Abstract
After the theoretical understanding of relational space, atmosphere and the different perspectives on it as well as the concept of communitization have been worked out, this new view is now applied once again to office workspaces and CWSs in particular and the state of research is summarized. First, office workspaces and flexible office workspaces in particular are examined with a relational understanding of space (Sect. 4.1). Subsequently, the state of research on CWSs and collaborative spaces as a whole is presented with regard to spaces and atmospheres, their creation and the coworking hosts as curators (Sect. 4.2). Then, the importance of communitization in the context of modern office work is examined more closely (Sect. 4.3), in order to finally take a look at existing research on CWS communities for CWSs again (Sect. 4.4).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Warren’s study was of interest for the present work in terms of the methodological approach, as photo interviews were also used here (cf. Sect. 6.1.1).
- 2.
Here Petendra refers to the study of the established and outsiders by Elias and Scotson (1993), although she points out a “stigmatization in reverse order” (ibid., p. 237) for the flexible office.
- 3.
The image of the office of the future as an identity-forming and communal place is also reflected in an expert survey by Kratzer (2017, p. 33): “As a social space, the office is a meeting point and place of encounter. The personal contact creates—ideally—a feeling of belonging and community, in short: of home.” (ibid., cf. Bernhardt 2022)
- 4.
This means that in Fabbri’s work, the core functions of CWSs are defined somewhat differently than in this work (see Sect. 2.2).
- 5.
For example, in the case of a creative hub consisting of containers, a centrally positioned trailer plays an important role, insofar as it serves as a meeting point and café. Conversely, only the rituals of the users and the associated meanings make the trailer more than a centrally positioned object, namely a social meeting point. Ultimately, space and practices refer reflexively to each other, as again becomes clear from the example: “[T]he cafe trailer was at once made possible by its central position and made meaningful as a cafe by the practices that took place there: making coffee, playing music, meeting with others, and so forth” (ibid., p. 1071).
- 6.
The understanding of affective assemblages is thus even more comprehensive than that of material assemblages by Cnossen and Bencherki (2019). The assemblage concept is similar to that of atmosphere and the relational concept of space. It sets the focus of the analysis on the dynamics of the assemblage: With the view on the economy of encounters, the authors turn the focus away from the physical-material space to a multitude of moving and changing relations between persons, systems and objects, in order to concentrate on the practice of coworking (Jakonen et al. 2017, p. 237). The assemblage concept, however, neglects the subject perspective (cf. footnote 10 in Chap. 3), which is why it was not considered for this work.
- 7.
In this understanding, there are only these two types of reactions in relation to the subjective movements (analogous to Böhme’s concept of atmospheres, cf. Sect. 3.2.1): Pleasant affects lead to persons entering a situation, negative affects lead to an avoidance or escape behavior (Jakonen et al. 2017, p. 237). That the subjects co-shape (and thus change) the atmospheres or constitute their own atmospheres for themselves is not included in this perspective.
- 8.
Accordingly, they define collaborative spaces (cf. Sect. 2.2.4) with regard to their spatiality, aesthetics and atmosphere: “as spaces and places whose facilities, aesthetics codes, temporalities, enacted values, atmospheres, and spatial configurations are aimed at fostering horizontal collaborations” (de Vaujany et al. 2019, p. 2).
- 9.
Accordingly, their understanding of space as experience as well as of place and atmosphere is: “For us ‘place’ appears in this research as unbounded spatially and temporally, i.e. as a liquid and provisional experience of the space and time of work and life activities, which we call an ‘atmosphere’” (de Vaujany et al. 2019, p. 2).
- 10.
As will be shown later, Goffman’s (2005) theater metaphor, his understanding of social practices as performances or presentations and his distinction between front and back stage also proved to be a helpful analytical lens for this work at various points.
- 11.
Since the work of coworking hosts is interaction work within the framework of a person-related service (cf. Böhle and Weihrich 2020), emotional work (cf. Hochschild 2006), i.e. dealing with one’s own emotions, but also affective work, i.e. influencing the feelings of others, plays a significant role (cf. the integrated concept of interaction work by Böhle and Weihrich 2020, p. 16). Further aspects of interaction work are the establishment of a cooperative relationship within the framework of cooperative work and the handling of uncertainties and limits of planning within the framework of subjectified work action (cf. ibid.).
- 12.
The spatial construction of community also helps to maintain the identification of the employees with the company beyond organizational boundaries (Dale and Burrell 2010, p. 30).
- 13.
Julmi (2015, p. 157) notes that there are different gradations of “(non-)everydayness” of everyday rituals or ceremonies. While, for example, the curated common lunch in the CWS, which is held weekly, can become a more or less everyday ritual, the specially organized table football tournament or the celebration of the existence of the CWS has a more non-everyday character.
- 14.
Rituals not only have an identity- and community-building function, but also an excluding character, if persons are denied participation in them (Julmi 2015, p. 158 f.). Also, a disregard of communal rituals can lead to sanctions or even exclusion (ibid., p. 158).
- 15.
However, homogeneity is illusory, as other forms of control are used in the context of organizations, as Dale and Burrell (2010, p. 25 f.) emphasize. Openness and transparency can also result in a surveillance architecture in the organizational context (ibid., p. 36).
- 16.
The feelings or values characterizing the community are not included by the authors in the analytical framework with the justification: “Finally, we collapsed three related criteria from the original typology—values, trust, and orientation to others—because we found that they were difficult to separate empirically” (ibid., p. 121).
- 17.
In this study, cooperation is understood as social interaction (cf. Gerdenitsch et al. 2016) and does not represent an independent form of CWS community.
- 18.
Following the psychological concept of David W. McMillan and David M. Chavis (1986), the authors define the SOC in the CWS by the following characteristics: A collective identity, filling a social gap, a felt social responsibility in relation to participation and unique friendships, in which the coworkers can remain their “authentic selves” (Garrett et al. 2017, p. 827 ff.).
- 19.
Unlike, for example, Jakonen et al. (2017) or Orel and del Mar Alonso Almeida (2019), whose studies were discussed in Sect. 4.2.2. However, they in turn each consider only one specific characteristic of communality, namely the encounters and interactions or the collaboration.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bernhardt, A. (2023). Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research. In: Coworking Atmospheres . Springer, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-41192-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-41193-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)