,Iknow

it’sthere.Ifit’sonmydesksomewhere,Idon’tknowwhereitis”and“Thatgoesinabox,

becauseotherwisewherethehellisit?”Figures12to16showhowacademicsatMcGill

keep their smartphone ready at handwhen at their desks. The devices aremagnified

andcircledinred.

Figure12–Officeofinterviewee#21withmobilemagnified(Author)

147

Figure13–Officeofinterviewee#18withmobilemagnified(Author)

Figure14–Officeofinterviewee#23withmobilemagnified(Author)

148

Figure15–Officeofinterviewee#20withmobilemagnified(Author)

Figure16–Officeofinterviewee#16withmobilemagnified(Author)

149

Another manifestation of the intimate relationship between technology and

interviewees’ bodies is addiction. As already seen under ‘Affordance paradox’,

interviewee#23hascomplainedabouthowhissmartphone–whilerecognizingitasa

practicaldevice–hasturnedhimintoasortofaddict,checkinghisemailscontinuously

evenwhenhedoesn’t feel heneeds to.He suggests the establishmentof a temporary

physical distance from the device as a possible way of overcoming the addiction.

However,hedoesn’tfeelhehasbeenabletokickthehabit.Hesaysofthis,“That’sasign

ofaddictionIthink”.Asmentionedearlierin‘Affordanceparadox’,thestruggleagainst

this tendencyofgettinghookedon technologyand thedistractionsof the Internetare

alsoapparentintheexperienceofinterviewee#21:

It’slikeIneedtobedisconnectedtimetotime.It’slikeit’snotthatI’mbeingontheInternet,it’snotlikeI’mreadingscientificpapersallthetime.Ireadtabloids.It’slikeYahoo.comandthenthestupidnews.Soit’ssometimesit’slikeifIforcemyselfnottohavethatkindofaccess,it’sgood,it’sbeneficialIfthere’sWi-Fi,yes.Here’sthething,sometimesIactuallydeliberatelylookforacoffee shop thatdoesn’toffer freeWi-Fi,because thatwill forceme to readmypapers. If I haveWi-Fi I’m going to checkmy email and then fewminutes I’mgoing to check newspapers and then suddenly end up watching cat videos onYouTube. So that’swhysometimes I actually forcemyself togo to coffee shopswherethere’snofreeWi-Fi.I’lljustreadmypapers.Q:Okay,alrightandisthatthesamegoingtotheparkisthesameideaastogetawayfromtheconnectivityandthedistractionslet’ssay.A:Slashfreshair,yes.

The relationship between technology and the body emerges in a subtler, yet direct,

fashion. As observed under the category of ‘Affordance paradox’, the materiality of

technologicaldevices,suchaslaptopsandtablets,areexperiencedasdirectsolicitations

on the body when not interacting with them in any functional manner. Weight,

bulkiness, texture, etc. are all factors shaping how interviewees relate to technology

daily.Interviewee#19hasexpressedregretoflaptopsbeingheavyandbulky,makingit

impracticalandunpleasanttotravelwith.Shecitedthecaseofairportsecurityandthe

hassleofrepeatedlyremovingthedevicefromherbagforinspection.Interviewee#18

impliestheweightandbulkinessofhislaptopdiscouragehimfromtransportingitwith

himwhencommutingfromthehometotheoffice:Inevercarryittomyoffice,because

myhomeisveryclosetotheoffice.Interviewee#22,describeshislaptopasaheavyand

bulky weight on his back, “Well I used to carry my laptop on my back” and very

150

impracticalforuseonthemove,“Intheendit’snotconvenient,youdon’twanttotake

thatouttojustcheckifyou’vereceivedanemail.So,itwastoobigforthat.”Hefoundthe

solutioninthetablet,“SothatIdon’thavetocarrymycomputer”,whichwasmuchmore

practicalforuseonthemove,“Pressingthebuttonandit’son,andpressingthebutton

it’soff”.However,hestillfindsthelackofakeyboardonthetablettobeinconvenient–a

feelingsharedbyhiscolleagues.Hewouldliketofindasolutionsuchthatheretainsthe

“notion that I have something in my hand just to read” while being able to use a

keyboard that isn’tattached inanyway to thedevice.Again, the intimaterelationship

betweenthebodyof interviewee#22andhistabletwasrevealedbyhisexpressionof

attachment–physicallyestablishedthroughhisfingers:

Imean,I’vegotstuffatthetipofmyfinger.I’vegotalmosteverythingthatIneed.AndwhenIdon’thaveit,it’sapainintheneck.I’mnotusedtothisanymore.It’snotsomethingIreallylike.

Interviewee #22 also expressed frustration with having to still deal with cables for

transferring files fromhis tablet tohis computer– anotherperceivedphysicalbarrier

solicitinghisbody.

More indirect relationships canbegleaned from the transcripts linking thebodywith

ICT. The fact that technology allows interviewees to work from home has developed

certainassociationsbetweentheclothing theywear in theprivacyof theirhomesand

work–bothpositiveandnegative.Interviewee#21findsitpracticaltobeabletochoose

toworkathomebecause“it’sjustathomeyoucanworkwithyourpajamas”,whereas

interviewee#16has theopposite impression: “I cannot reallyenjoymyself if I’m like,

youknow,inmypajamasandgradingpapers.Ihatethat.”

Itisalsointerestingtocontrasttheintimaterelationshipintervieweesholdwithpaper–

one of the reasons for their continued attachment to this medium despite the

alternativesofferedbyICT.“Iliketoholdthepaperinhand,andit’salsoeasiertoread

the paper on a hardcopy” says interviewee#18when askedwhy hewould not use a

tablet instead of paper when reading and annotating documents. The materiality of

paper is completelydifferentwhen framedas theexperience intervieweeshavewhen

engagingindailypracticessuchasreadingandannotatingpapers.Whenaskedwhatshe

felt was better with working on paper, interviewee #19 said “Like my pen and

151

highlighting in colors and things like that. So… If I need toworkonapaper, I usually

print.”Thesensualexperienceofpaper–touch,sightandperhapsevensoundandsmell

–seemstobeofimportanceforinterviewees.“Ihavetoconcentrate,andIhaveto,you

know, sometimes make notes. So, for that purpose I think the printout works a lot

better.So…”(Interviewee#23).

Interviewee#21relatedtheconvenienceofbeingable toprint inheroffice togaining

weightandlosingoutonsocialcontactwhengettingup:

IgetupandIgotothatroom.IfIhavemyprinterthere,I’llalwaysuseit.Sothat’swhy I knowmyself, so that’swhy I don’t buy thatdamnprinter so that I don’thavetousethatprinterinmyoffice(Interviewee#21)

Interviewee#19foundthattheconvenienceofbeingabletoworkfromhomethanksto

ICTasofbeingofparticularimportancebecauseofherpregnancyandtheaddedriskof

fallingduetotheharshwinterclimateofMontreal.Shedescribesthisriskasimpacting

herdecisionofworkingathomeorintheoffice:

A:Youknow,so that’sniceaswell. Ineed to takeabreak fromtime to time, ithappenstomeaswell,andI’mdoingthatmoreandmorenowthatI’mpregnant.I’mdoingthemorninghere, likeuptotwoandthree,andthenIgohomeandIfinishthedaywithmoremanualtasks.Likeeasytaskathome.Soit’ssplitalittlebitand it’s less tiring.Butyes. Imean, [inaudible]aswellwe’re inMontreal, sodepending on theweather, that is going to impactmy decision to come to theoffice or not. Right, there were some days in January that were just horrible,completelyicy.AndagainbeingpregnantIwaslike,I’mnotworking,I’mworkingtotheoffice.I’mnotworkingbythisweather,Imightjustfalland…Sonogood.Q:Yes.AndIsuppose…Sothenyoustayathomeandyouworkfrom…A:Fromhome.Q:Fromhome,okay.

The sub-category ‘Intimate bodily’ relationships was further sub-divided into sub-

categoriesof‘Direct’,‘Indirect’,and‘Comparedtopaper’forthepurposesofclarity.

TheremainingcategoriesgeneratedinthisintensivephaseforthecaseofMcGillwere:

Placeasamindset,Generatingstress,Timezones,Isolationbubble,Copresence,Privacy

or not disturbing others, Freedom from connectivity, Teaching duties, Mess,

Administrative collaboration, Anytime, Attachment to place, Data Security, Heavily

dependent on technology for research, Seamless, Loneliness, Looking professional,

Minimal ICT Requirements for Job, and Third Spaces. These categories remained and

152

wereleftasisforthecodingoftheintensivephaseapartforPrinting&Paper,whichwas

recodedwith the exploratory data into the new categories generated in the intensive

phase (ICTAffordances,Habits&Routines, Affordance paradox, and ICTAffordances)

anddeleted.

The references in the category ‘Using technology every day’, generated during the

exploratory phase, were recoded into the new category structure and deleted. This

promptedthecreationofanewsub-categoryinICTAffordances;‘Coordinatingphysical

movement’.

The last step in completing the coding for the McGill case, instead of recoding the

originaltranscriptswiththenewcategories,allthereferencesintheexistingcategories

from the exploratory phase were recoded using these new categories. During this

process, a new sub-category, ‘Compared to other humans’,was added under the sub-

categoryof‘Intimatebodilyrelationships’under‘Thebody’.

4.2.1.2 AnalysisThestructureresultingfromthecodingofallthecollecteddatafortheMcGillDesautels

siteisfoundinFigure17.Thischartwasgeneratedusingfunctionalitiesavailableinthe

NVivo software. The size of each of the blocks reflects the number of references

contained in each of the corresponding categories.Using thematrix coding feature in

NVivo, the relationships between each of the blocks was explored. The relationships

could be explored between pairs or sets of blocks. To identify those relationships of

greatest interest, a matrix of all blocks was generated. The resulting table is

unfortunatelytoolargetobeputintheappendices.Basedonthistable,othermatrices

were generated to explore in more detail the relationships between each of the

categories corresponding to a cell in thematrix or sets of categories of interest using

anothermatrixquery.Thefullconceptualpictureofwhatemergesfromthisexerciseis

represented in Figure 18. It is the conceptual model of the relationship between

affordance and the daily practices of academics in organizing their workaday, with a

focusonICTandspace.

153

Naturally, the core category of this model is ‘Organizing the workaday in time and

space’, with a total of 182 references, given it is the practice upon which the

investigation is focused. This category is causally related to other categories as

presented in Figure 18. Each of these causal relationships will now be explained in

detail.

Figure17–CodingchartforIntensivePhaseatMcGill(Author)

154

Figure18–CodingstructurefortheIntensivePhaseatMcGill(Author)

4.2.1.2.1 OverallpictureAcademics,whetherfocusedontheirteaching,administrativeorresearchactivities,see

theirenvironmentasaffording(or facilitating)differentmodesofattention.Theyseek

toexertsomelevelofinfluenceorcontrolonthisaffordanceintheirenvironment.This

is partly why activities in higher education are traditionally organized in space in

specificways – auditoriums for lectures or individual offices for research or tutoring.

Although the traditional practice of teaching has specific spatial constraints, given it

usually involves many individuals, research activities are different. Academic

researchershaveacertainfreedom–likesomeotherknowledgeworkers–inchoosing

wheretheywork.Thedatarevealsacademics inbusinessschoolsashighlydependent

on ICT to fulfill their duties. There seems to be a certain segmentation of space as a

function of what can be afforded by the combination of environment and ICT. For

example,commutesonpublictransitareconsideredproductiveperiodsforcertaintasks

– not others – with smartphones. Tablets on flights or third-spaces (with no

connectivity) for reading, laptopsordesktopsathome,desktopswithbig screensand

high-capacity printing at the office, all synchronized using cloud-based solutions, are

other examples. Ideally seamless, but not actually the case as revealed by the data.

Furthermore,smartphonesduringambiguousperiodssuchaspersonaltimeathome,at

155

thegymor anyotherplacewherework isn'tplannedor expected, is consideredboth

practicalanddistractiveordisruptive.

Theinterviewswiththeacademicssystematicallystartedwithadescriptionofhowthey

organized their work in time and space. As the interviewees explained their

organizationoftheworkaday,variousfactorsaffectingspecificdecisionsonwhereand

when they would work were revealed. The relatively open-ended nature of the

interviews yielded many categories of this type. These include family constraints,

feelingsofenvyorautonomy,territorialityorsociality.However,othercategorieswere

concernedwithmorematerialaspectsof theirenvironment,suchasdistancebetween

thehomeandtheofficeornoise.

Theintimaterelationshipbetweenthebody(withitsexistinghabits)andICTasinserted

intheenvironmentproduceanaffordanceparadoxwhichhasanimpactonthebodyand

hence existing habits. The affordance paradox operates at the level of distraction and

ergonomics.

4.2.1.2.2 Cycles->OrganizingtheworkadayintimeandspaceDaily,weeklyandseasonalcycleswereveryimportantfactorsinhowacademicswould

organize their work. Student lunch breaks, taking one’s daughter to school or traffic

patterns on the roads were all cited as reasons by academics for organizing their

workaday in specific ways. The Facilities Manager of Desautels would even schedule

meetingsinsuchawayastoavoidelevatortrafficbetweenclasses.Theweekendisseen

as an important break from the office environment by some, however others are

temptedtotakeadvantageofthequieteratmospheretopopintotheofficeonSaturday

orSunday.Seasons–bothclimaticandprofessional–werealsoseenasopportunities

forchangesinorganizingworkinspaceandtime.Summerandclementweatherwould

providetheopportunitytotakebreaksfromtheofficeenvironmentoreventakework

toathirdspacelikeacaféorapark.Coldwinterweatherwouldbeachancetotakea

shorterbreak to ‘disconnect’.The snowyandvery coldwintersofMontrealprovidea

particularlybracingandinvigoratingenvironmentforsuchbreaks.Conferencesarealso

seenby academics as implying changes in theway theyorganize themselves in space

156

and time. This includes how theyworkwhile travelling long distances on flights and

whenstayinginhotels.

4.2.1.2.3 Territoriality->Organizingtheworkadayintimeandspace‘Territoriality’ includes its subcategories, ‘Common spaces’, ‘Home vsOffice forwork’,

‘Mobility’, ‘Freedom’, ‘Physical barriers’, and ‘Separation’. All of these are factors in

determininghowacademicsorganizetheirworkadayinspaceandtime.

‘Territoriality’showshowacademicsarekeentomaintainadesignatedworkspacethat

theycancalltheirown.Allintervieweesexpressedskepticismorevenhostilitytowards

the idea of trading in their closed offices for open spaces. This manifested itself

especially when asked about whether they would accept having their workspace

organized as an open space like in the corporate world. Others would also express

skepticismregarding theuseof commonspaces suchas librariesoncampus “because

that’saspaceforstudentsmostly”(Interviewee#23).However,thisattachmentwould

manifest itselfmost intenselywhenacademicsaredeprivedof theirdesignatedoffices

due to renovations or other building projects when they are forced to relocate.

AccordingtotheFacilitiesManageratMcGill,academicswerepalpablyperturbedbythe

obligationtoabandontheirspaceandbecomenomadsduringarenovationprojectthat

lastedforayear.Theywereveryemotionallyattachedtotheiroldofficesandwerevery

keentosecurewhattheyfeltwouldbethebestofficeinthenewofficespace.Ingeneral,

thisattachmentwouldimplythatacademicsfelttheyneededtodefendtheir‘territory’

on a regular basis bymaking their presence known – by ensuring a certain physical

presencefromtimetotimeforexample–orjockeyfornewofficespacewhentheyare

obligedto.

Theway common spaceswere perceivedwould also influence how academicswould

organize their workaday. As can be seen in the broad category ‘Sociality’, most

academicswould see common spaces as places to escape the loneliness of the closed

officeandhavesomesocialcontactwithcolleaguesandothers.Ontheotherhand,some

wouldavoidcommonspaces–sometimesatgreatlengths–toavoidothersaltogether.

Controlled access, such as electronic badges, to these spaces were viewed as

157

discouragingtheuseofthesespacesforcasualsocialcontact.Otherscomplainedabout

theatmosphereofcommonspaceswhichtheyalsofeltwoulddiscouragetheiruse.

Alltheacademicsappreciatedthefeelingofbeingincommandofthechoiceofworking

fromhomeorattheoffice.Occasionally,theywouldchooseathirdspace.Ingeneral,this

feelingofbeingautonomousandfreeofconstraintintermsofphysicalpresenceinone

locationoranotherwaswidelyshared.However,howthisfeelingwouldtranslateinto

actualhabitsandroutineswouldvaryquiteabit.Thereweretwoattitudes:onewould

betodevelopastrictseparationbetweenhomeandofficeintermsofwork(workwould

neverbedoneathome)andtheotherwouldbetousebothhomeandofficeforworkin

some sort of flexible arrangement.This separationwouldoccasionally be enforcedby

separatingelectronicallythehomeandtheofficebyusingseparatedevicesforeachsuch

thattherewouldnotbeanymixingoftasks.

Another interesting aspect of territoriality with regards to the specific case of the

businessschoolthatistheMcGillDesautelsFacultyofManagementistheperceptionof

its ‘seperateness’ from the rest of the campus anduniversity.Not only is it physically

separatebybeingcompletelyself-containedititsownbuilding,butit isalsoperceived

asbeingadifferentorganizationwithvalueswhichdifferfromtheotherfaculties.

The Desautels Faculty of Management Bronfman Building is situated on part of the

campus most open to the downtown business core of the city of Montreal. Taking a

break for lunch at various sandwich shops or cafés nearby with office workers is

routine.TheFacultygivesthefeelingofbeingintegratedintothebusinesscommunityof

Montreal,whichispartoftheirmarketingstrategy.

4.2.1.2.4 Sociality->OrganizingtheworkadayintimeandspaceOneofthebiggestreasonscitedbyacademicsforworkingattheofficeonaregularbasis

is social contact.This isaboveandbeyondobligationsofpresence–whether itbe for

administrative,teachingorresearchtasks.Theperceivedbenefitsaremanyandvaried.

158

Allintervieweesfelttheneedtobearoundpeople–whetherstudentsorcolleagues–on

a regular basis. Most cited having company for breaks as being a desirable aspect of

workingattheoffice.Otherscitedthefactofbeinginthepresenceofotherswouldpush

themintoa‘workingmood’.Inonecase,itdidn’tmatterwhetherthismeantgoingtothe

officeortoacrowdedcafé– justas longaspeoplewerearound.Theunanimityofthe

feelingoftheimportanceofbeinginthecompanyofothersonaregularbasisisclearly

put forward by how some will complain about being distracted by the presence of

others,andyetpreferthecompanyofothersratherthanworking insolitudeathome.

Fearof lonelinesswouldalsopushmany to seeksocial contact in theworkplace.This

feelingiscloselyrelatedtothefeelingoffreedomtoavoidsocialcontact.Thefeelingof

beingincontrolofwhereandwhenonewouldworkfosteredavaluingofregularsocial

contact. Electronic sociality – being in contact with others via social media, mobile

telephonyoremail–isalsoadrivingfactorinhowacademicsorganizedtheirworkaday

intimeandspace.Manyintervieweeswoulddecideonwheretheywouldworkbasedon

howeasyitwouldbetostayintouchviatheInternetorthemobilephone.Attimesthis

contactwouldbesoughtafter,atothersavoided.Again,thefreedomtochoosewasseen

asveryimportant.

On top of the need to be in the presence of others and within an atmosphere of

professionalactivity,theperceptionofserendipitousencountersisimportant.Theonly

places these were seen as being possible were at the office and during conferences.

Beingabletoexchangeideaswithpeersandbuildingworkingrelationshipswasseenas

beingpossiblewithin-personencounters.Electroniccontactisseenasbeingtoolimited

to establish key contacts and deeper intellectual exchanges. This perceived needwas

seenasagoodreasontoshowupforworkattheofficeonaregularbasis.

Formanyoftheacademics–professorsinparticular–havingaregularpresenceinthe

officewouldbeintheserviceofthebroaderobjectiveoflookingprofessional.Prolonged

absenceswerefearedtosignaltoothersalackofengagementormotivation.Aregular

physical presence alsohelpsnurture relationshipswith colleaguesuponwhomone is

dependent for helping with certain tasks. Access to colleagues ensures access to a

supportnetworkforfacinguptodifficultiesortasksrequiringhelp.Aregularpresence

159

intheofficeandpartakingincertainsocialeventsortakingupofadministrativetasks

wouldpartlyaddresstheseconcerns.

Away from the office, attending conferences and regular team retreats are also

considered to be important for the exchange of ideas and building of relationships.

Conferences, occurring at specific times of the year, would be opportunities for the

building and nurturing of professional relationships. These relationships would be

maintained the restof theyearwith thehelpof electronic communications andother

collaborative tools. Team retreats would be organized for researchers working on a

specific project to extract themselves from the office environment to spend time

togetherandbuildasenseofcommunity.

Occasionally,thetendencytoavoidbeinginthepresenceofothersisdrivenbyacertain

saturationofphysical space.Asmentionedearlier, theFacilitiesManageratDesautels

spokeofavoidingthehallwaysandelevatorsatcertaintimesofthedaytonothaveto

waitlongerthannecessaryorgetdelayedbycrowdsincommonspaces.

4.2.1.2.5 Etc->OrganizingtheworkadayintimeandspaceManyotherfactorsinfluencingwhereandwhenacademicsworkemergefromthedata.

Although territoriality, sociality and cycles were those factors having been cited the

mostfrequently,thefollowingwereofnoteaswell.

Envyofbusinessschoolsorofotherbusinessschools(thecompetition)wasseenasa

factorindeterminingwhoendedupworkingwhere.SomeofthePhDstudentsworking

inofficesat theDesautelsFacultyofManagementatMcGillwere in factaffiliatedwith

otherfacultiesoftheUniversity.Allofthese‘guest’researchersmanagedtoobtainoffice

spacesthroughcontactswithintheFacultyofManagement.Theseresearcherswereall

pushed to seeking such an arrangement because they felt the material conditions of

their home faculties to be inadequate and that the Desautels Faculty ofManagement,

beingawell-fundedbusinessschool,hadthetypeofenvironmenttheyaspiredto.Envy

of other business school also led some of the researchers at Desautels to gowork in

160

other business schools such asHEC from time to time because the atmosphere there

wouldfeelmoreinspirationalandfriendlier.

Afeelingtheprofessionofacademicconferredaspecialstatusofautonomyunlikemost

others was pervasive. This feeling generated an overall sense of freedom influencing

decisions on how to organize theworkaday. Academics interviewedwould express a

certainsatisfactioninexercisingtheirfreedomtodecidewhereandwhentoworkand

would hence often point out instances demonstrating this freedom. Whether it was

beingabletoworkduringasabbaticalfromhome,duringateachingbreakwhilestaying

with family inTurkey, or in awood cabin in lake country to get away from theoffice

frenzy, intervieweeswere keen to show thebenefits of this inherent freedom. In fact,

manywould cite it as being one of the reasons they chose the profession in the first

place.Technologyisalsocitedasfacilitatingthisfreedom.

4.2.1.2.6 ICTAffordances->Affordancesparadox->Organizingtheworkadayintimeandspace

What the environment affords an academic will be a function of the academic’s

perceptionofthisverysameenvironment.Thisperceptionisanchoredintheproperties

of thephysicalworld, including the academic’s body and ICT artefacts.When evoking

the affordances of ICT, academics are expressing how they see ICT objectively

contributestothephysicalcharacteristicsoftheenvironmentandtheexpectedeffects.

Thisisusuallyexpressedincommonparlanceintermssuchas ‘ubiquitouscomputing’

or ‘going fully digital’ (as opposed toworkingwith paper). One interviewee spoke of

going ‘paperless’, while another spoke of ‘going digital’ (implying ‘ubiquitous

computing’). On the other hand, constraints are characteristics of ICT leading to the

limitation on an expected affordance. These can either be directly attributed to the

technical characteristics of the technology, such as compatibility issues between

operatingsystems(ex.Interviewee#16complainedthataclassroomclickerappwould

notworkonhisiPhone),orduetosocialfactorssuchasnormsonwhenandwhereto

usemobilephones, the riskof theftofdevices in coffee shops (due to theirperceived

value), or simply the bulkiness of carrying a laptop around. Constraints, as they are

recounted by the interviewees, are encountered through practice and aremost often

unexpected.The‘ICTAffordances’-‘Affordancesparadox’nexusisafilteredperspective

161

onaffordancesperceivedbyacademicsintheirenvironment,withafocusonICT.This

perspectiveanswersthequestionofhowthespecificitiesofICTcombinewithallother

characteristics of an environment to produce affordances perceived by an academic

goingabouttheirdailyorganizationofactivitiesinspaceandtime.Inthisinvestigation,

thesespecificitiesofICTarelimitedtotheexpectedperception,andnotthespectrumof

possibilities for affordance offered by ICT in an academic’s environment. How these

expected affordances interact with the environment (including the body) of the

academictoproduceaneffectiveaffordanceperceivedandactedonisthefocusofthe

relationship between ‘ICT Affordances’ and ‘Affordances paradox’. ICT Affordances

produce a paradox once they are called upon in practice and combinewith the other

affordancesintheenvironment.TherearefourtypesofICTaffordancesidentifiedinthe

datafromthecoding:Seamlessworkacrossspaceandtime;Workingpaperless;Easeof

sharing files with others; and, Coordinating physical movement. Emerging alongside

theseaffordancesareICTConstraints.EachoftheseaspectsofICTaffordancewillnow

be described along with how each contributes to the affordance paradox. The

relationship between the ‘Affordance paradox’ and how academics organize their

workaday in time and space will then be described as it emerges from the evidence

collected.

One of the most common expectations of ICT, as expressed by interviewees, is the

possibility of working anywhere and anytime. ‘Mobility’ and ‘seamlesswork’ are two

common expressions employed by a few interviewees, however the expectation was

implicitthroughoutalltheconversations.Theirexpectationisreasonablegiventheway

ICT is portrayed andmarketed, but also because the abstract possibilities offered by

technology in terms of mobility and digitization are entirely feasible from a purely

physicalperspective.WidelyavailableInternetconnectivity–eitherthroughWiFior3G

–meanthatanyportablewirelessdeviceisintheorymobileandcanbeusedanywhere

and at any time. The added advantages of digitization of documents (working

paperless), cloud-computing and virtual private networks (VPN) make the expected

affordance ofworking anywhere at any time appear achievablewith very little effort.

Whilst ‘mobility’, as used by interviewees, implies the use of deviceswhennot in the

office or at home, ‘seamless’would bemeant as the availability anywhere and at any

time of the same working capabilities as in the office. Mobile use accepts limited

162

capabilities,howeverseamlesswouldmeanacademicswouldbeabletoaccessandwork

withthesamedigitalmaterialandtools–withtheequivalentfullspectrumoffeatures–

as in the office. Although all the academics interviewed don’t feel they have attained

seamlessworkacrossspaceandtimeinthisway,mostaspiredtomakingithappen.Itis

easytoseehowthisaspirationhascomeintobeingwhenoneconsidersthat identical

applications such as email andword processors are available on tablet, smartphones,

laptopsanddesktopsalike.Combinedwithwidelyavailable Internetconnectivity, it is

easytoenvisagehavingtheofficefollowyoueverywhereyougoinapurelyfunctional

sense. The evidence from the data suggests, however, that this ambition of working

seamlesslyacrossspaceandtimeisdifficulttoattaininpractice.

There is, first, the issue of the uneven distribution of Internet connectivity or power

outlets for laptops.Forexample, theMontrealmetro isa ‘darkspot’when it comes to

3G/cellularcoverageandhenceInternetisunavailableforacademicsusingthismodeof

masstransitfortheircommutes.Whenavailable,qualityofconnectivityisalsoanissue.

Speeds vary between the home and the office, and as would be expected, is usually

slower and patchy when dependent on the 3G or cellular network. A further issue

regardingconnectivityiscost,especiallywhenusingamobileInternetconnection.Fees

andratesaredependentontheamountofdatatransferredandthishasimplicationsfor

whatacademicschoose todoon theirdeviceswhenusing themon themoveoraway

fromtheirhomeinstitutions.

Another is the fact thatallsoftwarecan’truneverywhereandeven if itcan, itdoesn’t

havethesamefeaturesorcapabilitiesavailable.Forexample,MicrosoftWordonaMac

canintegratewithbibliographicsoftwaresuchasEndnote,whereasthesameisn’ttrue

for the version of Word for iOS (on an iPad for instance). In some cases, often for

licensing reasons, academics don’t have the same software installed on their home

computers as theydo at the office. Some get around this limitationbyusing a virtual

desktopsoftwareallowingthemtoconnecttheirhomecomputertotheoneatworkand

simulatetheofficedesktopathome.However,thisoptionrequirestheofficecomputer

toalwaysberunningandtheremotedesktopwillalmostalwayshaveaslowerinterface

whencomparedtotheoffice interfacebecauseof the latencypresentedbytheremote

connection.

163

Broadlyspeaking,whenmultipledevicesareused,itisimpossibletoreplicatetheexact

same electronic capabilities across space and time. Processing power, compatibility

issues, different configurations on different devices, variations in speed, missing

features between devices, etc. These factors have consequences on how academics

organizetheirworkadayasevidencedbythedatacollected.

Printingcapabilitiesareaspecificrequirementforacademicswhichisimpossible–with

the technology available currently – to replicate across space and time. Given the

importance of printing for academics – despite the ability to work paperless – this

requirementandthelimitationspresentedbycurrenttechnologymeanthattheymust

organize their workaday around this limitation. To replicate the capabilities of office

printing in the homewould require a high level of investment and ongoing expenses

given the cost of printing high volumes of documents. Furthermore, office printing is

highlypreferredtoprintingathomeorelsewherebecauseofthehighcapacityfacilities

availableattheoffice.Theofficealsoprovidessuitablespacesforstoringprintedmatter

as was observed frequently in the academics’ offices.Whilst seamless printing is not

expectedbyacademics,itishighlydesiredandcouldpossiblychangepatternsofwork

should the technology allow it one day. In themeantime, printing seems to affect the

organizationofacademics’workadaybypullingthemtowardstheoffice–certainlyfor

thosewhoarestillworkingregularlywithpaper.

Other reasons for the uneven distribution of affordance are related to social factors.

Althoughitisquitepossibleforacademicstoworkonalaptopinacafé,theriskoftheft

renders this practice unfeasible. Academics perceive this practice as presenting too

many constraints and inconveniences – for instance, having to take their belongings

withthemtothebathroomandeventually losingtheirplace. Inmoreconfinedspaces,

suchaspublictransport,privacyandotherconsiderationssuchasnotdisturbingothers

could prevent academics from using their mobile devices for conversations. Peer

pressure from friends or the family entourage could also limit when and where

academicsfeelcomfortablewithusingtheirdevices.Thesesocialfactorsareimportant

inhowacademicsdecidewhenandwheretheywillusetheirdevices.

164

Climate and weather are obvious factors also limiting the use of mobile devices

outdoors.Montrealwintersaretooharshtocontemplateprolongedworkwithdevices

outdoors, including voice calls. Many interviewees, however, indicated they would

compensate for this constraint by taking advantage asmuch as possible the pleasant

summerweather inthegreenspacesof thecity.AlthoughICTcould intheorybeused

anywhereandanytime(anyseason),thecombinedaffordanceoftheICTandtherestof

the environment in Montreal produce an uneven affordance for the use of ICT

throughouttheyear.Thisistranslatedintohabitsandroutinesvaryingoverthecourse

oftheyear.

Assuggestedfromtheclimaticconstraintabove,thebodyemergesasakeydeterminant

foraffordances.Thisisnotonlytrueforquestionsofcomfortsuchasacademicsrisking

frostbiteontheirfingersintheMontrealwinter,butalsoforquestionsofconcentration.

ICT inserts itself into the academic’s environment already teemingwith potential for

distraction – colleagues and students in the office, the family at home and noise and

movementanywherebetweenthesetwolocations.Aswehaveseenfromtheinterviews,

academics are in a constant struggle to balance what they perceive to be positive

affordances – those leading to greater productivity – and negative ones. The greater

relianceonICTforbothpersonalandprofessionallifecombinedwiththepotentialfor

being connected to the Internet always produces an environment even more richly

populated with distractions for academics. Such is the level of distractive potential,

academics find themselves developing strategies formanaging their frequent urge to

glanceattheirsmartphoneorwatchavideoonYouTube.Thisoftenleadstofrustration

because theseurges are embodied reflexesdevelopedover timewith intensiveuseof

devices.ICT,especiallymobiledevices,isdesignedtocalluponone’sattentionasoften

as possible and to maintain engagement with the device as long as possible.

Interviewees #8 and #21 provide perfect examples of frustrations and strategies for

copingwithdistractionfromICT.Bothexpressedthedifficultyofkeepingtheirattention

focusedonworkwhen the temptation to lookat FacebookorYouTubewas available.

Theywouldexpressitasareflex–asiftheywouldfindthemselvesdistractedbythese

websites without realizing it. It is as if the body was programmed to perform the

keystrokestoswitchfromwhateverworktheyweredoingtothewebsiteorapplication

that would be the subject of their temptation or pleasure. This could be seen as a

165

paradox of ICT affordance in the sense that while it affords academics increased

productivity, it also affords distraction which can somewhat negate this increase in

productivity.Thisdistractionismanagedbyacademicsbyemployingstrategiessuchas

switchingoffdevices,puttingdevicesoutofsight(suchasthebottomofabag),working

inalocationwhereanInternetconnectionisunavailableordisconnectingtheirdevice

fromanetworkconnection.Anotherstrategy is towork inanenvironmentwhere the

presenceofotherscanactasadiscouragementtoallowoneselftogetdistracted–places

suchastheofficeorthelibrary.Thesestrategieshavespatialdimensions,andsomeare

purely based on changing work spaces. They all try to exert some control on the

affordancestheenvironmentofferstothebody.

The need to exert control on the affordance the environment offers the body is often

bestexpressedintermsofergonomics.JustasacademicsinMontrealavoidfrostbitein

thewinterbylimitingtheirworkoutdoors, theywillalsoseekthemostcomfortwhen

working with ICT in other ways. Architecture, interior design and ergonomics are

concerned with how human bodies interact with their environment and maximizing

comfort. For ICT, the field of human-computer interaction (HCI) is concerned with

maximizing comfort in thedesignofdevices and their interfaces. In the experienceof

academics,bodiesposelimitsonexpectedICTaffordancessuchasseamlessworkacross

space and time. For example, screen size, lack of a traditional physical keyboard and

bulkiness discourage certain uses formobile devices. Screen size is cited as themost

important factor in choosing when andwhere to undertake certain types of work. A

clear preference for large and multiple fixed screens in the office emerged from the

interviews for all tasks, but especially those requiring a significant amount of

concentrationsuchaswritinglongtextorcoding.Writing–evenshortrepliestoemails

–onasmalldevicesuchasasmartphoneisn’tseenasidealbymostoftheinterviewees

giventhedifficultyintypingtextonsmallkeyboards.Emailsarereadonthegosuchas

onthecommuteandthenrepliesareusuallydraftedonceintheofficeorathome.

Asalreadymentioned,anotheraffordanceparadoxispaper.Despitetheopportunityto

workpaperless,academicsarestillattached–quiteliterally–topaper.Paperoffereda

superiorexperiencetowhatcouldbeofferedwithICTonascreenformanytasks.The

materiality of paper carries weight for academics – they enjoy the texture, handling

166

documents and annotating by hand with colors to offer themselves a rich sensual

experience.Italsohasasocial legitimacyyettobeovertakenbythedigital.Somewhat

paradoxically,whileprovidingtheopportunitytoworkpaperless,ICTalsoprovidesthe

opportunity to generate great amounts of printed matter. The sensual experience of

paper isyetanotherreasonwhyacademicsseemto feel thepullof theprintersat the

office.

The ease of sharing of files stems from the possibilities of Cloud-based storage. The

practice of sharing files using cloud-based storage iswidespread amongst academics.

Theyperceivetheuseoftheseservicesasconvenientsinceitsavesthemthehassleof

sendingbulky filesby email andhaving tokeep trackof versions in theprocess.This

possibility of ICT addresses in part the uneven distribution of good quality and

inexpensiveInternetconnectivitywhenonthemove.Shouldanacademicwishtorelaya

document to a colleague without having to send a large attachment over a 3G

connection,theycansimplyletthecolleagueknowaboutthedocumentbeingavailable

onthesharedcloud-basedserverandsendthemalink.

ICT – especially a combination of SMS, chat and social media applications – allow

academics to easily coordinate their physical movements with each other during the

day.Theycanplancoffeeorlunchbreaksorleteachotherknowofwhoislurkinginthe

hallways. In this same vein, academics can also see if a person theywish to avoid is

present in the building or away in a meeting to avoid them. This practice allows

academicstosomewhatcontrolwhotheycomeacrossintheworkplaceandencounter

onlythosetheyprefercontactwith.Thisinfluencestheexperienceoftheworkplaceona

daily basis. Figures 19, 20 and 21 are photos of the hallways on the 5th floor of the

BronfmanBuildingoftheDesautelsFacultyofManagementwheretheacademics’offices

are located. They accurately reflect the atmosphere of the common areas of the floor

wherefewmembersofthefacultyareseenatall,letalonehavingconversations.These

photosweretakeninOctober2014,wellintotheacademicyear,andwouldsuggestvery

littlesocialcontactbetweenmembersofthefacultyinthecommonareas.Thiscannotbe

conclusively attributed to the practice of using ICT to avoid social contact – many

academicsexpressedadesire formoreof it–however, thiscanonlysupport the idea

167

thatsocialcontactisincreasinglyonlineandthattechnologyallowsonetobettercontrol

thesocialcontactthathappensin-person.

Figure19–Mainreceptionareaofthe5thflooroftheBronfmanBuildingatMcGill(Author)

Figure20–Mainreceptionareaofthe5thflooroftheBronfmanBuildingatMcGill(Author)

168

Figure21–Hallwaygivingaccesstofacultyofficeson5thflooroftheBronfmanBuildingatMcGill(Author)

Figure18showsexpectedICTaffordancesina‘causal’relationshipwiththe‘Affordance

paradox’.However, theconceptual separationof ‘ICTAffordances’ from theparadoxes

theygenerateisconfusing.Thereasonwhythereisanaffordanceparadoxisbecauseof

theoppositionbetweentheexpectedaffordanceofICTandtheperceivedaffordancein

practice.Thedatasuggeststhereisasubtleprocesswhereacademicsstartwithanew

setoffeatures,anewdeviceoranewservicewiththeassumptionthattheywillafford

them something new such as seamless work across space and time or working

paperless. However, once these features, devices or services are used in practice, the

perceivedaffordancesnolongercorrespondtothoseinitiallyexpected.Thisisbecause

theexpectedaffordancesareaprioritosituatedpracticeandcombinewithaffordances

intheenvironmenttoproduceaperceivedaffordanceatagiventime.Theenvironment

alsoincludesthebody.Theperception,therefore,oftheaffordanceofICTisnolongerin

isolation and therefore all other affordances in the environment come into play.

Therefore,alaptopathomeontheweekendandalaptoponthecommutetoworkona

buswillnotcorrespondtothesameaffordanceforthepracticeofwritingapaperoran

email.Thedifferenceinaffordancebetweenthehomeandofficeenvironmentscanmake

theperceived affordanceof ICT in each environmentdifferent. The resultingquestion

169

couldbe,howareaffordances–allaffordancesofferedbytheenvironment–affectedby

ICT? However, for the purposes of understanding the relationship between ICT and

affordances for academics, it is impossible to map the affordance for every possible

combinationof ICTandenvironment. Itwouldalsobea futile exercisegiven that this

wouldleadtoaninfinitenumberofpossibilities.However,asemergesfromthedata,we

seethereisacloserelationshipbetweencertainaspectsoftheICTandwhataffordances

getperceivedby academics.Academics seem to go throughaprocessofmoving from

expectedaffordancestoperceivedaffordancesastheyengageinpracticedaily.Thisisas

validforadeskorachairasforasmartphone.How,therefore,arethedailypracticesof

academicsshapedbytheperceivedaffordancesstronglyassociatedwithICT?Whatisa

perceived affordance strongly associated with ICT? For this study, it would be an

affordance easily identifiedwith an expected affordance stemming from ICT. It could

also be an unanticipated – and often unwanted – affordance (or constraint) which

provokessomeformofreactiononthepartofacademics.Thisiswhatisevidentinthe

wayacademicsmanagetheunanticipateddistractivepotentialofICT,forexample.ICT–

comprisingawholesetofartefacts,servicesand features–doesn’tsimply insert itself

into an environmentwith a passive set of affordanceswaiting to be perceived by the

academicwhomoves fromonescene toanother (thehome to theoffice for instance).

Academics are always in the environment of which their body is part and parcel.

Affordances are perceived by academics as they engage in a practice with the

environment.This taskcouldbe readinganarticleorgivinga lecture.Everyaspectof

howthebodyandenvironmentareengagedtoproduceapractice–sittinginanoffice,

on a chair, facing a screen whilst holding a mouse scrolling through a document, or

standing in front of a class projecting one’s voice – are perpetual occurrences of

affordances.Mostoccurrencesofaffordancesonatypicaldayarenotnewtoacademics.

They are learnedaspart of a practice either from trainingorhabit.Whennew ICT is

insertedintotheenvironmentwithallitsattendantfeaturesandservices,itisdonewith

the expectation of new affordances. As the new technologies are engaged with in

practice, their perceived affordances – that is,which is perceived to be possible for a

specific purpose – arise. Expected affordances never materialize and constraints are

almost always usually encountered in practice. This is evident in how interviewees

describetheirfrustrationwithhowtechnologiesaredistractingthemoraretoobulkyto

carry throughairport security. In theprocessofdealingwith these constraints, either

170

thepracticeswithinwhichtheseconstraintsariseareadjustedorthetechnologiesare

adjusted in termsof theirproperties toalign theperceivedaffordanceswithexpected

affordances. The former is what effects change in how the academics organize their

workaday in timeand space.This is evident inhowmany intervieweesdescribe their

tendency to prefer the office because of the combination of atmosphere and better

printingandbigger screens. Forothers, thehome ismoreappropriate forother tasks

suchasintensivereadingormarkingexams.ThedistractivepotentialofICTisalsodealt

with sometimes with simply going to work in locations where those distractive

potentialsareneutralizedsuchascaféswhereWi-Fiisunavailable.Thisisineffectthe

relationship between the block ‘Organizing theworkaday in time and space’ and ‘ICT

Affordances’. Thedistractive affordanceof ICT is eliminated from the environmentby

removing connectivity to the Internet. This results in a circular relationship where

affordancesareinstantiatedbypracticeandthenanotherpracticeexercisessomeeffect

on the environment to change or eliminate this affordance. This is how an expected

affordanceturnsintoaperceivedaffordance,whichinturnmaygenerateactiononICT

attheoriginoftheperceivedaffordance.

4.2.1.2.7 ICTAffordances<->ManagingICT->Organizingtheworkadayintimeandspace

Asmentioned above,when academics encounter constraints from ICT or an expected

affordance fails tomaterialize, theywill sometimes act upon the properties of ICT to

directlyeffectchangeonaffordanceofferedbytheenvironmenttheICTisapartof.This

isinoppositiontochangesinhabitandroutines.However,acloserexaminationofthe

evidence from McGill suggests this not to be the case. None of the data coded as

‘Managing ICT’ deals with the actual modification of the material or functional

properties (suchas thechangingof thecodeofaprogramor technical configuration).

ThiswasexpectedbasedonLeonardi’sframework(2011)whichclaimsworkerschange

propertiesoftechnologiestomodifytheiraffordance.Thisclaimisnotsupportedinthe

caseofacademicsatMcGill.ThedatacollectedintheDesautelsFacultyofManagement

suggest all efforts to effect change on affordances are channeled through academics’

agency on their habits and routines. Further analysis reveals the data coded in

‘Managing ICT’ corresponds to actions academics take to work with affordances of

technology or work around its constraints by modifying the organization of their

171

workaday in time and space. This category emerged as part of the coding process

becauseitwasexpected,asperLeonardi’sframework(2011),thatcertainmanipulation

oftechnologybyacademicscouldconstitutebeingmodificationsoftheirproperties.The

manipulations coded in this category aredescriptiveof howacademics organize their

worktakingadvantageofthecertainfeatures–byturningonoroffadeviceforexample

– tohelpthemachievecomfortandthe levelofproductivity theyseek.However,such

manipulations cannot be characterized as ‘material changes’ of ICT as specified in

Leonardi’s framework. Themanipulations are only possiblewithin the bounds of the

affordances of the technology ‘as-is’ in the hands of an academic. The technologies

presentinanacademics’environmentaremostlyproductsmadeformassconsumption

– either by consumers or corporations.Noneof those citedby academicswouldhave

been designed to be modified. Furthermore, academics in a business school

environmentdon’tnormallyhave the skillsor theauthority tomodify technologies in

their environment. Most of the material and software are closed systems and

universitieshavepoliciesforbiddingthetamperingoftechnologyoncampusunlessitis

for research purposes. Also, modifying software used by academics, such as word-

processingorstatisticalsoftwarepackages–wouldbeillegal.Thetamperingofdevices

wouldlikelyvoidwarranties.ThiscontextisinsomecontrastwithLeonardi’sengineers

workinginanautomotivesafetylab(2011).

Thisanalysisresultsinthecategory‘ManagingICT’beingredundantwithrespecttothe

core categoryof ‘Organizing theworkaday in time and space’. It should appear as it’s

sub-category.Thereisnolongeranyjustificationforthearrowbetween‘ManagingICT’

and‘ICTAffordances’tobebi-directional.TheevidencefromMcGilldoesn’tsupportthe

effecting of change of ICT affordances with direct manipulations by academics. ‘ICT

Affordances’ are responsible for practices captured in ‘Managing ICT’, but these

practices only lead to actions changing the environment and hence the perceived

affordancesofICT.

4.2.1.2.8 ICTAffordances<->ManagingPaper->Organizingtheworkadayintimeandspace

Just like thecategory ‘Managing ICT’, ‘ManagingPaper’becomesredundant forsimilar

reasons.Theimportanceofpaperforacademicsresultsintheneedtodevelopwaysof

172

managingtheproductionofdocumentswithprintersandthelargevolumesneedingto

behandledandstored.Papermateriallyandsociallyaffordspossibilitiesforacademics

not perceived as available with ICT. The affordance of working paperless, and thus

avoidingtheconstraintsofhandlingandstoringpaper,leadstoaparadoxonceitisput

intopracticebyacademics.Theevidenceshowsmostacademicssimplypreferpaperfor

reading documents and annotating them even though this is possible with ICT.

Furthermore,most academics interviewed atMcGill are very attached tohigh-volume

printingfacilitiesavailableintheirworkplace.Documentsareeasilyprintedandcollated

with advanced functions allowing jobs to be sent from remote locations such as the

home.Someoftheprintedmatteriskeptasarchiveswhilesomeisdiscardedoncethe

documents have been consumed (read and annotated) and no longer needed. This

practice requires organization in space and time. The category ‘Managing Paper’ is a

directresultoftheaffordanceofICTallowingfortheeasyproductionofprintedmatter

and has consequences as a function of where this production occurs and how it is

managedbyacademics.

Noneoftheacademics interviewedareengagedinchangingthematerialpropertiesof

ICTallowingthemtoprintdocuments. Justasinthecaseof ‘ManagingICT’,academics

perceivetheaffordancesofICTasallowingthemtoeitherworkpaperlessorwithpaper.

Theirdecisiontodososeemstoberelatedtothebroadercontextoftheirenvironment,

andtoanimportantdegreetheaffordancepaperoffersinrelationtotheirbodies.Thisis

despite the physical constraints printedmatter presents. Themanagement of printed

matterthereforeissimplyexpressedascertainwaysoforganizingtheworkadayintime

andspace.Thisanalysisresultsinthecategory‘ManagingPaper’beingredundantwith

respect to thecorecategoryof ‘Organizing theworkaday in timeandspace’. It should

appear as it’s subcategory.There isno longer any justification for the arrowbetween

‘ManagingPaper’ and ‘ICTAffordances’ to be bi-directional. The evidence fromMcGill

doesn’tsupporttheeffectingofchangeofICTaffordanceswithdirectmanipulationsby

academics.‘ICTAffordances’areresponsibleforpracticescapturedin‘ManagingPaper’,

but these practices only lead to actions changing the environment and hence the

perceivedaffordancesofICT.

173

4.2.1.2.9 Unevendistributionofaffordance->Organizingtheworkadayintimeandspace

We already saw how the ICT Affordances -> Affordances paradox -> Organizing the

workadayintimeandspacenexusdriveshabitsandroutinesofacademics.Withinthe

‘AffordanceParadox’,weseetheunevendistributionofaffordanceasplayingarole in

howacademicsdecidewhereandwhen towork.Whendecidingwhere touse certain

devicesforwork,academicsareconstrainednotonlybythetechnicallimitationsofthe

technology, but also social constraints. The fluid environment of an academic on the

movewitha smartphone, forexample, is a landscapeofmountainsandvalleyswhere

certainpassagesareeasierthanothers.Themountainsandvalleysarebothoftechnical

andsocialcomposition.A3G/cellularsignalwillnotbeavailableintheMontrealmetro

toaccessa linksentbyacolleagueorspeakingwiththeverysamecolleagueoverthe

phone could be awkward on a crowded bus. A good example of this sort of social

constraint is illustrated on the 5th floor of the Bronfman Building where the McGill

DesautelsFacultyofManagementislocated.InFigure22,weseeasignposteddeclaring

the reception area as being a ‘CELL PHONE-FREE ZONE’, hence making this space

sociallyinhospitableforthosewishingtotakeormakecallsontheirmobiledevice.Such

a social constraint presents the academic (or anyone passing through) with an

obstructiontotheexpectedaffordanceofseamlessworkacrossspaceandtime.Thishas

obviousimplicationsonhowacademicswouldperceivethisreceptionspaceandadjust

theirhabitsandroutinesaccordingly.Thisalsoshowshowoccupantsofaspaceexert

somecontrolovertheirenvironment.Wewillseeinthenextsectionhowthistiesinto

howthedistractivepotentialofICTcontributestothisshapingofspatialpractices

4.2.1.2.10 Distraction->OrganizingtheworkadayintimeandspaceAsmentionedintheprevioussection,theimageofthereceptionareaonthe5thfloorin

Figure10showsasignmakingthespacea‘CELLPHONE-FREEZONE’.Thefactthatthis

sign was produced with standard word-processing software and using a printer

available in the office suggests it was put up after a certain experience of getting

disturbed by the occupants of the office. This is despite the glass dividers protecting

thosehavingtheirofficesinthispartofthefloor. It isquitepossiblethattheabilityto

see those speaking on theirmobile devices enhanced the distractive potential of ICT.

174

Hence,thedistractivepotentialofICTisinfactnotjustfortheuser,butalsoforothers

sharing work space. The relationship between ICT affordances and the body can be

gleanedfromotherphotographsofthe5thfloorarea.

Figure22–Signpostedinreceptionareaof5thflooroftheBronfmanBuildingatMcGill(Author)

175

Figure23–Mainreceptionareaofthe5thflooroftheBronfmanBuildingatMcGill(Author)

Figure24–Mainreceptionareaofthe5thflooroftheBronfmanBuildingatMcGill(Author)

176

Thedesignisoneofopennesswithglasspartitionsandairyspace,buttheglassbetrays

asenseofthedistractivepotentialofsuchopenness.Thesemi-frostedglassbetraysthis

openness by protecting occupants from the distraction of the ‘outside’ space. The

possiblejustificationthatitincreasesluminosityisdifficulttounderstandgiventhatthe

glasspartitioniswithinaspaceinwhichverylittlenaturallightisdiffused.Also,privacy

isaweakargumentgiventhatotherofficesareinopenviewandtheglasscanbeused

forwritingon,justlikeawhiteboard.Thisdesignaffordsdistraction,notjustbypeople

speakingon theirmobiledevices,butbyotherssimplypassing through.Themonitors

playingvideo ina loopandembedded intheglassdisplaycasealsopresentsacertain

distractivepotentialforthosesittinginthereceptionareaandintheofficesaround.ICT

shouldbeconsideredonesourceofdistractivepotential,howeveronlywhenthewhole

environmentisconsidered.Hadtherebeenclassicopaquedividers,themonitorsinthe

glass display case cabinet would not be a potential source of distraction for the

occupiers of the officeswith a transparent view in the direction of themonitors. The

samecouldbesaidofthedistractivepotentialofconversationsonmobiledevicesinthe

open reception area – the installation of classic opaque dividersmay have helped in

attenuating thedistractivepotentialof ICT.Weseehowthedesignof the interiorofa

buildingaffects theaffordanceof ICTandhowthis in turnshapesthepracticeswithin

thespaceconcerned.Havingbeenaregularvisitortothereceptionareaofthe5thfloor

of the Bronfman Building, it was clear that this space was not seen socially as an

appropriatespacetoholdconversations,whetherinpersonoronamobiledevice.The

photos in Figures 23 and 24 attest to this. These photos also further support the

observationthatthecommonareasofthe5thflooroftheBronfmanBuildingarenotvery

socially active spaces. During the observation period, there was hardly anyone to be

seen,eventhoughtheseobservationsweremadeandphotosweretakeninthemiddle

ofOctober–averybusytimeoftheacademicyear.

TheevidencefromobservationsandinterviewsattheDesautelsFacultyofManagement

of McGill University points to distraction as being a very powerful driver for spatial

practices. Academics seek to tailor their environment to their need to regulate their

attention.Thisturnsupasaconstantnegotiationbetweenwhattheenvironmentaffords

in terms of distraction and concentration. A fine balance between what could be

considered an unproductive practice from a productive one. This negotiation is a

177

complexone,sincejudgingwhichactivitiesareunproductiveandwhichareproductive

iscontingentuponmanyfactorswhichchangeovertime–evenfromoneminutetothe

next.However,theevidencefromMcGillsuggestsacademicsarekeentomaintainsome

control over their environment as is suggested by their feeling of autonomy in their

profession. This sense of freedom is unanimous amongst those interviewed atMcGill

regardlessoftheirstageintheiracademiccareers(facultyandPhDstudentscombined).

The spatial dimension to this sense of freedom is quite strong, and ICT is seen as an

important factor in affording this freedom. However, this affordance underpinned by

ICTalsoaffordsdistractionandpushesacademicstodevelopspatialpracticestomanage

thisaffordance.

4.2.1.2.11 Ergonomics->OrganizingtheworkadayintimeandspaceAs seen in the section examining the ‘ICT Affordances’ -> ‘Affordances paradox’ ->

‘Organizing theworkaday in timeand spacenexus’, thephysical characteristicsof the

environmentandhowthebodyisarticulatedwiththesecharacteristicsisadeterminant

factor in how academics organize theirworkaday.We have seen how ICT specifically

contributestotheenvironmentbyaffordingcomfortforacademicsintheirdailyuseof

technology.Thesizeofscreensandtheuseofphysicalkeyboardsaretwoexamplesof

howergonomicsplays a role for academics atMcGill. These affordances areunevenly

distributed,meaning academicswill perceive affordances related to comfort of use of

ICTdifferentlyattheoffice,athomeoronthemoveinpublictransport.Ergonomicsis

thereforeacontributingfactorinhowacademicsgoaboutorganizingtheirworkadayin

spaceandtime.Dependingonotherfactorsaswell,suchasmood,tasksneedingtobe

accomplished, academics will choose accordingly where they will work from on a

specificday.Theycanalsootherwiseadjusttheirplanningoftasksoverthecourseofa

daydependingonwheretheyfindthemselvesatspecifictimes.Otherergonomicfactors

suchasthebulkinessofalaptopcanalsodeterminewhenandwherecertaindevicesare

used.Thesecombinewithotherergonomicfactorstoproducealandscapeofaffordance

whichshapeshowacademicsorganizetheirworkadayintimeandspace.

178

4.2.1.2.12 Organizingtheworkadayintimeandspace->ICTAffordancesIn navigating the landscape of affordances, academics develop routines and habits

allowingthemtomanagetheseaffordanceswiththeobjectiveofachievingcertainwork-

oriented goals through the course of a day. By freely navigating through their

environment, academics exert some degree of control on those affordances they

perceive.Thiscanbedonebychoosingwheretheyworkandwhen.ICTbeinganintegral

part of an academic’s environment, any control of these affordances involves the

manipulationofdevices and their associated services.This canbeachievedby simply

turning off a device or disabling certain features or working from a place where the

device inquestionwillhave limited functionality.Hence, theacademiccanexertsome

control on affordance either by simply moving to a location where affordances are

different or change the affordanceswithmanipulation of technology (or of any other

characteristicoftheenvironment).Inanycase,theperceivedaffordanceassociatedwith

adeviceisdependentupontherestoftheenvironment,sochanginglocationwillalmost

alwaysimpactupontheperceivedaffordanceofadevice.WithspecificregardtoICTand

affordances,therearetwodimensionsemergingfromthisrelationshipbetweenICTand

organizationof theworkaday in timeand space. First, ICT through its contribution to

affordance isadeterminant factor inhowacademicsorganizetheirworkaday.Second,

this organization, mainly based on well-bedded institutionalized practices, compels

academicstoexertsomecontrolovertheaffordanceintheirenvironment.Thiscontrol

can be on ICT or any other aspect of the academic’s environment. The well-bedded

institutionalizedpracticesofacademicshavebeendevelopedovercenturies.However,

as with other major past disruptive innovations, such as the printing press or the

telegraph,ICTdisruptsthesepracticesinfundamentalwaysbychangingthelandscape

ofaffordancesforacademics.Thesedisruptionsoccurbecauseoftwoforces–oneisthe

expectation of affordance at the time ICT inserts itself into the environment (for

exampleanewdeviceisacquiredorexistingsoftwareisupdatedwithnewfeatures)and

the other is the actual perceived affordance once engaged with ICT in practice.

Expectationleadsacademicstotrychangesintheirdailyroutines,perhapsbytryingto

writeemailsontheirsmartphonewhilsttakingthebusorworkingfromhome.Mostof

thetime,however,perceivedaffordancesonceengagedinpracticearenotalignedwith

those expected. In some cases, the reaction is complete removalof the concerned ICT

fromtheenvironment.Butmostofthetime,perceivedaffordancesleadtoadjustments

179

in routines tomake themost ofwhat ICT offers. The findings fromMcGill show how

academicsseektocontroltheirenvironmentanditsassociatedaffordancesbyeffecting

changestoitbymodifyingtheirphysicalsetting(bykeepingtheirofficedooropenfor

example)orinstitutingsocialnorms(puttingupsignsinpartofanofficeareamakingit

a noise-free zone for example). These changes can be applied to ICT specifically by

turningoffnotificationsonadeviceormakingareceptionareaamobile-freezonefor

example,hencemodifyingtheperceivedaffordancesofICT.

Although it is usually assumed academics go about their daily practices with very

specific goals andorientations – as suggestedby the attention-based viewof the firm

(Ocasio,1997)– theevidence from thedata collected fromMcGill suggestsmore isat

play. The academics interviewed seek environments affording a certain mode of

attention which is not always narrowly focused on a goal. Many see the office

environmentasaffordingbothconcentrationanddistractionatthesametime.Thekey

itseemsistheabilitytomodulatetheseaffordancestofitthemoodatthetimeaswellas

adjusttounexpectedchangesintheenvironment.Achievingabalancebetweenvarious

modesofattentionovertime isachallengeexpressedbyallof those interviewed.The

most stable forms of practices helping establish this balance is through well-worn

routinesandhabits.Eachacademichasmapped theirdaily spacenotonly in termsof

whateach locationcanafford in termsofmodesofattentionandatwhat timesof the

day, but also how much control they may have on affordances. These practices are

grafted on existing traditional practices of academics in business schools. The office

remains the center of the constellation of workspaces which academics identify as

appropriate forengaging inwork.However, thehomeseems tohaveacquiredamore

important role and third-spaces (a café for example) alongwith transitory spaces (an

airport lounge) aswell in providing environments affordingwork. ICT is seen as the

mainenablerforthistrend,andisappreciatedassuch.Theexpansionofthetime-space

continuum of work makes the management of modes of attention more of an active

concern, especially since the environment and what it affords varies enormously

between the home, the office and the bench of a park in downtown Montreal for

example.IntermsofICT,theenvironmentvariesbecauseeachspaceisassociatedwith

different devices (or an absence of) and different features and services. Adding

complexitytothisconcernisthefactthatICTisconstantlyevolvingintermsoffeatures,

180

accessibility and social acceptability.Many of those interviewed atMcGill seem to be

engagedinaperpetualquestfortheidealenvironmentforthedesiredmodeofattention

attheappropriatemoment.Moodsanddesireschangeoverthecourseofaday,weekor

longer.Thismeanstheidealenvironmentisneverquiteexperienced,butalleffortsare

made to tend towards it. These efforts consist in not only ensuring stable and

predictable environments such as the office or home, but also actions in dynamically

adjustingtheenvironmenttosuitspecificgoalsanddesires.

It is striking to notice the primary role of the body in driving the spatial practices of

academics at McGill. Attention – or the lack of – is the key measure against which

academics evaluate the affordance of an environment in the context of professional

activities. This includeshow ICT contribute to this affordance, anddistraction is their

main contribution, according to the data collected at McGill. Although distraction is

welcomeattimes,academicsfeelICTregularlyleadstoundesiredinterruptionsintheir

flow of attention. These distractions, often described as experiences where one finds

themselvesworkingon adocumentone second, and then thenextwatchingYouTube

videosofcatsorconsultingtheirFacebookposts,areverycommon.Intheseinstances,

academics feel theyhave lostcontrolof theirmodeofattention. It leads to frustration

andaresponseintheformofactionstoeliminatethesourceofdistractionorattenuate

it. This response involves the body as well. Some academics question having their

mobiledevicesontheirbodyorclosetothematalltimes.Thisisduetotheperceived

temptationofcheckingtheirdeviceformessagesornotificationsorsimplysurfingthe

Web.Manyacademicsexploit thebodilyaffordanceofmoving toa locationwhere the

potentialdistractionfromICTiseitherdiscouragedbythegazeofpeers(appearingas

professionalornot‘goofingoff’)andalsobytheirbehavior(everyoneelseisdeepinto

theirwork and the feeling of competition), or simplymaking it impossible for ICT to

distractthem(goingtoacaféwherethereisnoWi-Fiorgoingtoaparkwithnodevices

onthem).Movinglocationhasobviousspatialimplications,howeversodootheractions

involvingthebody.SomeintervieweesatMcGillwouldplacetheirmobiledevicesaway

fromtheirbodiesandoutofsightsoastonotbetemptedbytheirdistractiveaffordance.

Intheseinstances,thebodyismotivatedtochangetheenvironmentanditsICT-based

affordances tobetter controlmodesof attentionasdesired.Themotivation to change

theenvironment isevidently rooted inacumulated frustrationandawarenessofhow

181

ICTcanpullacademics’attentionawayfromthatwhichtheyfeelismoreimportantata

giveninstant.Someevenrefertotheirtendencytoindulgeindistractionasanaddiction.

Consequently, there appears to be a cycle where the body physically instantiates an

affordance in the environment, which is in turn perceived by the body engaged in a

spatialpractice.Thebodythenreactstothiswitheithermaintainingtheaffordanceor

changingitthroughaction.Thisactionwouldeffectchangeontheenvironmentthrough

variousmechanisms–againusingthebody.Somechangeseffectedontheenvironment

by thebodydonot implychanges inspatialdisposition(forexample,placingadevice

out-of-sight), but rather changing the environment by switching off a device or

deactivatingcertainfeatures(do-not-disturbmodefornotificationsforexample).

Theexampleofsmartphones,astheacademicsatMcGilluseit,illustrateswellthiscycle.

Interviewees describe how they use smartphones to check their emails on themove,

especiallywhencommutingtoandfromworkonpublictransportation.Somespeakof

thishabitashavingdevelopedafterrealizingreadingandrespondingtoemailswhileon

abusormetroridewaseasilydone.Mosthadasmartphonelongbeforedevelopingthis

habit.Developingthishabitwas,atleastinonecase,aresponsetothefeelingofwasting

timeonthecommute.Theaffordancemakingthispracticepossible is the fact that the

smartphoneisreadilyathand, issmallandlightenoughtomanipulateinsmallspaces

suchasbusesor trains, has connectivity to the Internet, and is equippedwith a large

enough screen and keypad to type at least some short text messages. The body is

responsibleforinstantiatingmuchofthisaffordanceanditiseasilyperceivedbyitwhen

either it seesothersusing it in thisway,or isexperimentedwithat somepointwhile

commuting.Thespecificpracticeofusingsmartphonesonpublictransitforreadingand

occasionally responding to emails, is seen asdesirable. Therefore, academicsnot only

ensuretheykeeptheirsmartphonesathandduringcommutes,butintegrateitaspartof

their workaday routine. When they arrive at the office, they expect to have already

startedtheirworkdayduringthecommute.Thecyclerepeatsitselfandtheaffordanceis

both maintained by the practice and making the practice possible at the same time.

However, occasionally this affordance is seenasundesirable, such as the caseswhere

checking email compulsively generates distraction and frustration. The smartphone

beingathandalmostatalltimesmakesitverytemptingtocheckemailsonafrequent

182

basis,evenwhenitisnotseenascritical.Toremovethisdisruptiveaffordanceandputa

halt to the practice of compulsively checking emails, some academics choose to alter

theirphysicalenvironmentbyeitherremovingthesmartphoneentirelybykeepingitfar

awayfromtheirbodiesandoutofsight(leavingthedeviceintheofficeduringaclassor

placing it in the bottom of a bag for example), or turning the device off. The cycle is

thereforebrokenand thisaffordance isno longerperceived tosupport thepracticeof

compulsive email use. AswasobservedatMcGill, this approach canbemodulated in

time during the course of a workday, week or year according to mood and other

imperatives. In this example of the use of the smartphone by McGill academics, the

physicalenvironmentandtheinfluenceoveritiskeytomanagingpracticesthroughout

theworkday.Themanipulationofthedeviceitselfisonewayofmanagingpractices,but

so is the space, such as the one on a commuter bus. The affordance of this space –

includingthemobiledevice–isrecognizedasstablebytheacademicandconducivetoa

certain productivity for a certain task. Time spent in the commute is no longer

considereda ‘waste’oftime.Thepracticeisthereforedesirableandhencemaintained,

whichinturnmaintainsthephysicalenvironmentforcertainperiodsoftheday–taking

thebus toworkandmakingsure themobiledevice isathand.Theaffordance is thus

sustainedasastablegivenbytheacademic.Inotherspacesandtimes,suchasathome

whenfamilyispresent,thesameaffordanceperceivedinthebusisnotasdesirable.In

this case, thephysical space canbemodifiedbyeither removing themobiledeviceor

turning it off for example. In some cases, what is considered ‘home’ is completely

displaced to another locationwhere the affordance available on thebus is technically

impossible.ThisisthecasewiththeMcGillacademicwhopurchasedalogcabininthe

wildernesswheremobilesignalsandInternetconnectivitywouldnotbepossible. It is

alsotoacertainextentthecaseofthoseintervieweesatMcGillwhotemporarilymoveto

a location in the city whereWi-Fi is unavailable such as a park or café. The body is

mobilized both as a means and an end to break the cycle sustaining the practice of

checkingemailscompulsively,forexample.Oncethephysicalenvironmentmodified,by

thebody,theaffordanceisnolongerinstantiated,bythebody,orperceived,bythebody,

andthereforethepracticerenderedunrealizable.Thebodythereforeplaysacentralrole

andistheinterveningvariableintheinstantiationofanaffordance,theperceptionofan

affordance,andfinally,themodificationorcontinuanceofthephysicalenvironment.The

resultingcycleisschematicallyrepresentedasamodelinFigure25.

183

Figure257–TriadiccausalmodellinkingPhysicalEnvironment,Affordance,PracticeandBody(Author)

In light of this conceptualization of the relationship between the body, physical

environment, affordance, andpractice, the structureof the categorieshavingemerged

from the coding of the data fromMcGill requires some adjustment before proceeding

with the coding of the data from the case of the Judge Business School (JBS). This

adjustmentisnowdetailedinthefollowingparagraph.

Beforemovingon to the JBS case, the coding structure resulting from theMcGill case

shouldberationalizedsothatcodingtheJBScasecanfurtherbenefitfromtheresultsof

theanalysisof theMcGillcase.Followingthisrationalization, theremainingcategories

will be available for the codingof the JBS case.All of the existing categories,with the

exceptionof‘ICTConstraints’,‘ManagingPaper’and‘ManagingICT’,willremainasthey

are. The analysis shows the category of ‘ICT Constraints’ as being redundant with

‘AffordanceParadox’.‘ICTConstraints’,astheyareexpressedbyacademics,areusually

implicit in theirdescriptionof frustrationsanddifficultiesofusing technologyday-to-

7Methodological note: In this new model, ICT doesn’t show up explicitly as anindependentconcept(likeinthepreviousone),butitiscapturedbythedatacollection(focusisICT).ThephysicalenvironmentistobetakenasawholetobecoherentwithGibsonianaffordanceandfindings.

184

day.Thesefrustrationsanddifficultiesaresystematicallycodedin‘AffordanceParadox’.

The category ‘ICT Constraints’ is therefore no longer valid andwill be archived. Both

‘Managing ICT’and ‘ManagingPaper’ are includedwithin ‘Organizing theworkaday in

time and space’. These two categories will therefore bemerged with ‘Organizing the

workaday in time and space’. Their relationships with ‘ICT Affordances’ will be

maintained bymoving them to the category of ‘Organizing theworkaday in time and

space’andmodifiedschematicallytoreflectitscyclicalnature.Thetop-levelcategoryof

‘Habits & Routines’ is no longer required as it is redundant with ‘Organizing the

workadayintimeandspace’.The latternowbecomesthetop-levelcategorywhilethe

former is archived.The resultingnewcoding structure is shown inFigure26and the

codes have been consequentially revised in NVivo. It is important to note that this

codingstructurerepresentstherationalizationoftheMcGillcodingcategoriesbytaking

into consideration themostobvious redundancieshavingemerged from thecodingof

theMcGillcase.TheJBScasewillbenefit froman initialcodingstructurebasedonthe

results of the analysis of theMcGill case and generating themodel in Figure 25. The

remaining rationalized categories from the McGill case will always be available to

capture data of interest should the new coding structure not be conceptually

appropriate.

Figure26–NewcodingstructurefortheIntensivePhaseatJBSafteranalysisofMcGill(Author)

185

4.2.2 Case2:CambridgeUniversity–JudgeBusinessSchool

According toYin (2008), a replication logic in amultiple-case study implies that each

subsequent case must benefit from the theoretical conclusions of the previous case

analysis. Thismakes sense since disregarding such conclusionswould impoverish the

research and deny learning from insightful conclusions along the way. However,

accordingtoYin’sreplicationapproach,thelessonslearnedfrompreviouscasesshould

beappliedtotheresearchdesignofthesubsequentcases.Intheinstanceofthisspecific

multiple-case study, this isn’t possible since data collection for the JBS case was

undertakenprior toa fullanalysisof theresults fromtheMcGillcase.Only thecoding

andanalysisofthedatacollectedfromtheJBScasecanbenefitfromthelessonslearned

fromMcGill,notthefieldwork.

ThemodelshowninFigure25,resultingfromtheinitialanalysisofthedatafromMcGill,

provides thebasis forcodingdata fromthecaseof the JudgeBusinessSchool (JBS).A

coding structure can be developed using the four high-level conceptual categories of

Practice,Affordance,PhysicalEnvironmentandBody.However, focusingonthese four

categories would leave out the crucial relationships between them. It is therefore

sensible toadd to the initial coding structure threeadditional categories representing

thecausalrelationshipsbetweeneachconceptualentity.These threerelationshipsare

Instantiate(byBodyandPhysicalEnvironment),Perceive(ofAffordancebyBody),and

Alter/Maintain(byBodyuponPhysicalEnvironment).Thesethreecategoriesareadded

to the four conceptual entities making up the model in Figure 25: Body, Practice,

Physical Environment, and Affordance. Hence, a total of seven new coding categories

emergefromtheanalysisoftheMcGillcaseforthebenefitofstructuringthedatafrom

theJBScase.

From a practical standpoint, the seven new categories will be added to the existing

rationalized ones from the McGill case in NVivo. These will be labeled as categories

applied to the JBScaseonly inNVivo toavoidanyconfusionwithprevious categories

withsimilarnames.Asmentionedearlier,theremainingcategoriesfromtheMcGillcase

willbeavailabletocaptureanydataofconceptualvaluenotaccommodatedbytheseven

new categories generated by the model in Figure 25. Each reference is identified as

belongingtoeithertheMcGillcaseorJBScaseandcanthereforebedistinguishedfrom

186

eachotherintheanalysis.ThesevennewcategoriesfortheinitialcodingoftheJBScase

caneventuallybemergedwiththeremainingcategoriesfromtheMcGillcaseshouldthis

makesense.

4.2.2.1 CodingCodingfortheJBScaserevealedthatonlythreeofthenewcategoriesemergingfromthe

analysis of theMcGill casewere useful tomake sense of the JBS data. Instantiate (by

BodyandPhysicalEnvironment),Perceive(ofAffordancebyBody),andAlter/Maintain

(byBodyuponPhysicalEnvironment)capturedthedatasupportingthedynamiccycle

of bodily engagementwith the physical environment in the context of the day-to-day

practices of academics at the Judge Business School in Cambridge. Coding for Body,

Practice,PhysicalEnvironmentand/orAffordanceseemedtobearlittlefruitgiventhat

eachofthesecategorieswereuninterestingontheirownandwouldnotuncovermuch

regarding the relationship between them. It is understanding these relationships that

willhelpinformulatingaresponsetotheresearchquestionputforthand,morebroadly,

provide insightson the relationshipbetween ICTandorganizational space.Therefore,

the codesBody, Practice, Physical Environment andAffordancewere set aside during

thecodinginfavorofthecategoriesrepresentingtherelationshipsbetweenthem.

Inprocessingthedata,eachtimeanaffordancewasperceivedbythebodyinthecontext

ofapractice,itwouldbecodedunderPerceive.Similarly,eachtimeachangeinpractice

wouldbeaffectedonthephysicalenvironmentwiththebody,thedatawouldbecoded

underAlter/Maintain.Anyevidenceoftheinstantiationofanaffordancebythebodyina

givenphysicalenvironmentwouldbecodedunderInstantiation.Itbecamequiteclearas

the datawas processed, that the codes Instantiate, Perceive and Alter/Maintainwere

concurrentmostofthetime.Allofthedatawasalsocodedundertheexistingcategories

developedwith the caseofMcGillwhenever thiswouldbeappropriate.The codingof

the data from JBS also generated 5 new categories: Business school context, Food,

Faculty struggle for office space, Sensuality, and Changing landscape of BS (Business

Schools). These categories were created after careful consideration of existing

categoriesandtheirappropriateness forthedatabeinghandled.Thefact thatsomeof

the data from the JBS casewas not appropriately captured by the existing categories

fromtheMcGillcaseindicatesthatitcouldbeusefulinthecross-caseanalysis.Someof

187

thesecategoriesemerged from the JBScasedue to the specificitiesof this case.These

willbeexploredfurtherintheanalysisoftheJBScase.Thestructureresultingfromthe

coding of all the collected data for the JBS case is found in Figure 27. This chartwas

generatedusingfeaturesavailableintheNVivosoftware.Thesizeofeachoftheblocks

reflectsthenumberofreferencescontainedineachofthecorrespondingcategories.The

keycategoriesproducedthemostreferences:Perceivewith151, Instantiatewith141,

andAlterorMaintainwith143.Withinthisset,136referenceswereconcurrentlycoded

underthesethreekeycategories,suggestingasolidconceptuallinkbetweenthem.This

willalsobeexploredfurtherintheanalysisoftheJBScase.

Figure27–CodingchartforIntensivePhaseatJBS(Author)

Theresultingcodingstructure inFigure27alsorevealsmanyreferencescodedunder

various other categories inherited from theMcGill case. These are on top of the new

188

categories generated by the JBS case. Given that these categories are sharedwith the

McGillcase,theywillbeconsideredaspartofthecross-caseanalysis.

As mentioned, 136 instances of concurrent coding points to strong conceptual links

betweenthethreekeycodes,theseconceptuallinksaretheBody,Affordance,Physical

SpaceandPractice.However, this link isnotstatic,butdynamicandshowingacausal

cycle. Insteadofpresentingthe findings foreachcategory,aswasdone in thecase for

McGill, the results of the JBS case can benefit from the structured framework of the

conceptualmodeluponwhichthecodingwasdone.Thismeansthattheresultsforthe

keycategoriesofInstantiate,Perceive,andAlterorMaintaincanbeconsideredaspart

of a triadic causal cycle. This cycle, however, can only be considered by looking at

specific activities,movements or actions animating it. All 136 references codedunder

thetriadiccausalcycleconcurrentlyunder Instantiate,Perceive,andAlterorMaintain

areeitherexplicitly–throughcoding–orotherwiseimplicitlystronglyassociatedtoa

specificpracticeundertakenbyacademics.Theresults forcodingandtheanalysiswill

thereforebestructuredaccordingtotheassociatedacademicpracticeforwhichagiven

instanceoftriadiccausalcycleisbeingconsidered.

Using the tools available in NVivo, all 136 instances in the data of concurrent coding

under the three key categories of Instantiate, Perceive, and Alter or Maintain were

reviewedcarefully.Thisexerciserevealedsomeimportantcharacteristicsofthefindings

for the JBScase.Firstly, the triadic causal cyclewasnotas stronglyevident inall136

instancesofconcurrentcodingasinitiallybelieved.Formanyinstances,therewasweak

evidenceofthecausalchainintheproposedmodel.Thisislikelyduetotheapplication

ofmuchlooserinclusioncriteriaduringcodingtodiminishtheriskofmissinginstances.

Closer examination has resulted in 49 instances of concurrent coding being set aside.

However, these instances could prove valuable in the analysis when considering the

detailinthecausalchainofthetriadiccycle.Furthermore,ofthe87remaininginstances,

26didnothaveICTexplicitlycitedandhencecouldnotbeconsideredforthepurposes

of the study of the relationship between ICT and organizational space. These aswell

have been set aside for further analysis should theyprove to be of relevance. The61

remaining instances canbe considered for the analysis of the JBS case.They relate to

variouspracticesundertakenbyacademicsonaday-to-daybasis.Thesepracticescanbe

189

broken down into two broad categories: Individual work and collaborative work.

Individual work, or work not requiring direct interactionwith others, represents the

lion’sshareofanacademic’sprofessionaltimecommitment.Thisisduetothenatureof

the typesof activities engaged inby academics: processing emails, reading, analyzing,

conceptualizing,writingandpreparingteachingmaterial.Collaborativework,necessary

and increasinglyencouraged inthecurrentbusinessschoolenvironment, ispresent in

theformofwide-rangingactivitiesfromsocializingtomoreformalmeetingsregarding

research projects, teaching duties or administrative issues. The findings from the JBS

case can therefore be structured according to these activities, also considered as

practices.Thisbreakdownandthenumberofcorrespondinginstancescanbefoundin

Table3.ThefindingsfromtheJBScasewillbepresentedaccordingtothisstructure.Not

allinstancesfromeachcategorywillbepresented,onlythoseprovidingsignificantand

originalcontributingelements.

Type Activity/Practice ICT Non-ICT

Individual

Readinganalyzingandconceptualizing

24

24Unspecified

21

Writing 2

Takingbreaks 2

Teachingduties 1

Collaborative Collaborativewriting 12 2

Table3–Breakdownofinstancesofcodebyactivity(Author)

4.2.2.1.1 ICT

4.2.2.1.1.1 IndividualWork

4.2.2.1.1.1.1 Reading,analyzingandconceptualizing

Academicsnormally engage in reading, analyzing and conceptualizing formanyhours

during a week. These hours are ideally blocks of time reserved for uninterrupted

concentration. However, with current demands, especially in business schools, these

blocksoftimeareincreasinglydifficulttofindandnewandmorefrequentdistractions

190

deteriorateconditions forconcentration.This trend isnotsolelydue to thedisruptive

nature of ICT, but also the broader context of higher education, changes in urban

environments,theevolvingsocialfabric,andshiftsinthenatureofwork,amongstother

factors. In these conditions, academics seek to optimize their resources in time and

materials to produce the best work. The ICT tools used today for assimilating and

producingknowledgeareincreasinglyubiquitousandthereforeacademicscanpractice

theircraftinmanylocales,notjusttheoffice.However,aswewillseehereregardingthe

specificactivityofassimilatingknowledgewithreading,analyzingandconceptualizing,

practices are dependent onhowacademics perceive their environment andwhat this

environmentaffordsthemforspecifictasksandmodesofattention.

Just like the McGill case, the findings of the JBS case continue to be striking in the

importanceacademicsattributetoworkingwithpaper.Inthecontextofthisresearch,it

isinterestingfortworeasons.First,ICTincreasinglyallowstherapidproductionoflarge

volumesof printedmatter.This is evidencedby the intervieweeswhoappreciate this

feature. Second, the possibilities offered by ICT to avoid the inconvenience of the

printingandcarryingofdocuments–simplytheabilitytoreadon-screen–wouldlead

one toexpectperhapsmoreof apreference forworkingdigitally.With24 references,

thiscategoryhasproducedthemostinstancesofthetriadiccycle.TheacademicsatJBS

hadvaryingdegreesofaffinityforworkingwithpaper,andallcombinedpaperwithon-

screenwork.Eachof these instancesprovidesevidence–according to thecoding–of

thecausalchainbetweenthebody,thephysicalenvironment,affordancesandpractices.

The presentation of these instances will be ordered by progressive use of on-screen

resourcesstartingwiththeacademicwiththemostaffinityforpaper.Interviewee#34

says“I’maprintperson”.Shegoesontosay:

Imuchprefertohavetextandtoworkthroughtext.And,infact,thefirstjobI’mdoingtodayisIcorrectedthetextlastnighton…Inpen,andI’mcorrectingitonlinenow,becausethenIcanfeeditintoNVivo.But,no,I’maprintperson.And,yes,there’sstillafewofusabout.

Itseemsthatonlyaconstraintsuchasusingaqualitativedataanalysissoftwarepackage

pushesinterviewee#34toworkon-screen.Infact,shestartedoffworkingonpaperand

then transposedherworkonpaper to the screen.This suggests thatworkingdirectly

and exclusively on-screenhasn’t provided thedesiredor expected experience for this

academic,andhasinsteadbeenadisappointment.Thefacilitytoprintathighspeedand

191

large volumes, provided by JBS, ensured the practice of working from hard-copies of

documentsendures.

Q:Okay.Sowheredoyoudoyourprinting?A:Itrytodoithere,becausewe’vegotamuchbetter-qualityprinter.Ihaveaprinterathome,andIwillusethatifIneedto,butImuchprefertoprinthere.Q:Okay.And…A:AreyougoingtogetarecordfromourITdepartmentoftheprintroundsofmembersofstaff?Q:Maybe.Possibly,yes.A:BecauseI,youknow,Ithinkwhen…Therearetimeswhen,particularlyonaFriday,whenI’vesentallmythingstoprintandI’mtakingthemhome,andI’mveryconsciousthatifanybodydidlookedattheprintments,they’dfindpeaksformeonaFriday.But,yes,I’maprintperson.Q:Andyoucarrythosesortaround,orwhathappenstothat?Imean,Inoticedthere’ssomepapersontheshelvesthere,but…A:Right,therearelots.Yes.Q:Yes,it’s…A:What…Ihadtoclearout…Q:I’veseenmore.A:Yes,Ihadtoclearouttwoweeksago.Andthere’sacupboardbehindyou.Q:Okay.Allright.Okay,Ididn’tnoticethat.A:Well,that’swhyIalwaystrytohavemycaronaFriday.Q:Okay.A:BecauseItakeithome,andthenIworkthroughitathome,andthatworksforme.Q:Doyouhavetheequivalentkindofspaceathome?Like,Imean,withpapersand…A:It’s…Yes.Yes,Ihavemyownspacewithmyownshelvingandmyownstuff.

The production of such large volumes of printedmatter by interviewee #34 requires

adequatespacetohandleandarchivedocumentsbothat thehomeandtheoffice(see

photo of office of interviewee #34 in Figure 28). In this instance, the academic also

organizedthelogisticsofproducingabatchfortheweekendonFridaysandthetransfer

ofsomeofthesedocumentsfromtheofficetothehomebygoingtotheofficebycaron

Fridays.

192

Figure28–OfficeofInterviewee#34(Author)

Interviewee#37ismuchmorereflectiveregardinghispreferenceforpaper:

Q:Doyouprefertoworkonpaperthanrather…?A:Ireadonpaper.SoifIgotapaperorabookthatI’mwantingtoread,thenIprefertohavephysicalcopy.Andthat’s fortworeasons, I think.Oneisthatthephysicalcopyis…Hasasortof…Issortofdefinedquantity,soyouknowthere’sabook,andhowfaryouarethrough.ThePDF,andthenon-PDF,you…Orthatyoucansortoftrackit,thenyoudon’thavethis…Thatsamesense.Andalso,becauseparticularlyifI’mreadingstuffwhereIwantedtosortof…Forreviews,Iwanttobeabletoannotate,soIwillwriteoverthings.Andwhiletheycandothatin…OnPDFs,thesortofoverheadofdoingsoismuchgreaterthanwithpaper,formeatleast.

Forthisacademic,thephysicalcopyofabookordocumentoffersmorepossibilitiesof

bodilyengagementandknowingaboutit–forexample,whereinthedocumentoneisat.

Theperceptionisthatthisisunavailableon-screen.Requirementsforspaceinorderto

handle and archive these documents is illustrated by the following extract of the

interviewandFigures29,30and31.

Q:Do you scan a copy?Or do you just keep the hard copy as an archived?Doyou…A:Well, so this stuff here is usually papers that I’m involved inwith journals,which are in a sort of interim stage, so I’mwaiting for another version of thatpapertocomethrough.Orit’ssomethingwherethereisa…ThereissomereasonwhyImightneedtokeepthat.OrwhereI’vesentapaperawayfor…GivenaR&R

193

on apaper, andyou’re expecting another version to come in, so I keep theoldversionjusttosaveusapretty…Anothercopyofit,thenIlookinmyreviewsforthat. But I also have the actual reviews or editorial reports on my… In mycomputer,soIwillcheckthoseaswell.

Figure29–OfficeofInterviewee#37(Author)

194

Figure30–OfficeofInterviewee#37(Author)

Figure31–OfficeofInterviewee#37(Author)

195

Interviewee#47 feels the train toLondondoesn’t reallyaffordworkingon the laptop

andisbettersuitedforreadinghard-copydocuments:

Q:Okay.Andwhenyou’reonthemove,letssayifyou’re...YouareonthetraintogotoLondon,doyoudoanyworkonthemove?Doyouhave...Yes.A:Yes.SoIwouldbringahardcopywithme.OrifI...Yesusuallyit’shardcopy.SoIdon’treallyworkonmylaptoponatrain.[Inaudible]Iwouldprintsomethingout,thatIhavesomethingthatIcanread.Q:Okay.Soyouprepareyourmaterialbeforeyouleave?A:Yes.

The preparation of printed-matter certainly has spatial consequences for interviewee

#47–wheredoessheprint?Doesshegototheofficebeforetakingthetraintoprint?

Unfortunately,thesefollow-upquestionswerenotaskedduetotimerestrictionsforthe

interview.Interviewee#36hastheperceptionofpaperasbetterforreading,annotating

andediting,butseesthescreenasbetterforcreativework.Interestingly,thisacademic

scanshandwrittennotes tokeephandy in theCloud.Heprefers takingnotesbyhand

and then takes advantage of the possibilities of ICT for storage and quick availability

(Evernote).ThestorageintheCloudofnotesseemsreassuringforthisacademic:

ForexampleI’lltakenotesinaconference,I’llcomebackandrunitthroughthescannerand then Idon’tworryabout losingmyphysicalnotesbecause IknowI’vegotacopyofitonthePC.InfactIwould’vedonethatforthelastcoupleofyearssincethatoptionwasavailableontheprinterbecause it’seasy.Aboutsixmonths ago they hooked upwith Evernote and so now I’ve also uploaded thatintotheCloud.

Furthermore, interviewee #36 also prefers working on hard-copies for important

documents:

Q:Okayyoumentionedprinting,especiallylikeinthecaféwhenyouhavethesespecifictasks,howmuchprintingdoyoudo?A:Soanythingthatrequirescertainlyediting,soifI’vegotacompletedraftofapaper then I’ll print it off and go through it on the hard copy. Same with thereviews,Idon’tlikereadingoffofthecomputersimplyforthepurposeofreading,Iwanttoreadoffofthephysicalprintout.IfI’mcreatingwork,Idon’tparticularlyhaveanotepadoranythinglikethat,I’llcreateitonthecomputer.

Interviewee #35 prefers hard-copies for deeper consideration of articles and for

versionsofwrittenworkforannotation:

Q:Doyouprintalot?Doyoudoalotofprinting?A:So,Ithinkit’saveryrelativequestion.Idon’tknow.Itrynottoprinttoomuch,but I do print. So when I work on my papers, I print the different versionsbecauseI’mgoingtotakesomehandnotesonthem.WhenIreadpapers,whatI

196

do is I scan themon the computer, but if I really like themand if Iwant to godeeper,thenIwouldprint.

Like most others interviewed, interviewee #45 prefers to work on hard-copies of

importantpapers.Interestingly,shealsopreferstoreadpaperdocumentsonherbed:

A: It depends on the paper. If I think the paper I will use as a model is veryimportantformeIwillprintoutanddosome,ummarks[annotations]yeah,yeah,butifIthinkthispaper,Ijustreview,Iwilljustreadthis.Onthescreen.Q:Um,the,whenyouprintoutthepaper,youwouldreaditatyourdesk,here,inthePHDroom?A:Yes[OK]yeah.[Alright]ButcommonlyIhave,uhIdidbringahardcopytomy,tomy apartment. [OK] This is, if I bring it, I always just lay onmy bed. I justcannotwork.[OK,alright.]

Interviewee#38alsoprefersprintingoutdocumentsrequiringmoreattention.Healso

prefers to print at the office because of the high-capacity printing facilities available

there.Hecontraststhesefacilitieswiththoseavailableathomeandexpressesasenseof

frustration. Instead of using the Cloud, though, this academic will load a USB key at

homewithfilestobeprintedattheofficeandtakeadvantageofhisnextpresenceatthe

officetoprintthesedocuments:

Q:Doyoufindthatwhenyoureadyoupreferreadingoffadeviceordoyouprintout?A: It depends on the kind of reading. So for the quicker stuff and often forreferringIwillactuallydoitallonthescreennow.But if it’ssomethingIreallyhavetoworkonand,youknow,it’satoughthing,thenIwillprintitout.Q:Andwheredoyouprintusually?A:Asyou’vejustseen,thebiggerthingsItendtoprinthere.SoItendtobringthatwithmeandhavethemonamemorystickandthen,youknow,printout.IcollectafewdocumentsandprintthemoutwhenI’mhere.Q:Doyouhaveaprinterathome?A:Oh,yes.Q:Okay.A:But it’smuchslowerand…yes, it’sbasicallyslowand it’salso…it’san inkjetand the ink is always empty because it’s one of those razorblademodel thingswiththetinylittleinkcontainerwhichisalwaysempty.

Expressingasimilardegreeof frustrationwithprinting facilitiesathome, interviewee

#26expressesappreciationforthequalityoftheprintingfacilitiesavailableattheoffice.

Healsocitesstrainontheeyesfromreadingon-screenasthereasonforpreferringto

workwithhard-copies,especiallythoserequiringcloseattention:

So,forexample,I,asIsay,Iamstillalittlebit,like,stuckwithhardcopies,so…

197

Because I feel that I strain my eyes more when looking at the screen, forexample,soI liketo,often,I liketoprintouttheimportantdocuments, if theyreally need my close attention. Now, printing so much, of course, I do haveprinterathome.ButifIprintsomuch,Iratherdothatwiththereallyefficientprintingsystemhere.Inwhichcase,ifI’mworkingathome,Iwillhavetostrainmyeyes looking at the screenall the time, or Iwouldhave to toleratewith averyslowprinter,relativelyspeaking.

Interviewee #30 appreciates keeping important documents, or those needing

annotation,athandbyprintingthemout.However,thesearerarecasesandhemostly

readsonscreenbecauseofthecomfortofreadingonatabletandthefreedomthisgives

himtoread inthegardenorelsewhere.Whenreadingon-screen,hedoesn’tannotate,

however he takes notes on-screen in a different application to the reader and uses

GoogleKeeptosynchronizeacrossdevices:

Q:Speakingofhardcopy,doyouworkalotwith...Ifyouwanttoreadanarticle,doyoudoitonscreen,ordoyou...?A:Itryandreaditonscreen.Itdependsabitonthenatureofthedocument.IfIwanttoannotateit,Iwillprintitout.Orifit’ssomethingI’mverysureI’llwanttokeepreferringbackto,thenImightprintitout.ButthegreatmajorityofstuffI’llreadonscreen.Now,havingsaid that, if I readonscreen, Imightwell readonatabletoronmyphone,soI’lldownloaditandreaditononeofthosetwodevices,youknow.PartlybecauseIcanthengoanywhere.Icangoandsitinthegardenorsomewhere. And that’s sort of more comfortable than looking up. It’s morecomfortabletoreadlookingdownatatabletthanitistolookaheadatthescreen,Ifind.Butyes,Idon’tprintverymuchout.

Q: Andwhenyou’reonyour tablet,howdoyou...Doyouscribbleonpaperyournotes,ordoyouactuallyannotatedirectlyon?A:Idon’tusuallyannotate.Idotakeelectronicnotesonthetabletthrough...Well,I’musingGoogleKeepa lotnow.I’veusedvariousthings,butthat’sthecurrentone that Iuse,because it’sactually fairlysimpleand itsyncsacrosseverything.Butyes, Irarelywanttoannotatedocuments. It’s justoccasionally,sometimesIknowI’mgoingtowanttoscribbleallovereverything.InwhichcaseI’llprintitout,butthat’sfairlyrare.

Interviewee#44prefersthefeelofpaperandpaperalsohelpshimknow“wherethings

are”:

Maybe I’m more of a tactile, sort of like (kinterstetic) style of learner versuswhateverothermodalitiesareused.Butthere’ssomethingaboutunderliningandhighlightingand,kindof, gettinga feel for thepaperandwhere thingsare thatmeansIliketoprintpapersoutbeforeI,youknow,delveintothem.

198

However, like most other academics, printing depends on the importance of the

document“forlessseriouspapersImightjustscrollthroughthePDFsonmylaptopbut

I’dneverreadorusemyphonetoread”.

Interviewee#43alsopreferstohandlepaperforreading,annotatingandhighlighting:

I’mverymuch,um,so,yeah,asfaraspapersareconcerned,um,Idoreally likethefactofhaving,um,ahardcopy,um,oftheminmyhands,andthenbeingabletohighlight somepartsof it andnotonlyelectronically, so,physicallyhighlightpartsofit,takenotes.

However, this academic in training (PhDstudent) also readsdocumentsnot requiring

highlevelsofconcentrationon-screenorjustforaskim-through.Interestingly,hecites

the facilityofbeingable to transposedata intohisdatabasewhenreadingdocuments

on-screen. He suggests this facility as being an additional reason to read specific

documentson-screen:

Iwasreadingonthescreenbecausethis is,and,this isbasic...sothese,thethe,um,the,thedocumentsthatwereopenatthattimewere,werebasicallyreportsfromtheWorldBank,andumanotherorganisationwhicharereallyisbasicinfoand there is no, it is very easy to read. So there is no need for a high level ofconcentrationtopicktherelevant informationoutof it.Um,sothat Icaneasilyreadonthescreenand,andjustskimthroughandum,and,andgettherelevant,um, andgetwhatever is relevant tome,uh,withoutprinting them.Ah, and it’salsobecause,uh,whilereadingIjustthenputtheinformationinmydataset,onmydatabase,andsothereum,Ineedacomputeranyway.Um,um,butonceyougetinto,Ithinkit’sverymuchaquestionofhow,um,complex,theinformationIamgoingto,uh,togothrough,is.So,soit’sverymuchaquestionofhowcomplexthatinformationis.Themorecomplexitis,um,themoreIwantahardcopy,ofah,ofwhat I’mreading. [Ok]That’s, I think, I thinkthat’sum, [ok] that’showitworksforme.

Thisintervieweealsoexpressesthedesiretohavedocumentsathandandasvisibleas

possiblefromhisseatintheoffice:

Um,no,Iprobably,if...ifIhadtheopportunitytochoose,Iwouldratherhavemyfiles,allmyfilesinfrontofme,uh,youknowonmydesk,andthenonsomewallsmaybe to the left or to the right,whatever, just havemy files on the shelf, uh,there.’Causewhenit’sattheback,wellyoudon’t,don’tseethem,uh,aseasilyas,uh,yeahofcourseyoudon’tseethem.It’snotthatit’snoteasy,it’sjustyoudon’tsee.

Therethenappearsagroupofinterviewees(#40,#41,#42,and#46)appreciatingthe

freedom blank sheets of paper offer when sketching ideas or mapping concepts.

199

Interviewee#40would first formulatemathematicalmodelsonpaperbeforeentering

themintosoftware:

Ah,when I'm doing some kind ofmathsmodeling, because this is, this is a bitwhat I'm doing toowithmy background, I prefer first to do like on a piece ofpapersoI'mnotusingany,I'mnotgoingintothecomputerto,in(LaTeX)orthiskindofthingstowritemodel,IfirstgotomypieceofpaperandthenI,I,Iputitinit.

Like others, interviewee #40 prefers to annotate and highlight documents on hard-

copies:

Uh, when I'm working on the, on an article on the computer, sometimes thecomputer, Imean the text, I, I, I hate using, um, highlights of the computer tomakecomments.Imean,Ithinkit'sveryuseful,intermsoftechnology-wisebutIreallyliketohavesomething,uh,printed[Ok]andmakenotesonsomething.

Interviewee #41 has a “set up” such that she always carries around a notebook

containing a “wild mix of things” in the form of A4 papers with ideas, structures,

diagramsandchartsdrawnuponthem.Shekeepsthisnotebookathandsothatinthe

moment, she is able to capture thoughts on a blank sheet of paper and retrieve them

later.Ontheotherhand,thisacademicintraining(PhDstudent)neverprintsoutjournal

articlesandkeepstheseintheCloud:

Andthenallofmykindsofthoughtsoflikestructuresanddiagramsandcharts,Iwriteaswell.Butallthereading,allthejournalarticles,Idownloadandfileawaykindofonmycloud.Ineverlikeprintoutjournalarticlesandstufflikethat.

I’mverypaperbased,Ijotdownalotontheside,andthat’sjustkindofmysetup.

AndthenIhavemylikethoughtsandframeworksandthingsandthat’sabigA4notebook,andthat’skindofamixoflikepapers.IgrablikethatpieceofpaperifIhaveanideainthatmoment,andthenliketheactualpaperthat’sinthatbook,likethat’smeanttobeinthere.Andit’sjustawildmixofthings.

Interestingly,interviewee#41ismadeawareduringthecourseoftheinterviewofher

practice of carrying all of her printed documents in her backpack at all times. This

seemedtosurprisehersomewhat,especiallysincesheconsidersherselftobeotherwise

sensitive through her research to the possibilities offered by technology to avoid

carrying heavy loads and have documents available through various devices and

services:

Sorry, I didn’t realise, yes, I kind of didn’t think about that. Yes, I carryeverything around inmybackpack.All of these, youknow,books are like the

200

heartandsoulofmyPhD.

So,butIdon’tusethat,Idon’teveraccessthat,no.EverythingIcarry…What’simportantisinmybackpack.

Q:Okay.Sodoesitgetheavyorisit…?

A:Idon’tknow,Ithinkitdoes.Alotofpeopletellmethatmybackpackisveryheavy.AndIknowI’mveryoldschool,andIstudytechnologyentrepreneurshipsoit’salittlesadthatI’mpaperbased,butit’sjustmysystemworkswellforme.It’sjust,yes,it’sjusthowIwork.

InFigure32, interviewee#41’s“setup” isvisiblewithnotebooksonthetableandthe

openbackpackonthefloornexttothechair.

Figure32–Interviewee#41atherworkstationwithnotebooksandbackpackvisible(Author)

Interviewee #46 describes a process where notes, ideas and conceptual maps are

captured on blank sheets of paper which then get digitized and classified for future

reference.Themanuscript is thenkept athand for the currentproject forwhich they

hadbeenproduced.Oncethispurpose is fulfilled, thesesheetsofpaperarediscarded.

Thislaststepispossiblytoavoidconfusionwhenlookingforthesemanuscriptsashas

been expressed by one other academic-in-training (PhD student) – interviewee #48.

Interviewee#46’s process in in stark opposition to the one described by interviewee

#36whoprefers to start a document on-screen,where-as interviewee#46prefers to

201

beginwithblanksheetsofpaper.Inbothcases,thevariouspossibilitiesofferedbyICT

wereexploredandtheprocesswhichworkedthebestfortheindividualinquestionwas

retained:

Q:No,thequestionisratherdoyou…?Imeanperhapsyoudo,butImeandoyou,when you read the hard copy articles, do youwrite on the hard copy?Do youactuallyannotatethemordoyou…?Andthen…?A:No.Forme,IthinkbetterifIwriteand,Idon’tknow…And,forexample,thisissomehowhow itworks, I’mdoing, let’s saya researchprojectora consultancyprojectorwhatever,you’rereadingalotandyou’retakingnotes.Andsometimesyoutakeablanksheetwhenyoureadalotandthenyouhaveto,okay,I’lltrytomakesense,andyoudosomemap,someconceptualmaporwhatever,youplayaroundwithideasonablanksheet.Andifit’sgood,then,ah,thisblanksheetisgood,andyousaveit inthebucketwithalltherestofthedocuments.Andthenthetimescomewhenyouhavetowriteitdownbecauseyouhavetopreparethepaperordo the consultancy report, thenyoudigitizewhat youalready, I don’tknow,physically…Forexample,youhadapaperwithnotes,thosenotesprobablyare complementary to the blank sheetwhere youhave the summary, and thenyou take all that to digital, and then you can throw away the rest. And that’stypically what I do. I have a blank sheet where, I don’t know, I had somesummaries, some ideas, somementalmap,whatever, and then Iwrite it downwhenthetimeisnecessary.Idon’tknow.BecauseIseethatthedigitalversionismorelike…Ofcourseyoucanplaywithitandchangeit,butformewhenyougointowritingadocument,it’shardertoplaywithit…It’seasiertoplaywithitwithideasandchangesonablanksheet.Readingpapersinyourmind,youhavemoredegrees of freedom, whatever. When you are already writing something, youhave structure, whatever it is, an introduction, an analysis, a conclusion,whatever, but that’s kind of… So I prefer to go into a document and write itdigitallywhenIamready.AndifIfeelit’sokay,thenIthrowawayallthe…AndIdon’tcaretoomuchaboutthepapersthatIhavenotesonit,orthesummarythatIhadonsomeblanksheet.That’stheprocess.

Interviewee#42explicitlycitesthelimitationshefeelswhenusingsoftwareforvisually

exploringconceptsandideas.Thisisnotthecasewithblanksheetsofpaper,wherehe

feelshis imagination isn’tconstrained.Like interviewee#41, thisacademic-in-training

would carry a bundle of sheets of paper in his bag so that these manuscripts could

alwaysbeat-hand.

A:Oh,IforgottomentionATLAS.SoI’mdoingmydataanalysisusingsoftwareaswell which has severely helped in keeping track of all themassive data set ofinterviewsanddataanalysis.AndIalsodosomevisualsonitaswell,soItrytovisualisehowdifferentconceptsandthemesconnectwitheachother,but I feelthat constrains my imagination. That’s why I always do it on paper. When itcomestovisualisingthings,it’salwayspaper.Soyou’dseemegoingaroundwitharound20or25differentsheetsofpaper,havingallmymodelsonitandithelpsmekeeptrackofmythinkingbetterthansoftwarewould,Ifeel.So,forme,digital

202

is about having immediate access to it and enabling the visibility anddisseminationofiteasily,butthat’snottodisregardtheroleofpaperinhelpingme retain that memory, or helpingme think…How shall I put this? In puttingforthmyideasinamoreconsistentmanner,thewayIhaveitinmymind,ithelpstodothatmuchmoreeasilyandimmediatelythandigitalwould.Q:Okay.Andwheredoyoukeepthispaper?A:Withme,inmylaptopcase.Icanshowyouupstairsifyouwant.

Finally, a group of four interviewees (#25, #33, #39, and #48) who feel much less

affinitytopaperthantherestatJBS.Interviewee#39contrastshispracticeswiththose

ofhiswiferegardingpaper,whichhefinds“bizarre”becauseofherneedtoworkfrom

hard-copies for every sort of document.Heprints as little as possible and likens it to

preferencesuchasdrinkingcoffeewithorwithoutsugar.Thisisaninterestinganalogy,

giventhisacademicdescribeshavingmadethemovetominimizingpaperaspartofhis

workpracticesasto“gocoldturkey”.Thissuggestsadifficult–almostphysiological–

adjustmenttoworkingwithoutpaper:

Q:Doyoudoalotofprinting?A:No,Idon’tactually.It’sfunny,mywifeprintseverything,soshehastocomeupandprint.Youknow,peoplesendheradocumenttoreview,toread,towhatever,she’llprintitbeforeshecanreadit.It’sbizarreactually.Shestillwritesoutletterslong hand. You know, when she’s working on papers, when she’s, you know,writingpapersshe’llprintaversionandreadit,workfromthatandthenkindofprintanotherone.No,Ireallydon’t.Iprintaslittleaspossible.Ijustforcemyselfnottouseverymuchpaperandit’sfine.Ithinkit’s…peoplehavepreferences,butit’sabitlikeapreferenceforcoffeewithorwithoutsugar,youknow.Yougocoldturkeyabitandyoutrainyourselfandthenyoudon’tneeditanymore,youdon’tevenmiss it, you know. I’m a believer in that actually. There’s nothing innateaboutaneedtoprintornottoprint,youknow.IthinkyoucanhabituateyourselfIthinkquiteeasily.Q: How do you annotate if you have a paper read? What do you do?A: So because I’m doing… so if, I guess if the person I’m working… so if I’mworkingwith co-authors or if I am reviewing something or for example if I’mreadingmyPhDstudents’work,thenIwillwritecommentsinthemargin,yes.Soinotherwordsonline,soIuse,youknow,thecommentsstuffinMicrosoftWord.So you always use tracked changes. I think that’s really helpful. So I use thattechnologyalotandit’s,youknow,simpleractually.ItreallydoesthetrickIthink.I often don’t… you know, I find it confusing too. So what I’ll do is I’ll writecomments, Iuse trackedchanges,but thevisualversion Iworkwith is theonewhereIsay,youknow,lookatfinalversionorsomething.Youknow,Idon’twanttoseeitallwhenI’mgoingthroughit,butit’sallthere.Youknow,thenIclickitonandhavealookatwhat’shappenedafterwardsandthensendthatoff.

Interviewee #39 contradicts himself by saying on one hand he finds annotations on-

screensimplerthanpaper,yetcomplainsabouttheconfusionthiscanproduce.Hethen

203

reveals his need to print certain types of documents – ones for tasks he feels less

motivated such as reviewing articles. He feels that by printing these documents and

havingthemat-handandvisible,hewillbemorelikelytoperformthereluctanttask:

If I’mreviewing…theexception toprinting is I thinkwhen Igetadocument toreview,apapertoreadforajournal,Itypicallyprintitoff,partlybecauselikealotofpeople,youknow,I’msomethingofa…Idoquitealotofreviewing,butI’malwaysquitereluctantbecausethere’salwayssomethingIwanttodothat’smoreselfishtomethatIwanttodoinsteadofthereview.SoifI’vegotthepaperthereI’mmorelikelytopickitupandalsoIthinkthere’sasensesometimesthatyoucanjustkindofskimthroughsomethingtoget likeaninitialviewofsomethingquicker on paper and then I go deeper into it. And then I will scribble on thepaper.Sothat’stheonlyexception.Idon’treallyknowwhy,butyes.

This above passage also perhaps suggests interviewee #39 has been constrained to

workingon-screenmuchmore thanonpaperdue tohisverynomadicworkpractices

andnotbeingpresentatJBSonapermanentbasis.Heseemstoconsiderpapercopies

betterforskimmingtextwhencomparedtoon-screen.

Interviewee#25onlyprintshisownworkwhenitismatureenoughforediting.Hefeels

this task isperhapsbetterundertakenonpaper.Heotherwisewill readandannotate

documentson-screen.

Q:Sonotalotofprintingthen?A:Notreally.Onlywhenthepaperisconvergingto…andyouknow,youneedtofix…onlywhenIreallyrefine,youknow,butnotmuch.PrettymuchIneverprinttoreadotherpapers.Iwillprintsayonlytoeditmyownpaper.

Wheninterviewee#25readsandannotateson-screen,hewilloccasionallydosoonhis

smartphone.Hetriedtodosoona tablet,but foundthisexperiencedisappointing.He

alsosuggestsalongprocess–afewyears–todothetransitionfrompapertoon-screen.

Q:Apartfromyourlaptop,youmentionedalaptop,doyouuseyoursmartphonefor anything?A:No,andIregret,youknow,buyinganiPad.IthoughtIwouldreadmorepaperson the iPad.Didn’t really happen. Imean, I still prefer the laptop. Yes, but onethingI’vegotusedtoonthephoneistoreadpapersonthescreen,butbeforeIused toneedhardcopies.But it tookmea fewyears,butnow Imean I candoeverything,youknow,onthescreen,includingannotationsandthingslikethat.Q:Whatdoyouuseforannotationsintermsof…?A:Well,hereWindows,IusetheAdobe,theAcrobat,andIthinkathomeIhaveaMacaswell,where Iuse… thedefault softwareonMacallowsyou toannotate.Yes,that…

204

Interviewee#25hasalsodiscoveredthebenefitofreadinge-booksonareadersuchas

Kindle.Hecites thepainof carryinghard-copiesofbooksbackand forthbetween the

homeandtheoffice.

Q:Howaboutreadingbooks.Wheredoyoureadbooks?A:Kindle.Q:Okay.A:Yes. It’sbeena longwhile that Iactuallybought,youknow,ahardcopyofabook. So again, I converted completely to Kindle, the reason being that I findmucheasiertohighlight,youknow,plusyoudon’thavetocarrybackandforth.Butone thing is sometimes theonlykindofwork that Ido fromhome is Iwillreadthebookintheevening,andthatwaspainful,youknow,everydaytocarrybackandforth.Butyes,Kindlesavedalot.

Interviewees #33 and #48 have both described a process of moving from paper to

paperlessworkpracticesfordifferentreasons.Inthecaseofinterviewee#33,ageingis

citedashavingdeterioratedhiseyesightforwhichusingthepossibilitiesofmagnifying

documentson-screen–onatablet–hasbeenasolution:

AsIaged,myeyesarenotasstrong,andIdoliketosimplyusemytabletandmagnifyit,atawill,withfingers,sothat’salsohelpingtoseethevalueandthebenefitsofbeingpaperless.

However,theabovepassagebetraysasenseofconvincingoneselfoftheadvantagesof

working on-screen after feeling somewhat constrained to do so by other factors. This

couldexplainwhythisacademicdescribespracticessuchasthefollowingwhicharein

totaloppositiontothosedescribedbyhiscolleaguesatJBS:

Or,youknow,ifit…Especiallyifit’saverylarge,like,ifit’salargedocumentorifitneedscarefulcomments,reviewingpapers,editingpapers,thenit’seasieronline.

Interviewee#48provides theperfectexampleofaprocessofgoing frompaper-based

work to paperless with the reasons for each step. This academic-in-training (PhD

student) expected ICT to reproduce the possibilities for annotation available when

workingwithprinteddocuments.However,shewasquicklydisappointed,findingmany

PDFfilestobelockedandannotationsnot-permitted.Oncethisobstructionwasliftedby

subsequentinnovationsinICT,interviewee#48foundasolutionincompletelyworking

paperlessforreadingandannotatingarticles:

ButmyproblemwasalwaysthatIhateditifIwouldhavesomearticlesprinted,andsomearticleshighlightedonscreen,because…Yes,thisissomethingIreally…ThiskindofthingIkindofneedastructure,otherwiseI’llgettotallyconfused.BecausethenIwouldbelookingforanarticle,andIwouldlook

205

throughtheprintedarticles,andthentwohourslaterIwouldrealise,oh,Ididn’tprintitbecauseIhaveitlikehighlightedonscreen,so…But,yes,sothat’swhyIswitchedcompletelytolikenotprintinganythinganymore.

Interviewee#48’ssolutionofworkingpaperlessforacademicarticlesisapparentbythe

relativeabsenceofpaperdocumentsoftenseenonotheracademics’desks(seeFigure

33).

Figure33–Interviewee#48atherdesk(Author)

Oneofthemostimportantandtime-consumingactivitiesforacademicsisdataanalysis.

Although not an absolute necessity, this task almost always requires specialized

software, whether it is for qualitative or quantitative research. This requirement, as

opposed to readily available software package tools such as word processors or

spreadsheets,presentacertainmaterial,andhencespatial,constraintinthepracticeof

dataanalysis.Oftenforlicensingreasons–thesesoftwarepackagesareveryexpensive–

theyareonlyinstalledontheofficeworkstation.Asinterviewee#44putsitquitesimply

“I’dsaythatI’m,kindof,weddedtomydeskwhenitcomestothedataanalysis”.Thisis

despitehavingtriedpossiblesolutionsliberatinghimfromthisconstraint:

Q:Don’thavetogetintothedetailofhowyouprioritiseyourtasksforthedaybutImean…Perhapswhatcanbeinterestingformewouldbearetherecertaintasks

206

that youprefer?Or do youplan yourday in a sense, in away that you candocertain tasks in one place, other tasks in another place; so on so forth forwhateverreasonthatwouldbe.A:I’dsaythatI’m,kindof,weddedtomydeskwhenitcomestothedataanalysis;notdataanalysisbutcleaningdataandhavingto,like,manipulatebigdatabasesandthatsortofthing.WhileI’dloveto,kindof,todothatremotely,Ifindthattheremote connection that I havewithmy laptop isn’t thebest so for example if Iwasto…IfitwasseamlessIprobablywouldn’tevenstayintheUK,I’dprobablygo back to Sydney or go to some other part of theworldwhere I’d just workthroughmylittleportalonmylaptop.Butbecausethatconnectionisn’tsogoodI’m,kindof,stuckatmydeskhere,basically.I’llendupspendingthemajorityofmyday,sortof,manipulatingthisdatasetandgettingitall…GettingallthedatainoneplaceandbuildingthevariablesthatI’dneedformyanalysis.ThenI’llsaythat’s,kindof,interspersedwithemailsandcontactwiththeteamthatIhaveinBangladeshaboutlike…

Interviewee #32 goes into more detail regarding the reliability issues he encounters

whentryingtoperformcomputationsusingMatLabremotely:

Q:Okay.Butwouldyoubeabletodotheexactsamethingthatyoudoonyourdesktop here, on your laptopwithout, let’s say, a connection. Like, if youwereoutsidetherangeofWi-Fi.A:Almost,almost.Butthen it’sslower,andthecomputerscreen issmaller,andsometimescentralsoftwarepackagesprobablystopworking.Forexample,IalsouseMatLabtodocomputations,andthenoccasionally,Icandoitonmylaptopbyremotedesktop.But sometimes it just stoppedworking, and then that’s not sogood.ButIsupposethistypeofservicewillbeimproved,sointhefutureitwillbethesame.

Similarly,interviewee#26preferstododataanalysisintheofficeduetolatencyissues

whenconnectingremotely.Healso,likeinterviewee#32,citestheenhancedergonomics

ofhavinglargerscreensattheofficeasafactor:

And, secondly, I amnot verykeenon, for example, remote computing.Now, sowhatImeanis,ofcourse,in[inaudible],Icanworkfromhome,Iconnectmyselfto the internethere, andeven, like,use remotedesktop toworkonwhatever Ineed toworkon in theoffice,but I foundthatratherslow,actually. I tried thatbefore, but I found it rather slow. I tried that before when I was on a trip orsomething,Ifounditratherslow.So,whatsortoftaskwouldrequiremetoworkon a remote desktop? That would be like, for example, data analysis. So, forexample, Ineedacertainsoftwarepackage tododataanalysis, then Iwouldn’thave itonmycomputer, Iwouldhave iton thecomputerhere, and I’llhave toremotelylogontogetintothatsoftwaretoworkonit—itwasaveryinefficientprocess,asIfoundout.Basedonlimitedexperience,I…Afterwards,Ijustdecided,ifIwanttododataanalysis,Iwillprefertojustworkhere,whereI’llhavebiggerscreen, quieter environments, and just everything seem so much morecomfortable,especiallywhenIamengagedinveryintensivedataanalysis.

207

In the three instances above regarding data analysis, there is ample evidence of

frustration in trying toworkremotelywithspecializedsoftwarepackages installedon

the office computer. Although possible – all of these interviewees have tried – the

solutionturnsouttobeunworkableandthereforenotevenconsideredanoptionwhen

choosingwheretododataanalysis.

4.2.2.1.1.1.2 Unspecified

Asmentionedearlier,academicsarelookingforwaystooptimizetheirproductivityby

takingadvantageofgapsintheirschedules,perhapsduringtransitonatrainorbus,to

dosomework.Giventhenatureoftheseblocksoftime–usuallyshortandinlessthan

idealconditions,withdistractionssuchasnoiseandmovement–thetasksundertaken

don’tusuallyrequiremuchconcentrationsuchasscanningemailsorothertextsuchas

articlesfromonlinenewsoutlets.ICTpresentsnewopportunitiesforfillingthegapsin

timeandspace.

Interviewee#45will takethreetypesofdevices–asmartphone,atabletanda laptop

whentravelling–butwillusethesmartphonewhenonthemovesuchasonthetrain:

Q:Alright,um,anddoyouhaveany,um,intermsof,whenyou’removing,whenyou’recommutingforexample,oryou’reawayfromCambridge,uh,howdoyou,doyouactuallybringyourlaptopwithyoutowork,doyou,whatdoyoudotobemobileandstillbeproductive?If,ifthat’stheintention.Maybeyoudon’twanttobeproductive,Imean,whenyoutravel.A:No,please,howsay,actuallydo[inaudible] Idotravellinglastmonth.Ibringmylaptop.Itrytodosomethingtomakeitproductive?Butthethingis,Imean,Ijustsotired,Idon’thavetodothat,butIstillbring,um,Istill,howsay,downloadsomePDFtomyphone,soIcanreadduring,duringthetrain.Not like,becauselaptop Ihave, is veryheavy, and it take time,but I can’t lookat it every time Iwant,sosometimes,ifIgotravelling,Iwilldoboth.Iwillbringalaptopaswell,ascommonlyit’s, Iusedthatvery, inthelasttime,butIalwaysdownloadsomePDFtomyphoneandIcanreadit.AlsoI,um,installlike,uh,Word,Excel,inmyphone?SoIcanjusttaplikethat.AlsoIhave,IbringmyiPad?I,IbuyakeyboardformyiPadaswell,soitsyncslike,um,connectingtolaptopsoIalsoinstallsamesoftwareonitandIcantap.

Likeinterviewee#47,interviewee#45feelsthatlaptopsdon’t lendthemselveswellto

work on the train. She cites bulkiness and latency in terms of performance. The

smartphoneremainstheidealtooltostayproductivewhileonthemove.Thisisstrongly

feltbyinterviewee#42whoseemstobeabletoperformanytaskonhissmartphone:

208

Q: So I’ll start with just asking you very simply how you organise your dailyroutinespatially.A: I’m going to have to say that technology not onlymediates, but createsmyorganisational reality everyday. So I do everythingusingphones. I’mall abouthavingeverypartofmyworkdigitallyenabledandonthego.SoIwouldchecke-mails, Iwouldwritee-mails, IwoulduseOfficeonthephone, Iwould justkeepworkingwhereverIam.So for me space is not confined. It’s not about boundaries, it’s everywhere.That, of course, has a lot of consequences for my health, might I say. And forobviously… It just increases the amount ofwork that I do even though I don’trealisethat,butIliketohavethatvisibility,thatimmediateness,thatcomeswithnothavingaconfinedspaceforworking.Q: Okay. And how seamless is that? I mean how do you…? If you…? Do youactuallylimitsometypesofworktocertainplacesordevices?A:Eventhough…Yes,sometimesitreallydependsonthetypeofworkthatIdo.SometimesifI’mreallythatmuchintomyresearch,itdoesn’tmatterwhereIam,as long as I can… I use Dropbox to have everything synchronised across mydevices,sothe…Soit’sseamlessandintegratedinthatway.Forme space is… Sometimes the office is goodwhen Iwant to concentrate onsomethingand justdo somethingquitequickly,butwhen Iwant tobe creativeand thinkaboutsomethingabit further, theofficesomehowkills that forme. Imightgotoacoffeeshop,Imightgosomewherewherethere’sabitmoregoingonaroundme,thathelpsmealot.Q:Okay.Sotheambientenvironmentis…A: Sometimes for specific tasks, but in all of that… All of that is seamlesslyintegratedsoeverythingthatIdois inDropbox;Icanstart itonmyphoneandthenIcanfinishitinmyofficeandthenIcanviewitonmydesktopathome.

What is striking in theabovepassage is the sense that this academic-in-training (PhD

student)feelstheneedtohavehisworkathandatalltimesregardlessofwhereheis.

He uses the term “immediateness” to describe this desire. This is made possible by

Cloud-based storage solutions such as Dropbox. Interviewee #48 also benefits from

Dropboxtoallowhertoworkonherlaptopduringseminarsthatshefindsboring:

Q:Okay.Soyoubringitintotheoffice?A:Ibringitinbutjustfor…ImeanI’mnotworkingonmylaptopintheoffice,Ijustuseit,youknow…Forexample,ifwehaveaPhDresearchgroupI’lltakemylaptoptothere,youknow,Idon’tknow,tobeabletochecke-mailsinbetween.Orifwehavelikeasuper…Imeanwehavesomeseminarseriesorganisedbythebusinessschool,orbyourgroupandsometimes…Imeanobviouslyitcanneverbe directly… Not every presentation can be directly linked to your researchinterests, and sometimeswithin a week, you havemany different seminars orpaper presentations, so I basically just usemy laptop to go there but then dosome of my own work in between. So it’s just like my mobile, I mean… Yes.Becauseyouneverknowwhenyouarecalledtoattendlikeoneoftheselectureseries,soItendtoalwayshavemylaptopwithmetomakesurethatifIhavetogosomewhere,andIrealiseit’ssuperboring,thenIcanworkonsomethingelse.

209

Q:Andhowdoyousynchronisebetweenyourdevices?A:Oh,Dropbox.

On theotherhand, interviewee#48didn’t feelher smartphone tobeofmuchuse for

workpurposeswhileawayfromhercomputerandwouldratherlimititsusetopersonal

purposes such as calls and messaging. This decision is due to her disappointing

experiencewith emails and the fact that there isn’t enough space forDropboxonher

smartphone:

Q:Andwhataboutyoursmartphone?Howdoyouusethat?Ifyoudo.A: Idon’tuse itatall forwork.So Idon’t synchronisemye-mailsonmysmartphone,notmyprivateandnotmylikeworke-mails.IbasicallyonlyuseitforlikeWhatsApp and calls and textmessages because I never… Imean I tried at thebeginningbut thenIrealised itreallydoesn’tmakesenseatall forme,becauseformostoftheworke-mails,Iwouldneedtosavesomething.OrlikeifIwouldcheckmye-mailswhenIgethome,Iwould,onmyphone,andthenIwouldstillneedto,Idon’tknow,saveacertaindocumentthatwasattached,orreplytothee-mailwithacertaindocumentattached.AndtheseareallthingsIcan’tdowithmysmartphonebecausethenIwouldneedtohaveDropboxonmysmartphoneandthere’snotenoughspace.SoIdecidedI’llnever,Ijustnevercheckmye-mailsfrommysmartphonebecausethen,ifIdo,andthenextdayI’llcheckmye-mailsintheoffice,ImightmisstheonesIcheckedalreadybutIdidn’tactuallyworkonthem.Sothat’s…I’mbasicallyonlyworkingonmye-mailsifIcanactuallyworkonthem,ifIhavemycomputerandmydocumentsthere.AndotherwiseItrynottocheck.

Interviewee#46feelshecanbeproductiveinbedwithhissmartphone.Whensleepisn’t

forthcomingorisbrokenearlierthanusual,thisacademic-in-training(PhDstudent)will

turntohissmartphonetodosomequickreadingofpapersorglancingatliteratureona

specifictopic.

Q:YoumentionedtheiPhone,doyouusethatforwork?A:Yes,Iuseittobrowsethroughtheliterature.Nottoread.Sometimeswhenyouare, Idon’tknow,sometimesyouget…TypicallyIwakeupatsix,six-thirty,butsometimes,Idon’tknow,yourbrainstartsworkingearlierandyougetupat,oryouwakeupquiteearly,forexample,butyoudon’twanttoleavebed.Ithenjustturn it on and just have some reading, quick reading, just the introduction ofpapersor ingeneral.Butwhat isreallyuseful is to fillsome, Idon’tknow,gapsthatyouhavewithintheday.Sometimesyouarewaitingforsomethingor,Idon’tknow,oryou’regettingtosleepandyou,Idon’tknow,youjustarereallysleepyor whatever, you have some ten, twenty minutes gap and then you can… Forexample,ifI’mworkinginaproject,Iwanttosee,toscantheliteraturewhichisreallyimportant,andtypicallyIgothroughGoogleScholarandthenyoujustusethecellphonetogothroughthepapersandthenI…JusttokeeptrackofwhatI’mdoing,ifIfindsomethinginterestingIsendthemtomye-mailandthennextday,inthee-mail,ah,yes,thisiswhatIsawyesterday.AndthenIsystemiseitalittle

210

bitmore. But the iPhone forme is forwork.Of course youuse it for a tool, toanswersomee-mailswhenyouare,Idon’tknow…Youuseitforcommunicationbutthat’snotallthatrelevant,formeit’smuchmoretheflexibilitythatyouhavetodothatliteraturesearch.

Interviewee#46’sintimaterelationshipwithhissmartphoneisn’tlimitedtohisbed.He

alsofeelsheisabletomanagetheemergenceofideasusinghissmartphonebyturningit

intoasortof“memoryoffload”.

AndtheotherthingthatI’vebeenfindingmoreusefulnow,isthat…It’slikeyoukindoffloatsomeideasthatyouhavethatprobably,sinceyouareinthemiddleof…Ideascomeupreallyunexpectedly.Forexample, Iwas inaclassnowandIhad this idea theremightbea researchprojectbecause the teacherwassayingsomething. And probably in my experience in the past I would say, okay, I’llrememberthatandthenintwoyears’time,intwodays,oraweek,I’lltrytogobackandsay,ah,IknowthatIhadanideabutwhatwasit?AndIreallycouldn’tremember.SonowwhatIdoissometimesIgettheseideasandIjustdoaquicknoteintheiPhone,andsoIcanstoretheseideas.And, for example, now I find that useful because I have to…There are a lot ofthings…InalotofthecoursesIhavetodosomeshortpaperonresearchideas,orevenformythesisforthedissertation,I’mplayingaroundwithsomeideas,sointhe iPhone I have like, I don’t know, 10or 15now, short sentenceswith someideas.ProbablyIwillgothroughthoseideasinamonth’stimeorwhenIhaveto,andalotofthemwillbereally,Idon’tknow,notuseful,butsomeofthemwillbe,ah,okayyes,that’sgood.Soit’skindofamemoryoffload.

Interviewee#46alsofeelshealwayshashisworkathandthankstoGoogleDrive–even

in the event of a laptop theft. This provides himwith a double sense of security, one

regardingthefacthecanaccesshisfilesanywherehehasaconnectiontotheInternet,

andtwo,heismuchlessworriedaboutthetheftofhislaptopknowinghisworkisstored

elsewhere.

Q:Okay.Didyou…?Ididn’tseeifyouhadalaptophere,isitalaptoporisita…?A:No,Iworkwith…Ihavea…It’sjustforcomfort,Ihavealaptopinmydeskatmyhouse,at theapartment,andIhave…I’mworkingeverythingwithinGoogleDrivesoIdon’thavetobringmylaptopeverywhere.It’smorecomfortableto,Idon’tknow…AndIdon’tmindusingdifferentkeyboardsordifferentscreens,I’mnottoopicky.Someguysdon’tlikethatandalwayshavetoworkonthesame,butforme,it’sthecomfortofnotgoingaroundwiththelaptopismuchhigherthanthecostofchangingthekeyboardandwhatever.Butthat’snew,I’vebeenusingthatlikeayearagohaving,workingeverythingwithinGoogleDrive.Andalsoit’seasierforyourpsychologicalsafety,becauseyouknowthatthatwon’tbelost,it’sinGoogleDriveandsomewhereitwillbe,andsoyoudon’thavetobekindof…PriortothatIwaskindof…OnceamonthIhadtobackupalltheinformationandbe careful. And I was bringing my laptop everywhere and that was kind ofannoyingandsometimesyougetworriedabout…Ifyouhadtoleaveyourdesk,your laptop somewhere, you said, oh, if I leave it somebody will steal it or

211

whatever, you will lose a month’s work. And sometimes that was kind of apsychological problem.ButnowwithGoogleDrive it’s like…And actually I seenow, for example, that the value I attach to the laptop is infinitely more, theinformation that is within it, than the, I don’t know, what it can do. You canalwaysbuyanotherlaptop.AndpriortoshiftingtoGoogleDrive,Ithinkthatyoutellme,howmuchdoesyourlaptopvalue?Oh,alot,alot,Iwillbeabletopayalot for that. Now, it’s like, I don’t care, just take it, go ahead, I don’tworry. Soyou’llhavetopaya littlebit foranewlaptop,butyou justdon’t…It’skindof, Idon’tknow…Idon’tworrytoomuchaboutthelaptopnow.Idon’tknow,priortothatifmykid’splayingwiththelaptop,hemightthrow[inaudible]orsomething,Iwasreallyworried.Nowit’slike,okay,justplayaround.

Interviewee#30feelshissmartphoneishismainall-purposedevicefromwhich,witha

fewexceptions,hecanhaveallofhisworkathand.Largerdeviceshefindsimpractical

forworkingonthemove.

Q: Idon’tseeyouhavea laptop,butdoyoueverbringanydeviceswithyoutothosemeetings?Doyoueverneedtoplugsomethinginor...?A: Rarely. I rely on my phone, because the phone is...You know, I can accessanythingIneedto.Well,there’sapartialexception,becauseitdoesn’tworkverywellwithcertainaspectsoftheIntranet.Thatseemstobe...It’snotjustthephone,it’sthetabletaswell. Idon’tknowwhythat is. ItwillaccesstheIntranet,but ifyoutryanddownloada .pdf fromlink, it justsomehowdoesn’twork.Butapartfromoneor twoglitches like that, I candoeverythingon thephone.And I cantakenotesonthephone,sothat’susuallyenough.Imean,Ifindcarryingaroundanything else that’s bigger is just a bit of a nuisance. So, you know, I treat thephoneasmy,sortof,mainall-purposedevice.

Interviewee #30 would take advantage of any ‘gaps’ in the day to read on his

smartphoneortablet.Hewouldpreferthetabletforvisualizingdiagrams,butfeelsthe

phone is perfectly adequate otherwise. Taking advantage of these ‘gaps’ are so

importanttointerviewee#30,hewoulddownloaddocumentstohisdevicesaspartofa

stackofreadingmaterialforoccasionswhenhewouldn’thaveaccesstotheInternet.

Q:Okay.Youmentionedatabletandportabledevices.Youmentionedalsousingeventhegarden,Ipresumeathome?Isthatthegardenathome?A:Yes.Q:Okay,wouldyouuseitinanyotherplace?A:Oh,yes. Imean, if Igo toLondon,which Idoreasonablyoften, Iwillusuallytakethetabletwitheithere-booksorotherdocumentsonsothatwhetherI’monthe train or the tubeor just, youknow, have gaps, I can just readoff there.Orsometimesonmyphone.Imean,thephoneissmall,butit’sperfectlyfeasibletoreadonthat.It’sjustthatwithdiagramsandthings,thetablet’sabitmore,kindof,effective.Butthat’spartlyabout,youknow,tryingtousetimethatotherwisemightnotbeveryuseful.There’salwaysaninfiniteamounttoread,soIalwaystryandmakesureIhavesomeofitavailable,eitheronline,youknow,oroften,if

212

you’reoutofInternetrange,thenI’vealwaysgotstuffdownloadedreadytoreadtokeepmegoingduringanygaps.

Interviewee#35 ferriesher laptopbetweenhomeandofficedependingonwhat tasks

she feels she needs to do at home in the evening or over the weekend. However,

Dropboxallowsherthefreedomofdispensingwiththisinconvenience–transportinga

heavylaptop–shouldshebeinahurryorhaveminimalworktodoathome.

Q:So,perhapswecouldstartbyhavingyoudescribealittlebithowyouorganizeyourworkspace. Andwhen I sayworkspace, I don’tmean necessarily just theworkspaceintheoffice,butjustgenerally,broadlyspeaking.A: Okay. So, the central element of my workspace would be my laptop. So,basically,here,asyoucansee,inmyofficeIhavemylaptopwhichispluggedtothatscreen.Andbasically,whenIneedtotakeithome,Ihavemylaptopathome.AndIalsousea lotofDropbox.Sothat if I’minahurryand,youknow,IknowthatIwon’tbeworkingverylongintheeveningathome,Ileavemylaptophereand, you know, on the computers at home I access whatever I need from theDropbox.Q:Okay.Andintermsoftechnology,Iknowyoumentionedthelaptopyouhave,andIpresumethat’stheonly...YoudidmentionthehomecomputerandthatyoucanretrieveyourdocumentsviaDropboxandeverything.Actually,that’sagoodquestion.Whywouldn’tyoualwaysbeonyourlaptop?Whywouldyouworkonthehomecomputer?A:Itrytobuylaptopsthatarenotheavy,butIfinditquiteheavyformetocarrymylaptoparound.So if IknowthatI’m…don’tneedanythingspecial fromit, Idon’ttakeit.Q:Okay,soyouwouldleaveitintheoffice?A: I leave it in the office. So over theweekend I’ll take it back, and during theweek,youknow,maybeI’ll take it...ThisweekI took ithometwice.Otherwise Itrynottocarryittoomucharound.Andotherwise,hereontopofthat,IhaveaPC, that you can’t see. And I access it remotely, because I’m using a Mac, andunfortunately,noteverythingrunsonMac,andIhaven’thadmyMacpartitioned.IknowthatmanyofmycolleagueshavethePCsystemontheMac.Ihaven’thadthatdone. So I still remotely connect tomyPC, and I cando it fromeither theoffice,orfromanycomputer,soIcanalsodoitfromhome.

Interviewee#35usesvariousdevicesdependingontask(readingarticlesforexample)

andhoweachmeasureup,especiallyregardingscreensize.

Q:Okay,andwhatothersortsofdeviceswouldhave,otherthanthislaptop?Doyouhaveasmartphone?A:Yes.Q:Tablet,iPad,oranything?A:Yes.Q:Okay,andintermsofwork,whatwouldyouusethemfor?A:So,thetablet,Idon’tuseitforwork.Or,ifIuseitforwork,it’sjusttobasicallyaccessapaperonline.Q:Okay,soyouwouldactuallyreaditfromthetablet?

213

A:Yes,but Idon’t read thatveryoften. In that case Iwouldratherdo itonmylaptop,becauseIhavean iPadMini,whichthescreen isquitesmall.So Iprefermy laptop for that.Andmyphone, I use it primarily, youknow, tomanagemycalendarandreplytoa lotofemails.That’swhat Ido,andfileandfindsome...IhaveTwitter,soif IanEconomistarticlethatI like, I’mgoingtoputitasideforlaterformystudentsorwhatever.Yes,Ithinkthat’sprettymuchit.

Interviewee#41findsthesmartphonetobeof limiteduseforvariousreasons.Firstly,

sheislimitedintermsofmaterialduetotheriskhigh-valuedevicespresentinthefield

inKenya.ThismeanssheisunabletoinstallGoogleDocsorsaveattachmentsinemails.

Furthermore, she feels smartphones don’t suit typing replies to emails and will only

readthemonasmartphoneandreplyfromanotherlargerdevice.

Q:No,it’sveryinteresting.Sorry.Soevenfor,Idon’tknow,ifyou’relookingataGoogleDoconyourphone,youwouldn’tdothatonyourphone,you’ddoiton…?A:Idon’tevenhaveGoogleDocinstalledonmyphone.Ican’tevenopen…Ihaveasuperold-schoolsmartphoneandafurtherreasonisbecauseinKenyait’s…Youjustdon’twanttobewalkingaroundwithafancyphone,sopartofitisjustkindofknowing,okay,Igobacktherealot,itdoesn’tmakesense.SoIcan’tevenopenanattachment, likeapdforaWordattachment. Icanreadthee-mailonmysmartphone,whichIdoactually,butthenthat’sit,Ican’topen,yes…AndIneverrespondonmyphoneeitherbecauseIjustdon’twanttomaketyposor…Iprefertoseethescreen,yes.SoIreally…Iusemyphonetocheckmye-mailsearly in themorningwhen Ikindofgetup,but that’sabout it. Justso Iknowwhat’sgoingon.

Interviewee#36,whousestheCloudtostoredocuments,providesaperfectexampleof

howeachdevicefitseachofthetasksheassociateswithcertainlocales–beittheoffice,

thekitchenathome,acafé,orthebusonthewaytowork.

Q:Sowe’llstartverysimplybyjustyoudescribingtomealittlebitthewayyouorganiseyourselfintermsofspaceforwork.Sogenerally,yesyourownspace.A: Independent of research collaboration, just simply where do I or how do Iwork?Q:Yes,verygenerallyhowdoyou…?YesImean,whereyouwork?A:So I likeworkingoutof theoffice, Iwouldbe inmostdays.When I’m in theofficeIworkatthedesk.IusedtodragmylaptopinthinkingImight,andIsaythis in theory, you know do half day in the office and half day in a café. Thatwouldberareotherthanif Isayhadtogetapaperreviewdone, if IhadanAEreportorareviewerreportduethenthatwouldgetmeoutoftheofficeforafewhours,youknownoInternetinthecafé.SoifIreallyneededtofocusononetaskthenyouknowI’ddisappearofftoacafé,bearoundpeoplebutnothavetotalktoanyoneandnothave thedistractionof the Internet, otherwiseyes,mostof thetime in the office. I would usually do some emails at home at night-time oranythingpressing,sooftenthingsliketeachingprep.LikeatthemomentI’llendup finalising lecture notes the night before on the kitchen table on the laptop.

214

Apartfromthat,whatelsedoIuse?IgotaniPhoneacoupleofmonthsagoandIwoulddoemailclearanceonthebusonmywayin.That’sprobablymyworkingpatternasitiswithITyes.Q:Cool,IsawyouhaveaniPadright?A:IhaveaniPadandaniPhone6.Q:Okaywhenyougotothecafélet’ssaytoworkon…Whatdoyoudoatthecafé,youread?A:Generallyjustreviews.Q:OkaywouldyouworkwithyouriPadorwhatwouldyouworkwith?A:NoI’dprintoutthearticle,havealltheprintoutsandthenjusttypeitintothelaptop. Occasionally since you ask actually, I’ll also use Dragon for reviews orstudent feedback, particularly student feedback. I generally try and organisemyselfsothatIcanjustdictateitintoDragonbothbecauseit’seasierandIhavetosayit’salsoawayofcreatingmorefeedbacktothestudentsinlesstime.SoIthinkthatit’sawin-winfromthatpointofview.SorryI’veforgottenyour…?Q:Dragonisinteresting,youwoulddoithere?A: IhaveDragononmyworkcomputerandonmyhomePC. Iwouldonlyeveruseitathomeonthekitchentableorinwork.Idon’tuseDragoninapublicspace.Q:Okaywhenyoumentionkitchentable,youalsosayyouhaveaPC,isitalaptop?A:It’sjustalaptop.Q:Okay so youdon’t have a homeoffice, youdon’t have a designated space athome?A:Iusedto,withthearrivalofFinwho’snowtwo.SotwoandahalfyearsagoIlostmystudy.Q:Forgoodreasonthere.A:Absolutely.Q:Okayandactually that’s interesting,wouldyou find that for that reasonyoutendtospendlesstimeathomeworkingordoinglessworkathome?A:Inever,evenpre-Finwaseverreallyabigoneforworkingathome.Ijustlikebeingintheoffice,Ilikethisisworkandthisishome.Idon’tnecessarilymanagethatdistinctionaswellas I’d like,but I thinkwhenI’mathome it’seasy thingsthatIdo.It’syouknowjustchunkingthroughemailsorsimplytasks,thethingsthatrequireabitofthoughtareintheofficeorinthecafé.Q:Actuallythat’sagoodquestionwiththeCloud,whenyou’reathomeandyou’reworkingonyourlaptopdoyouhaveanyspecialisedsoftwarethatyouneedthatyouwouldn’thaveathome?A:Nonotparticularly,IuseDropboxsoIalwaysworkoffDropbox.Workhasa…Q:That’swhatyoumeanbytheCloud,DropboxistheCloud?A:Well thebucketorwhatever, all theCloudservices. So I’vegotDropboxandEvernote,theyareprobablythemaintwoactually.Q:Okay.A:ButIthinkDropboxwasthethingthatreallywasgreatbecausethenIdidn’thavetobecartingfilesbackandforthonmemorysticksandthelike.Soyesthat’swhatIwouldmeanbytheCloud.

BeingafrequentuserofthetrainservicebetweenLondonandCambridge,interviewee

#39expresseshisdisappointmentwiththepromiseofbeingabletoworkonemailsor

215

access online material during journeys due to the poor reliability of the Internet

connection.Hethereforeadjustshistasktotakeintoaccountthisconstraint.

Q: You mentioned wherever you go there’s the Web. Do you have a mobileconnection?Imeandoyou…A:Ido,yes.Soit’snotparticularlygoodandagainit’soneofthethingsthatreallyannoymeaboutprivatisedrailnetworkthat,youknow,it’sreturningallofthatshareholdervaluetoshareholders.AndtheCambridge-Londontrainthevalueofthe people on that train being able to get access, you know, to UK products. Imeanit’sprobablymillionsofpoundsayear,youknow.You’vegottrainloadsofpeople stuffed full of kind of… and they can’t get on the Web. I think it’sdisgraceful and itwill cost a few tens of thousands to rig up every single trainwith Wi-Fi, you know, you know it would. So, sorry, it’s not relevant to theinterview, is it? So the point is, yes like everybody else I struggle withintermittentkindof,youknow, linkupsandthey’renotverygood.So I tryandavoidittobehonest,buteveryso…yes,soeverysooftenIreallyneedsomething,Itakemychances.But,youknow,InormallyfindI’minanedgeareaandIcan’tpickup3G.So,itwouldbehugelyhelpfulformeifIhadcontinualaccess.WhatItrytodoanddoisyes,soratherthandoinglotsofstuffinvolvingsurfingor,youknow,pullingdownemailsorwhatever,I’llcheckmyemailsonthephonewhichhas come on, you know, via the mobile network and I will work on… if I’mworkingonthetrainIwillworkonadocumentorsomething.I’lldoarevieworsomethingwhichdoesn’tneedWeb.

Althoughinterviewee#32feelsabletoworkanywhereintheworldthankstohislaptop

andaVirtualPrivateNetwork(VPN)connectionto theoffice,heprefers tostay in the

officeforwriting.Headdsthathepreferstheofficegenerallysincehisworkstationhas

twoscreensandhecanrefertohiscollectionofbookswhicharevisibleinFigure34.

Q: Okay. And do you have any tasks or… I’m trying to think… Yes. Tasks oractivities thatyouprefer todo, either in theofficeor in specificplaces like thehome,orwhereveryoumightfindit?A: If Ineedtowritea lot, Iprefertoworkintheoffice.Butnowadays, I think…Whatisit,aVPN?Idon’tknowthefullnameofthat.Sothatenablesmetoworkathomeoranywhereintheworld.Basically,Icanlogintomydesktopfrommylaptopanywhereintheworld,aslongasthewirelessworkswell.Sointhatcase…And I canwork like I’m in the office. But the laptop screen is smaller than theoffice computer screens, so I still prefer to come here to the office. Andfurthermore,I’vegotalotofstuffhere.Books,andpapers,etc.,tohelpmetodoworkmoreefficiently.

216

Figure34–OfficeofInterviewee#32(Author)

Justlikeinterviewee#36,interviewee#45findsthesurroundingsenvironment,coupled

with the possibility of surfing the Internet, a distraction. This was also observed at

McGill.Interviewee#45findsherselfaffectedbythebehaviourofthosearoundherand

will modify her physical environment by wearing noise-cancelling headphones to

preventconversationsfromdistractingher:

Q:OK,OK.AndisthereanythingaboutthisPHDroomandthisbuildingthat,um,that’shelpful for that?For, foryour,or is, Idon’tknow,distractingor thatyoufindisnothelpfulfor...A: Yeah, I think is much helpful because, um I don’t know if you know theprevious one, it’s very a big roomand I sit just beside the door. And everyonecomeIwouldlookfor,justlookatthem.Just,justIcannotstop.Iknowit’snotmybusiness,justcannot,IjusteverytimethedoorjustopenIwilllookatthem,and,um, also nobody around me, just one desk there. So sometimes I think, oh,becauseI,oh,usethecomputer,sosometimesI justsurf Internet. I justcannot,how say, stopmyself? But I won’t here. Because someone study aroundme, Ithink,oh,Icannotjustsurfontheinternet.Ishoulddosomeseriousthing.Sojustcanfocusonmystudy.But,um,Ithinkthough,theworstthingis,um,peoplewilltalk to each other, becausewe know each other, sowe can talk to each other,somethinglikethat.So,sometimes,ifIwanttofocusonsomething,maybealittlebitdifficult.ButIuse,like,noise-cancellingheadphones?andthat’smuchhelpful.Yeah.

217

Interviewee#37seese-maildistractionsdifferentlydependingonthetask.Hegenerally

feels he easily jumps from one activity to another if it doesn’t require a significant

amountofconcentration.Hewouldspecificallyshutdownhisemailswhenhefeelshe

needs to minimize distractions for writing for example. He feels distractions such as

emailcanalsobeafactordependingonhowwellhecanmaintainconcentration.Should

itnotbegoingwell,headmitstofeelingtemptedtocheckemailsasaformofescapeto

avoidadifficulttask.

Q: So what do…. What does that mean in terms of getting emails and getting[inaudible]?A: Getting emails, there’s often a range of sort of administrative activities ordealingwithjournalreviews,forexample,thathavetogetdone,andthequestioniswhetheryoudowhat… Is sortof compartmentalising things, sortofwhetheryou do those things that sort of interleaved or in sequence. I’ve never beenparticularlygoodatmaintainingrigidsortofseparationofthingsIget.Itendtodo thingswhen I remember and they’re fresh inmymind, otherwise, I tend toforgetthem,sothere’softenalotofsortofjumpingbetweenactivities.Q: And how…Youmentioned about the computer, so I’m just curious to knowhow…So,yougetanemail,yougetanotification,youget…Wouldthatgetyourmindoffthetaskyou’reon?Ordoyouhaveamethodorwayof…A:Itdependshow…Isuppose,twothings.Onewouldbe,howsortofsignificanttheworkthatI’mdoing.SoifI’mtryingtowritesomethingandit’simportanttome that I spend some time devoted to it, and that gets distracted, then I willswitch off the email and Iwill try to focus on that exclusively. It alsodepends,sometimes,onhowwellthatprocessisgoing.So,sometimes,it’svery…Well,it’snot very easy, but it’s easier towrite, things seem tobe flowing, you got someideas and youwant to getmore to get them out, and then, you’re in the flow,things just seem to function more smoothly, and the distractions are lesssignificant.Sometimes,whenyou’rereallystrugglingwith things,you’realwayslooking for excuses to try and do something else, and so [inaudible] an emailcomesin,evenifyou’renotparticularlyinterestedinthat,youmightlookatit.

4.2.2.1.1.1.3 WritingAlthoughwriting is a significant part of an academic’swork, only two instances from

interviewee #47 were specifically referring to this activity. Like interviewee #37,

interviewee #47 finds she needs to control her physical environment as much as

possibletoreducepotentialdistractionswhenshewrites.

Q:Youknowdistractionofsome...Anythinglikethat?A: Imean just a simple thing that sometimes I decide to...When Iwork inmyroomIdecidetoturnoffthewireless.Orlike...Iusuallyworkwitha...Likeacablethat connects the YouTube. So I turn it off, and then sometimes I switch it onagain.Butusuallyit’s...SowhenIwriteapaperlet’ssay,thenIwouldknowthatyouknow, for thenext twoor threehours, like Idon’t reallyneed tocheckmyemailssothenIcanturnitoff,andIdon’tgetanynotificationaswell.Andhere

218

obviously I can’t really do that because it’s always switched on. But then youdon’tgetnotificationstheresoitworks.Q:Okay.A:Yesbut...ThatIdosometimes.Q:Okay.Andto...Wouldthattranslatetoperhapsone...?IntermsofyoufeelinghavingmorecontroloveryourenvironmentsIguess,athomecomparedtohere.A:Yes.Q:Especiallythetoolsthat...IsthePCyouhavehereisprovidedbytheuniversitygrant?A:Yes.Q: Okay. How much control do you have over...? I mean are you able topersonalise...?Notpersonalisebutconfigurethenotificationsandallthat?Orisitreallylockeddown?A:YesImean...Idon’tknowifit’sjustbecauseIdon’tknowaboutit.Orifitjustthatit’snotpossible.Ihaven’tchangedanything.I’mnotawareofhowtodothat.Butit...Idon’tthinkthattherearethatmanyoptionswithfree,standardsoftware.Idon’tthinkyoucanevenchangeittogettingnotificationsbutI’mnotsure.Q:Okay.It’sWindows?A:Yes.

4.2.2.1.1.1.4 TakingabreakaloneInterviewees have often mentioned the importance of breaks for socializing or

disconnecting from theirwork. Interviewee #32 not only disconnects fromwork, but

also fromthe Internetanddevicesby takingbreaks inanearbygardenwhenhe feels

tiredandneedstoreenergize.

Q:Yes,yes.Actually,Ijusthadonequestion,youmentionedgoingtogardensandyou mentioned Pembroke. Do you stay connected? Do you have a device thatallows you… Or do you… Is it, is it important for you sometimes to not beconnected,andhave…A:No,inthatcase,Iprefernottobeconnected.Q:Okay.A:BecausewhenIgothere,itreallymeansI’mtired.Ineedtohavefreshair,soIgothere.Q:Okay.A:Otherwise,ifI’menergetic,Idon’twanttogothere.Q:Yes,okay.A:Yes.Q:It’stogetenergy.A:Yes,yes.Q:Yes.A:Yes.Q:Okay.A:Becausearoundlunchtime,sowhenI’mtired.

219

4.2.2.1.1.1.5 TeachingdutiesAcademics also spend significant amounts of time preparing coursematerial, such as

slides,andevaluatingstudentwork.Interviewee#36citesaveryspecificwayinwhich

ICThelpsinliberatinghimfromtheofficewhenlookingformaterialforhisteaching:

Q:Okay.Anythoughts,yesIdon’tknow,aboutspacehere,yourworkspace,yourpractices,technology,anythingthatyoucanmaybe?A:SowetalkedabouttheCloudbefore,Ithinkthathasdefinitelygivenalotmoreflexibility to the way I work. Particularly for teaching, you know an articleappearsontheWebpage…SowhatIusedtodoifIreallywantedtokeepacopy,youknowIwouldcopyandpasteitintoaWorddocument,thenitwouldgetlostinthecomputerandIwouldneverfindit.ButnowwithlikeEvernoteIcanpullofftheentireWebpageinitsoriginalformwithoneclickofthebuttonordowordsearches. So things like that where I can create my teaching pack basicallyanywhere, that iswhat Iwassayingaboutworkingathome. It’snodifferent toworkingatmydesk,ifIuseEvernoteI’vegotanyoftheexamplesthatIneedtopullfromandallofmyslidesarethere.SoIthinkthat’sdefinitelyhelpedalot.IfIthinkbacktotheearlydaysofmycareerI’dfeelmuchmorebondage.Everythingwasatmydeskatworkso Iwaskindof stuck.But Idon’t think I’ve taken fulladvantageoftheflexibleworkingthatIcouldactuallydo,it’ssortofwhatworksforme.WhatelsewouldIadd,spaceandITuse?

It is interesting to note that for many of the academics at JBS, the smartphone was

visiblyplacedat-handontheirdesks.ThefollowingphotosinFigures35to45arefor

interviewees#24,#32,#35,#36,#37,#40,#41,#44,#45,#47and#48 respectively,

withthedevicecircledinredandmagnified.

220

Figure35–OfficeofInterviewee#24withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)

221

Figure36–OfficeofInterviewee#32withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)

Figure37–OfficeofInterviewee#35withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)

222

Figure38–OfficeofInterviewee#36withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)

Figure39–OfficeofInterviewee#37withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)

223

Figure40–OfficeofInterviewee#40withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)

Figure41–OfficeofInterviewee#41withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)

224

Figure42–OfficeofInterviewee#44withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)

Figure43–OfficeofInterviewee#45withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)

225

Figure44–OfficeofInterviewee#47withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)

Figure45–OfficeofInterviewee#48withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)

226

4.2.2.1.1.2 Collaborative

Collaborativework, incontrast to individualwork,necessarily involvesthe interaction

ofseveralacademicsandisusuallymediatedbysomeformofICT.Althoughemail isa

standard tool for collaboration, many academics cited experience with Cloud-based

collaborative platforms and the results are mixed. Interviewee #41 found her

experienceworkingonacollaborativeplatformallowingmanyauthorstoworkonthe

same document disappointing. She felt that co-authors would be able to change the

document without much visibility on what was deleted or added. She eventually

revertedtosendingversionsbackandforthbyemailtobeabletokeeptrackofchanges

madebyco-authorsbasedinKenya.Interviewee#37seemsequallyunimpressedwith

this capability of Cloud-based solutions for co-authoring and prefers to relay the

documentbackand forthwith co-authors so thatwhateach isdoing to thedocument

and theirownership in time is clear.On theotherhand,he findsCloud-based storage

veryusefulassharedrepositoriesforreferencesanddata.

Q:WhatabouttoolslikeGoogleDrive,or…Thatallowyoutoworkonthesamedocument?A:ThereisaDropboxfolderforoneoftheprojects.Ifindthemmoreusefulasasortofrepository,ratherthanasasortofshareddocuments,justsoyougotsomecommonreferencebase forwhatyou’reworkingwith. Idon’t findwritingwithpeople at the level of this sort of detail of the document necessarily veryproductive.So, Iwouldprefer towritesomething,getsomebodyelse towrite…To take thatmaterial and incorporate intowhat theywant towrite, because Ithink it justmakes for betterwriting, and as things develop, tweak and adjustthat. But I think that’s… It’s generally, [inaudible] one person who is takingownershipofthecurrentstateofthedocument.

Occasionally,asininterviewee#48’scase,theco-authorscannotagreeonwhichCloud-

basedsolutiontouseandenduprevertingtousingemailtocollaborate:

Q:Okay.Andthisisstrictlybye-mail?A: This is strictly by e-mail. So we try to do interesting… Like for theAddenbrooke’sprojectwetriedtodoGoogleDocs,butIhateGoogle.LikeIhate…Like I find it superuser-unfriendly, like Inever find something inGoogle and Idon’tuseGooglemail.AndIdoalways…IdoeverythinginDropboxandMichaeldoesn’t like Dropbox, and I don’t like Google Docs and he has everything inGoogleDocs, sowe basically figured it out that on this sidewe can’twork,wecan’t find a way to work together. And I guess we… I would assume that wewouldcontinueworkingonthedocumentlikethis,butthatobviouslymeanswehavetokeeplikeverystrictdeadlinesintermsof,I’llsendyouthedocumentkindof by Saturdaymorning, and you send it back tome by Tuesday evening. So Imean because we can’t work on it at the same time, but for us it works fine

227

becausewealwayslikekeeptoourdeadlines,orwetrytokeeptoourdeadlinesandithelpsusstructuretheprocess.SoIwouldneverthink,ohno,nowIsentthedocumenttoMichaelandnowIcan’tworkonitanymore,becausebasicallythisis howwe scheduled, so for the, I don’t know, for the two days in between, Iwouldjustbasicallyworkonsomethingelse.Andthenoncehesentitbacktome,Iwouldcontinueworkingonit.

Insomeothercases,theCloud-basedsolutionwouldendupnotbeingusedforunknown

reasonsasinterviewee#47’sexperienceshows:

Q:Okay.Andwouldyouuseanytoolslike...Doyou...Collaboratesoftware?A: So for...WithmyMPhil supervisor I...We did use Dropbox for... [Inaudible]more like a [inaudible] that he had, and thenwenever really used it. This guylike...Wetriedforoneweekbutthenlike...Yesitwasn’treallyusedintheend,Idon’tknowwhy.Sowe...Yesthatdidn’treallyworkout,butapartfromthat,notreally.Q:Soemail?A:Yes,itwouldmainlybeemail.Q:Soyou’dsendbackandforth?[Inaudible].A:Yes.

Forothers,theexperiencehasbeenthecompleteoppositeandtheuseofcollaborative

platformslikeDropboxareveryintensivesuchasinthecaseofinterviewee#25:

Q:DoyouuseGoogleDocsoranykindoftoolsthatallowyouto…?A:Dropbox.Q:Dropbox.A:Extremely. Imean, thathadbeenextremelyusefulwithco-authorsandeventeaching because before, you know, I had the USB stick every day. I had toremember and I would confuse the versions. I mean, it sped up thingstremendously.Yes,Iguessthat’stheonlytoolthatI’vebeenusingalot.

On topof echoing somewhat theexperienceof interviewee#25, interviewee#32also

mentionsthefeelingofnothavingtobeco-locatedtocollaboratewhencomparedtothe

past:

Q:Okay.What…Ipresumewhenyouwritepapersandyoucollaboratewithotherresearchers,whatproportionwouldyousayareco-located,sohere,Cambridge,andoutsideofCambridgeandsortofdistant?A:Ithinkitdependson…Nowadays,youdon’thavetostayinthesameplace,thesame location. Because we have Skype, so I use Skype a lot to collaborateresearch. And well, this afternoon, I will have one. And also, we have like,Dropbox, so that it’s easy toaccess, toupdate theworkyouhavedoneoryourcollaboratorshavedone.Q:Okay.Andactually,whenyoudouseDropbox,howdoyoucoordinate,let’ssayifyou’reworkingononedocument,doyousegmentthework?Doyou…Ifyou’reworkingonthesamefile,howdoyouactuallyorganizeandcoordinate?A:Therearedifferentsystemsintheworld,okay?Justovertenyearsago,Iused

228

something called Virtual Control. And actually, you can work on the same fileand… I mean, in different locations on different computers. And the computersystemcanrecorddifferentversions.So…Butnowadays,becausewedon’thavethatavailablehere,becausepeoplehavetopayforthat,thenwejustuseDropbox,and thenDropbox…Weprobablysaywe justcreateanewfile.And then ifyouhavesmartnames foryour files, say,propername in thebeginningandproperdaysintheendsoeverybodywouldfinditokay.Andwhenthiswaswritten,andwhoactuallywroteit,etc.Q:Okay.A:Andofcourse,youhaveagoodsystemaboutDropbox.Forexample,foreachcollaboratoror eachpaper, you shouldhavea sub-folder, andwithineach sub-folder,youhaveothersub-folders,etc.

On the other hand, interviewee #46 explains how the co-location of a consultancy

projectteamenhancedtheexperienceofusingthecollaborativeplatformGoogleDrive.

This academic felt that coordination is easierwhena team is co-located toworkona

documentsimultaneouslyusingacollaborativeplatform.

Q:Let’stalkalittlebitaboutcollaboration.Soyou…Imeanwithout…Imeannotnecessarilyaboutanyspecificproject,butmoreingeneral,whenyoucollaborateondifferentprojectswithotherpeople,howdoyouorganisethat?Howdoesthathappen?A:Oh,that’ssuper…Itdepends,casebycase,it’sdifferent,andinmyexperienceithasbeenreallydifferentwithdifferentco-authors.I’llstaywithintheco-authorcollaboration. I’ve been collaborating on consultancy projects and then that’sdifferent.Wehavemany,alargerteam,Idon’tknow…GoogleDriveorDropboxisalways useful, centralising everything in one place. I was amember of, I don’tknow,orleaderofaconsultancyteamthatwehadaoneyearlongprojectandwewere fourguysworkingon it.AndGoogleDrivewassuperhelpful,we justhadeverythinginit,youareworkingreal-timeonthedocument,everybodyisseeingwhatyouaredoing,andsoit’sreallyhelpful.Andintermsofspaceinthatprojectwehad,wewerefour,andwetriedtobetogetherinthesameroom.That’susefulto,Idon’tknow,goaroundandideasfloweasily.

Interviewee#36believesthatcollaborativeplatformsallowforcentralizingreferences

anddocumentsforaccessbyco-authors,whichwasnotpossiblewithemail,althoughhe

isn’tconvincedithasmadehimmoreeffective.

Q:Okaysooverthattimewhat,orevengoingbackfurtherifyouwant,whathaveyounoticedthat’schangedasfaras…?Wellwhathaschanged,justyouknowintermsofworkpractices?A:IfIthinkaboutthegroupofpeoplethatIwouldusuallyworkwith,thingslikeDropbox where we can… So I’m thinking about pre-Dropbox when everythingwas emailing filesbackand forth and there’s kindof a cost todoing that.Bothkeepingtrackofthefile,renamingitandeverythingelse,butIthinkitalsolimitstheamountofinformationthatyouwouldsharewithyourco-author,ithastobemorestructured.WhatcanIfitinanemail?WhereasifIthinkaboutthefolders

229

andthewayweworknowevenforapreliminaryprojectthatI’msortofscopingoutwithacolleague,we’vegotasharedfolder.Wejustthrowstuffinthereandwe’llbothputarticles,newspapercuttingsandwhateverinthatfolder.It’skindoftherepositoryandIthinkthatIdothatalotmorewithco-authorsnow.We’llhavesortofthesharedarticlesorwhateveritmightbe.SoIthinktheabilityjustto share more information probably doesn’t mean that you’re necessarily anymoreeffective,butatleastit’sonhandforthatparticularproject.EverythingthatyouneedeveryonehasaccesstoIguess.Forexampleitmightusedtohavebeen,Bennyou’vegot theEndNote library, Ineed this referenceor Ineed thisand itcreatedalotmorebackandforth,whereasnoweveryonecanjustpullfromthatcentralsetofinformation.

4.2.2.1.2 Non-ICTManyinstancessupportingthetriadiccausalcyclewithoutexplicitmentionofICTwere

found in the data. It is possible some of these instances are somehow connected in a

causalmanner to the findings in theprevious section regarding explicit useof ICT. In

any case, these non-ICT instances can be useful to provide autonomous evidential

supportforthetriadiccausalcycleandalsochecktheimpactofICTagainstotherfactors

in explaining why academics organize their work in time and space in certain ways.

Likewise,theseinstancescanoftenimplyICTaspartoftheexplanationsprovidedbythe

academicsinterviewed.Theyaredividedintothetwosub-categoriesregardingthetype

ofactivity:individualandcollaborative.

4.2.2.1.2.1 IndividualForindividualwork,almostalloftheacademicsinterviewedwouldcomparetheirhome

andofficeenvironmentsforhowconducivetheywereforwork.Inmostcases,theoffice

wasthepreferredlocationforfocusedwork,butsomealsocitedotherlocationssuchas

cafés,librariesorgardensforquietanduninterruptedreading.

Interviewees had different perceptions of what sort of working environment their

homes offered.Most foundworking at home difficult, due to the distractions such as

chores and family. Otherswould find homenot allowing them to get into amood for

work and many would try to separate home from the office in terms of work.

Interviewee #40 feels more motivated to work in an environment where others are

working when compared to home where this motivation is less forthcoming.

230

Interviewee#43 findshome toosmall toworkcomfortablyand likes tokeep itwork-

free.Bothinterviewees#26and#37feelthepresenceoftheirrespectivefamilieswould

notallow them to focus. Interviewee#37sayshewouldhavedifficulty to “cutmyself

off”.Interviewee#33hasfoundthesolutiontothisproblembyconvertingashedinthe

backgardenofhishomeintoastudysothathecouldwriteinisolation.Interviewee#47

wouldfindquiettimesinthemorningtoworkathomewhenthefamilyisstillasleep.In

complete opposition to each other, interviewee #34 feels she is able to do her best

writingathomeduetoalackofdistractions,whereasinterviewee#35wouldneverfeel

abletoworkfromhomeduetothedistractionofchores.

Goingtoworkincaféswasanoptioncitedbyinterviewees#36,#42,#43,and#44.For

interviewee #42 the environment at home and in coffee shops is more amenable to

thinking“independently”andreducingthestressofbeingaroundotherpeopledoingthe

sametypeofwork,suchas in theoffice. Interviewee#43goestocafés toreadpapers

and for a change in atmosphere as long as it is not too noisy. Interviewee #44

specifically cites thepopular caféHotNumbersnearbybecausehe likes theambience

andvibethere.HealsoimplicitlycitesICTasmakingthisapossibility.

A few otherswould go towork in libraries for some very specific tasks or occasions.

Interviewee #37 likes the Cambridge University Library because there are printed

copiesofjournalsorbooksthatareunavailableonline.Healsolikestherelativelyquiet

atmosphereandlikestosethimselfgoalsassociatedwithbeingatthelibraryduringa

certaintimeframe.Interviewee#43willswapacaféfortheircollegelibraryonoccasion

to change, but shuns the JBS library due to the noise. Interviewee #40 also dislikes

workingintheJBSlibrarywithoutreallyknowingwhy.Interviewee#45alsoshunsthe

JBS library and prefers to go on occasion to another library further afieldwhere she

enjoysthefeelingofnotbeingrecognizedandwhereeveryoneelse if focusedontheir

work.

Various other third spaces emerge as placeswherework can take place. Aircraft are

mentionedbyboth interviewees#24and#35.Gardensorgreenspacesare favourites

for reading forboth interviewees#32and#44, especiallyduring the summer season.

Hotelsduringbusinesstripsarewhereworkisdone.Interviewee#35wouldbringwork

231

only when not accompanied by family and interviewee #34 would ensure to get a

separateroominasuitetobeabletowrite.Interviewee#33willtakeadvantageofhis

summer trips with family to Canada as a work “retreat”. Interviewee #41 would

alternatebetweentheofficeandtheGatesScholar’scommonformore“inwardfocused”

workandassociatesthisplacewiththatmindset.Interviewee#46goestothecommon

room to read books because he feels more relaxed there to absorb new or difficult

material

4.2.2.1.2.2 CollaborativeOnly twonon-ICT instanceswere found for collaborative activitiesof academics.Both

dealtwithwheremeetingswouldbeorganizedandwhytheselocationswereselected.

Interviewees#26and#35bothcitedthecommonroomoftheJBSasbeingunsuitable

forhostingvisitingresearchersduetothenoise.Bothpreferredtheirrespectiveoffices

forconductingconversationswithotherresearchersonthesubstanceoftheirwork.On

theotherhand,interviewee#35feelsthecommonroomtobesuitableformorecasual

contactwithotherresearchersandwouldspendmoretimethereifthefoodwerebetter.

4.2.2.1.3 NewCategoriesSome new categories were generated by the coding of the JBS data: Business school

context,Food,Facultystruggleforofficespace,Sensuality,andChanginglandscapeofBS

(BusinessSchools).

4.2.2.1.3.1 BusinessschoolcontextAlthough only one source – interviewee #33 – generated this category, this single

referenceprovidesatroveofinformationregardingthetypesoffactorsdrivinggrowth

inbusinessschoolsandtheeffectithasonacademicsandspacerequirements.

Q:Andwhatitmeansforresearchin[inaudible].A: Yes. Okay, well, certainly, I would say, it’s a lot things going on. Businessschools are becomingmore popular, for example,with undergraduates, just totake one example. In other words, there’s a lot of market drivers. You know,there’s…Youcouldsay,yes, it’s theuniversity itself,and that, they’reobviouslyhand in hand, are seeing business schools as both cash cows, because of thenumberofprogrammesthattheycangenerateandoftenatpremiumprices,but

232

also,asIsaid, thereis increasingnumbersofstudentsstudyingmanagementasanundergraduatediscipline,whichyougeta lotof.Despite thegraduatework,wealllikethat,there’s…Youknow,undergraduatepopulationsarereallycrucialintermsofnumbers,andsothat is increasingdramatically.Andsotheinterest,bothfromstudentssortofdemand,andtheperception,Ithink,ofbothjobsandentrepreneurship,whichismoreappealingtostudentsasagraduate,evenatanearlyage, isdrivinginterest inbusinessschools.Buttheadministratorsandthetopmanagementofuniversitiesoftenseebusiness schoolsasofferingaway tobridge deficits, of bringing in more money to help the centre. And so will besupported,orwillencourage,orwillwant tobothexpandthebusinessschools,andwhenyougetdowntothebusinessschoollevel,thereisalso,byvirtueofitbeingbusinessschool, in invertedcommas,attracts.Andtheexpectation is thatpeople want business leaders, and many others… Many wider sets ofstakeholders are more actively involved in business school than any otherdepartment.Andallofthatcreatesawhirlwindofsortofinterestinexpansionorin doing lots of new activities. And therefore, the… Or the potential to bestretchedisquitesignificantintermsofmeetingthestakeholderneeds,whetherit’syourundergraduatestudentsgrowingalot,toyourboardmembersthatthinktheywouldlovetohaveX,Y,Z,totheuniversityadministratorsthatconsiderthebusiness school as, you know, the flagship going forward to both in terms ofnumbers,intermsofbridgingrevenuetocoverdeficits.Andthathasabigimpacton, you know,what spaces are built and forwhat purpose. And there is a bigproblemaswell, I think, inmanyuniversities,astohowfacultiesoutsideofthebusinessschool, includingadministrators,understandwhatabusinessschool isabout.And it’snotoftenunderstoodthat theydoresearch in theway inwhich,certainly,theydoresearch.Andso,thereismoreofapotentialforapredilectiontowardsschoolsofferingservicesratherthanresearch.Sotheyareservicetotherestoftheuniversityorservicetothecommunity,andthat’softenbetrays,evenimplicitly, an understanding that there is a research core that needs to benurtured,harnessedandprotected,intermsofspace.

4.2.2.1.3.2 Food

AlthoughnotuniquetotheJBS–lunchbreakswerecitedbyMcGillacademicsaswell–

food came up remarkably frequently with interviewees at the JBS. There are 29

referencesforthiscategoryfromtheJBS.Thisismostcertainlyinpartduetothehistory

of Cambridge University itself as explained by interviewee #31 when discussing

collaborationattheJBS:

Also,it’snotjustthechanceinitselfit’salsothefactthat,youknow,foodisquiteagoodwayofbringingpeopletogether.Oneoftheinterestingthingsmaybeforyour research is to know that the idea of common table is very important inCambridge.Peoplemaynotbeabletoarticulatethisreallyclearly,theymayjustfeelit,butthecollegeswhentheywereoriginallyinvented,oneofthecoreideaswas that,youknow, thereshouldbesharedeating facilities.Andpeopleshouldbe,notquiteobliged,buttheyshouldfeelaresponsibilitytoactuallyeattogether.So, you know, dining rights were actually really important, at the heart of the

233

fellowship of the colleges. And the idea is that people from, you know, acrossdifferent disciplines meet together, you know, once or twice a day, sit down,break bread together and talk. And typicallywhat theywill talk about iswhattheir work is and so on. And it’s through these kind of, interactions that, youknow,thekindof, interestingideasemerge,youknow,whereyou’replayingoffphysicsagainsteconomicsor,youknow,anthropologyagainst,youknow,biologyor botany orwhatever. And one of those kind of, ideas about, you know,whatmakesCambridge special, is thiskindof, interdisciplinaritybeingkindof,quitestrong. The conditions here are very good to enable people from differentbackgroundsanddifferentdisciplinesinparticulartotalk.Andyoudon’tgetthatinalotofuniversities,youknow,becauseofthewayyoukindof,arerequiredtoorganise yourself, you know, you have to have these kind of functionalcompartments, I suppose, for work. And thinking about your, you know, yourfocusonresearch, I think it’sparticularlytrue inthewaythatresearch isgoingnow.It’sbecomingevernarrowerandthekindofpeoplethatyouneedtotalkto,todoyourparticular,youknow,worktoaparticularlevelin,youknow,whateverdiscipline you’re in, you need to narrow down, narrow down. You end up justkindof,communicatingwiththreeorfourotherpeoplewhohappentobeexpertsinthatfield,youknow.Thepeerreviewthatkindof,goesonisdonebypeopleyou kind of, know even though it’s supposed to be anonymous you know thepeople. So it’s thiseverkindof,narrowing focusonparticular subjects,or sub-categories of particular subjects. Butwe then have thisway of organising at aplace like Cambridge which is actually quite good because it creates theconditionsforpeopletostepbackfromthatnarrownessandactuallythinkquitebroadlyabouttheirkindof, issuesandproblems.Andthat’s, I think,sometimeswherepeoplegetthebestideas,that’sinmyview,Ithink,yes.

Manyof interviewee#31’s colleagues found the current arrangements for food at the

site to be mediocre and were keen to have hot meals served in the new part of the

buildingaspartofthesiteexpansionproject.Hiscolleague,interviewee#26,says

What, Imean, the common room should improve its food, but then everybodyknows that. It shouldbe…The foodshouldbebetterquality formoney, it’s tooexpensiveandtoobad.Imean,Ikeepsayingthat.

Anotherone,interviewee#30,says:

Themostattractivethingistheprospectofaproperrestaurant,whichwebadlyneed. I mean, the weakness of this building, I think, overall, actually, is thefacilities.Imean,therearewaytoofewtoilets,atleastformen.Maybewomenaswell.Andthecafé...Well,thefoodfacilities,Idon'tknowifyoushouldblamethatonthebuildingorthewayit'srun.AndIdon'tmeanthepeoplewhorunitdaytoday,they'regreat.Buttheoverall,youknow,foodanddrinkofferingisverypoor,and thenewbuilding isgoing tohavesomekindofproperrestaurant,where, Ibelieve,there'llbe,youknow,hotfoodandadecentsaladbarandstufflikethat.Which, I think, these days, with an organization of, what, I don't know 200people?Howmanyworkhere?That'snotunreasonabletoexpectsomethinglikethat.Sothatwillbegood,Ihope.

234

As the site expansion project documentation titled “OurVision for the Site Expansion

Project”describesit:

A 160 person dining facility is also located on this floor. The dining space isenvisagedasa focalpoint for interactionbetweentheusersof thebuildingandwillcomplementtheexistingCommonRoom.

Unsurprisingly, the lunch break is seen as a focal point of the day, especially for

socializing, formany of the academics. Getting and eating amealwith colleagues and

getting out of the office comes up in the interviews mainly when discussing

collaboration.ForthePhDstudents, it isakeymomentoftheirday,notonlytotakea

longbreak,butalsoforbondingandgettingadvicefrommoreadvancedstudentsasin

thecaseofinterviewee#40:

Q:Well,withyeah,atlunchtimewhenyou'renotinfrontofyour...A:So,lately,uh,withsomePHDstudents,I'mveryclosetooneofthem,anduh,Imean in terms of, he's in the same group ofme, and I think he has very goodadvice,sosometimesI talk tohimabout,youknow,someresearchaspectsandwhatIwanttodo,uh,someofthethingsthat,youknow,uh,Iwant,Iwanttoaskmy supervisor, butbecause thisPHDstudenthasmoreexperience thanme,hehasalreadypublishedandeverything,um,hecangivemesomeadvice,and it'slikepre-,pre-,um, -discussionwithmysupervisorwithhim,andthen Ican talkwith my supervisor about it sometimes. So we can exchange ideas, um, forexampleIhadasmalltextIwantedtosendtohim,Isentittohim,hesentme,uh,um, a conference paper he want to send and I'm reading it, so sometime weexchangethis.Sometimewetalkabout,oh,whatdidyoudoyesterdayevening,sodinner,uh,uh,whatdidyoudowithyour,youruhyourfriends,anduhit's,soatthesametimeresearchbutalsosocialsometimes.Whatareyoudoing?Uh,whathaveyoudone?Whatareyouexpectingtododuringtheweekend?Thesekindsofthings.

Interviewee#40feelshebenefitssomuchfromthesediscussionsatlunchtimethathe

istryingtoorganizeregularlunchmeetingswithotherPhDstudentsfromotherfieldsin

order toexchange ideasandgiveeachother feedbackon theirwork. Interviewee#48

makes sure she always takes an hour break for lunch andmakes an effort to not eat

alone.

Moreseniorresearchers–notPhDstudents–attheJBSwouldalsomaketheeffortto

takearelativelylongbreakforlunchwithcolleagues.Interviewee#24wouldgotothe

Common Room for the lunch break and try to find someone willing to join him.

However,interviewee#33feelsthattheCommonRoom–theonlylocationwherefood

isavailableon-site–isnotwellsuitedforexchangingideasandlongconversations.He

235

saysitdiscouragesin-depthexchangesandcitesthecollegefacilitiesasbettersuitedfor

thispurpose.Unfortunately,beinglocatedfarfromtheJBSsite,thesecollegerefectories

areimpracticalformanyofthecolleaguesattheJBSaccordingtohim.Interviewee#36

likestogetoutofthebuildingforhislunchbreakandalsojoincolleaguesintheprocess

if they are available. For interviewee#35,most of the social interactions in theoffice

occur during the lunch hourwhen shemeetswith colleagues, and like her colleague,

interviewee#36,shelikestogetoutofthebuilding.Shealsothinksthesiteexpansion

planswill bebeneficial for exchangeof ideas,meetingunknowncolleagues and social

interactionduringthelunchhour:

SoIthinkoncewehavethenewbuilding,wewillreplaceDowningbywhatevercafeteriawewouldhavethatwouldbeabletopreparesomehotfood.Thatwouldbe better, because that would be a place where, you know, I decide to go bymyself,Iknowthat,youknow,evenifthere'sacolleaguethatIdon'tparticularlyknow,but,youknow,it'sanoccasiontokindofgettotalktopeople.Andmaybefindanewsubjectofinterestor,youknow,learnabouttheirresearch.Evenifit'sverydifferentfromwhatIdo,Ithinkit'sstillinterestingtohearaboutthat.

Sinceinterviewee#38ismainlybasedathomeforwork,hewillarrangetoalwayshave

lunchwithsomeonewheneverhecomesintotheoffice.Hefeelstheyareopportunities

togetmanythingsdonewithcolleaguesinsteadofrelyingonemails.

4.2.2.1.3.3 Facultystruggleforofficespace

Interviewees #25 and #26 both expressed a certain frustration faculty had with the

current building and conditionswith regards to space. Interviewee#25 describes his

experiencewithhisofficespacesincearrivingattheJBS,especiallythestruggletohave

a“properoffice”:

Imean,thisis,the[inaudible]buildingisaninterestingone,butit'sdefinitelynotveryfunctional.Like,I'vebeen…thisisthethirdofficethatIchangedandthisisreally, youknow, I'vebeen extremely lucky to get this office.But I knowothercolleagues, like I was, in the first two years I was in that fishbowl, you know,extremelynoisythen.ThenforanothertwoyearsIwasonthegroundfloor,justfacingtheparking.Butthatwasalsoverynoisy.Ithinkmostfacultyherestrugglewith theoffice space.But forus, itwasa verybigproblem to justhaveproperofficesandthat's…sothefirstthingisthat,well,hopefullythenewbuildingwillsolvethatone.

236

Interviewee #26 also recognizes the specific design of the buildingmeans thosewho

haveofficesfacingtheinterioratriumareawithjustaglasspartition–hencetheuseof

theterm“fishbowl”–haveanegativeperceptionofthebuilding:

Ithinkpeople’sperceptionofthebuildingherehaspartlytodowithwhatsortofoffice theyhave, is justhasa [inaudible] effectonyou. So, Ihappen tohaveanofficewhichactually facesoutside.And if you talkwithpeoplewhohaveofficethatfaceinside,theymayhaveverydifferentperception.

Both of the interviewees refer to the context of business schools described by their

colleague,interviewee#33,specificallyregardingtheincreasingpressureonspacedue

to the significant growth in programme offerings and numbers of students. Both also

expressacertainexpectationtheexpansionoftheJBSsitewillalleviatethesepressures

andmaketheexperienceofthespacemorepleasantforthefaculty.

4.2.2.1.3.4 Sensuality

As equally observed atMcGill, academics at the JBS often referred to light, noise and

temperatureaspartoftheirassessmentofcomfortforworkattheofficeorelsewhere.

Thiswouldbeaboveandbeyondtheissueofergonomicsoftheirworkstationssuchas

screen sizes or the comfort of their chairs. The appeal to the sensesof certain spaces

would have an effect on the experience academics at the JBS on a daily basis.

Interviewee#24,likeinterviewee#35,particularlyappreciatesthebrightcolorsofboth

the interiorandexterior, theCommonRoom(Figure46), and thebrightatriumspace

(Figure47).

Q:Andhowdoyoufeelaboutthisbuilding?A: The building is designed to be open, right? So the common room is a greatsocial space. It's a very inefficient building, probably because you could havesqueezedmanymoreofficesin,I'msure,ifyouwantedto.I'mgladitiswhatitis.Sothebuildingdesignisgreat.Ilikethebuildingverymuch.Ilovethecolourofit.Ilovethespaceofit.Ilovethefactthatyoucanlookallthewayuptotheceiling,youknow,fromthedownstairs,sixfloorsup.We'llseewhattheextensiondoes,butthebuildingitself,Ithink, isgenerallyagoodplacetoworkfrom.It'saniceplacetoworkfrom.

237

Figure46–CommonRoomattheJBS(Author)

Figure47–AtriumspaceattheJBS(Author)

238

Ontheotherhand,interviewee#24seemstoreinforcetheimpressionofhiscolleagues

that the design of the building contributes to the pressure on space and is not fit for

purpose.Interviewee#32lamentsthefactthatthereisn’tanenclosedgardenforbreaks

on-site, however takes advantage of the gardens in the vicinity when possible. This

academic,likeothersatMcGill,appreciatethepossibilityofgettingfreshaironaregular

basis.Inthefollowingextract,hecompareshispreviousworkplacetotheJBS.

Ontheotherhand,theyalsohaveagarden.AndthenbecauseIliketohavefreshair,almosteveryday,Iwentouttositoutside,toreviewtheteachingmaterials,ortohaverest,ortodosomethingelse,etc.SoifIhadanopportunity,andIdid…And here, probablywe have…Even thoughwe have a lot of gardens here, butthentheyarefaraway.SoIcannotgoouthere,thereisnogardenhere,Icannotgo out over there, but occasionally, I do go to Pembroke, because Pembroke’sclose. So if I feel tired at lunchtime and I need some rest or fresh air, I go toPembrokeandsitdownoverthere.

4.2.2.1.3.5 ChanginglandscapeofBS(BusinessSchools)

In the following extracts from the conversationwith interviewee #24,we get a good

sense of the changes and pressures facing academics in Business Schools and their

consequences on how they organize themselves on a daily-basis. The feeling that

relationships have become more ‘transactional’ seems to be related to the forced

absencefromtheJBSsite.Weseethisacademicfeelsthepressuretotakeonteaching

dutieswhich require long-distance travel and long periods away from Cambridge. To

further exacerbate the situation, he feels theneed, likemanyof his colleagues, to live

further and further away from the school given the increasing cost of housing in the

centerofthecityofCambridge.Thesiteexpansionplans,mostlydrivenbydemandfor

spacefromexpandedexecutive-levelprograms,willmeanthelossofparkingforfaculty

and compounds their difficulties in terms of commuting. All of these factors, at least

fromthepointofviewofinterviewee#24,combinetoproduceincreasedabsencefrom

theoffice.Hisfeelingsseemtobesharedbyhiscolleagues,interviewees#29,#33,#38

and#39:

I thinkgenerallyeveryonehasgottenbusier, right?And itmeans thatprobablypeopleare lessaroundthantheyusetobe.Forvariousdifferentreasonsalso, Ithinkthecultureoftheplacehasbecomemoretransactionalthanitusedtobe.That'snotuniversallytrue,butIthinkbyandlarge,partlyasaresultofsomeofthe people we've hired, partly as a result of the fact that we've grown as abusinessschool,andpartlythefactpeoplearen'taroundasmuchastheyusedto,youknow.Somepeopleare,but [inaudible], and they'rekindofdistributed. Soyou've got some people in finance. They aren't in this building. They're in a

239

different building onTrumpington Street, and youhave people in...Someofmycolleagues that aren't [inaudible] house.And so, not to be co-locatedhas someimpactaswell. It'llbe interestingtoseewhathappenswhentheextensiongetsbuilt,right?Probablyinabigpieceattheend,andthisofficewillbeatoilet,so.I'm going to lose the office, but youknow, get something else, I'm sure. It'll bekindof interestingtoseewhat impact thatwillhave. Imean, there'ssomeverynicecolleaguesat the Judge,youknow,andwhenweare togetherwesocialize,we talk in the hallway. Sometimes the 10 minutes that we chat away aboutsomething silly, that canmakeyourday, youknow?And it's reallyunfortunatethatit'snothappeningmorethanitis.Andalargepartofthatismyfault,becauseI'mjustnot inasmuchasIshouldbe.Andsometimes, justtogetthebenefitofconnectingwithotherhumanbeingsmakes itworthwhilegoingintotheoffice,you know? But I look in my diary. There's just so many days I'm just notphysicallyhere.It'sjusthardtodo.SoIfinditfrustrating.Ineedtodotheworkthat Ineedtodo,partlybecauseof themoney,andpartlybecausesomeof it isinteresting,butyoupayaprice.Q:Whatdoyouthinkoftheextensionproject?A:I'veseentheplansalittlebit.Idon'tquiteremember.Iknowthatthisisgoingtobeatoilet,andIthinkthere'sgoingtobeakindofquasi-executivesuiteatthetop.Itwillbeacompromise,likesomanythings,right?Sonothingwillbeperfect.Itwill justbeacompromise.Ihavenostrongviews.Therewillbenoparking.Ithink that is going tobe an issue for somepeople, becausewehave colleaguesthat travel in fromplaces thatarealmostabit too far tocycle from,unlessyoureallylikecycling.Q:Doyoucyclein?A:Iwalk,usually.Q:Walk.A: I couldcycle,but Ineed togetmycycle fixed.But I'llwalk in.Sometimes I'lldrive and walk. So I drive near my old house and then walk here, like thismorning.Q:Justremindme,whereexactlydoyoulive?A: It's about half an hour walk. It's in Cambridge, but on the other side ofCambridge.SometimeswhenIdoexecutiveteachinginasuitIdon'tlike...WhenIdon'tliketowalk,Iparkhereintheback.Butthat'sjustmebeinglazy,youknow.The walk is not a bad walk, it's fine. But there are people that have to travelfurther,andthey'regoingtobeaffectedbythe fact that therewon'tbeasingleparkingspace.I'mallforgettingcarsofftheroad,inaway,eventhoughIviolatethatideology,becauseIdrivemyself.ButIfeelsorryforsomecolleaguesthatwillhaveahardertime.Itmaymeanthattheyjustwon'tcomeinasmuchastheydonow,becausethere'snowheretogo.There'snowheretoleaveyourcars.

4.2.2.2 AnalysisThe analysis of the findings will be similarly structured as the findings themselves,

howeveronlyatthelevelseparatingindividualworkandcollaborativework.Thesetwo

typesofworkwillbeconsideredaccordingtowhetherICTisexplicitornot.

240

4.2.2.2.1 ICT

4.2.2.2.1.1 IndividualWork

Working with paper for disseminating (reading) and augmenting (annotating)

knowledge is an ancient practice for academics going back to the beginning of the

University inMedievalEurope. Illuminatedmanuscriptswouldbe readandannotated

byscholars,thenusedtotransmitknowledgetostudents.Scholarlytextswouldalsobe

read and analyzed in much the same way as religious texts, albeit with different

objectives. Disputations would be organized by the masters to publicly debate

interpretationsofscholarlytexts(Charle&Verger,1994).Thesepracticesenduretothis

day inmoremodern forms. Scholarly texts – journal articles – are read, analyzedand

annotatedbyscholars.Theycontinuetobeusedtodisseminatetothewidercommunity

and transmit knowledge to students. Conferences and workshops are organized to

presentanddiscusstextsamongstscholars.Paperhasbeenthetraditionalmediumfor

thispractice,however thepossibilitiesofferedby ICTallow formanychannels for the

productionanddisseminationofknowledgebythecontemporaryscholar, including in

businessschools.

Instances of academics working with paper is not a repudiation of the possibilities

offeredbyICT,butinfactjustamanifestationoftheseverypossibilities.High-capacity

printing, print job queuing, batch printing and sending print jobs remotely are all

features of contemporary print facilities in most business schools, if not all. As Jules

Verne correctly predicted more than a 150 years ago, paper would be ever more

importantintechnologicallyadvancedsocieties(1994).

Each body instantiates an affordance in conjunction with the physical environment.

Documentsareavailable in electronic format,but canbe transformed intopapervery

quickly at the office (less so at home). Some trial and error in practicing reading and

annotating on-screen results in some new affordance being perceived or not,

adjustments aremade – in accordance with certain constraints (ex. reviewsmust be

submitted electronically) or some opportunities taken advantage of (scanning hand-

writtennotestoputthemintheCloud)andthesemodificationsinpracticechangethe

physical environment – hand-written notes are now available through devices

241

connected to the Internet or a house garden is transformed into a place for reading

(perhapsachairandatableareadded).

Whetheritbepaperoron-screen,theacademicwantstofeeltheyhavetheirdocuments

at-hand. This perception seems to be what academics tend towards and the body is

central in making this happen. All the references cited in the findings regarding this

individual academic practice of reading, analyzing and conceptualizing, provide, to

varying degrees, evidence supporting the triadic causal cycle. They do so by telling a

story – occasionally implicitly – about incremental changes in practices and physical

space inrelation to ICT,andwhatrole thebodyhad in thisstory.As faras thechoice

between paper and on-screen is concerned, the academic tends towards that

environmentwhereheperceivesimportantdocumentstobeat-hand.Thestoriescanbe

structuredfollowingthetriadiccausalmodel:

1. Thephysicalenvironmentchanges(includingtheinsertionofICTorchangesin

the body) and it instantiates a set of affordances not yet perceived by the

academic

2. The academic perceives the affordances either through chance, training or

watchingothers

3. In engaging in a practice, the academic will experiment with the perceived

affordance–perceivedasbenefitingthepractice–henceshiftingthepractice

4. Dependingontheresultoftheexperiment, theacademicwilldurablyalter the

physicalenvironmentwiththeshiftinpracticeormaintainitasitis

Ineachstep,thebodyiseitherinvolvedininstantiatinganaffordance,perceivingitor

changing the physical environment. A good illustration of this step-by-step process is

thecaseofinterviewee#33andhisdeterioratingeyesight.Wecanrecognizeeachstep

inthedata:

1. The academic’s body changeswith deteriorating eyesight. This is perceived by

theacademic.Thedeviceonwhichhenormallyworksallowshimtomagnifythe

text.Thisthereforeinstantiatesacertainaffordanceforthebodyoftheacademic

inthisphysicalenvironment.

242

2. The academic perceives the affordance either through chance, training or

watchingothers

3. The academic then tries to read using themagnification feature and continues

sincehefeelsheisabletoreadmorecomfortably

4. By using the magnification feature, perhaps the academic will prefer to use a

tablettoreadarticlesandthereforechangethelocationwherehereads(suchas

the home garden), or perhaps he will purchase a larger monitor for his

workstation.Inbothcases,thephysicalenvironmentismodified.

It can even be argued that in the above case, the physical environment was already

modifiedinstep3sincebymagnifyingthetext,thescriptasit isspatiallyrepresented

onthescreen,ismodified.

Anotherexcellent illustrationofthestep-by-stepprocessforthetriadiccausalchainis

interviewee #48 and the story of how shemoved from being paper-based tomostly

paperless.Inthisinstance,thereismorethanoneiterationofthecycle:

1. The academic’s physical environment changes with the insertion of ICT

instantiatingtheaffordanceallowinghertoreadon-screen(butnotannotate)

2. Theacademicperceivestheaffordance,againeitherthroughchance,trainingor

watchingothers.However,shealsoexpectstobeabletoannotateon-screen

3. Theacademictriestoreadon-screenandannotateandrealizesannotationsare

notpossible.Sherevertstoreadingandannotatingonpaperasbefore

4. By reverting to paper, no further changes to the physical environment beyond

step1areaffected

5. Theacademic’sphysicalenvironmentchangeswithanupdatetothefeaturesof

ICT,instantiatingtheaffordanceallowinghertoreadandannotateon-screen

6. The academic perceives this new affordance, again either through chance,

trainingorwatchingothers

7. Theacademictriestoreadon-screenandannotateandrealizesitisnowpossible

toworkwithouttheneedforpaper

8. By no longer needing to print as much and mostly working on-screen, the

academicmodifiesthephysicalenvironmentbyreducingtheamountofprinted

243

matterinherworkspacealongwiththeorganizationalandlogisticaldemandsfor

producingit(printers,energy,transport,paperprocessingplants,etc.)

Alloftheotherreferencesinthissectiondescribethesamestep-by-stepprocess,albeit

with many variations. The resulting changes to the physical environment may be

incremental, howeverwhen the practices are entrenched andmany individuals adopt

them,theimpactonthephysicalenvironmentcanbequitesignificant.

Interviewee#37preferspaperdocumentsandbooksbecauseacertainrelationshipto

theartefact ispossiblewhich isnotpossibleon-screen,withtheresultofhimneeding

space inhisoffice toarchiveandsort (pilesofpaperondesks). Interviewee#47 feels

that reading frompaper is better thanworking on the laptop in the train so shewill

printdocumentsbeforetravel.Thismeansacertainpracticewithconsequencesforthe

physical environment which would be the reverse of the case for interviewee #48

mentionedabove–as inmorepaper,energyandrequirements for space. Interviewee

#36 likeshandwrittennotes,buteventually scans themandstores them in theCloud.

Like interviewee#48, this implies, in termsof thephysicalenvironment, lessneed for

space for storageandsorting,and informationavailableondevicesanywhere there is

accesstotheCloud.

Thefactthat,formanyacademics,paperseemstoaffordsomethingthatisnotavailable

on-screenhasimplicationsforthephysicalenvironment.Intervieweeshavecitedhand

annotations, highlighting, touching the artefacts, knowingwhereone is in reading the

document,andbeingremindedofsomethingby thepresenceofavisibleartefact.The

need for printers and space to store the documents remains. Some academics –

interviewee #43 for instance – also like to have paper documents visible at their

workstation.However, ICThas alsopushedpeople to findother solutions for storage,

such as the Cloud, which implies changes in physical environment as far as where

information is available and how (on-screen). For example, those who start with

handwrittennotesandendupscanningthemtostoreintheCloud–interviewees#36

and#46forinstance–needscannerstodothis.

244

Forsome,thespatialfreedomofferedbypaperiscontrastedwiththeconstraintofICT

intermsofmappingideasandconcepts.Thismeanshavingpaperon-handandcarrying

thispaperaround,asisthecaseforinterviewees#41and#42.Thismeansthereisan

intimatecontactwithpaperandhavingitat-handisimportant.Theeffectonthewider

physicalenvironmentislessclear,butthebodyiscertainlyaffected–theweightofbags

forexampleasmentionedbyinterviewee#41.

Regardingthebody,itisinterestingthatinterviewee#39mentionshowtheprocessof

moving from paper to paperless was akin to going “cold turkey” and says he had to

“forcemyself”,indicatingthedifficultyforthebodyinadjustingtothenewpractice.This

couldbedueto thecombinationof lackofoffice(acertainphysicalenvironment)and

frequent travel (a certain practice) that has imposed the change, and this tension is

somewhat suggested by the interviewee. It is a tension which may exist with other

interviewees,suchas#25,#30,and#33.

Smartphonesarerecognizedasbeingwellsuitedforcertaintasksinthirdspacesorat

timesthatareconsidered‘gaps’ intheday.Theychangethephysicalenvironmentand

provide new opportunities to do work in spaces other than the office or home. This

affordance is perceived and gives rise to the practice of working on the move and

puttingasidecertaintasksforcertainperiodsduringtheday–thecommuteonthebus

for example. Changes in the physical environment due to this practice manifest

themselvesinmanyways.Weknowinterviewee#30appreciatesbeingabletoworkin

his home gardenwith his tablet, butwhat are exactly the changes this effects on the

physicalenvironmentisn’tentirelyclear.Thisismissinganditcanonlybeassumedthat

someextrafurnishingsmayhavebeenaddedtothegardentomakereadingonatablet

more comfortable. However, there are instances much more clearly visible, with

interviewee#31, pointing out the installation of charging points in some areas of the

school where people could meet and recharge the batteries on their devices. This is

similartotheinstallationofUSBjacksonbussheltersinParisorWi-Fibeingavailable

onsomeinter-citybusesinEngland.Asinterviewee#39pointsoutpoignantly,Wi-Fiis

not available on the train between Cambridge and London, and this is considered a

significantinconvenienceforhim.

245

Allacademicsclearlyliketohavetheirworkat-handatalltimes,withtheonlyexception

beingwhenonbreak orwith family (interviewees#32 and#36 for instance). This is

physicallymadepossiblebysmartphonesandtheCloud(evenbetweenworkstationsat

home and office) or a Virtual Private Network (VPN) for specific cases (interviewees

#26and#32).Eventhoughthesmartphoneisn’tsuitableforalltypesofwork,itisseen

aspossible.Sometimes,however,havingeverythingat-handisnotdesired.Someseethe

Internet as a potential distraction andprefer to not have it at-hand for specific tasks.

Interviewee #36 is an excellent example in that he often looks for a café – with no

Internet connectivity available – towork inwhen facedwith a deadline for an article

review.Thisissimilartoatacticusedbyinterviewee#21atMcGill.Ontheotherhand,

for others like interviewee #39, not being able to connect on the train is a big

inconvenienceandgeneratesacertainamountoffrustration.

Again,aswesawatMcGill,distractionfromICTisaconcernandacademicstakevarious

measures toavoid itor control it. Forexample, interviewee#45usesnoise-cancelling

headphones to keep conversations from distracting her in the office. Otherwise, ICT

changesthephysicalenvironment,anddistractionisperceivedthankstothepossibility

ofsurfingtheInternetorgettingnotifiedofnewemails.Inresponse,academicschange

thesettingsoftheiremailorchangeworksettingscompletelybygoingtoacaféwithout

Internetforexample(asisthecaseforinterviewee#36).Bothinterviewee#37and#47

turnoffemailorInternetentirelyontheirdeviceswhenwriting.Interviewee#32likes

to completely disconnect when feeling tired by going to a garden nearby the school

withoutanydevices.

Beingconnectedwithdevices,at least intheoffice,seemstobe important ifweareto

judgeathowclosesmartphonesarelocatedtotheacademics’workstations.Theyseem

to be always at-hand and available for calls, or any other notification. In interviewee

#36’scase,itisproppedupagainsttheworkstationcomputeritselfsothatthescreenis

morevisiblewhenworkingatthekeyboard(seeFigure29).

As farascollaborativeplatforms,suchasDropboxorGoogleDrive,areconcerned, the

experience is quite mixed. The perception of the affordance on offer is very uneven.

Somedon’tuseitatalleitherbecauseit’stoocomplicatedornoteffective.Mostothers

246

useitinalimitedwayasarepository.Onlyoneseemstociteuseofsuchplatformsfor

working on a single document by multiple authors. It was under very specific

circumstances where the co-authors were co-located and working as part of a

consultancyproject,notproducingacademicwork. In termsofpractices, collaborative

platforms such as Dropbox and Google Drive haven’t significantly altered how

academics work together as co-authors. The Cloud has changed the physical

environment by making the same files available to many individuals simultaneously.

However,beyond this,mostacademicscontinue tocollaborateonwritingarticles ina

sequentialmannerandcoordinateusingemail.AcademicsseetheuseoftheCloudasa

repositoryforeitherpersonaluse–allowingacertainseamlessaccessacrossdevices–

orforsharingwithcolleaguesandcollaborators.

Wethereforeseethereturnof theaffordanceparadoxthatweobservedatMcGill,but

withatwist.Whydosomeliketheconvenienceofnotcarryingpaper(interviewee#25)

andotherswillhappilycarrypaper(interviewees#41and#42)?Whydoacademicsfeel

“wedded to their desks” for data analysis (interviewees #44, #26, #32)? Why does

interviewee #33 preferworking on important documents on-screen rather thanwith

paperlikemostothercolleaguesatJBS?Whydoesinterviewee#48seeadocumenton-

screenandanticipateacertainaffordancewhichdoesn’texist?Wedon’tseemtoreally

learnanythingnewaboutaffordances,thecausallinkbetweenitandICTandwhythey

producesuchdifferentoutcomesfordifferentindividuals.

The problem lies with the concept of affordance itself. We find that there is a

discontinuity between the instantiation of an affordance – essentially making it

physically possible, and its perception. Applying a Gibsonian perspective, we would

expect the perception of a specific affordance to converge with the same outcomes

across individuals. However, this is not the case, and we observe two issues in the

analysis.First,thereseemstobenosystematicpatternfortheperceptionofaffordances.

To put it plainly, given the same practice in similar physical environments, an

instantiatedaffordancemayormaynotbeperceived.Furthermore,whenitisperceived,

itseemstoeitherbetheresultofchance,trainingortheobservationofothers.Thereare

no observable instances of an academic perceiving an affordance outside of these

circumstances. Second,when the affordance is eventually perceived, it almost always

247

produces outcomes which are diametrically opposed. Gibsonian affordance cannot

explain why a handful of interviewees prefer to read and annotate journal articles

dealing with complex ideas on-screen as opposed to the clear majority of their

colleagueswhopreferpaperforthistask.Likewise,itcannotexplainwhysomepreferto

do creative work on-screen while others prefer paper, knowing what is possible on-

screen.

Thispresentsaproblemforthetriadiccausalmodel,specifically it’suseofaffordance.

Gibsonianaffordance isn’t forthcoming fromthedata.Whatweendupwith ismorea

conceptionofpossibilities forcertainpractices. ICT,whencombinedwith thephysical

environment and the bodies of academics, produce possibilitieswhichmay or not be

perceived,andwhichmayormaynotbeactedupon.Fromtheevidence,wedon’tfind

academicsatJBSengagingwithtechnology,perceivingaffordancesandthenactingupon

them.Whatwefindareacademicsengagingwithtechnologywithcertainexpectations,

basedonpreviousexperience,and facingeitherdisappointmentor successdepending

onfactorswhichcannotbegraspedwithamodelbasedonaffordance.

AnotherproblemistheorganizationalspaceofJBSacademicsisdifficulttodefinefrom

the data. Althoughmany of the interviewees would try to enforce a clear separation

between their work and family or personal lives, all would, in one way or another,

involvetheirhomesaspartoftheirworkaday.Theseparationwouldoftenbemanaged

bysettingasidesometimewhenthefamilyisasleeporaway.Beyondthehome,workis

omnipresentthroughmobiledevices.Therefore,defininganorganizationalspaceforJBS

doesn’tmakemuchsense. Thisisrelatedtothenatureoftheprofession,andmanyof

the interviewees at both case sites cited the freedom towork from any location as a

desirable aspect of theirwork.What emerges from thedata is a picture of academics

constantlyengagedinaprocessoforganizingintimeandspace.Althoughfreetowork

from almost anywhere in theory, most associate very specific spaces with specific

practices.We have seen, for example, how for a given individual, reading is strongly

associatedwithspecificplaces,dependingonthetypeofreading.Abookwillbereadin

thecommonroomoftheJBSbyoneacademic,whereasanotheronewouldprefertheir

home. Although eachmay have different preferences, space is an important factor in

definingwhichpracticeshappenwhere.

248

4.2.2.2.2 Non-ICTAn analysis of the non-ICT instances supporting the triadic causalmodel leads to the

sameproblemsas the ICT instances regarding thenotionofaffordance.Whydosome

academicsenjoytheatmosphereofanoisycaféorthecommonroomtogetabsorbedin

material requiring concentration, whereas others prefer the office or home?Why do

someacademicseschewthe library,whileothers findconditionsthere ideal forwork?

Theoutcomesforspecificphysicallocationsforaspecifictaskarejustasvariableasfor

theICToutcomes.Thesamelimitationsapply,andtheseinstances,whetherdealingwith

individual or collaborative work, don’t contribute to a clearer understanding of

affordanceaspartofthetriadiccausalmodel.

4.2.2.2.3 NewCategoriesThefournewcategoriesgeneratedfortheJBStellusmuchaboutthecaseandwewill

seehowthishelpsincomparingitwiththecaseofMcGill.ThereferencesfromJBSfor

the categories Business school context, Faculty Struggle for Space, and Sensuality

certainly do resonate with what interviewees at McGill expressed regarding their

working conditions. However, the categories of Food and Changing landscape of BS

(BusinessSchools)haveapeculiarsignificancefortheJBSsincetheyseemtobemore

reflectiveofboththeverylocallyengrainedpracticeofthecommontableandacertain

frustration felt by some academics about the organizational changes taking place in

business schools and the effect thishason theirwork.Thesedifferencesbetween the

twocasesiteswillbelookedatinmoredetailinthecross-caseanalysis.

The categories of Business school context, Faculty Struggle for Space, and Changing

landscapeofBS(BusinessSchools)arereflectiveofbroaderchangesunderwayinhigher

education in North America and Europe. Interviewee #33 feels the University of

Cambridge sees themission for a business school, such as JBS, in very narrow terms,

whichputsactivitiesgenerating revenueaboveotheractivities suchas research.This,

accordingtotheinterviewee,meansresourcesandinvestmentarechannelledtogrowth

ofhigherrevenueactivitiessuchasexecutiveeducation.Thishasimplicationsforspace,

andspacededicatedtoresearchactivitiesandresearchersthemselvesisunderpressure.

Evidenceofthispressureispresentinthecommonareasofthebuilding,andespecially

inthecaféareawithintheCommonRoomoftheJBS.Boththecafémanagerandaserver

249

workingwithhimhavementionedthatacademicsusedtospendmoretimeatthecafé

and the Common Room before the explosive growth of MBA and Executive student

numbers.Regularobservationsoverthecourseoffieldworkatthesiteconfirmthecafé

area is often saturated by students during breaksmaking the Common Room a very

noisyarea.OneintervieweecomparedtheatmosphereoftheCommonRoomtothatofa

gymattimes.Tofurtheraddtothenoise,theschoolrentsoutpartoftheCommonRoom

forexternalevents,suchasseminarsorganizedbypublishersorpharmaceuticalgiants.

Inthissortofatmosphere,academicsseemtogetpushedoutandspendlesstimeinthe

areatosocialize.Interviewee#24complainsoftheincreasinglytransactionalnatureof

thecultureat theschooland the fact thatcolleagueshave less timeto interactandbe

present on-site. This is compounded by the increasing cost of housing in central

Cambridgeandthe increasingtimespentby faculty incommuting.Althoughthese last

twoissuesmentionedbyinterviewee#24arenotnecessarilyechoedintheinterviews

with the academics at McGill, they are recognized as affecting contemporary higher

education as a whole inmany countries. The evidence at JBS supports the view that

manyofthesetrendsareadverselyaffectingtheexperienceofacademics.

Thenewcategories for JBSarebotha reflectionof the specific caseof JBSbut alsoof

somemoresharedtraits.BothMcGillandJBSareabouttoembarkonsiteexpansion,but

McGillhasjustcomeoutofarenovationprojectdirectlyimpactingacademics,therefore

perhapsexplainingthefactthattheperceptionregardinglackofspaceisdifferent.The

highgrowth rateofMBAandExecutive studentsat JBSputsapremiumonspaceand

thatiscombinedwiththerelativelyhighercostofrealestateintheCentreofCambridge

whencomparedtoMcGill.

LunchbreaksseemtobeveryimportantforacademicsattheJBS.Thiscouldbedueto

thetraditionof thecommontableatCambridgeUniversity.Thesiteexpansionproject

raiseshopesamongst intervieweesofon-sitedining facilitieswhichcouldemulate the

role of the college dining halls in getting researchers together to eat, socialize and

exchange ideas. At the JBS, there is a strong association between the lunchmeal and

research collaboration. The emergence of this category and the number of references

suggest it could be the basis of an interesting study of the role of food in research

collaboration.

250

4.3 Cross-caseAnalysis

Aswehave seen in theResearchDesign section, the cross-caseanalysishelpsdeepen

ourunderstandingofourobjectofstudy,butalsoenhancegeneralizability.Wewillnow

look at howboth theMcGill and JBS cases can be compared in terms of the data and

analysis. Due to each of their peculiarities, many differences have been observed.

However,aswewillsee,therearestrongparallelsbetweenthetwocases,andthiscan

behelpfulindevelopingouranalysisfurther.

UsingNVivo, thecasecomparisondiagram inFigure48wasgenerated.Unfortunately,

thisdiagramistoodensetomakethedetailvisibleonasinglepage. Ihave inserted it

heretogiveanideaofthedensityitself,andtheextenttowhichbothcasessharecodes.

TheJBScaseisontheleft,andtheMcGillcaseontheright.Wecanobservethatthere

aremany codes in common – they share a total of 37 codes. It should be noted that

although the key categories of the triadic causal model are not shared as far as the

codingisconcerned,theyareindeedsharedconceptually.Thesekeycategoriesemerged

fromtheMcGill case,andso theyare implicitlyshared.Theyarealreadysubsumed in

theformercategoriesunderAffordanceParadox,Organisationofspace,etc.

Eachof the sharedcodeswereanalyzedwithNVivousingquery tools to compare the

instancesoriginatingfromeachcaseforasinglecategory.Iwillnotexhaustivelylistall

of the shared codes here, nor the details of the queries performed. However, I will

present those results of the cross-case analysismost pertinent to bothdeepeningour

understandingandthegeneralizabilityofthefindings.

251

Figure48–CasecomparisondiagramgeneratedwithNVivo(Author)

SomeofthestrongestpointsincommonbetweenthetwositesareuseoftheCloudfor

individualprofessionaluse,thepreferenceofpaperanduseofhighcapacityprintersat

theoffice,andhavingsmartphonesorotherdevicescloseat-hand(on theirdesksand

visible).Thesepracticesgeneratedasignificantnumberofinstancesforbothcases.This

suggeststhatthefindingsassociatedwiththesepracticesaregeneralizableandprovide

thebasisforhypothesesgeneration.

252

Other common practiceswere going towork in coffee shops, disconnecting from the

Internetwhenwantingtoconcentrate,andreadingemailsonthecommutetoandfrom

work. For this last practice, the fact that the commute for JBS interviewees was

perceivedasmorethanahasslewhencomparedtoMcGillintervieweesdoesnotseem

to affect the perception of this time as being more or less useful for working.

Intervieweesfrombothsiteswouldseeanytimetravelling–whetheritbeonaflightor

bus–tobeagaptofillwithproductivework.Intervieweesonbothsitesseemedtofeel

that any time spent in transit betweenplaces, is timeotherwisewastedwithout their

mobiledevices.However,theywouldalsoexpressthedesiretodisconnectfromdevices

atatimeoftheirchoosing.Thissuggeststhatintervieweesfeelthatthecommutetoand

from work is an experience they were not in control of, and that they preferred to

choose their café without Internet or garden square for some fresh air when they

wanted.Theparadoxisthatinbothcasesthereisanelementofescape.Thecommuters

seemtofeeltrappedonthebus,andhencelookforwaysofmodifyingtheirexperience

byeitherreadingemailsorjournalarticles.Thecontraryhappensforthosewhoseekto

disconnect completely to return to the immediate surroundings with a garden or a

printedjournalpaper.Indeed,thepressuresofbusinessschoollifemeanthatacademics

feeltheyneedtotrytofindopportunitiesforincreasingtheirproductivity.Nonetheless,

itseemsmobileconnecteddevices,andthoseexperiencesthatareassociatedwiththem,

areperceiveddifferentlydependingonthepractice.

At both sites, when asked about academic collaboration, interviewees recognize the

limitations of technology for building new relationships. They cite all of their

collaborative projects, past and current, to make the point that they had never

developed a collaborative relationship online. Most of those at the JBS would have

developed collaborative relationships at their previous institutions and carried them

over.CollaborationusingtheCloudorSkype,forexample,wereseenasveryusefulfor

collaboratingwiththeseestablishedrelationships.Althoughnotnecessarilysurprising,

trustremainsanissuewithICTmediatedinteractions.Thisisclearinthedatacollected

fromboth sites. One interviewee at the JBSwas keen to point out that he sometimes

appreciatesthefactthatwhenonaSkypecall,thecollaboratorcannotseewhetherheis

paying attention to the screen or not. Despite the established trustworthiness, the

academicisawarethathiscollaborator’sperceptionofspace,ofhisbody,aresomewhat

253

impairedbythemedium.Collaborativepracticesseemtobenefitinawhollyunexpected

wayfromICT.

Expressions of frustration regarding procrastination or admissions of addiction to

devicesandtheInternetwere lessexplicitat the JBSwhencomparedtoMcGill.McGill

intervieweesseemtobemoreforthcomingintermsoftheirexperience–especiallythe

negativeones.AtMcGill,intervieweeswouldemploytermssuchas‘hate’,‘addiction’or

‘pissed off’, when describing their frustrations with ICT. The mood at the JBS was

significantly soberer and subdued than at McGill. This could be due to cultural or

institutionaldifferences.AsanativefromMontreal,Irecognizethetendencytobemore

forthrightinexpressingafeelingwhenasked.Also,havinglivedintheUKfor6years,I

have first-hand experience with the proverbial ‘stiff upper lip’ of the Englishman.

However,thisisunlikelygiventhemixofnationalitiesoftheintervieweesonbothsites.

Itisdifficulttopinpointthereasonsforthesedivergenceswiththedatacollectedforthis

study,howeveritwouldbeinterestingtoconductasurveywithacademicsatbothsites

to understand their attitudes towards their devices, and more specifically their

smartphones.AsIhavementionedalready,oneofthemostcommonsightsatbothsites

is a smartphone at hands-reach next to the workstations of interviewees. Emotions

linkedtodevicesseemtohave important implications for theexperienceofspaceand

shouldbeinvestigatedfurther.

Whenlookingacrossbothsites,thereisverylittlevariationinoccurrenceswithregard

to age or seniority. Two of the eldest interviewees – one at the JBS and the other at

McGill–wereboththemostattachedtothepracticeofreadingandannotatingonpaper.

Apart from this, there was very little apparent correlation between these two

demographic attributes and how ICT would be perceived as part of interviewees

practices. This was even the case with the youngest of the PhD students. This is an

unexpectedresult,giventhepopularideathatyoungergenerationsaremoreinclinedto

be comfortableworking on-screen. This reinforces the generalizability of the findings

associatedwith the practice of reading and annotating on paper. It also provides yet

anotherdimensiontoinvestigateinafuturestudy.

254

The fact that the category Food emerged at the JBS and not at McGill can bemainly

attributedtothehistoryofCambridgeUniversity,andmorespecificallyitscolleges.This

traditionofthecommontableisverypeculiartoOxfordandCambridge,andcannotbe

takentoaffectthefindingsforthisstudy.Ontheotherhand,theycouldbeinteresting

foranotherstudyfocusedonthepracticeofeatingandhowICTaffectsexperience.

255

4.4 Discussion

In this section, I will discuss the findings of the multiple-case study of the spatial

practicesofacademicsatMcGillandtheJBS.First,Iwillreflectonwhyitisimportantto

lookbeyondthevisiblewhenconsideringspaceinorganizations,especiallyasitrelates

toICT.

ThedailyworkpracticesofacademicsatMcGilland JBSand theirassociated joysand

frustrations when using technology, should be familiar to most office workers. The

jugglingofvarioustasks,bothpersonalandprofessional,duringthecourseofthedayis

a challenge requiring some structure. Coordinating resources, whether it is at the

individual-level,oratthecollectivelevel,meansorganizingacrossspaceandtime.This

organization is achieved through practices programmed in time and space. Practices,

particularly those in university settings, have traditionally been strongly anchored in

well-definedspacesandtimes.Theuniversitycampusandteachingcycles,dividingthe

calendar year into academic semesters, have been around for centuries. Although

academic research activity doesn’t follow a strict calendar, it is rhythmed by the

academiccyclesandthebroaderlifeoftheuniversitycampus.Technologicalinnovation,

such as the printing press, have underpinned changes in practices for academics by

changingthephysicalenvironment.

As Apollinaire reminds us, script, whether manuscript or printed, are symbols and

representationsinphysicalspace(2013).Theproductionofscriptisaspatialpractice,

as isreading.Scripthasadirection– itcanbeverticalorhorizontal,upordown,and,

righttoleftorlefttoright.Scriptcanhavedifferentshapesandsizes,aswellascolors

andstyles.Brailleisthescriptthatperhapsbestallowsonetoappreciatescript’sspatial

nature by having a texture occupying all 3 dimensions and stimulating the sense of

touchoftheblind,andthatofsight(andtouch)ofothers.Scriptcanbeetchedinrock,

suchasstonetablets,ordrawninephemeralsmoke in thesky.AlthoughICTrefers to

the most recent silicon-based advances, technology has long been used to store and

transmitinformationintheformofscript.ICT,however,uniquelyallowsustospatially

constructandreconstructinformation,intheformofscriptandimages,dynamicallyin

256

space and ubiquitously with pixels on screens. Office printing being a less dynamic

version.

Given the centrality of script for academics as both a repository and means of

transmissionofknowledge,innovationsinICTwillhavemyriadconsequencesfortheir

practices. One of these will be in how these innovations change the physical

environmentofacademicsandothersaroundthem.Settingasideallknowledgetobuild

andoperateit,ICTisentirelycomposedofmatterandenergy.Inthissense,itispartof

thephysicalenvironmentliketrees,buildingsandhumanbodies.Thiscanbeconsidered

an evident observation. Cables run through our cities and buildings like networks of

veinsandwhenweworkonacomputerweareincontactwithasolidobjectradiating

energyintheformofheatandlight.Theinstallationandexpansionofthisinfrastructure

hasconsequencesonthephysicalenvironment.Forexample,cablesneedtobelaid,dry

risers built, energy generated and transported to computers, energy generated and

transported to cool the computers, buildings and rooms constructed to house the

computers,towersbuiltforantennas(theEiffeltowerbeingthemostfamous),factories

built tomanufacture devices, recycling facilities built to process waste, and logistical

platforms to ensure the transport of coal and newmonitors. These consequences are

visibleinthefieldinbusinessschoolsasthefollowingpassagefrominterviewee#31at

theJBSattests:

Well, to a large extent your… Imean, space is a constraint, youhavewhat youhaveandwhatyouneedtodo isyouneedtoadapt it.Soe.g. ifyougoout intosome of the corridors you’ll see that for a long time we’ve had these kind of,meetingspacesonthebalconies.WhenI firstcameherein1994theywerejustspaces and they’d have a round table in them and some chairs and they’d beplaces for informalmeetings.Butover theyearswhatwe’vehad todo isadaptthem.We’vehadtoputpowersockets in,we’vehadtoadd,youknow, the,youknow, Category 5 cables. We’ve had to then make sure there’s good wirelessconnectivity in all of these kind of, different nooks and crannies.We then, justrecentlyovertheEastervacation,putinswingoutwhiteboardsandsoon.Sotheyhavebecomeprogressivelymuchmore importantmeetingspaces,collaborativemeetingspaces.

TheevidenceofthetransformationattheJBSdescribedbyinterviewee#31isvisiblein

Figures49and50.

257

Figure49–Bayareawithtableon5thflooroftheJBS(Author)

Figure50–Chargingpodinbayareaof5thflooroftheJBS(Author)

258

ThesearethesameconsiderationsatMcGill,asthefollowingextractfromaninterview

withthefacilitiesmanagerattheDesautelsFacultyofManagementattests:

Okay,wecouldgouptothe...Ummm((lookingatthefloorplansandhesitating)).Anyway,yeah,soalloftheserooms,thisoneno,andtheseonesonlykindahalfbecausewedidn’tactuallyredotheserooms.Thisoneforsure.Thisonedoesnot,butithasawholelotofthemaroundtheedges.Sothethingisthatinaroomlikethisroomhastablesthatmovebecausewehavetwodifferenttypesofclassroombasically,wehaveroomswherethetablescanbere-arrangedandthenwehaverooms where they’re fixed. Obviously the tables can be arranged so you can’thave a laptop plug coming out of it, so. These rooms, this one’s all around thewalls,andthoseroomsandthisroom((pointingtothe floorplans)).Yeah, takeyourpick.Theyallhavethem(),it’sbasicallyforeverytwoseats,therewouldbeoneortwoplugs.

When starting out with the exploration of the relationship between ICT and

organizational space, this was the most obvious and visible dimension of the

relationship.Whendiscussingthetopicwithpeers, theideaofthearrivaloftheeraof

workanytimeandanywherewouldbequicktosurface.Whenchallengedwithmaterial

evidenceofthisnewtrend,manywouldoftenpointtopowersocketsorWi-Fihotspots.

However, beyond this, lays amore elusive yet intimate relationship between ICT and

organizationalspace.Thisrelationshipwouldrevealitselftobecenteredonthebody.

Based on the analysis of the findings of the McGill case, a triadic causal model was

developed (see Figure 51) centered on the body. The phenomenological sensitivity

retainedfromthebeginning,withLefebvre’stheoryoftheproductionofspace,resulted

inthebodyemergingfromtheMcGilldataasbeingcentraltotherelationshipbetween

the physical environment (including ICT), affordance and practices. It was the body

whichwouldanimatethetriadbyinstantiatingaffordances,perceivingthem,andthen

eithermaintainingoralteringthephysicalenvironmentaspartofapractice.Thetriadic

modelwasthenusedasthebasisforthecodingoftheJBScase.

259

Figure51–Triadiccausalmodel(Author)

However, confronting this model with the data from the JBS would reveal a serious

shortcoming.Theanalysiswouldrevealthataffordancewasincapableofexplainingthe

variation inperceptionsof affordances for a givenpractice andphysical environment.

The findings confirm several aspects regarding the concept of affordance as it can be

appliedtoanunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenICTandorganizationalspace.It

isanotionwhichhasbeenextractedfromitsoriginalcontextinEcologicalPsychologyto

beappliedtodomainsforwhichitwasneverintended.Hence,itisinappropriateforthe

study of ICT. As expressed by Kallinikos (2003) andOliver (2005), ICT by its nature,

divorces form from functionandmakes thenotionofGibsonianaffordancedifficult to

apply.Thefindingsprovidetwonotableinstances:

Interviewees#26and#33bothsufferfromeye-strainfromreadingon-screen,however

only interviewee #33 has found a solution using the zooming features offered by

software,whereasinterviewee#26wouldfeel‘stuck’andreverttoprintingdocuments

eventhoughhewouldprefertocontinueon-screen.

If we go back to Gibson’s conception of affordance, and more specifically the visual

perceptionofan individual in theenvironment,wequickly seehow thisdoesn’twork

withtheaboveexamples.Regardingeyestrain,onlyoneacademiccouldfindasolution

for his problem – allowing him to continue reading on-screen – with the available

260

possibilitiesofICT,whereastheothercontinuedtostruggleandoftenrevertedtopaper

as a solution. On-screen magnification of text is a basic feature of word-processing

softwareoroperatingsystems.However,asGibsonwouldseeaffordance,itisn’tvisibly

perceived by interviewee #26 as part of a regular interaction with devices in his

environment.Interviewee#33didn’teitherperceivethispossibilityfromhisdevice–it

was discovered either by chance (a randommovement of the fingers across a tablet

screen forexample),orbysimplyreading the instructionsor followinga tutorial.One

couldarguetheseacademicseventuallyperceived‘visible’solutionstotheirproblems–

paperinonecaseandon-screenmagnificationintheother.However,eventhese‘visible’

possibilitiesrequirepriorknowledgeandthereforetheir‘visibility’willentirelydepend

on the previous experiences of the individuals. In all cases, Gibsonian affordance is

therefore limited to the instantiation of the affordance when the bodies of these

academics interact with the physical environment. This instantiation only makes

magnification possible, but not necessarily perceivable, at least not in the Gibsonian

sense.

Although thismay seem self-evident – after all, oneneeds some training or trial-and-

error to effectivelyuse ICT invariousenvironments– in IS literature, there is oftena

jump from functionalpropertiesof ICT (in isolation) tousers readilyperceiving these

properties when interacting with devices. With this view, affordances are just a

catalogueofpassivefeatureswaitingtobeperceivedbytheuserwheninteractingwith

adevice.However,theprocessoflearningabouthowagraphicaluserinterfaceworksis

frequentlyignored.Thehumanbrainevolvedtocopewiththechallengesofsurvivalin

the savannas, and has not had the opportunity to evolve to cope with our modern

surroundings.Inthefilm“TheGodsMustbeCrazy”(Uys,1980),thelifeofthebushmen

of theKalahariDesertare–admittedlynaively– contrastedwithSouthAfricanurban

civilization in their needs for survival in their respective worlds. The ‘civilized’ with

their sprawling cities and technologies are dependent on educating their children for

manyyearstosurvive.Thebushmenchildren,ontheotherhand,learnfromtheirelders

inobservingtheirdailyactivities.Inbothcases,educationandexperienceareessential.

We get hold of a smartphone and just start pressing various buttons or icons on the

touch-screen. We explore the various menus and try different features to see what

happens. Of course, we will need to look at the help menu to understand how to

261

configureanemail account.Butgetting therenotonly required some fiddlingaround,

but knowledge only possible from years of education and experience. With this

knowledge,Igainexperiencewiththedeviceandslowlythemovementsareatthetipof

myfingers.ThisishowIamabletotypethesewordswithakeyboardwithoutlookingat

either the keyboard or my fingers. Through education and experience over time, by

typing repeatedly, I no longer need to stop and consider what happens betweenmy

fingers and thekeyswhenmyhandshoverover thekeyboard.This iswhyGibsonian

affordanceissuchaproblematicconceptforthestudyofICTinorganizations.Thekeyof

akeyboardmayperhapscallforthfortheactofpressingonit.Butforwhatpurpose?If

we are to consider affordance in the truly Gibsonian sense for a keyboard, then we

wouldhavetoaskourselveswhatthebushmenoftheKalahariDesertwouldhavedone

withoneencounteredinthesavannah.Useitasashovel?Asaweapon?TheCoca-Cola

bottlefoundbythemaincharacterinthefilmwasseenasbeingusefulasahammerand

amusical instrumentamongstotheruses,butneverasarecipientfor liquid.Likewise,

nothingaboutakeyboardwouldcalloutfortypingonitsownwithoutoneeverhaving

previouslyseenoneorexperiencedfirst-handtheeffectofpushingonakeyonwhatis

displayed on a screen. On a manual typewriter, the pressing action of a key will

immediatelycausethetypebartostriketheplaten.Ifasheetofpaperandaribbonare

present,acharacterwouldappearasinkonpaper.Eveninthiscase,onewouldhaveto

trybeforerealizingthis.Wouldabushmanpressakeytoswataflyontheplatenwhen

first encountering a typewriter? To claim a device such as a tablet computer with a

tactile screen calls forth for a swiping motion without any prior experience of

manipulation is nonsense. A tablet computer is otherwise just a slab of solidmatter.

Perhaps until one starts to manipulate it and possibly eventually stumble upon the

swiping of a screen. Nothing about the structure of the light reflected off a tablet

computer – or any other ICT artefact for that matter – and reaching the retina of a

perceiver contains the information regarding the possibilities for action the tablet

computeroffersapartfromasaslabofsolidmatter(perhapsasamirror?).Thisisthe

critical test for Gibsonian affordance, and the evidence from this study shows that it

systematically fails for ICT. Designers of devices have tried to fool the human eye by

mimicking the texture of objects on the screen, but have never been truly successful.

Thisisoneofthechallengesvirtualrealityhastakenup,anditwillbeinterestingtosee

how successful designers are. A deep understanding of visual perception would be

262

required,andforthis,thepuzzleofthehumanbrainneedstobesolvedfirst.ICTdevices

today, apart frombeing inanimate objects, do not call forth action on their own from

individuals as its designers intend. When designers claim to have developed an

‘intuitive’graphicaluserinterface,whattheyhaveinfactachievedisadesignexploiting

existing knowledge and requiring the least amount of training. For example, the

graphicaluserinterfaceoftheAppleMacOSisrecognizedasbeingeasiertolearnand

use than that of the Microsoft Windows OS. This is not due to any difference in

affordance between the two designs, but rather the clever mimicking of well-worn

gestures formanipulating objects in daily life. For example, inMac OS, one normally

needsonlytodraganddropanewprogramfileintotheApplicationfolderasopposedto

performing a multi-step installation process with many technical configuration

parameters to set in Windows. With Mac OS, installing a new program is just like

dropping a brand-new tool into a toolbox full of other tools.Whether it’s Mac OS or

Windows,usingeitherfirstrequiressomepriorengagementwithartefactsoracertain

degreeoftraining.Neitherisintuitive,atleastnotinthesenseofGibsonianaffordance,

since both require some form of prior knowledge either through socialization or

experience.

Aswehaveseeninthesectiondealingwiththeory,themannerinwhichtheISliterature

has appropriated Gibson’s notion of affordance is only a more convoluted version of

popularbeliefaboutthepossibilitiesICToffersindividuals.However,asmartphonewith

mobile Internet does not ‘afford’ work anywhere anytime. It certainly makes it

physically possible, however. The infrastructure and devices allowing one to access

information stored at a distant location change the physical environment to make

certainpracticespossibleinmultiplelocales.However,thisisnotaffordance.It isonly

the instantiation of a possibility offered by the body in the physical environment, of

which ICT is just a part. We observe from the academics at both McGill and JBS the

practice of ‘doing emails’ on the commute between the home and the office on

smartphones. The smartphone makes this possible, but it also makes possible many

other practices such as reading journal articles orwriting a paper. Although somedo

read journalarticlesonsmartphoneson longer journeys,oratothertimesandplaces,

mostprefertojustreademails.Whyisthisso?Thereisstrongevidencetheacademics

feelconstrainedbytheergonomicsofasmartphone forreadingandtyping.Generally,

263

theyprefertoperformthesetasksonalargerdeviceandkeyboardandoftenwaittobe

seatedinfrontoftheirworkstationorlaptopintheofficetoreplytoemails.Toreiterate,

this is not a question of affordance either. Theworkstation in the office does not call

forthacertainactionbytheacademicbyvirtueofitsessentialvisiblepropertiesmore

thanthesmartphoneonthebus.Theybothmakethereadingorwritingofemails, for

example, possible.But one ismore comfortable than theother.More insightful, is the

observationthatacademicsfeeltheenvironmentofthebusofthemorningcommuteas

beingmoreamenableforcertainpracticeswhencomparedtoothertimesandspaces.In

allinstancesofthispracticeof‘doingemails’onthebus,academicswouldcitethistime

periodasbeingotherwisewastedandthat they felt theycouldbemoreproductiveby

engaginginapracticenotrequiringtoomuchconcentration.Thephysicalenvironment

of a bus, for example, is usually constrained, noisy, jittery and generally full of

distractions (people getting on and off, changing seats, etc.). However, these are

relativelydiffusedistractionsonly requiring aperipheral attentionasopposed to that

requiredathomewhenonehaschildrentocarefor.Therearealsofewerthingstodoon

thebuswhencomparedtothehome.Onthebus,thedirtydishesarenotwaitinginthe

sinktobewashed.Ontheotherhand,thebus,asamatterofexperience,doesn’tprovide

the type of environment for the concentration required for reading text expounding

complex ideas or dense writing. The bus does provide the type of environment for

readingemails–especiallytheshortonesrequiringshortreplies–onasmartphonefor

relativelybriefperiodsof time.This isalsoseenbyacademicsasawayofmaximizing

theuseofthetranquillityoftheofficeforpracticesrequiringmuchmoreintenselevels

ofconcentration.

Although smartphones on a bus are not like Gibson’s natural environment, we

internalize thevirtual structures that collapseand redeploy the spatial landscape in a

dynamicway.Usersofasmartphoneinternalizethe‘contactability’ofclosefriendsand

familysuch that theywouldhave thereflexof reaching for thedevicealmostbyhabit

and without hesitation when the desire to speak to a friend emerges. This happens

withoutreflectionorthoughtasinterviewee#8makesclearinthefollowingpassage:

If itwashere in the library, if therewas a kiosk somewhere in the libraryor ImeansimilartothisfloorwhereIcouldgotothatarea,watchthelectures,takenotesorwatchthelectures,domyonlinereport,whichislikeoneofthegradingparts of that class, then that would be finewithme. I wouldn’tmind. I would

264

almostbehappyaboutthatbecausethenthere’snodistractionsthatIhaveonmylaptop.There’snocommandTFenterandI’monFacebookagain.It’sjustlike,ohmygoshhowdidthishappen.

Coming back to Kallinikos’ rupture between form and function of ICT in terms of

affordance,ifweintroducethenotionofhabitus,weimmediatelyseehowthisbridges

theconceptualgapbetweentheinstantiationofpossibilitiesandtheirperceptioninthe

triadic causal model. Like the above verbatim suggests, a certain habitus or

internalization is responsible for the reflex of going to Facebook with a quick

combination of keys. Some apparent ‘affordances’ of ICT are in fact possible with

habitus.Forexample,thelaptopwhichisnot3Genabled,butworksonWi-Fiwithinthe

confinesoftheoffice–IwillinternalizethefactthatIwillnotbeabletoconnectoutside

theofficeanddon’texpectconnectivitywhenoutsidetheoffice.The‘affordance’isprior

to thehabitus–prior tomy learning that Internet isnotaccessibleby trialanderror.

Affordance is in fact nomore than just another expression for possibilities for action.

ThefindingsshowthatitisincapableofexplainingperceptioninthecaseofICT.

Althoughthenotionofaffordanceisproblematicforthestudyofmodernorganizational

practices, we can still address the main problem Gibson sought to solve by taking a

phenomenological approach – the object-subject dualism. According to a

phenomenological approach, there is no difference between outside and inside as a

matterofexperience.Whatweseethroughvisualperceptionisbeing‘seen’inthesame

place as where thought occurs. When our bodies move through space, our sensory

perceptionofspaceiscomplementedbythoughts.Acloseddoorisagoodexample.We

expecttheretobeaspacebehindthedoorandthatitswivelstoonesidewhenwepush

it. None of this is perceived through sensory input, but our bodies are primed for an

invisiblespace.Wearenothaltedbythedoorwithwonderaboutwhetheraroomison

theotherside.Ourstride isnever trulybroken–wecombine thepushingof thedoor

withourwalkingmotion,adjustingsomewhatforthedelayandeffortrequiredtopush.

Theroomontheothersideofthedooris‘seen’byourbodyanditassumesitasbeing

thereaspartof theenvironment.Ofcourse, there isnothingnaturalaboutadoor.We

onlyknowfromexperiencethataroomliesontheothersideofadoor.Abushmanwho

would first walk into a long hallway full of closed doorswould likely see just a long

tunnel with regularly interspaced shallow recesses in the walls. For us ‘civilized’

265

individuals,weareoftendisturbedwhenwecomeacrossadoorthathasbeenwalled-

off.Theexpectationofaroombehinditisingrainedinourmindsandourbodiesyearn

toopen thedoor todiscoveranunknown locale.Forexample,afterhavingvisited the

chateau of Maisons-Laffitte recently, I found my imagination running wild with

speculationaboutthesecretpassagesbehindthedoorshiddeninoneofthewallsofthe

AppartementduRoi.

With a phenomenological approach following the work of Merleau-Ponty (1976),

Gibson’s conception of affordance can be re-interpreted as the horizon of available

possibilities from theknowledgeaccumulatedby thebody frompriorexperience.The

quality of this horizon is determined by the intentional arc projected by the body.

LooselytranslatingMerleau-Ponty,weaimataworldandperceiveit(1976).Whohasn’t

everhadtheexperienceofreachingovertoonesideofthedesktogetmugofcoffeeor

smartphone toonly realize it’snot there. It is at thesemomentsweappreciatehowa

certainawarenessofspaceispresentinourmindsatalltimes.Itisaformofperception

withoutseeing.We‘see’thecoffeemugorsmartphonetherewithoutactuallyseeingit

usingoursenseofsight.Althoughwedon’tactuallyseeitwithoureyes,wehaveseenit

therebefore,perhapsseveraltimessinceitisahabit,andthereforeitremainsetchedin

ourspatialawareness.MuchliketheamputeesinMerleau-Pontystudies,wheresubjects

‘see’and‘feel’theirmissinglimbsinspace(1976:92-96).Theavailabilityofthegrasping

of thecoffeecuporsmartphone ispartofwhatMerleau-Pontycalls thebodyschema.

The body schema is a pre-conscious awareness of available bodily movements and

spatial relationships. At a given time, the body schema will be determined by the

intentionalarc,orwhatthebodyprojectsasencounterswiththeworld.Thisintentional

arcisprojectedbyacertainposturewetakewithourbodiesvis-à-vistheworld.When

sittingatourdesks focusedon readingapaperon the screenofour laptop,ourbody

projectsthe‘grasping’ofthetextdisplayedonthescreenandthegrabbingofthecoffee

mugorsmartphoneintospace.Theintentionalarciswhatallowsonetograsptheworld

andorientsthebodyschemaforthispurpose.

The phenomenological concepts drawn from the work of Merleau-Ponty above are

thereforemore suitable for the development of an understanding of the relationship

betweenICTandorganizationalspacethanaffordance.Severalkeyconceptsneedtobe

266

clarified,alongwith their relationship toeachother,beforeMerleau-Ponty’s ideascan

beusedtobetterunderstandthefindingsofthisstudy.

Asmentionedearlier,thebodyschemaisanawarenessofwhatispossibleforthebody

in space. It is guided by the intentionality arc, or a projection of encounterswith the

world.HusserlreferstothefungierendeIntentionalität,oroperationalintentionality,as

thatwhichunitesourbeingandtheworldinanaturalandantepredicativemanner.Itis

generatedbyacertainmindset–ormentalatmosphere–andbecomesapparentinthe

expressionofthebodyschemaasthebodyengageswiththeworld.Thecontextofthis

engagementwillbeorientedbythetaskthebodyisengagedin,asthiswilldiscriminate

certainareasofcontactwiththeworldfromothers.

Endernièreanalyse,simoncorpspeutêtreune«forme»ets'ilpeutyavoirdevantluidesfiguresprivilégiéessurdesfondsindifférents,c'estentantqu'ilestpolariséparsestâches,qu'ilexisteverselles,qu'il seramassesur lui-mêmepouratteindresonbut,etle«schémacorporel»estfinalementunemanièred'exprimerquemoncorpsestaumonde(Merleau-Ponty,1976:117)

In a series of empirical studies, researchers have observed how visual perception of

humansubjectsisshapedbythetasktheyengagein.Intheseexperiments,individuals

wouldbeshownavideooftwoteamswearingdifferentcolort-shirtspassingarounda

ball inaclosedcircle.Thecirclewouldbecomposedofalternatecolor teammembers

and each teamwould pass a single ball to each other. The teamswould therefore be

engagedinmaneuverscrossingeachother’spass.Thesubjectswouldbeaskedtocount

thenumberoftimesoneoftheteamspassedtheballtoeachotherduringa30second

segment.Duringthissegment,apersoneitherwithanumbrellaorwearingagorillasuit

wouldwalkright through themiddleof thecircleanddisappear fromthescreen.The

results showed thatmanyof thesubjectswouldmiss theumbrella-carryingpersonor

the gorilla. The ratewoulddependon the similarity in color between theunexpected

intruderandthatoftheteamthesubjectwasaskedtokeeptrackof(Mostetal.,2001).

Although these findings are limited to visual perception, they show how the general

attitudeabodytakestowardsitsbeingintheworldwillshapewhatworldisperceived.

ThisiswhatMerleau-Pontymeanswhenhewritesthatweaimataworldandperceive

it.Theintentionalityarcwillshapetheworldperceived,anditwillbedonethroughthe

body schema.Thebody schema, in the caseof the seriesof experiments above, is the

awarenessofwhatisbeingobservedandhowtorelatetoitintermsofspatialrelations.

267

The subjects are aware ofwhat a team is and that theywear the same color t-shirts,

what to expect of their behavior with the ball and what counts as a pass. This is

knowledge the body had captured from previous experiences, either from watching

players at a basketball game or playing the sport themselves. The body is therefore

primedthroughitsbodyschematoperformthetaskrequiredofitandforencountering

aworld.

Once we’ve seen the gorilla in one of the videos used in the aforementioned

experiments,wearesurenottomissitthenexttime.Thesecondtime,ourbodyschema

hasbeenadjustedto take intoaccount thepreviousexperience.This iswhatMerleau-

Ponty calls expériences antérieures (1976: 27) or expériences anciennes (1976: 30).

Thesepreviousexperiencescolor thebodyschemawithahorizonprovidinga certain

modeforthebodytoprojectitselfinto.Thesecondtime,wewatchthevideoexpecting

theintrudertoenteratacertainmoment.Thisexpectationputsourbodyintoapeculiar

stateofreadinessandanticipation,butwearenotsurprisedtoseetheintruderwhenit

enters.Ourattitudeisdifferentthesecondtime.

According to Merleau–Ponty, when an experience is repeated, and a certain habitus

develops, the body undergoes a certain conditioning (1976: 102). Habitus is the

repositoryofrenewableaction(1976:171)forthehabitualbody.Thehabitualbodyin

turn supports the actual body (1976: 97). Merleau-Ponty had studied amputees to

understand how their engagementwith theworld had changedwith the loss of their

limbs. He found that, as a matter of experience, it hadn’t changed insofar as the

amputeeswould ‘grasp’ theworldas if their limbswerestillpresent.According tohis

findings,ifIweretohavemyarmsamputatedforwhateverreason,theperceptionofthe

‘grabbability’of thecoffeemugorsmartphonewouldremain in thehabitualbody.My

experienceoftheworldwouldbethesameasbeforethelossof limbs.It isonlywhen

the lack of a hand – or themissingmug or smartphone – ismade conscious that our

experienceisreframed.Merleau-Pontyreferstothebodyasgraspingandunderstanding

movement.Thisishowthebodygraspstheworld,andthedevelopmentofhabitusisthe

grasping of ameaning – amotor grasping of amotormeaning. The habitual body is

expressedaspartofthebodyschemaandmotormovementtheoriginalintentionality.I

seemysmartphone,IcancheckemailsasopposedtoIthinkIcancheckemails.

268

Like Gibson’s affordance, Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception accepts the

ideathebodyissolicitedbythingsintheworld,buttheworldisthatofexperienceand

thebodyisaknowingbody.

Laconscienceestl'êtreàlachoseparl'intermédiaireducorps.Unmouvementestapprislorsquelecorpsl'acompris,c'est-à-direlorsqu'ill'aincorporéàson«monde»,etmouvoirsoncorpsc'estviseràtraversluileschoses,c'estlelaisserrépondreàleur sollicitation qui s'exerce sur lui sans aucune représentation (Merleau-Ponty,1976:161)

Theknowingbody,followingHusserlianantepredicativeperception,isabodyalreadyin

contactwiththeworldbeforethemachineryofjudgmentkicksin.Thebodymaintainsa

relationshipwiththeworldwhichproducesexperiencebasedonexperience.Ittakesfor

granted,forinstance,thespacebehindthedoor,thefaceontheothersideofthehead,

the hand at the end of the arm, or the phonograph in the next room. In day-to-day

gestures, there is no questioning these givens for the body. It moves through space

knowingtheserelationshipsexist.Theserelationshipsareexpressedaspartofthebody

schema.Merleau-Ponty takes theexampleof thewhite caneusedby theblind tohelp

them perceive and move through space to demonstrate how instruments can also

become part of the body schema. The blind using such a stick consider it, with

experience,tobeanextensionoftheirbodyandthelength,weight,andotherphysical

properties are completely assimilated by the body into the body schema. In moving

through the world with such a stick, the blind will manipulate the stick such that it

correspondstowhatissolicitedasamovementbytheenvironmentbeingfeltthrough

thestick.Awalkon thepavementwill solicit the feelingof theedge,aclimbingof the

stairswillsolicitthefeelingofthenextstep,etc.Thebodyhaslearnedandincorporated

into thebodyschemathroughexperience theserelationshipswith theworldand they

are available always. Gibsonian theory of visual perception breaks down with the

exampleoftheblindattwolevels.Thefirstisthatitobviouslyexcludestheothersenses.

The second, is that it ignores the knowing body that retains previous experiences of

encounterswith theworldandrecalls them in–butnot for–subsequentencounters.

ButGibsonian theoryofvisualperceptionbreaksdownevenwith thosewhohave the

privilegeofsight,accordingtoMerleau-Ponty.Thephonographplayinginthenextroom,

whichisaudiblebutnotvisible, is infactfullypartoftheperceivedvisualfield(1976:

321).Evenwhenstoppedplaying, thebodywillregister itasstillbeingpresent in the

269

next roomshouldoneeverwish togoputonanother record forplay.Given the right

mindset, or mental atmosphere, the corresponding body schema will have the

phonograph‘visible’andaccessibleforputtingarecordon.

OnemayschematizeMerleau-Ponty’sphenomenologyofperception,asisdoneinFigure

52,bymodellingthebeing-in-the-worldofthebody.Theknowingbodyprojectsanarc

ofintentionalityandwillgrasptheworldwiththebodyschema.Thebodywillnotonly

graspthroughthebodyschemathatwhichisphysicallyproximate(textonthescreen),

butalsowhatisphysicallyremote(thephonographinthenextroom).Whatisgrasped

isdeterminedbytheintentionalarcandthebodyschemaprojectedbythebody.

Figure52–Merleau-Ponty’s(1976)phenomenologyofperception(Author)

Remote

Proximate

Body

BodySch

ema

270

Despite the layeringof theproximateandremoteobjects, thebodywillexperienceall

thatisperceivedthroughthebodyschemaasbeingimmediatelyavailable–orathand.

The arc of intentionality can be thought of as a spotlight and the body schema as an

active filter. The arc of intentionality will determine the orientation of the spotlight

towardstheworld,andthebodyschemawhatisilluminated,andhence‘graspable’.The

body schema is actively refreshed through experience and will shift with the arc of

intentionality. The body schema overlays knowledge from previous experience upon

whatisilluminatedbythearcofintentionality.Asfarasexperienceisconcerned,there

isnodefinitedistinctionbetweenproximateandremoteobjects.Forexample,theycan

be both visible or invisible, audible or not. Remote objects are simply further away

physically when compared to proximate ones. However, they all belong to the same

sphereofexperienceregardlessofphysicaldistance fromthebody.For theperceiver,

theproximateandtheremotearesuperimposedoneachotherandareequallypresent

as part of experience. Like the room behind the closed door or folded clothes in the

closeddrawer.Theyremain‘graspable’andarealwaysavailable.

With this perspective, what is the difference between the mug of coffee and the

smartphone on the academic’s desk? Both are immediately present and graspable

through the body schema, however there is a fundamental difference with the

smartphone due to the manner in which it modifies the physical environment. The

smartphoneexpandsthephysicalenvironmentbeyondtheimmediatesurroundingsby

makingavailableinformationintheformoftext,soundsandimagesfromfaraway.Of

course, this information can also be storedmore proximately in the device itself. The

smartphone is part of both proximate and remote physical environments. The body

knows this and will project a body schema making this information graspable. The

smartphoneisinfactnotjustgraspableasaproximateartefact,butasasetofpossible

layered proximate and remote spaces. The smartphone is a door which opens into

multiple rooms physically located both proximately and remotely. Just like the room

withthephonograph,thebodyisawareitisthereandthatitcanaccessitalongwithall

oftheobjectswithinit.Asamatterofexperience,ICTaddsanumberofadditionallayers

tothephysicalenvironmentaccessiblethroughthebodyschema.It isas ifonehadan

infinitenumberofdrawersintheirdesk,allcontainingdifferentobjects.Dependingon

thearcofintentionality,thebodyknowstheobjectstheycontainaregraspabableatany

271

moment.Thebodyknows through thebodyschemahowthedrawersareopenedand

howtomakesenseoftheobjectsineachdrawer.

For example, several academics had their smartphones on their desks next to their

workstations.Theywerenotjustphenomenologicallyathand,butphysicallysoaswell.

On several occasions, the academic would briefly glance at the device to check for

messages or other information regarding an appointment. This is information of a

remote nature, in that it is information about events occurring in a remote physical

space. However, the graspability of this information is made possible by the ICT

comprisingofthesmartphoneitselfandalloftheinfrastructureuponwhichitdepends

tobeabletofunction(network,servers,energydistribution,etc.).Theinformationisat

hand as if the academic could just open a door at any moment to check whether

someone ispresentornot in theother room. Since the smartphone isportable, these

doorsarealwaysavailabletobeopenedwhentheacademichasthesmartphoneonhis

orherpersonandhasamobileconnection.Thisexpectationisassimilatedintothebody

schemaandweseethiswhenacademicssuchasinterviewee#39expressfrustrationat

notbeingabletogetamobileconnectionwhenonthemove.Theexpectationispartof

practicesregardingworkwhiletravellingorcommuting.Theacademicsspendingtime

onthebushaveintegrated‘doingemails’duringthecommute.Theeffectofthispractice

is to change the experience of the commute. The body of the academic will have a

differentpostureandattitudeonthebusandwillprojectaspecificarcofintentionality

corresponding with ‘doing emails’ on the smartphone. The body schema is projected

ontothephysicalenvironment–includingboththeproximateandtheremote.Fromthe

resultingexperienceoftheacademic,therecouldbeshiftsinbothintentionalityorbody

schema. Should the bus be particularly quiet on a given day, the experience may

encouragetheacademictotypelongerrepliesthanusualandthereforealterhisattitude

andbodyschemaforthispurpose.Aslongasthesmartphoneisabletoconnecttothe

Internet, the physical environment will always comprise of both the proximate and

remotephysicalenvironments itmakesavailableandinstantiateallofthepossibilities

thisimplies.Intheory,thecommutingacademichasaccesstoaninfinitesetofdrawers

orroomscontaininganinfinitevolumeofinformation.However,asfarasexperienceis

concerned, the commuting academic will only perceive that which both the

intentionalityarcandthebodyschemaareengagedwithintheworld.

272

Although composed of both proximate and remote physical environments, the

environmentperceivedbytheacademicisasasinglesphereofexperience.Inthissense,

distance is irrelevant as far as the experience is concerned. This is the same effect as

withdocumentsinafilingcabinetsittinginthenextoffice–itisrelativelyremotewhen

comparedtoadocumentontheacademic’sdesk,butstillgraspableasfarasperception

is concerned. The only difference with ICT, in terms of distance, is the degree of

remoteness it makes possible. ICT also makes it possible to store larger volumes of

informationbothproximatelyandremotely.

This possibility which is unique to ICT, has the potential to negatively alter the

experience of an academic, and hence to adversely affect intentionality and body

schema. Academics have complained of being distracted by both checking emails too

frequently,consultingsocialmediaornewswebsitescompulsivelyandgenerallysurfing

theInternetaimlessly.Somehavedescribedthesetendenciesasaddictions.

Although phenomenology does not lend itself verywell tomodels such as the triadic

causal model based on affordance, we can develop the followingmodel in Figure 53

based on the results of this study and based on the phenomenology of perception of

Merleau-Ponty.Theperceivedworldistheworldofexperienceanditisrepresentedby

theblackoval.ThisisthesameovalasinFigure52.

273

Figure53–AlternativemodelbasedonMerleau-Ponty(1976)(Author)

Wecantestthismodelagainstsomeofthedatafrombothcasesstudied.First,welook

atthedatafromMcGill.

Aspartofthepracticeofreading(studyingforexams),Interviewee#8(undergraduate

inIndustrialRelations)usedtositinthelibraryoranotherlocationwithhissmartphone

nexttohim.Buttheexperiencewasofdistractionandfrequentinterruptionsduetohis

tendencytoreachforhissmartphonetocheckformessages.Placingthephonenextto

himrevealsacertain intentionality incompatiblewith thatassociatedwithcontinuous

periods of concentration. This is reflected through the body schema – having the

smartphone at-hand – and results in the experience of distraction. The student found

thathewouldbeable tobetterconcentratebyplacing thedeviceat thebottomofhis

bag. This action itself would be the result of an intentionality and body schema

associatedwith a desire to improve concentration for this practice. The actionwould

helpshifttheintentionalityandbodyschemaforreadingbygettingthestudentto‘aim’

atadifferentphysicalenvironmentwithoutthesmartphoneat-hand.

Aspartofthepracticeofsleeping,interviewee#16usedtoleavehisphoneswitchedon

nexttohisbed.Buttheexperiencewasthatofdisruptedsleepfrombeingpreoccupied

byunreadmessages.Like interviewee#8,placing thephonenext tohisbed reveals a

certain intentionality incompatible with that associated with sleeping. This is also

274

reflectedthroughthebodyschema–havingthesmartphoneathand–andresultsinthe

experienceofinsomnia.Thisacademicfoundthatbyswitchingoffthedeviceatbedtime,

hewas able to better sleep. The action of switching off the phone is the result of an

intentionalityandbodyschemaassociatedwiththedesiretosleepbetter.This inturn

wouldhelpshifttheintentionalityandbodyschemaforsleepingbygettingtheacademic

to‘aim’atadifferentenvironmentwithoutthedistractionofemails.

As part of the practice of doing data analysis, interviewee #21 would run a process

calledDataStream on her officeworkstation remotely fromhome. But the experience

wastheresponsetimesweretooslowandshefeltshewasunabletoworkeffectively.

Toremedythis,shewould‘aim’atadifferentphysicalenvironment(theoffice)withan

intentionalityandbodyschemaassociatedwiththislocaleandthepracticeofdoingdata

analysiseffectively.

NowthatwegetanideaofhowthemodelcanbeappliedtothedatafromMcGill,wecan

lookatmoreexamplesfromtheJBS.

Aspartof thepracticeof reading, interviewee#37changed thephysical environment

from on-screen to paper, because he found the experience of reading on-screen

unsatisfactory.Hishabitualbodywouldmeanthathewouldlookforaphysicalmarker,

suchasabookmarkorbitofpaper,inthephysicalenvironment(insideabookhewould

be reading) to knowwhere in the document he left off. There seems to have been a

mismatchbetweentheworldhe‘aimed’atandhisbodyschema.Likewise,interviewees

#43and#44 like tohavepaperdocumentsatproximity to theirworkstations so that

theyfeel theyareat-hand.This isagainaresultof theexperienceofworkingwithon-

screen and finding it unsatisfactory due to the mismatch between body schema and

physicalenvironment.Incontrast, interviewees#36,#42and#48liketofeellikethey

havetheirdocumentson-handatalltimesintheCloudratherthanhavepaperversions

near their workstations. They seem to feel they can get immediate access to many

drawersanytimeanywhere.

Wecanalsoobservethemodelatworkatbothsiteswhereinterviewees#21and#36

occasionally go to caféswhere no Internet is available to be able to concentrate on a

275

specific document as part of the practice of reading. In both cases, there is an initial

mismatchbetween thebodyschemaandphysicalenvironment, and inbothcases, the

academicschoosetochangethephysicalenvironment,mainlytoremoveconnectivityto

theInternet.

Aninterestingobservationabouttheimportanceofpaperinthepracticeofreading, is

that it ispossible thatpaperallows foranarrowerbeam(or ‘spotlight’) for thearcof

intentionality since it involves a very defined physical environment – the paper

document.Thismeansthereistherelativeabsenceofthelayeredspacesofanon-screen

document where the academic feels he can at any moment access many rooms and

drawersatwillwithjustakeyboardshortcut.Inthissense,theexperienceofreadingon

paperandreadingon-screenareverydifferentspatially.Thatsaid,thereisnodifference

between the layers as they are experienced – an academic reading a paperdocument

couldbejustasdistractedbythesmartphonehehassittingnexttohimaswhenreading

adocumenton-screen.Itisjustthatpapermaybebettersuitedforbodyschemaswhich

requireanarrowerfocusonthephysicalenvironment.Wecanseewhathappenswhena

body schema is forced through intentionality to engage with a mismatched physical

environmentwiththeexampleofinterviewee#39whosaidhewent“coldturkey”when

goingpaperless.Thisreflectsthebadexperienceofworkingon-screen,butwhichunder

contextualimperativeshadtobedealtwithbychangingthebodyschemaandhabitual

bodytoworkon-screen.Thisexamplealsoillustrateshowexperiencethroughpractice

resultsinahabitualbody–likeMerleau-Ponty’samputees–whichisinturnreinforced

withcontinuedexperiencewithinthesamepractice.

WecanalsotestthemodeloninstancesinthedatawhereICTisnotexplicitlypresent,

forexample,interviewee#41likestheGatesScholarRoomforthepracticesofreading,

analyzinganddataanalysisbecauseshesays itallowsher tobe“inward focused”and

takeonacertainmindsetdue to thedistinctatmosphereof theroom.Thereseems in

this case to be an alignment between intentionality, body schema and physical

environmentwhichresultsinpositiveexperience.

Q:Okay,good,alright.SoIwasgoingtostartoffbyjustaskingyou,tellmeaboutyourdailyroutine.A:MydailyroutineasaPhDstudent?Q: Yes, as a PhD student, perhaps focusing a lot more on your movements

276

physicallylike…A:SoIfirstofalldon’thavearoutine,Ithink.Myresearchisalittlebituniqueinthat I’m in the field a lot, I’m away a lot in Kenya, so I can tell you aboutmyroutinewhenI’mhere.MyroutinewhenI’mhereisusuallyIcycletowork.Ilivecloseby,I liveabouttenminutesaway,ItakeabikeandthenI…UsuallyIhavetwooptionsformyself, IeithercomeheretothePhDofficeorIgototheGatesScholar’s common room. So I’m part of a scholarship, the Gates KimberScholarship,andtheyhavearoomthat’sdedicatedtothescholars.It’sessentiallyanoffice,it’saroomwherethere’stables,computers,itlooksalotlikethis,andsoIkindofalternateinmyworkroutines.IfIhavetodostuffwhereIreallyhavetothinkandreallykindofgoreallydeepintotheorising,analysingdata,justworkthat’sveryinwardfocused,ItendtogototheGatesroomwhereI’mleftalone.Ifit’skindofjust,youknow,othertypesofworkIcomehere.I’musuallyinhereI’dsayfourdaysoutoftheweek,usuallyonaverage.Iusuallyworkhereallday.Attimes, grab a coffee next door, grab a coffee at the business school, meet mysupervisor,haveothermeetingswithpeople.IdoalittlebitofteachingwiththeMBAcourse, so that’salsoover in theotherbuilding. Ienjoy the flexibility thateverythingissocloseby,so,youknow,I’llalsokindofrunerrandsduringthedayifIneedabreak,youknow.I’lljustkindofdomygroceriesat3p.m.intheday,and then likecomebackhereanddoworkagainand justkindofchunkupmyday,ifthatmakessense.Q: Okay. What is it about working in this office that doesn’t, or I’m assuminganyway,itdoesn’tallowyouperhapsthedeeperthoughtprocessesthatyouweredescribingearlier?What’sthat?A:It’sagoodquestion.IthinkinpartIliketohaveadedicatedspacewhereIonlygowhenIhavetoreallythinkthingsthrough.Soit’salmostlikeI’llwalkintothatGatesroomandit’samind-set,likeIkickintoatypeofmind-set,andI’mneverthereunlessIhavetodoreallykindoftheoreticalwork.SoIthinkinaway,I’malso trying to create some separation there between the more administrativeday-to-daystuffofaPhDandthenthekindof,youknow,actualdeepresearch.Ialsothinkthatherethedoorsarealwaysopenbetweenthedifferentrooms.Sowedohaveanofficerbutwedon’thaverulesoflikewhospeakswhen.It’skindofgenerallyunderstoodthatweshouldbequietbutalotofpeoplekindofenduptalking here and there and it’s fine, it’s totally fine, and we all, you know, it’simportanttohavethatcommunity.Butwedon’thaverules for like,okay,at10a.m.everybodytakesabreakandwetalkfortenminutesandthenwegobacktoquiet.It’skindofmoreadhoc.Andsoifyou’rereallytryingtothinkdeeply,likethat can be quite distracting, even though people don’tmean to be, but it justsometimesmakesitalittlehardtostayfocusedforalong,youknow,forlikeanhourorsomethinglikethat.

Interviewee #44 feels he can live the myth of the academic’s life by going to a café

occasionallytowork.Helikensittosteppingintoanidealizedimageofacademiclifeand

beingfreetoworkanywhere.

Q:Doyouhaveanyotherplaceswhereyouliketowork?A:Within…LikearoundCambridge?Q:Yes,aroundCambridge.Anywhere,really.

277

A:Notat themoment.Theonlyotherplace, againgiven the changeof thePhDrooms,would beHotNumbers;which is the café just up the road. Sometimes,even if it’s just about sending emails or writing or reading, I like that kind ofambienceandvibethatIgetfromworkinginacafé.Idon’tknowwhatthatis,Idon’t… It’s more than just… It’s probably the variety, like the fact that it’s achangetowhatI’musedto.Likethere’saverystatic,kindof,dull,drearysortofenvironmentforus;overthereitfeelsalotwarmer.It’salmostthoughIcanstepintoanimagethatIhaveoflikewhatanacademiclifecouldbelike.Youknow,inallit’s,kindof,gloryandcharm.Youknowyou’vegotthatworklifebalancethinghappeningandyou’reabletojustworkremotelyandwork…It’salmostlikeIcan,likedoingthat,I’mkindoffeelingsomesortofmyththatIhaveaboutlike…Whatitcouldbeliketobeanacademic.IfIgettheopportunityandit’s,like,notseriousworksoitcouldjustbeemailsorreading;I’llmakethatshifttooneofthosesortsofenvironmentsaswell.

Weseethisinotherinstancesinthedatawhereacademics’choiceofwheretoworkwill

correspond to a certaindesire for a specificmood. In some cases, aswehavealready

seen,thisinvolvesdrawingboundariesaroundcertainspaces,suchasthehome,tokeep

work separate. The home and office both understandably evoke different moods for

academicsandeachisseenasbeingassociatedwithdifferentintentionalitiesandbody

schemas. Interviewee #25, for example, says “I don’t have any advantage from being

here, other than the psychological focus”when askedwhy he chooses towork at the

officeonadailybasisratherthanthehome.However,thisboundarybetweenhomeand

officeisn’tnecessarilyeasilytransposedtotheseparationbetweenworkandleisurein

the expanded space of ICT as we see with interviewees #8 and #13, for example.

Academics at both sites struggle to find a balance between work and leisure of ICT.

Again,distractionisseenasbothawelcomebreakandunwelcomesourceofdisruption.

This tension is also observed with academics struggling to balance socializing and

individualworkpracticessuchasreadingintheoffice.Theyenjoythebenefitsofsocial

contactwithcolleagueswhenintheoffice,howeverthissocializingcaneitherbecomea

wayofprocrastinatingortakealifeofitsownwithfrequentinterruptions.Thirdspaces,

suchasgardensandcaféscanalsoevokecertainmoods,likeinthecaseofinterviewee

#44, and are therefore associated to a certain body schema. Interviewee #35 says

regardingthepracticeofwritingwhiletravelling:“Soforme,writingiscostly,soIneed

open my mind to it, and so that’s why in the office or home, whatever that is. But

travelling forwriting is not the best”. Interviewees #45 and #48 find that occasional

changing of settings for work is helpful for refreshing and energizing their mindset.

Interviewee #45 talks about seeking a certain intensity from an environment to

278

invigorate her mind, whereas interviewee #48 uses the term “fresh brain” when

describingwhatshegetswhenshechangessetting.

Wealsoseethatcertainmoodscanbeassociatedwithposturesofthebody.Interviewee

#45likestoreadonherbedwhenworkingathome.Forinterviewee#20it’sthesofa.As

we’vealreadyseen,interviewee#30likestoreadoffatabletinthegardenbecausehe

feelsthepostureismorecomfortableandappropriateforthatpractice.Bodypostureis

thereforeintegraltothebodyschema.Wealsoobservethatclothingcanbeanintegral

partofthebodyschema.Bothinterviewees#16and21mentionworkinginpyjamasas

evokingspecificmoodswithregards towork– inonecaserepulsionand in theother

reassurance. Interviewee #24 complained that wearing a suit – an obligation for

teachingexecutivecoursesattheJBS–wouldputhimoff.

Theopposingemotionswithrespecttowearingpyjamasorasuitmayalsobelinkedto

one dimension which has not been explicitly considered – time. The rhythms of the

organizationshapeourexperienceofspace.Wemaywelcomethequietoftheevening

aftereveryonehaslefttheoffice,butontheotherhand,weimaginethosewhohaveleft

are enjoying themselves with family and friends. The mood is different and the

perceptionofspaceshifts.Thebalancebetweenproximateandremotespacemayshift

aswell.Wemightglanceatourmessagesorsocialmediatoseewhatourfriendsareup

to.Inaway,wehavelefttheofficewiththembecauseourbodies–ourhabitualbodies–

haveorientatedourbodiestowardsthem.Ourintentionalityisinsyncwiththerhythms

oforganizationallife.Justliketheebbandflowofthecity(Tuan,1977).Theexperience

of organizational space is therefore entirely dependent upon the rhythms of the

organizationitself.Anyfuturestudybasedonthephenomenologicalmodelproposedby

thisstudywillhavetoincorporatethedimensionoftime.

Space isno longer justaquestionofwherewegoandsitandwork,butalsoofwhich

doorswediscoverandopenwiththankstoICT.Thesedoorsareinourbodyschemason

topofthosedoorsweseewithoureyeswhilewalkingdownahallway.Asamatterof

experience,spaceisnotrenderedirrelevantwithICT,butratheritisbothcollapsedand

expandedsimultaneously.Thecombinationofproximateandremotespacesforagiven

practice expands the space in the sense that the individual has at-hand more space

279

(remote),yetitiscollapsedbecauseitiscondensedintohisexperienceasbeingat-hand

atthesamelevelasproximatespace.Interviewee#30says,“EverythingIhaveisinthe

Cloud, so in theory I canwork as long as I’ve got Internet access”. This academic has

simultaneously expanded and collapsed his workspace by making his documents

availableanywhereandremotely,whileexperiencingtheseobjectsasbeingproximate

at all times. Academics also use remote space made available by ICT as a way of

managing proximate space and somewhat unbinding their practices from it. For

example,interviewee#46says:“AndwealsohavenowtheiPhonetoo,soifyouwantto

seethepictureofyourson,youcanstillgobutnothavehimthereallthetime”.Itisasif

thisacademichasreplacedhisdeskdrawerwithavirtualonewherehekeepsaphotoof

hissontolookatwheneverhefeelstheneed.

The simultaneous expansion and shrinking of space, however, presents some very

noticeableissuesforacademics.Thefactthatsomanynewobjectscanpotentiallybeat-

hand with ICT means that there are infinitely more potential sources of distraction.

Imaginestanding inaroomwithmanydoors. In this fantasy,newdoorspopupwhile

others disappear. Behind these doors there are some perceptibly interesting things

goingon.So,weenterone,andinittherearealsomanyotherdoorslikethefirstone.

Andsoon.SoonwefeellikewearewalkingthroughthePalaceofVersaillesaimlessly.

Thispurposelyspatialrepresentationofcyberspacemayseemfamiliar.Wehavealmost

allhadtheexperienceofwanderingaimlesslyontheInternet.Movingfromonelinkto

another or one tweet to another. It is a state of mind which is identical to that of

discursive thought.This is the stateofmindwe findourselves frequently inwhenwe

havea successionof thoughts each leading to thenextonewithout any intention.We

know that ICT is designed to espouse this (Harris, 2016; Manzerolle, 2014) and this

presentssomeethicalissueswhichwewilllookatinManagerialImplications.

WearethereforeleftwiththeimpressionthatthequestionregardingspaceandICTisn’t

whetheryoucanworkanywhereasmuchascananywhereworkyou?Theexperienceof

expanded/collapsed space by academics at both McGill and JBS point to new issues

being raised about the way organizational space is perceived, physical space is

conceived,andhowICTisdesigned.TheunsettlingexperienceofspaceprovokedbyICT

pushesacademicstoseparatetheirdevicesintothosefor‘fun’andthosefor‘work’.We

280

also seeotherswho seekplaceswhere there is no connectivity to the Internet. These

newwallsarebeing‘built’becausetheexperienceofspacehasbeensignificantlyaltered

by ICT. Understanding the relationship between ICT and experienced space in

organizations is imperative toensureworkerscan findabalancedmental statewhich

leadstotheirincreasedwell-being.

Aretheresultsofthisstudysurprising?YesandNo.Asremarkedintheintroduction,we

intuitively feelourexperienceofspaceshiftwith ICT,howeverwecannotquite figure

out what it is. When we try to understand, we are quick to point to physical

manifestationsofchangesintheenvironmentduetothepresenceofICT.Wehaveseen

that new charging points and Wi-Fi hotspots are often cited as material changes.

However, without the right conceptual apparatus, we will be blind to the reality of

experienceandremaintrappedinatechnologicallydeterministicviewoftheworld.For

example,theattachmenttopaperwhichwasmadeevidentbyacademicsatbothMcGill

and the JBSwassurprising. Iexpectedacademics tobeeager togopaperlessand free

themselves of what I personally felt was unnecessary weight. It was principally this

surprise – asWeir and Iedema et al. (2010; 2010) recommend –which provided the

most substantive body of evidence distinguishing the experience ofworkingwith ICT

(reading on-screen) and without ICT (reading a paper document). Another

consequentialsurprisewasthediscoverythatmostacademicsdon’t takeadvantageof

Cloud-based collaborative tools to work on the same document simultaneously. This

surpriseforcedmetoabandonthefocusofthestudyoncollaborativepracticesandtake

intoaccountawiderarrayofpractices.

4.4.1 Contributions

The clearest contribution from this study is the critique of affordance theory for the

study of ICT. The evidence strongly supports the discontinuity between instantiation

andperceptionofaffordancewhendealingwithpenetrationofICTintheenvironment

(Kallinikos,2003;Oliver,2005).This isadeficiencywhichneedstoberecognized ina

literature which tends to uncritically mobilizes affordance for the study of ICT

(Anderson&Robey,2017).

281

Thefindingsofthisstudyshowhowacademics’experienceofspace,whileengagedina

practice, shapes their bodilymovements, andhow this in turn shifts their experience.

Theexperienceofspaceistheresultofphenomenologicalengagementofthebodyinthe

world, this engagement being directed at a certain physical environment. From these

findingsemergethecontributionintheformofanalternativemodelbasedonMerleau-

Ponty’s phenomenology of perception (1976). This model addresses the critical

deficiencyinthetheoryofaffordanceidentifiedabove.Beingfocusedontheexperience

of individuals, rather than the physical environment (ICT artefact included), a

phenomenological approach isbetterable to take intoaccount the realityof everyday

interaction with ICT artefacts and what effect this may or may not have on

organizationalspace.Suchamodelcouldbeusefulinstudiesofexperientialcomputing

forinstance(Dourish,2004;Introna&Ilharco,2006;Yoo,2010).Somefurtheravenues

forfutureresearchbasedonthismodelaresuggestedinthenextsub-chapter.

Another possible contribution is inciting sociomateriality and process studies to push

beyondthetheoryofaffordancetoreconciletheobject-subjectandideal-realdualisms

bytakingaphenomenologicalstance.

Aswesetoutinthebeginningtogeneratehypotheses(Benbasatetal.,1987),the

followingpropositionscanbedevelopedfromthemodelbasedonMerleau-Ponty

(1976):

1. ICTispartofthephysicalenvironmentwithproximateandremotecomponents

2. ICT, as part of the physical environment, affects experience by both collapsing

andexpandingperceivedspace

3. ICTactsasapointofconvergenceforexperienceinthephysicalenvironment

Thesepropositionscanbetestedinfuturestudies,asIwillproposenext.

282

4.4.2 Avenuesforfutureresearch

AlthoughtheresultingmodelbasedonMerleau-Ponty’sphenomenologyofperception8

seemstobesupportedbythedata,itwillneedtobethoroughlytestedempiricallywith

newstudies.Themodelcouldbefurtherrefinedandastartercodingstructurecouldbe

developedusingtheexistingdataset.Thecomponentofhabitusisofparticularinterest,

given it is the repository of renewable action and will likely be determinant in how

organizationalspaceisexperienced.

Thepropositionsputforwardintheprevioussub-chaptershouldbetestedagainstnew

data as part of a new study. This study could be composed of cases of other types of

organizations.Basedonthecontributionsofthisstudy,wecouldformulatetheoriginal

questionas:HowareICTsshapingtheexperienceoforganizationalspace?

Anotherpossibilitywouldbetostudyhowvirtualrealityshapestheexperienceofspace,

since, as far as experience is concerned, ICT opens new doors to new spaces.

Technologies,suchasvirtualreality,allowingforsomeformofdis-embodiedpresence

allow for a very different mode of production of space (O’Neill, 2009). According to

some,virtualrealityexperiencesareincapableofproducingplacesofmeaningthatare

possibleintheembodiedexperiencesofeverydaylife(Turner,Turner,&Carroll,2005).

Thisseemstobesupportedbythedatainthisstudy,howeverthenotionofembodiment

couldberadicallyshiftedwithrapidadvancesinvirtualrealitytechnologyandartificial

intelligence.

4.4.3 Limitations

Theemergentnatureofthisstudy–especiallythetheoreticaljourney–canbeseento

beaweakness.Inchoosinganunder-theorizedareatostudy,thereisalwaystheriskof

adaptinganunsuitabletheoreticalframeworkfromtheexistingliterature.Thiswasthe

risk I took in engaging with Lefebvre at the beginning. In reading La Production de

l’espace,itseemeddifficulttometoconceptualizeICTaspartofhisanalysis.Inchoosing

8SeeFigure53

283

affordance,asit isusedinLeonardi(2011),theriskpresentedwasdifferentinnature.

Leonardi’sstudywasnotbasedonthepractices,butroutines,ofautomotiveengineers.

The relationship between routines and practices is tenuous. While a practice can be

composed of routines, it is unlikely they are equivalent. Routines – even if they are

flexible–canbeconfusedwithasetsequenceofpre-determinedactions.Inthecaseof

practices,actionsareguidedbyanover-archingpurposewhichcanproducevariations

in resulting actions or routines. Although Leonardi’s flexible routines can be seen as

practices,itintroducesacertainsemanticconfusionwhichcanbeaweakness.

Theproblemwithaffordanceshouldhavebeenevidentatthebeginning. Itwashoped

thatGibsonianaffordancewouldhaveemerged in thedata.Thiswasdisappointing,of

course. Having beenmore vigilant earlier in the processmay have helped realize the

implausibilityofaffordance.Itshouldhavebeenmoreforcefullyconfrontedduringthe

literaturereviewandattheendoftheanalysisoftheMcGillcasewhenthetriadiccausal

modelwasdeveloped.ThiswouldhaveallowedmetotestthemodelIdevelopedbased

on Merleau-Ponty (1976) with a large dataset. Critiques of the appropriation of

affordance following a similar line of argument as the one in this study have already

been made (Oliver, 2005; Parchoma, 2014). The frustration with the process of

conceptualizing the relationshipbetweenspaceand ICTand thedesire to forgeahead

with data collection were factors in making this judgement. On the other hand, the

critique’spositedbybothOliverandParchomaaren’tasforcefulontheirownwithout

empirical data to support their arguments. It is important in the scientific process to

prove oneself wrong in order to progress. In this case I was wrong about choosing

affordance, but at least I am certain that Iwaswrong, especially given it is based on

empiricaldata.Mycritiqueofaffordanceishencemorerobust.

Although not entirely absent, and implied in the consideration of practices, the

dimensionoftimedidnotfigureprominentlyinthisstudy.Asweseetowardstheendof

the discussion, temporal rhythms and cycles affect the experience of academics and

modulate that of space. The decision to not incorporate time in the framework was

sensible given how difficult theorizing space is. However, it is important to note that

withouttime,thereisnospace.Bynotconsideringitinourframework,wemaydeprive

ourselvesofinterestinginsightsonvariationsinpatternsinthedata.

284

A specific limitation of the proposed model based on Merleau-Ponty (1976) is that

Practice isan independentvariable.Howispractice itselfchangedbyexperience?Can

intentionalitydirect thebodyschema towards thepractice itself tomodify it?What is

theroleofhabitusinmaintainingpractice?Thesequestionsshowthatthismodelneeds

furtherdevelopmentwithfurtherinquiry.

Beforeembarkingonthisstudy,IconsideredYin’sfourteststodeterminethequalityof

case studies for the research design. All four were addressed by using tactics Yin

suggests, however it is perhaps on reliability that this study isweakest. A case-study

protocolwasn’tproducedwiththedetailrequiredforthestudytoberepeated.Acase-

studyprotocolcouldbeproducedusingdatastoredinthecase-studydatabaseandtools

suchasNVivo,howeversomecriticaldetails,especiallyregardingfielddecisions,would

likelybemissing.

4.4.4 ManagerialImplications

As we have seen earlier in the discussion, some ethical questions are raised by the

intentionaldesignofattentiongrabbingandhabit-formingICT.Accordingtothelogicof

the ‘attention economy’, industry seeks to maximize time spent on websites and

applicationstomaximizeprofits.Thisresultsinthedesignofachoicearchitecturethat

resultsinpeoplespendingmoreandmoretimeontheirconnecteddevicesandfeeling

theyarewastingtheirtimeintheend.Thisconcurswithmyexperience.Ifeelthatover-

stimulusfromtheexpandedspaceofICTcanbedisruptive.Notificationsondevicesare

the equivalent of having people slipping notes on your desk at regular intervals or,

worse,knockingonthedoorevery5minutes.EvenmyiTunesrefreshingonthesecond

screenonmydeskwilldistractmemomentarilyfromthefirstonewhereIamworking.

This level of distraction has implications for employers and the well-being of their

employees.Howwould you like to have a persondroppingnotes on your employees’

deskseveryfiveminutes?Designers,employersandthegeneralpublicshouldbemade

more aware of the intentional nature of this phenomenon. One interviewee atMcGill

suggestedthatdesignersshouldmakeitpossibleforuserstopartitiontheirdevicesinto

‘spaces’suchthatitcanbeputintoamodewhereonlyprofessionalappsareavailable

285

andabletosendnotifications.Perhapsaprofilecanbecreatedforeachtypeof‘space’.

We observe that this suggestion replicates the existing partitions in the physical

environment. State regulation could be a solution as well, such as the French

government’sdecisiontogranttocitizensthelegalrightto‘switchoff’afterofficehours

(2016a). This means employers are no longer able to legally oblige workers to stay

connectedtotheiremailsafterworkinghours.This isa firststep inrecognitionof the

problem, but there needs to be a wider discussion about the ethics of the ‘attention

economy’anditseffectsonthewell-beingofthegeneralpublic.

Amoredirectconsequence–andevidencesupportingtheargumentofthisstudy–are

the new risks the altered experience of space pose for the general public. I have

numerous times been involved in near-miss situations withmotorists or pedestrians

completelyabsorbedintheirmobiledeviceanddistractedfromtheirdrivingorwalking.

Needlesstosayhowdangerousthisis,butsuchbehaviouriscommonplace.Atleastone

cityhastakenactionbyinstallingsignallingforpedestriansembeddedinthepavement

(Noak,2016).ThenewriskspresentedbyalteredperceptionofspaceduetoICTneedto

berecognizedbybothpublicofficialsandmanagers.

286

5 GeneralConclusion

The point of departure for this study was a realization that my experience of space

wouldnotbethesamedependingonwhetherIwasengagingwithICTornot.Thiswasa

realizationwhichstruckmeasparticularlypoignantgivenhowmuchtime isspentby

manyofus engaged intimatelywith ICT. Iwasparticularly intriguedbyhow thiswas

experienced by office workers. How does the worker experience space in these

conditions?Howdoworkers interactwith the immediatephysical environmentwhen

theyarestaringattheirscreens?Howistheexperienceofspaceproduced,andwhatis

the roleof ICT inproducing it?How isorganizational spaceaffected?Thesequestions

were asked against the backdrop of technological determinism in both the public

discourseandscholarshipthatassumestechnologyasovercomingdistanceandmaking

spaceirrelevantfororganizations.

Thestudybeganwithanexploratoryphasewiththewiderresearchquestionlookingat

how ICT and organizational spaces shape each other in business schools. Some

preliminary fieldwork and further review of the literature then yielded the following

researchquestionwhichwasmaintainedfortherestofthestudy:HowdoesICTafford

thespatialpracticesoforganizations?

First,theresultsdemonstratetheinadequacyofaffordanceforthestudyofICTgiventhe

latter’snature.Althoughthisinadequacyhasalreadybeenidentifiedbysomescholars,

wehavebeenabletodemonstratewiththisstudyhow,inpractice,affordanceisunable

to explain the relationship between the properties of ICT and the perception of the

possibilitiesitoffers.

Second, the findings show how academics’ experience of space, while engaged in a

practice, shapes their bodilymovements, andhow this in turn shifts their experience.

Theexperienceofspaceistheresultofphenomenologicalengagementofthebodyinthe

world, this engagement being directed at a certain physical environment. Hence, the

studyproposesanalternativeperspectivebasedonthephenomenologyofperceptionof

Merleau-Ponty.Amodel,grounded in the findings, isproposedandsuccessfully tested

againstthedata.Thisalternativeperspectivesuggeststhat,basedontheexperienceof

287

academics, ICT simultaneously collapses and expands space. ICT acts as a point of

singularitywhereproximateandremotespacesconvergetoproduceasingularsphere

of experience. The study further developsMerleau-Ponty’s concepts of intentionality,

body schema, habitus, knowing body, and habitual body in the context of the spatial

practices of academics. I propose abandoning affordance theory in favour of an

experientialapproachtounderstandtherelationshipbetweenorganizationalspaceand

ICT.

I propose testing the alternativemodel in a future studyof organizational spaces and

practices.Forthisfuturestudy,Iproposethefollowingresearchquestion:HowareICTs

shaping the experience of organizational space? I also propose studying the effects of

virtualrealitytechnologiesontheexperienceofspace.

Somemanagerial implicationsareputforward.Isuggestthereisanethical issuetobe

addressedregardinghowICTisdesignedtoalterourexperienceofspacetomonopolize

ourattentionaspartofthe‘attentioneconomy’.Iarguethatthewellbeingofemployees

and the general public are at stake and that such distractive potential sitting on our

deskscancostorganizationsandsocietydearly.

Ithereforechallengethedominantnarrativethatorganizationalspaceisbeingcollapsed

byICTandrendering it lessrelevant.Asamatterofexperience,space isnotrendered

irrelevantwith ICT, but rather it is both collapsed and expanded simultaneously. The

combinationofproximateandremotespacesforagivenpracticeexpandsthespacein

the sense that the individual has at-hand more space (remote), yet it is collapsed

because it is condensed into his experience as being at-hand at the same level as

proximate space. Organizational space has never been more relevant with the

exponentiallyincreasinghourswespendstaringintoascreen.

288

6 ListofFigures

Figure1–Genealogyofspacetheory(Author)..................................................................................33Figure2–FrameworkrelatingICTwithspatialpractices(Author).........................................73Figure3–ParingbetweenspatialpracticesandICT(Author)...................................................73Figure4–TheoreticalframeworkbasedonLeonardi(2011)(Author).................................76Figure5–Entanglementbetweensocialandtechnologicalaffordances(Author)............79Figure6–Riparianmetaphorforaffordance,habitusandpractice(Author)......................81Figure7–PerspectiveofMcGillcampusfromPlaceVilleMarie(Author).............................90Figure8–TheBronfmanBuilding,SherbrookeStreet,Montreal(Canada)(Author)......91Figure9–TheJudgeBusinessSchool,Cambridge,UK(JBSInstitutionalWebsite)...........92Figure10–ViewoftheJBSatriumfromthe3rdfloor(Author)..................................................93Figure11–NVivonodesforExploratoryPhase(Author)..........................................................101Figure12–Officeofinterviewee#21withmobilemagnified(Author)..............................146Figure13–Officeofinterviewee#18withmobilemagnified(Author)..............................147Figure14–Officeofinterviewee#23withmobilemagnified(Author)..............................147Figure15–Officeofinterviewee#20withmobilemagnified(Author)..............................148Figure16–Officeofinterviewee#16withmobilemagnified(Author)..............................148Figure17–CodingchartforIntensivePhaseatMcGill(Author).............................................153Figure18–CodingstructurefortheIntensivePhaseatMcGill(Author)............................154Figure19–Mainreceptionareaofthe5thflooroftheBronfmanBuildingatMcGill

(Author)..................................................................................................................................................167Figure20–Mainreceptionareaofthe5thflooroftheBronfmanBuildingatMcGill

(Author)..................................................................................................................................................167Figure21–Hallwaygivingaccesstofacultyofficeson5thflooroftheBronfmanBuilding

atMcGill(Author)...............................................................................................................................168Figure22–Signpostedinreceptionareaof5thflooroftheBronfmanBuildingatMcGill

(Author)..................................................................................................................................................174Figure23–Mainreceptionareaofthe5thflooroftheBronfmanBuildingatMcGill

(Author)..................................................................................................................................................175Figure24–Mainreceptionareaofthe5thflooroftheBronfmanBuildingatMcGill

(Author)..................................................................................................................................................175Figure25–TriadiccausalmodellinkingPhysicalEnvironment,Affordance,Practiceand

Body(Author).......................................................................................................................................183Figure26–NewcodingstructurefortheIntensivePhaseatJBSafteranalysisofMcGill

(Author)..................................................................................................................................................184Figure27–CodingchartforIntensivePhaseatJBS(Author)..................................................187Figure28–OfficeofInterviewee#34(Author)..............................................................................192Figure29–OfficeofInterviewee#37(Author)..............................................................................193Figure30–OfficeofInterviewee#37(Author)..............................................................................194Figure31–OfficeofInterviewee#37(Author)..............................................................................194Figure32–Interviewee#41atherworkstationwithnotebooksandbackpackvisible

(Author)..................................................................................................................................................200Figure33–Interviewee#48atherdesk(Author)........................................................................205Figure34–OfficeofInterviewee#32(Author)..............................................................................216Figure35–OfficeofInterviewee#24withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified

(Author)..................................................................................................................................................220

289

Figure36–OfficeofInterviewee#32withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)..................................................................................................................................................221

Figure37–OfficeofInterviewee#35withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)..................................................................................................................................................221

Figure38–OfficeofInterviewee#36withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)..................................................................................................................................................222

Figure39–OfficeofInterviewee#37withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)..................................................................................................................................................222

Figure40–OfficeofInterviewee#40withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)..................................................................................................................................................223

Figure41–OfficeofInterviewee#41withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)..................................................................................................................................................223

Figure42–OfficeofInterviewee#44withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)..................................................................................................................................................224

Figure43–OfficeofInterviewee#45withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)..................................................................................................................................................224

Figure44–OfficeofInterviewee#47withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)..................................................................................................................................................225

Figure45–OfficeofInterviewee#48withsmartphonecircledinredandmagnified(Author)..................................................................................................................................................225

Figure46–CommonRoomattheJBS(Author)..............................................................................237Figure47–AtriumspaceattheJBS(Author)..................................................................................237Figure48–CasecomparisondiagramgeneratedwithNVivo(Author)..............................251Figure49–Bayareawithtableon5thflooroftheJBS(Author)............................................257Figure50–Chargingpodinbayareaof5thflooroftheJBS(Author)..................................257Figure51–Triadiccausalmodel(Author).......................................................................................259Figure52–Merleau-Ponty’s(1976)phenomenologyofperception(Author).................269Figure53–AlternativemodelbasedonMerleau-Ponty(1976)(Author)..........................273

290

7 ListofTables

Table1–Lefebvre’sSpatialTriadbasedonElden(2004)(Author)........................................31Table2–OverviewofOrganizationalSpaceLiteraturebasedonTaylor&Spicer(2007)

(Author).....................................................................................................................................................38Table3–Breakdownofinstancesofcodebyactivity(Author)..............................................189

291

8 References

2014a.EmploymentRightsAct1996.InH.Government(Ed.).London:TheStationeryOfficeLimited.

2014b.TheProductiveValueoftheUntappedWorkforce:AStudyintothePotentialEconomicImpactsofaFlexibleWorkingCulture:41.London,UK:CentreforEconomicsandBusinessResearch.

2015.COMMISSIONDECISIONof17.12.2015ontheimplementationofteleworkinCommissionDepartments.InE.Commission(Ed.),C(2015)9151finaled.:8.Brussels,Belgium:EuropeanCommission.

2016a.LOIn°2016-1088du8août2016relativeautravail,àlamodernisationdudialoguesocialetàlasécurisationdesparcoursprofessionnels(1)Codedutravail.France.

2016b.WorkingAnywhere:AWinningFormulaforGoodWork?:26.Lancaster,UK:TheWorkFoundation(LancasterUniversity).

Algra,K.1995.ConceptsofspaceinGreekthought.Leiden;NewYork:E.J.Brill.Alvesson,M.,&Sköldberg,K.2009.Reflexivemethodology:Newvistasfor

qualitativeresearch.ThousandOaksCA:Sage.Anderson,C.,&Robey,D.2017.Affordancepotency:Explainingtheactualizationof

technologyaffordances.InformationandOrganization,27(2):100-115.Apollinaire,G.2013.Calligrammes.Paris:Flammarion.Apple,M.W.,Ball,S.J.,&Gandin,L.s.A.2010.TheRoutledgeinternational

handbookofthesociologyofeducation.London;NewYork:Routledge.Avital,M.2014.ConstructingtheValueofInformationSystemsResearch.

CommunicationsoftheAssociationforInformationSystems(CAIS),34:817–822.

Bachelard,G.1957.Lapoétiquedel'espace.Paris:PressesuniversitairesdeFrance.Bailey,D.E.,&Kurland,N.B.2002.Areviewofteleworkresearch:findings,new

directions,andlessonsforthestudyofmodernwork.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,23:383-400.

Bakke,J.W.,&Julsrud,T.2008.Contestedterrain:place,work,andorganizationalidentities.InP.Turner,S.Turner,&E.Davenport(Eds.),Explorationofspace,technology,andspatiality:interdisciplinaryperspectives:41-53.Hershey,PA:InformationScienceReference.

Bardini,T.1996.Changementetréseauxsocio-techniques:del'inscriptionàl'affordance.Réseaux,14(76):125-155.

Bazeley,P.,&Jackson,K.2013.QualitativedataanalysiswithNVivo.London:SAGE.Benbasat,I.,Goldstein,D.K.,&Mead,M.1987.TheCaseResearchStrategyinStudies

ofInformation-Systems.MISQuarterly,11(3):369-386.Berg,P.O.,&Kreiner,K.1990.Corporatearchitecture:Turningphysicalsettingsinto

symbolicresources.InP.Gagliardi(Ed.),Symbolsandartifacts:Viewsofthecorporatelandscape:41-67.NY:AldinedeGruyter.

292

Bernhard,E.,Recker,J.C.,&Burton-Jones,A.2013.Understandingtheactualizationofaffordances:Astudyintheprocessmodelingcontext,InternationalConferenceonInformationSystems(ICIS2013).UniversitàBocconi,Milan.

Beyes,T.,&Michels,C.2011.Theproductionofeducationalspace:Heterotopiaandthebusinessuniversity.ManagementLearning,42(5):521-536.

Boell,S.K.,&Cecez-Kecmanovic,D.2014.Ahermeneuticapproachforconductingliteraturereviewsandliteraturesearches.CommunicationsoftheAssociationforInformationSystems,34(1):257-286.

Bourdieu,P.1980.Lesenspratique.Paris:LesÉditionsdeMinuitavecleconcoursdelaMaisondesSciencesdel'Homme.

Bourdieu,P.1996.Physicalspace,socialspaceandhabitus,LectureattheUniversityofOslo:1996.Oslo.

Braudel,F.1995.TheMediterraneanandtheMediterraneanWorldintheAgeofPhilipII.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Bresnahan,T.F.,&Gambardella,A.(Eds.).2004.Buildinghigh-techclusters:SiliconValleyandbeyond.Cambridge:Cambridgeuniversitypress.

Brown,J.S.,&Duguid,P.2001.Knowledgeandorganization:Asocial-practiceperspective.Organizationscience,12(2):198-213.

Cairncross,F.2001.Thedeathofdistance:howthecommunicationsrevolutionischangingourlives(Completelynewed.).Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Cairns,G.2002.Aesthetics,moralityandpower:Designasespousedfreedomandimplicitcontrol.HumanRelations,55(7):799-820.

Cairns,G.,McInnes,P.,&Roberts,P.2003.Organizationalspace/time:Fromimperfectpanopticaltoheterotopianunderstanding.Ephemera:CriticalDialoguesonOrganization,3:126-138.

Casey,E.S.1997.Thefateofplace:aphilosophicalhistory.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Castells,M.2010.Theriseofthenetworksociety.Chichester,WestSussex;Malden,MA:Wiley-Blackwell.

Certeau,M.d.,Giard,L.,&Mayol,P.1990.L'inventionduquotidien,tome1:Artsdefaire(Nouv.éd.ed.).Paris:Gallimard.

Certeau,M.d.,&Rendall,S.1984.Thepracticeofeverydaylife.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Charle,C.,&Verger,J.1994.Histoiredesuniversités.Paris:PressesuniversitairesdeFrance.

Christensen,C.M.,&Eyring,H.J.2011.Theinnovativeuniversity:ChangingtheDNAofhighereducationfromtheinsideout.NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.

CiscoSystems.2016.WorkplaceTransformation:CiscoSystems.Clegg,S.,&Kornberger,M.2006.Space,OrganizationsandManagementTheory.

Oslo:Liber.Clegg,S.,&vanIterson,A.2013.Theeffectsofliquefyingplace,time,and

organizationalboundariesonemployeebehavior:Lessonsofclassicalsociology.M@n@gement,16:621-635.

293

Costas,J.2013.ProblematizingMobility:AMetaphorofStickiness,Non-PlacesandtheKineticElite.OrganizationStudies,34(10):1467-1485.

Cresswell,T.,&Merriman,P.2011.Geographiesofmobilitiespractices,spaces,subjects.Farnham,Surrey;Burlington,VT:Ashgate.

Crowell,S.G.2001.Husserl,Heidegger,andtheSpaceofMeaning:PathsTowardTrancendentalPhenomenology.Chicago:NorthwesternUniversityPress.

Czarniawska,B.2016.AResearchAgendaforManagementandOrganizationStudies.Cheltenham:EdwardElgarPublishing.

Dale,K.,&Burrell,G.2007.TheSpacesofOrganisationandtheOrganisationofSpace:Power,IdentityandMaterialityatWork.London:PalgraveMacmillan.

Dale,K.,&Burrell,G.2010.Alltogether,altogetherbetter:Theidealof‘community’inthespatialreorganizationoftheworkplace.InA.VanMarrewijk,&D.Yanow(Eds.),OrganizationalSpaces:RematerializingTheWorkadayWorld:19-40.Cheltenham:EdwardElgarPublishing.

Dandridge,T.C.,Mitroff,I.,&Joyce,W.F.1980.OrganizationalSymbolism:ATopictoExpandOrganizationalAnalysis.TheAcademyofManagementReview,5(1):77-82.

DeVaujany,F.-X.,Hussenot,A.,&Chanlat,J.-F.(Eds.).2016.Théoriesdesorganisations:nouveauxtournants.Paris:Economica.

DeVaus,D.A.,&deVaus,D.2001.Researchdesigninsocialresearch:Sage.Dehaene,M.,&Cauter,L.D.2008.HeterotopiaandtheCity:PublicSpaceina

PostcivilSociety.London&NewYork:Routledge.Dimaggio,P.J.,&Powell,W.W.1983.Theironcagerevisited:Collectiverationality

andinstitutionalisomorphisminorganizationalfields.AmericanSociologicalReview,48(2):147-160.

Dourish,P.2004.Wheretheactionis:thefoundationsofembodiedinteraction.Cambridge,MA:MITpress.

El-Bizri,N.2011.BeingatHomeAmongThings:Heidegger’sReflectionsonDwelling.Environment,Space,Place,3(1):47–71.

Elden,S.2004.UnderstandingHenriLefebvretheoryandthepossible.London;NewYork:Continuum.

Elliott,A.,&Urry,J.2010.Mobilelives.London:NewYork:Routledge.Engels,F.1845.DieLagederarbeitendenKlasseinEngland,nacheinerAnschauung

undauthentischenQuellen,vonFriedrichEngels.Leipzig:O.Wigand.English-Lueck,J.A.2000.SiliconValleyreinventsthecompanytown.Futures,32(8):

759-766.Faraj,S.,&Azad,B.2012.Thematerialityoftechnology:Anaffordanceperspective.

InP.M.Leonardi,B.A.Nardi,&J.Kallinikos(Eds.),Materialityandorganizing:Socialinteractioninatechnologicalworld:237-258.Oxford:OUP.

Fayard,A.-L.,&Weeks,J.2011.WhoMovedMyCube?HarvardBusinessReview,89:102-110.

Fayard,A.L.,&Metiu,A.2014.Theroleofwritingindistributedcollaboration.OrganizationScience,25(5):1391-1413.

294

Fayard,A.L.,&Weeks,J.2007.Photocopiersandwater-coolers:Theaffordancesofinformalinteraction.OrganizationStudies,28(5):605-634.

Fayard,A.L.,&Weeks,J.2014.Affordancesforpractice.InformationandOrganization,24(4):236-249.

Feldman,M.S.,&Orlikowski,W.J.2011.TheorizingPracticeandPracticingTheory.OrganizationScience,22(5):1240-1253.

Felstead,A.2012.Rapidchangeorslowevolution?ChangingplacesofworkandtheirconsequencesintheUK.JournalofTransportGeography,21:31-38.

Ferriss,T.2007.The4-hourworkweek:escapethe9-5,liveanywhereandjointhenewrich.London:Vermilion.

Foucault,M.1980.Power/Knowledge:SelectedInterviewsandOtherWritings,1972-1977:KnopfDoubledayPublishingGroup.

Fried,J.,&Hansson,D.H.2013.Remote:officenotrequired.NewYork,N.Y.:Vermilion.

Friedman,T.L.2007.Theworldisflat:abriefhistoryofthetwenty-firstcentury(1stfurtherupdatedandexpandedhardcovered.).NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux.

Galison,P.L.,&Thompson,E.A.(Eds.).1999.Thearchitectureofscience.Cambridge(Mass.):MITpress.

Gaver,W.W.1991.Technologyaffordances.PaperpresentedattheProceedingsoftheSIGCHIconferenceonHumanfactorsincomputingsystems.

Gaver,W.W.1996.SituatingactionII:Affordancesforinteraction:Thesocialismaterialfordesign.EcologicalPsychology,8(2):111-129.

Geilinger,N.,Haefliger,S.,vonKrogh,G.,&Rechsteiner,L.2016.Whatmakesasocialpractice?Being,knowing,doingandleading.EuropeanManagementJournal,34(4):319-327.

Gibson,J.J.1988.Theecologicalapproachtovisualperception:classicedition.NY:PsychologyPress.

Giddens,A.1984.Theconstitutionofsociety:outlineofthetheoryofstructuration.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Glaser,B.G.,&Strauss,A.L.1967.Thediscoveryofgroundedtheory:strategiesforqualitativeresearch.Chicago:AldinePub.Co.

Goodsell,C.T.1988.TheSocialMeaningofCivicSpace:StudyingPoliticalAuthorityThroughArchitecture.Lawrence:UniversityPressofKansas.

Graham,S.1998.Theendofgeographyortheexplosionofplace?Conceptualizingspace,placeandinformationtechnology.ProgressinHumanGeography,22(2):165-185.

Graham,S.,&Marvin,S.1996.Telecommunicationsandthecityelectronicspaces,urbanplaces.London;NewYork:Routledge.

Greeno,J.G.1994.Gibson'saffordances.PsychologicalReview,101(2):336-342.Gulson,K.N.,&Symes,C.2007.SpatialTheoriesofEducation:PolicyandGeography

Matters.London&NY:Routledge.Gutting,G.(Ed.).2005.TheCambridgeCompaniontoFoucault.Cambridge,UK:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

295

Harris,T.2016.HowTechnologyHijacksPeople’sMinds — fromaMagicianandGoogle’sDesignEthicist,http://www.tristanharris.com/essays/.

Harvey,D.1989.TheConditionofPostmodernity:AnEnquiryIntotheOriginsofCulturalChange.Chichester:Wiley.

Harwood,J.2011.TheInterface:IBMandtheTransformationofCorporateDesign,1945-1976.Minneapolis,Minn.:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Hatch,M.J.1990.Thesymbolicsofofficedesign:anempiricalexploration.InP.Gagliardi(Ed.),Symbolsandartifacts:Viewsofthecorporatelandscape:129-146:AldinedeGruyter.

Heft,H.1989.Affordancesandthebody:AnintentionalanalysisofGibson'secologicalapproachtovisualperception.Journalforthetheoryofsocialbehaviour,19(1):1-30.

Heidegger,M.2007.Beingandtime(J.Macquarrie,&E.Robinson,Trans.).Malden(Mass.):BlackwellPublications.

Hernes,T.2004.SpatialConstructionofOrganization.Philadelphia,PA,USA:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.

Hjorth,D.2005.OrganizationalEntrepreneurship:WithdeCerteauonCreatingHeterotopias(orSpacesforPlay).JournalofManagementInquiry,14(4):386-398.

Hook,S.1962.FromHegeltoMarx:studiesintheintellectualdevelopmentofKarlMarx.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.

Husserl,E.1997.ThingandSpace.Lecturesof1907.Dordrecht:Springer.Husserl,E.2012.Ideas:GeneralIntroductiontoPurePhenomenology.London,NY:

Routledge.Hutchby,I.2001.Technologies,textsandaffordances.Sociology-theJournalofthe

BritishSociologicalAssociation,35(2):441-456.Iedema,R.,Long,D.,&Carroll,K.2010.Corridorcommunication,spatialdesignand

patientsafety:enactingandmanagingcomplexities.InA.V.Marrewijk,&D.Yanow(Eds.),Organizationalspaces:Rematerializingtheworkadayworld:41-57.Cheltenham:EdwardElgarPublishing.

InternationalLabourOffice.2001.Theconstructionindustryinthetwenty-firstcentury:Itsimage,employmentprospectsandskillrequirements:68.Geneva:ILO.

Introna,L.D.,&Ilharco,F.M.2006.Onthemeaningofscreens:Towardsaphenomenologicalaccountofscreenness.HumanStudies,29(1):57-76.

Jammer,M.2013.ConceptsofSpace:TheHistoryofTheoriesofSpaceinPhysics.Mineola(NY):DoverPublications.

Jenkins,H.S.2008.Gibson’s“affordances”:evolutionofapivotalconcept.JournalofScientificPsychology,12(2008):34-45.

Jenkins,S.2010.HegelonSpace:ACritiqueofKant'sTranscendentalPhilosophy.Inquiry-anInterdisciplinaryJournalofPhilosophy,53(4):326-355.

Jones,A.2009.TheorizingGlobalBusinessSpaces.GeografiskaAnnaler:SeriesB,HumanGeography,91(3):203-218.

296

Kallinikos,J.2003.Work,humanagencyandorganizationalforms:Ananatomyoffragmentation.OrganizationStudies,24(4):595-618.

Kallinikos,J.2012.Form,function,andmatter:Crossingtheborderofmateriality.InP.M.Leonardi,B.A.Nardi,&J.Kallinikos(Eds.),Materialityandorganizing:Socialinteractioninatechnologicalworld:67-87.Oxford:OUP.

Kant,I.,Noiré,L.,&Müller,F.M.1881.ImmanuelKant'sCritiqueofpurereason.Incommemorationofthecentenaryofitsfirstpublication.London:Macmillan.

Kaptelinin,V.,&Nardi,B.2012.AffordancesinHCI:towardamediatedactionperspective.PaperpresentedattheProceedingsoftheSIGCHIConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems.

Knowles,S.G.,&Leslie,S.W.2001."IndustrialVersailles"-EeroSaarinen'scorporatecampusesforGM,IBM,andAT&T.Isis,92(1):1-33.

Kreiner,K.2010.Organizationalspaces:from‘matteroffact’to‘matterofconcern’.InA.VanMarrewijk,Yanow,D.(Ed.),OrganizationalSpaces:Rematerializingtheworkadayworld:200-212.Cheltenham,UK:EdwardElgar.

Leclercq-Vandelannoitte,A.,Isaac,H.,&Kalika,M.2014.Mobileinformationsystemsandorganisationalcontrol:beyondthepanopticonmetaphor?EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems,23(5):543-557.

Lefebvre,H.1974.LaProductiondel'espace.Paris:Anthropos.Lefebvre,H.1991.TheProductionofSpace.Oxford:Blackwell.Leonardi,P.M.2011.WhenFlexibleRoutinesMeetFlexibleTechnologies:

Affordance,Constraint,andtheImbricationofHumanandMaterialAgencies.MISQuarterly,35(1):147-167.

Leonardi,P.M.,&Barley,S.R.2010.What’sUnderConstructionHere?SocialAction,Materiality,andPowerinConstructivistStudiesofTechnologyandOrganizing.TheAcademyofManagementAnnals,4(1):1-51.

Lister,K.2016.LatestTelecommutingStatistics:GlobalWorkplaceAnalytics.Mace,W.M.1977.JamesJ.Gibson’sstrategyforperceiving:Asknotwhat’sinside

yourhead,butwhatyourhead’sinsideof.InR.Shaw,&J.Bransford(Eds.),Perceiving,acting,andknowing:43-65.Hillsdale,NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Maitland,A.2016.Theofficeisdead!Longlivetheoffice!,FinancialTimes:TheFinancialTimes,30/06/16,https://www.ft.com/content/bc52a558-36de-11e6-a780-b48ed7b6126f.

Majchrzak,A.,&Markus,M.L.2012.Technologyaffordancesandconstraintsinmanagementinformationsystems(MIS).InE.H.Kessler(Ed.),EncyclopediaofManagementTheory:Forthcoming:SagePublications.

Makkreel,R.A.,&Luft,S.2009.Neo-KantianisminContemporaryPhilosophy.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

Malpas,J.2006.Heidegger'stopology:being,place,world.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.

Manzerolle,V.2014.TechnologiesofImmediacy/EconomiesofAttention.InL.McGuigan,&V.Manzerolle(Eds.),TheAudienceCommodityintheDigitalAge:207-228.NY:PeterLangPublishing.

297

Marrewijk,A.V.,&Yanow,D.2010.OrganizationalSpaces:RematerializingtheWorkadayWorld.Cheltenham:EdwardElgarPublishingLtd.

Marx,K.2012.Capital,VolumeOne:ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy.Mineola(NY):DoverPublications.

McGrenere,J.,&Ho,W.2000.Affordances:Clarifyingandevolvingaconcept.PaperpresentedattheProceedingsofGraphicInterface2000,Montreal.

Merleau-Ponty,M.1976.Phénoménologiedelaperception.Paris:Gallimard.Miles,M.B.,&Huberman,A.M.1994.Qualitativedataanalysis:Anexpanded

sourcebook.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Mitchell,W.J.1995.Cityofbits:space,place,andtheinfobahn.Cambridge,Mass.:

MITPress.Most,S.B.,Simons,D.J.,Scholl,B.J.,Jimenez,R.,Clifford,E.,&Chabris,C.F.2001.

Hownottobeseen:Thecontributionofsimilarityandselectiveignoringtosustainedinattentionalblindness.PsychologicalScience,12(1):9-17.

Nappi-Choule,I.2011.Estimationducoûtimmobilierglobalparsalarié:applicationauxactivitéstertiairessupérieuresdanslesquartiersd'affairesparisiens.Revued’ÉconomieRégionale&Urbaine(3):575-599.

Noak,R.2016.Thiscityembeddedtrafficlightsinthesidewalkssothatsmartphoneusersdon’thavetolookup,TheWashingtonPost,Onlineed.

Norman,D.A.1988.Thepsychologyofeverydaythings.NY:Basicbooks.Norman,D.A.1999.Affordance,conventions,anddesign.Interactions,6(3):38-43.O’Neill,S.2009.Theinteractivespectacleandthedigitalsituationist.Paper

presentedattheProceedingsofthe2ndSpaceSpatialityandTechnologyWorkshop.

Ocasio,W.1997.Towardsanattention-basedviewofthefirm.Strategicmanagementjournal,18:187-206.

Oliver,M.2005.Theproblemwithaffordance.E-LearningandDigitalMedia,2(4):402-413.

Orlikowski,W.J.2000.Usingtechnologyandconstitutingstructures:Apracticelensforstudyingtechnologyinorganizations.OrganizationScience,11(4):404-428.

Orlikowski,W.J.2010.Thesociomaterialityoforganisationallife:consideringtechnologyinmanagementresearch.CambridgeJournalofEconomics,34(1):125-141.

Orlikowski,W.J.,&Iacono,C.S.2001.ResearchCommentary:DesperatelySeekingthe“IT”inITResearch—ACalltoTheorizingtheITArtifact.InformationSystemsResearch,12(2):121-134.

Panayiotou,A.,&Kafiris,K.2010.Firmsinfilm:representationsoforganizationalspace,genderandpower,OrganisationalSpaces:RematerializingtheWorkadayWorld:174-199.Cheltenham,UK:EdwardElgar.

Parchoma,G.2014.Thecontestedontologyofaffordances:Implicationsforresearchingtechnologicalaffordancesforcollaborativeknowledgeproduction.ComputersinHumanBehavior,37:360-368.

298

Pozzi,G.,Pigni,F.,&Vitari,C.2014.AffordancetheoryintheISdiscipline:Areviewandsynthesisoftheliterature,20thAmericasConferenceonInformationSystems.Savannah.

Rapoport,A.1982.Themeaningofthebuiltenvironment:anonverbalcommunicationapproach.BeverlyHills:SagePublications.

Riccio,G.E.,&Stoffregen,T.A.1988.Affordancesasconstraintsonthecontrolofstance.HumanMovementScience,7(2-4):265-300.

Rockmann,K.W.,&Pratt,M.G.2015.ContagiousOffsiteWorkandtheLonelyOffice:TheUnintendedConsequencesofDistributedWork.AcademyofManagementDiscoveries,1(2):150-164.

Rogers,Y.2004.NewtheoreticalapproachesforHCI.Annualreviewofinformationscienceandtechnology,38(1):87-143.

Sartre,J.-P.2012.BeingandNothingness.NY:OpenRoadMedia.Schatzki,T.R.,Knorr-Cetina,K.,&Savigny,E.v.2001.Thepracticeturnin

contemporarytheory.NewYork:Routledge.Sheller,M.,&Urry,J.2006.Thenewmobilitiesparadigm.EnvironmentandPlanning

A,38(2):207-226.Siegert,S.2015.EnactingBoundariesThroughSocialTechnologies:TheDance

BetweenWorkandPrivateLife.StockholmUniversity,Stockholm.Silverman,D.2005.Doingqualitativeresearch:apracticalhandbook(2nded.):

London:Sage.Silverman,D.2017.Howwasitforyou?TheInterviewSocietyandtheirresistiblerise

ofthe(poorlyanalyzed)interview.QualitativeResearch,17(2):144-158.Silverman,D.,&Marvasti,A.B.2008.Doingqualitativeresearch:acomprehensive

guide.LosAngeles:SagePublications.Simmel,G.1997.SimmelonCulture:SelectedWritings:SagePublications.Simmel,G.2009.Sociology:InquiriesIntotheConstructionofSocialForms.Leiden:

Brill.Soja,E.W.1989.PostmodernGeographies:TheReassertionofSpaceinCritical

SocialTheory.London,NY:Verso.Stendal,K.,Thapa,D.,&Lanamäki,A.2016.AnalyzingtheConceptofAffordancesin

InformationSystems.Paperpresentedatthe201649thHawaiiInternationalConferenceonSystemSciences(HICSS).

Strauss,A.,&Corbin,J.1994.Groundedtheorymethodology:Anoverview.InN.K.Denzin,&Y.S.Lincoln(Eds.),Handbookofqualitativeresearch:273-285.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Tang,J.C.,Chen,H.,Chin,A.,Hehmeyer,A.,Suciu,J.,Palmer,J.,&Shtiegman,E.2013.Currentperspectivesonawarenessinformationtosupportreal-timecommunication.Paperpresentedatthe2013InternationalConferenceonCollaborationTechnologiesandSystems(CTS).

Taskin,L.2010.Ladéspatialisation.Revuefrançaisedegestion(202):61-76.Taylor,S.,&Spicer,A.2007.Timeforspace:Anarrativereviewofresearchon

organizationalspaces.InternationalJournalofManagementReviews,9(4):325-346.

299

Townsend,A.M.,DeMarie,S.M.,&Hendrickson,A.R.1998.Virtualteams:Technologyandtheworkplaceofthefuture.TheAcademyofManagementExecutive,12(3):17-29.

Tuan,Y.-F.1977.SpaceAndPlace:ThePerspectiveofExperience.Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Turner,P.2005.Affordanceascontext.InteractingwithComputers,17(6):787-800.Turner,P.,Turner,S.,&Carroll,F.2005.Thetouristgaze:Towardscontextualised

virtualenvironments,Spaces,spatialityandtechnology:281-297.Dordrecht:Springer.

Ulmer,G.,&Pallud,J.2014.Understandingusagesandaffordancesofenterprisesocialnetworks:asociomaterialperspective,20thAmericasConferenceonInformationSystems.Savannah.

Urry,J.2004.TheBlackwellCompaniontoSociology.InJ.R.Blau(Ed.),TheBlackwellCompaniontoSociology:3-15.Oxford,UK:BlackwellPublishingLtd.

Uys,J.1980.Thegodsmustbecrazy.VanDijk,S.,Berends,H.,Jelinek,M.,Romme,A.G.L.,&Weggeman,M.2011.Micro-

institutionalaffordancesandstrategiesofradicalinnovation.OrganizationStudies,32(11):1485-1513.

Vaujany,F.o.-X.,&Mitev,N.(Eds.).2013.MaterialityandSpace:Organizations,ArtefactsandPractices.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.

Vendelø,M.T.,Dehler,G.E.,Christensen,P.H.,Corradi,G.,Gherardi,S.,&Verzelloni,L.2010.Throughthepracticelens:Whereisthebandwagonofpractice-basedstudiesheading?Managementlearning,41(3):265-283.

Verne,J.,&DellaRiva,P.G.1994.ParisauXXesiècle.Paris:Hachette.Walsham,G.1993.Interpretinginformationsystemsinorganizations.NY:Wiley.Warf,B.(Ed.).2009.TheSpatialTurn:InterdisciplinaryPerspectives.NY:Taylor&

FrancisUS.Weber,R.2003.StilldesperatelyseekingtheITartifact.MISQuarterly,27(2):Iii-Xi.Webster,J.,&Watson,R.T.2002.Analyzingthepasttoprepareforthefuture:

Writingaliteraturereview.MISQuarterly,26(2):xiii-xxiii.Weir,D.T.H.2010.Spaceascontextandcontent:theDiwanasaframeanda

structurefordecision-making.InA.VanMarrewijk,&D.Yanow(Eds.),Organizationalspaces:rematerializingtheworkadayworld:115-138.Cheltenham:EdwardElgarPublishing.

Whittington,R.2003.Theworkofstrategizingandorganizing:forapracticeperspective.Strategicorganization,1(1):117-125.

Yanow,D.1995.Builtspaceasstory:Thepolicystoriesthatbuildingstell.PolicyStudiesJournal,23(3):407-422.

Yanow,D.1998.Spacestories:Studyingmuseumbuildingsasorganizationalspaceswhilereflectingoninterpretivemethodsandtheirnarration.JournalofManagementInquiry,7:215-239.

Yin,R.K.2008.CaseStudyResearch:DesignandMethods(4theded.).ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublicationsInc.

300

Yoo,Y.2010.ComputinginEverydayLife:ACallforResearchonExperientialComputing.MISQuarterly,34(2):213-231.

Zammuto,R.F.,Griffith,T.L.,Majchrzak,A.,Dougherty,D.J.,&Faraj,S.2007.Informationtechnologyandthechangingfabricoforganization.OrganizationScience,18(5):749-762.

Zhang,Z.,&Spicer,A.2013.'Leader,youfirst':TheeverydayproductionofhierarchicalspaceinaChinesebureaucracy.HumanRelations,67(6):739-762.

301

9 Appendices

9.1 InterviewProtocol

InterviewProtocol–IntensivePhaseOpener:So,whatI’llstartwithisjustaskingyoutodescribeyourworkspace,orworkspaces,placeswhereyouwork?Andhowyouorganizeyourworkandyourtimebetweentheseworkspaces?Workspaces:Doyouhaveahomeoffice?Describetomealittlebityourhomeoffice.Howareyouequipped?Whatkindofsetupdoyouhave?Isthereanythingspecifichereattheofficethatyouhavethatyouwon’thaveathome?Proportionallyspeaking,howwouldyousayyoudivideworkbetweenofficeandhome?Whatisitabouttheofficeherethatencouragesyoutocomehereeverydayonaregularbasis?Whattypesoftasksdoyouprefertodoineachlocation?Arethereanyspecificthingsthatyouwouldpreferdoingathomethanintheofficeorviceversa?Whatkindofsoftwaretoolsdoyourequire?Doyoudoalotofstatisticalnumbercrunchingoranythinglikethat?Thatrequiresalotofprocessingpower?

302

Printing:Doyouprintalot?Whatkindofprintingfacilitiesdoyouhave?Wouldyoucometotheofficeforprinting?Mobility:Howaboutonthego?Howdoyoustayconnected?Regardingteaching,whenyougototheclassroom,whatdoyoutakewithyou,howdoyoumanageyourconnectivitythereforexample?DoyouuseaUSBkey?Whatdoyoubringwithyouintermsofequipmentonyourbusinesstrips?Howdoyoustayconnected?Beinganacademic:Whatisitthatyouappreciatethemostaboutyourprofession,beinganacademic,intermsofperhapsfreedomofworkingwhereveryou…Youknow,whereveryouwant?Whatisitexactlythat,youknow,youappreciatethemost?Closer:Isthereanythingelseyoucouldthinkofabouttechnologyandhowyoumanageyourspacewithregardstowork?Ifyoucoulddreamuptheperfectworkingarrangementspatiallyandusingtechnology,whatwoulditbeforyou?

303

9.2

ISLite

ratureSearch

forO

rganiza

tionalSpace–TableofR

esults

304

9.3

FieldworkPhaseTim

elin

e

305

9.4 TableofInterviews–ExploratoryPhase

Phase Sub-phase InterviewID Site Date TimeDuration

(mins)Location

Descriptionof

environmentand

conditionsforinterview

Exploratory 1.1 1 McGill 03/01/13 ? 30

Officeinthe

BronfmanBdg

Exploratory 1.1 2 McGill 15/05/13 ? 90

Skype(Paris-

Montreal)

Exploratory 1.1 3 McGill 08/11/13 ? 45

Officein

BronfmanBdg

Exploratory 1.1 4 McGill 19/11/13 14:00 60

LePrep(SSMU

building)and

HumbleLionCafé

InitialmeetingatLePrep

intheSSMUbuildingand

thenmovedtoacaféon

Sherbrookestreet

Exploratory 1.1 5 Dauphine 21/01/14 ? 60 Office

Exploratory 1.1 6 Dauphine 28/01/14 ? 45

Officemeeting

room

Exploratory 1.2 7 McGill 25/07/14 14:30 80 Office

Groundfloorofficeof

Bronfmanbdg.Noother

occupants.

Exploratory 1.2 8 McGill 23/10/14 8:45 41 HSSL-M3-17A

McLennanlibrary3rdfloor

groupworkroom

Exploratory 1.2 9 McGill 23/10/14 14:45 50

PhDlounge5th

floorBronfman

Exploratory 1.2 10 McGill 24/10/14 9:00 30 CaféCastel

Exploratory 1.2 11 McGill 24/10/14 11:30 25 Office

Exploratory 1.2 12 McGill 08/12/14 12:00 22

Roomfloor

Bronfman

Exploratory 1.2 13 McGill 11/12/14 11:10 15

PhDlounge5th

floorBronfman

Exploratory 1.2 14 McGill 11/12/14 16:00 12

Room533

BronfmanBdg

Exploratory 1.2 15 McGill 11/12/14 17:00 14

Room561

BronfmanBdg

306

9.5

TableofIn

terviews–In

tensivePhase2.1M

cGill

Phase

Sub-phase

InterviewID

Site

Date

Tim

eDuratio

n

(mins)

Locatio

n

Descrip

tionof

enviro

nmenta

nd

conditio

nsfo

rinterview

Intensiv

e2.1

16

McG

ill18/02/15

14:00

20

Room319

Bronfm

anBdg

Veryneata

ndtid

yoffice

Intensiv

e2.1

17

McG

ill27/02/15

10:00

46

Room475

Bronfm

anBdg

Intensiv

e2.1

18

McG

ill22/02/15

14:00

24

CaféCaste

l

Intensiv

e2.1

19

McG

ill23/02/15

11:00

30

Room573

Bronfm

anBdg

Barewalls.

Intensiv

e2.1

20

McG

ill24/02/15

11:00

23

Room569

Bronfm

anBdg

Moreclu

tteredoffice

than

othera

cademicsa

t

Bronfm

anBdg.Paper

arch

ivesa

ndbooksm

ainly.

Twoscre

ens.

Intensiv

e2.1

21

McG

ill25/02/15

10:30

28

Room472

Bronfm

anBdg

Frid

geandso

fa-bed

Intensiv

e2.1

22

McG

ill25/02/15

13:00

37

Room471

Bronfm

anBdg

Intensiv

e2.1

23

McG

ill26/02/15

10:30

39

Room574

Bronfm

anBdg

307

9.6 TableofInterviews–IntensivePhase2.1JBS

Phase Sub-phase InterviewID Site Date TimeDuration

(mins)Location

Descriptionof

environmentand

conditionsforinterview

Intensive 2.1 24 JBS 21/04/15 9:30 38 A2.05

Quiet&cosyoffice.Very

interestingdécor.Alotof

rowingparaphenelia

Intensive 2.1 25 JBS 21/04/15 15:00 30 A3.04 Clean,butaustereoffice

Intensive 2.1 26 JBS 22/04/15 11:30 52 A0.10a Cosycorneroffice

Intensive 2.1 27 JBS 22/04/15 12:53 10

Café/Common

Room

Baynexttotillofcafé.

Noisyandbusy.Feeling

hurried.

Intensive 2.1 28 JBS 22/04/15 13:05 25

Café/Common

Room

Baynexttotillofcafé.

Noisyandbusy.Feeling

hurried.

Intensive 2.1 29 JBS 22/04/15 13:30 45

Walking

throughoutthe

mainbuilding

Relaxedwalkwithmany

interruptionsforcustodial

duties

Intensive 2.1 30 JBS 22/04/15 17:00 32 A1.06

Largebrightoffice.Very

tidy.Manymomentos

fromChinesevisitorsalong

withothersouvenirs

Intensive 2.1 31 JBS 23/04/15 10:15 36 C2.02

Largebrightoffice.Very

corporatefeel.

Appointmentforinterview

wastakenbyassistant.

Intensive 2.1 32 JBS 23/04/15 12:00 34 A3.06

Largeoffice.Overlooking

backparking.Coldatfirst

becauseofopenwindow.

Intensive 2.1 33 JBS 23/04/15 15:45 65 W4.03a

Hiddenawayinastairwell.

Usedtobeastorageroom.

Veryhighceiling,but

cramped.Verywarmand

brightwithdirectexposure

tosunlight.

Intensive 2.1 34 JBS 24/04/15 10:30 31 A2.09

Largebutcosyofficespace

tuckedawayinacorner.

Clutteredwithalotof

paper

Intensive 2.1 35 JBS 24/04/15 11:30 60 A0.10

Largeoffice-awkward

layout.

Intensive 2.1 36 JBS 24/04/15 14:00 38 A3.08a

Verylargeandbrightoffice

withbigwindows.Notas

tidyasotheroffices.Some

doorsconnectingto

adjacentoffices

Intensive 2.1 37 JBS 27/04/15 14:00 48 C2.01

Verylargecorneroffice,

butdark.Manypilesof

paperondesksaroundthe

perimeterofthespace.

Intensive 2.1 38 JBS 28/04/15 11:00 18 A2.03

Verydarkandaustere

office.Wouldalmostseem

uninhabited

Intensive 2.1 39 JBS 08/05/15 10:00 70

LobbyofHôtel

SplendidEtoile,

Paris

Plushandconservative

interiorspace

308

9.7

TableofIn

terviews–In

tensivePhase2.2JB

S

Phase

Sub-phase

InterviewID

Site

Date

Tim

eDuratio

n

(mins)

Locatio

n

Descrip

tionof

enviro

nmenta

nd

conditio

nsfo

rinterview

Intensiv

e2.2

40

JBS

09/11/15

9:47

40

W.4.04

Meetin

gro

omatJB

S

Intensiv

e2.2

41

JBS

09/11/15

11:48

34

10Trumpington

Stre

et-B

.10.1

Visio

conferencero

om

Intensiv

e2.2

42

JBS

09/11/15

13:54

18

10Trumpington

Stre

et

Meetin

gro

om

Intensiv

e2.2

43

JBS

09/11/15

14:40

34

10Trumpington

Stre

et-B

.10.1

Visio

conferencero

om

Intensiv

e2.2

44

JBS

09/11/15

16:49

47

10Trumpington

Stre

et-B

.10.1

Visio

conferencero

om

Intensiv

e2.2

45

JBS

09/11/15

17:33

11

10Trumpington

Stre

et-B

.10.1

Visio

conferencero

om

Intensiv

e2.2

46

JBS

10/11/15

11:13

42

W.4.06

Meetin

gro

omatJB

S

Intensiv

e2.2

47

JBS

10/11/15

13:25

18

10Trumpington

Stre

et-B

.10.1

Visio

conferencero

om

Intensiv

e2.2

48

JBS

10/11/15

15:22

32

W.4.06

Meetin

gro

omatJB

S

309

9.8 LongsummaryofthedissertationinFrench–Résumésubstantieldelathèse

enfrançais

Cette thèse part d’un double constat. D’une part, le développement des TIC dans les

organisationsetpratiquesde travail conduitau sentimentpartagéque l’espacepropreau

travail deviendrait superflu, se rétrécirait à l’espace de son écran d’ordinateur ou de

smartphone.D’autre part, les organisations consacrent de plus en plus de réflexion et de

ressources à aménager leurs espaces de travail, en raison de la prise de conscience de

l’impactdecesespacessurletravaileffectuéparleursusagerset,bienentendu,enraison

decontrainteséconomiquescroissantes.Malgrécesconstats,ilestnotabledereleverlepeu

d’attentionquelesrecherchesensystèmesd’informationontportéàlaquestiondel’espace

organisationnel, ainsi que le poids du déterminisme technologique dans ces recherches.

Dansdenombreusesprofessions,lesinteractionsdeplusenplusfréquentesavecuncertain

nombre d’artefacts technologiques, d’outils de communication à distance viennent

perturber l’expérience du lieu de travail. Comment interagit-on avec son environnement

physique immédiat tout en étant plongé dans son écran toute la journée? Quelle est

l’expériencedel’espaceainsiproduite,etquelsrôlesontlesTICdanslaproductiondecette

expérience?Silesétudesenthéoriedesorganisationss’intéressentdepuisplusieursannées

à laquestionde l’espace(Clegg&Kornberger,2006;Dale&Burrell,2007;Warf,2009), il

n’en va pas de même pour la littérature en Systèmes d’Information. L’espace y est bien

souvent considéré de manière implicite et secondaire, dans les recherches sur les

interactions homme-machine, sur la mobilité, le télétravail. Cette étude cherche ainsi à

comprendre la relation entre espace organisationnel et TIC, en explorant les pratiques

spatiales de chercheurs affiliés à deux écoles demanagement. L’objet de cette thèse est

d’observer et d’analyser les pratiques spatiales des universitaires, en regardant plus

spécifiquement le rôle que les TIC ont dans la manière dont elles se forment et plus

généralement comment cela contribue à une expérience de l’espace singulière. D’une

questiondedéparttrèsgénéralesurlarelationentreespaceorganisationneletTICdansles

écolesdemanagement,laquestionderecherchedelathèseestainsiformulée:Comment

les nouvelles affordances des TIC s’expriment-elles dans l’expérience de l’espace

organisationnel?

310

Lechapitrethéoriqueprésentelarevuedelittératureetl’élaborationd’uncadrethéorique

quiapermisdestructurerladémarche,avantetpendantletravaildeterrain.Unepremière

section présente la littérature sur l’espace organisationnel, à partir d’une référence

séminale,celledel’ouvraged’HenriLefebvre(1974),àpartirduquels’estélaborécecourant

de recherche. De cette littérature, nous retenons notamment la notion de «pratiques

spatiales», essentielle pour circonscrire notre objet d’étude sur le terrain. Une pratique

spatialeest,demanièreconcise, toutepratiquepouvantêtredécomposéeenmouvement

et relations spatiales. Dans les organisations, marcher est une pratique spatiale – un

ensemble de mouvements corporels répétés afin de se rendre d’un point à un autre,

accompagnéderelationssocialesdirectesouindirectes(marcheravecquelqu’unpouraller

àuneréunionetdiscutersonobjet;marcherpourallervoiruncollègueouaccomplirune

tâche;marcherpoursedétendreetdéliersespensées).Teniruneréunion,êtreassisàson

postede travail; discuterautourde lamachineà café–autantdepratiques spatialesqui

constituentl’expériencedel’espaceauseindesorganisations.Acestade,cependant,cette

approchenepermetpasdefairelelienaveclesTIC,quipourtantimpactentdeplusenplus

lespratiquesspatialesorganisationnelles.

Afin d’affiner notre objet d’étude, nous nous sommes penché sur la notion d’affordance,

développéedanslechampdesSystèmesd’InformationparPaulLeonardi(2011)àpartirde

la conceptualisation initiale de James J. Gibson (1979) dans le champ de la Psychologie

Ecologique.Gibsondéfinitl’affordancecommelarelationentrelespropriétésphysiquesde

l’environnement et la perception de ce que cet environnement physique offre en termes

d’actions, à celui qui perçoit. L’étudede Leonardi portait sur la technologiede simulation

assistée par ordinateur et son apport au design automobile. Dans cette perspective

théorique,lesTICoffrentdespossibilitésd’actionàunindividu,etlaperceptionounonde

ces possibilités dépend de facteurs contextuels – les propriétés de l’environnement

physique, la qualité de l’attention du sujet par exemple. Concernant notre objet d’étude

empirique, cetteapprochenousa conduità considérer lesTICdans leurdiversité, sans se

limiter à un seul type d’artefact technologique. Conscient du risque de considérer les TIC

commeuneboîtenoire (Orlikowski& Iacono, 2001;Weber, 2003), nousavonsprêtéune

attention particulière, dans les phases de collecte de donnée et d’analyse du terrain, à

distinguer les différents artefacts et fonctions des TIC qui ont émergé du terrain, afin de

311

comprendrecommentilssontencastrésdansunenvironnementphysiquepluslarge,dansle

contexted’unepratiquespécifique.

Ledesignderechercheaétéélaborépourrépondreàlaproblématiqueénoncéeettesterle

cadre théorique élaboré. Le choix du terrain répond à un premier enjeu de la

problématique:chercheruncasoùlerapportàl’espaceorganisationnelsoitunenjeupour

les acteurs et où les TIC sont utilisées de manière intensive. Le cas de chercheurs

universitairesensciencessociales,affiliésàuneécoledemanagement,permetderépondre

àcetenjeu.Leschercheursensciencessociales,quandilsnesontpassurleterrain,nesont

pasliésàunlieudetravailenparticulier.Parrapportàlaplupartdesprofessionsdeservice

etdesemployésdebureau, ilsbénéficientd’unelibertéplusgrandequantà l’organisation

deleurtravaildansletempset l’espace.D’autrepart, l’usagedesTICestcentraldansleur

travail, pour la recherche d’information, la lecture, l’écriture, la communication entre

collègues. De ce fait, il apparaît propice d’étudier ce cas singulier d’une population

fortementliéeauxTICdanslaréalisationdeleurtravail,maisfaiblementliéàunespacede

travailspécifique.L’impactentrelespratiquesspatialesetlesTICnedevraitenêtrequeplus

fort. L’université étant égalementunmondeouvert et constituéde chercheurs, c’était un

choix propice pour entreprendre une démarche ethnographique et avoir accès assez

facilement aux acteurs et organisations. Considérant demande de plus en plus forte de

flexibilité quant aux modalités d’organisation du travail, dans un nombre grandissant de

secteurs et contextes de travail, le cas très spécifique des écoles de management nous

semblepertinentpourpenserlatransformationdescontextesplustraditionnels.

Uneétudedecasmultipleportantsurdeuxécolesdemanagementaétémenée,lepremier

casétantlaFacultéDesaultelsdeManagementdel’UniversitéMcGill(Montréal,Canada)et

lesecond,laJudgeBusinessSchooldel’UniversitédeCambridge(Royaume-Uni).Nousavons

choisid’adopterunedémarcheancréeetabductivedanslamesureoùnotreobjetd’étude

relève d’un champmanquant encore de théorisation. Ainsi, la première phase de terrain

exploratoire a permis d’analyser les pratiques spatiales et les usages des TIC demanière

asseznaïve,de faireémerger lespremièrescatégoriesd’analyseet in finedeconstruire le

modèlefondésurlathéoriedel’affordance.Cettephaseintensiveapermisdetester,affiner

et finalement refonder le modèle développé suite à la première phase exploratoire de

terrain.Durantlesdeuxphases,lesdonnéesontétécollectéeslorsd’entretiens,maisaussi

312

par l’observation de pratiques consignées dans des cahiers de bord, mais aussi des

photographies,desdocumentsetdesartefactsphysiques.

Lesrésultatsmontrentquel’approchethéoriqueparl’affordancenepermetpasderendre

compte de manière satisfaisante des relations entre espace organisationnel et TIC. De

manièreplusgénérale,lathéoriedel’affordance(fondéesurlaconceptiongibsonienne)se

révèle inadéquate pour l’étude des TIC demanière générale. En effet, la littérature en SI

s’estappropriéelanotiond’affordanceenmettantdecôtéunaspectpourtantcrucialdela

façondont les individusperçoivent leurenvironnement–celuide l’expérienceantérieure.

Une affordance est une propriété réelle, émanant d’une perception visuelle, d’un objet

pouvantavoirunevaleurutilepoursonobservateur;c’estunepossibilitéd’actiondansun

environnement donné. De la perception de cette propriété, découle une ou plusieurs

possibilités en termes d’action. Ainsi, si nous percevons qu’un objet de petite taille sera

préhensible,aucontraired’ungrandobjet.Dansun tel contexte, iln’estpasbesoind’une

expérience antérieure de l’objet pour lier sa taille à la possibilité de préhension. Les

affordances sont clairement liées à des perceptions visuelles contextualisées, liant ainsi

intimement la forme perçue à la fonction suggérée. Or, suivant Kallinikos (2012), nous

estimonsquedanslecasdesTIC,leurnaturephysiqueestcelled’uneséparationdelaforme

etde la fonction: riendans laperceptionvisuelled’untéléphonenesuggèrequ’il s’agisse

d’un moyen de communication à distance, sans expérience préalable de ce même type

d’objet.De lamêmemanière, laperceptionvisuelled’unordinateurdebureaunesuggère

pas les possibilités d’action en termes d’écriture, lecture, de jeu, mais peut inviter

l’observateur naïf à s’asseoir sur l’unité centrale ou encore à poser un document contre

l’écranpourl’avoiràhauteurduregard.Orlesfonctionsetlespossibilitésd’actionrecelées

par lesordinateursetautres smartphonesdépassentconsidérablement lesaffordancesau

sensstricttelquedéveloppéparGibson.

Decefait,nousavonsétéamenéàrechercheruneautreperspectivethéoriquepourrendre

compte de manière plus satisfaisante de la relation entre TIC et espace organisationnel.

C’estchezMerleau-Pontyetsontravailautourdelaphénoménologiedelaperceptionque

noustrouvonsdequoiconstituerlabased’untravaildeplusgrandeampleursurlarelation

entreTICetespaceorganisationnel.

313

Nous proposons une perspective alternative reposant sur la phénoménologie de la

perceptiondeMerleau-Ponty.Auregarddes2casétudiés,cetteapprochesuggèrequeles

TIC ont un double effet: elles replient et étendent l’espace simultanément. Les TIC

constituentunpointfocaloùlesespacesprochesetéloignésconvergentpourproduireune

unique sphère d’expérience. Notre étude développe les concepts merleau-pontiens

d’intentionnalité,deschémacorporel,d’habitus,decorps-connaissantetcorpshabitédans

lecontextedespratiquesspatialesdeschercheurs.Nousproposonsd’abandonnerlathéorie

de l’affordanceauprofit d’uneapprocheexpérientiellepour comprendre la relationentre

espace organisationnel et TIC. Merleau-Ponty (1976) fournit un ensemble de concepts

permettant de lier l’expérience à l’environnement physique: l’intentionnalité, le schéma

corporel, le corps connaissant, l’habitus – ces notions sont toutes mobilisées dans la

productiond’uneexpériencede l’espacedans le contexted’unepratique. Les résultatsde

nosétudesdecasmontrentcommentl’expériencedel’espacedesuniversitaires,quandils

sontengagésdansunepratique,donneformeàleursmouvementscorporels,leurspostures,

cequienretourmodifieleurexpérience.L’expériencedel’espacerésultedel’engagement

phénoménologique du corps dans le monde, engagement dirigé vers un environnement

physique circonscrit. La direction de l’engagement de l’être-au-monde, ou posture, est ce

queMerleau-Ponty nomme l’intentionnalité. Cette intentionnalité nécessite par ailleurs la

mobilisationd’unschémacorporel,c’est-à-direuntypederelationspécifiqueentrelecorps

etsonenvironnementphysique.Danscetteidéeduschémacorporel,estcompriselanotion

d’habitus, définie comme ce qui permet de connecter des mouvements, des relations

spatiales associés à une certaine intentionnalité, et de les rendre disponibles au corps.

L’habitus est ce sur quoi repose la possibilité de l’action renouvelée. Cette conceptionde

l’habitus nous permet de dépasser les limites du concept d’affordance dans le cadre des

relationsentreTICetespaceorganisationnel.Nousproposonsainsiunenouvelleapproche

de l’espaceorganisationnel enprenantuneperspective expérientielle.Nous suggéronsde

développercetteperspectivedanslalignéedestravauxsurdeYoo(2010)eninformatique,

etenapprofondissantlanotionde«embodiment»danslesSI.

Résumé

Mots Clés

Abstract

Keywords

Cette thèse questionne l’idée, aujourd’hui largement partagée, d’une compression de l’espace dû aux TIC. Ceci est dû au peu d’attention que les recherches en Systèmes d’Information ont porté à la question de l’espace organisationnel, ainsi qu’au déterminisme technologique. Cette étude cherche à comprendre la relation entre espace organisationnel et TIC en partant de la théorie de l’affordance, fondée sur les travaux de J.J. Gibson. Une étude de cas multiple portant sur deux écoles de management, au Canada et en Angleterre, a été menée. Les pratiques spatiales des chercheurs ont été analysées à partir d’un modèle fondé sur la théorie de l’affordance, afin de vérifier le rôle des TIC dans la formation de ces pratiques. Les résultats montrent que cette approche théorique n’est en réalité pas pertinente pour l’étude des TIC de manière générale.Nous proposons une perspective alternative reposant sur la phénoménologie de la perception de Merleau-Ponty. Au regard des 2 cas étudiés, cette approche suggère que les TIC ont un double effet : elles compriment et étendent l’espace simultanément. Les TIC constituent un point focal où les espaces proches et éloignés convergent pour produire une unique sphère d’expérience. Notre étude développe les concepts merleau-pontiens d’intentionnalité, de schéma corporel, d’habitus, de corps-connaissant et corps habituel dans le contexte des pratiques spatiales des chercheurs. Nous proposons d’abandonner la théorie de l’affordance au profit d’une approche expérientielle pour comprendre la relation entre espace organisationnel et TIC.

The dominant narrative of the collapsing of space due to ICT in organizations is challenged by this study. It is argued that this is due to a general lack of interest in organizational space in IS scholarship combined with technological determinism. This study seeks to understand the relationship between ICT and organizational space by mobilizing affordance theory based on J.J. Gibson’s work. A qualitative multiple-case study covering two business schools, in Canada and the UK, was undertaken. The spatial practices of academics were scrutinized using a model based on affordance theory to ascertain the role of ICT, as part of the wider environment, in the shaping of these practices. The results clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of affordance theory for the study of ICT in general. An alternative perspective based on the phenomenology of perception of Merleau-Ponty is proposed and successfully tested against the data. This alternative perspective suggests that, based on the experience of academics, ICT simultaneously collapses and expands space. ICT acts as a point of singularity where proximate and remote spaces converge to produce a singular sphere of experience. The study further develops Merleau-Ponty’s concepts of intentionality, body schema, habitus, knowing body, and habitual body in the context of the spatial practices of academics. I propose abandoning affordance theory in favour of an experiential approach to understand the relationship between organizational space and ICT.

Espace organisationnel ; TIC ; pratique spatiale ; affordance ; habitus ; intentionnalité ; schéma corporel.

Organizational space; ICT; spatial pratice; affordance; habitus; intentionality; body schema.