À partir de l'étude de séminaires de formation mêlant pratiques sportives et développement personnel, cet article analyse le processus de façonnage par l'entreprise de ses salariés en vue d'optimiser leur épanouissement au travail, source supposée de gains de productivité. Cette approche assimile ainsi l'être humain à un capital optimisable dans lequel il s'agirait d'investir. Elle participe ce faisant de la diffusion d'une morale bioéconomique qui possède un effet dépolitisant et exerce sur ceux qui ne s'y conforment pas des rapports de domination symbolique potentiellement violents.
International audience ; Cluster theory is a well‐established field of research (Greve, 2009; Martin & Sunley, 2003; Porter, 1998, 2008) andhas been an enduring element in national economic policies around the globe (Benner, 2012; Ketels, 2015). Also thesport sector has seen political and economic initiatives for cluster development on national and international level(EU4SportsClusters, 2015; EuroSIMA, 2015; Sporaltec, 2016).Shilbury (2000), pioneer in this topic, emphasises that in Australia sport clusters are potentially a new form of thesport delivery system in response to environmental changes, e.g., reduced state subsidies for sport. Until today sportclusters have been viewed as one conceptual category. However, this paper suggests a dual typology of sportclusters depending on the level of heterogeneity of cluster members and the type of interorganizational linkages.This study compares two clusters from the sailing industry to two clusters from the surfing industry. The use of amultiple case study with pairs of similar case studies permits theory development through literal and theoreticalreplication. Similar results amongst similar cases strengthen theory through literal replication. Differing resultsacross different pairs of cases deepen theory (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014; Yin, 2009). This qualitativeresearch uses interviews (n=117) and observations (n=17) as the primary data sources, and organizationalinformation (n=47) and archival data (n=27) as secondary data sources.The results reveal two diametrically opposed models for clusters in the sport industry in terms of socio‐economicproximity (i.e., social proximity affecting economic proximity and vice versa (Gerke, Desbordes, & Dickson, 2015)).These two models represent the fundamental logic of community and society (Dalla Pria & Vicente, 2006; Storper,2005). The logic of a society like cluster is founded in the paradigm of proximity because of complementarity. Thetwo sailing clusters rely on the logic of society because the boat‐building projects are complex and require a varietyof specialised skills that are supplied by small‐and medium‐sized cluster members. The creation of a formal clustergoverning body accompanies an existing collective logic between much diversified and specialised local actors. Thelogic of a community like cluster is founded in the paradigm of cognitive proximity. The two surfing clusters rely onthe logic of community because cluster members have similar business models, competencies, and value creationprocesses. There are few buyer‐ supplier relationships and firms tend to be direct competitors, thusinterorganisational linkages tend to be competitive in nature.
International audience ; Cluster theory is a well‐established field of research (Greve, 2009; Martin & Sunley, 2003; Porter, 1998, 2008) andhas been an enduring element in national economic policies around the globe (Benner, 2012; Ketels, 2015). Also thesport sector has seen political and economic initiatives for cluster development on national and international level(EU4SportsClusters, 2015; EuroSIMA, 2015; Sporaltec, 2016).Shilbury (2000), pioneer in this topic, emphasises that in Australia sport clusters are potentially a new form of thesport delivery system in response to environmental changes, e.g., reduced state subsidies for sport. Until today sportclusters have been viewed as one conceptual category. However, this paper suggests a dual typology of sportclusters depending on the level of heterogeneity of cluster members and the type of interorganizational linkages.This study compares two clusters from the sailing industry to two clusters from the surfing industry. The use of amultiple case study with pairs of similar case studies permits theory development through literal and theoreticalreplication. Similar results amongst similar cases strengthen theory through literal replication. Differing resultsacross different pairs of cases deepen theory (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014; Yin, 2009). This qualitativeresearch uses interviews (n=117) and observations (n=17) as the primary data sources, and organizationalinformation (n=47) and archival data (n=27) as secondary data sources.The results reveal two diametrically opposed models for clusters in the sport industry in terms of socio‐economicproximity (i.e., social proximity affecting economic proximity and vice versa (Gerke, Desbordes, & Dickson, 2015)).These two models represent the fundamental logic of community and society (Dalla Pria & Vicente, 2006; Storper,2005). The logic of a society like cluster is founded in the paradigm of proximity because of complementarity. Thetwo sailing clusters rely on the logic of society because the ...
International audience ; Cluster theory is a well‐established field of research (Greve, 2009; Martin & Sunley, 2003; Porter, 1998, 2008) andhas been an enduring element in national economic policies around the globe (Benner, 2012; Ketels, 2015). Also thesport sector has seen political and economic initiatives for cluster development on national and international level(EU4SportsClusters, 2015; EuroSIMA, 2015; Sporaltec, 2016).Shilbury (2000), pioneer in this topic, emphasises that in Australia sport clusters are potentially a new form of thesport delivery system in response to environmental changes, e.g., reduced state subsidies for sport. Until today sportclusters have been viewed as one conceptual category. However, this paper suggests a dual typology of sportclusters depending on the level of heterogeneity of cluster members and the type of interorganizational linkages.This study compares two clusters from the sailing industry to two clusters from the surfing industry. The use of amultiple case study with pairs of similar case studies permits theory development through literal and theoreticalreplication. Similar results amongst similar cases strengthen theory through literal replication. Differing resultsacross different pairs of cases deepen theory (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014; Yin, 2009). This qualitativeresearch uses interviews (n=117) and observations (n=17) as the primary data sources, and organizationalinformation (n=47) and archival data (n=27) as secondary data sources.The results reveal two diametrically opposed models for clusters in the sport industry in terms of socio‐economicproximity (i.e., social proximity affecting economic proximity and vice versa (Gerke, Desbordes, & Dickson, 2015)).These two models represent the fundamental logic of community and society (Dalla Pria & Vicente, 2006; Storper,2005). The logic of a society like cluster is founded in the paradigm of proximity because of complementarity. Thetwo sailing clusters rely on the logic of society because the boat‐building projects are complex and require a varietyof specialised skills that are supplied by small‐and medium‐sized cluster members. The creation of a formal clustergoverning body accompanies an existing collective logic between much diversified and specialised local actors. Thelogic of a community like cluster is founded in the paradigm of cognitive proximity. The two surfing clusters rely onthe logic of community because cluster members have similar business models, competencies, and value creationprocesses. There are few buyer‐ supplier relationships and firms tend to be direct competitors, thusinterorganisational linkages tend to be competitive in nature.
International audience ; Cluster theory is a well‐established field of research (Greve, 2009; Martin & Sunley, 2003; Porter, 1998, 2008) andhas been an enduring element in national economic policies around the globe (Benner, 2012; Ketels, 2015). Also thesport sector has seen political and economic initiatives for cluster development on national and international level(EU4SportsClusters, 2015; EuroSIMA, 2015; Sporaltec, 2016).Shilbury (2000), pioneer in this topic, emphasises that in Australia sport clusters are potentially a new form of thesport delivery system in response to environmental changes, e.g., reduced state subsidies for sport. Until today sportclusters have been viewed as one conceptual category. However, this paper suggests a dual typology of sportclusters depending on the level of heterogeneity of cluster members and the type of interorganizational linkages.This study compares two clusters from the sailing industry to two clusters from the surfing industry. The use of amultiple case study with pairs of similar case studies permits theory development through literal and theoreticalreplication. Similar results amongst similar cases strengthen theory through literal replication. Differing resultsacross different pairs of cases deepen theory (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014; Yin, 2009). This qualitativeresearch uses interviews (n=117) and observations (n=17) as the primary data sources, and organizationalinformation (n=47) and archival data (n=27) as secondary data sources.The results reveal two diametrically opposed models for clusters in the sport industry in terms of socio‐economicproximity (i.e., social proximity affecting economic proximity and vice versa (Gerke, Desbordes, & Dickson, 2015)).These two models represent the fundamental logic of community and society (Dalla Pria & Vicente, 2006; Storper,2005). The logic of a society like cluster is founded in the paradigm of proximity because of complementarity. Thetwo sailing clusters rely on the logic of society because the ...
