Suchergebnisse

Collaborative communities, spaces and movements are increasingly structuring the emergent collaborative economy. The Alpha Version of this White Paper is grounded in the discussion of a key trend: the growing convergence between managerial and political agencies. More than ever, the agency of managers has transformed society and the modalities of 'living together' (public communication, modalities of representativeness of a collectivity, a discourse or a practice, systems of legitimacy). The phenomenon is not that new. In the 30s, Henry Ford and his T model transformed American society and part of its sense of togetherness. With the mass production of cars and the social or economic compromise underpinning it, Ford also managed to institutionalize a political model. Since the 90s, the political effects of managerial actions have taken an extent (potentially global), a depth (related to the very mechanisms of democracy and the shape of democratic forums) and an unpredictability (global actors emerge sometimes within one year) which has rarely been reached in the history of capitalism. It could be said that today, public policies are originated by a myriad of actors-entrepreneurs often de-territorialized from any local and national interests. How did we get there? The Alpha version of this White Paper underlines three concomitant phenomena: a radical evolution of connectivity modes, a change in the modalities and the processes of sense-making (a new "semiosis") and the emergence of new kinds of political consciousness. These transformations (started at the end of the 40s and which have accelerated since the 90s) induce new convergences between the transformative capacities of managers (in particular those of entrepreneurs) and those of politicians (as institutional actors with a mandate for political actions). Collaborative communities and collaborative spaces crystallize the aforementioned dimensions. Coworking spaces, maker spaces, fab labs, hacker spaces and living labs are as much managerial phenomena (they ...

Collaborative communities, spaces and movements are increasingly structuring the emergent collaborative economy. The Alpha Version of this White Paper is grounded in the discussion of a key trend: the growing convergence between managerial and political agencies. More than ever, the agency of managers has transformed society and the modalities of 'living together' (public communication, modalities of representativeness of a collectivity, a discourse or a practice, systems of legitimacy). The phenomenon is not that new. In the 30s, Henry Ford and his T model transformed American society and part of its sense of togetherness. With the mass production of cars and the social or economic compromise underpinning it, Ford also managed to institutionalize a political model. Since the 90s, the political effects of managerial actions have taken an extent (potentially global), a depth (related to the very mechanisms of democracy and the shape of democratic forums) and an unpredictability (global actors emerge sometimes within one year) which has rarely been reached in the history of capitalism. It could be said that today, public policies are originated by a myriad of actors-entrepreneurs often de-territorialized from any local and national interests. How did we get there? The Alpha version of this White Paper underlines three concomitant phenomena: a radical evolution of connectivity modes, a change in the modalities and the processes of sense-making (a new "semiosis") and the emergence of new kinds of political consciousness. These transformations (started at the end of the 40s and which have accelerated since the 90s) induce new convergences between the transformative capacities of managers (in particular those of entrepreneurs) and those of politicians (as institutional actors with a mandate for political actions). Collaborative communities and collaborative spaces crystallize the aforementioned dimensions. Coworking spaces, maker spaces, fab labs, hacker spaces and living labs are as much managerial phenomena (they ...

International audience ; Between 25 and 28 July 2018, I had the opportunity to participate in a rich learning expedition organized by the Research Group on Collaborative Spaces (RGCS), an alternative academic network about new work practices (in particular collaborative work practices) inspired by open science and citizen science cultures. The expedition, called #hackingday2018, consisted of a set of visits and reflexive discussions aaout Bostos aaadei, eetepreneurial and innovative ecosystem. We followed a protocol combining planed and improvised visits going along with the flow of discussions and questions of the event itself (see the OWEE protocol for more details). More than two thirds of the visits were thus improvised. The protocol also relies on openness (anybody can register for free via an Eventbrite link) and long walked-times alternating visits and other seated times. Social media, blogs and videos are used to extend the event in time and space, and link it to other events and published research. Thus, serendipity, by chance encounters, reflexivity and narration were strong parts of this journey which led us to Media lab, Haaaaads Wss IIstitute, CIC, WeWok, MIT akespaae, TM'C aad diffeeeet MIT laas. Two of these visits allow me to make more systematic comparison between two different philosophies of innovation and their political consequences for society. We first visited the Center for Bits and Atoms (CBA), part of the MIT media lab, in which fab labs were co-ieted. The etee fo its aad atos is peseted as aa aa iteedissipliaaa initiative exploring the boundary between computer science and physical science. CBA

International audience ; Between 25 and 28 July 2018, I had the opportunity to participate in a rich learning expedition organized by the Research Group on Collaborative Spaces (RGCS), an alternative academic network about new work practices (in particular collaborative work practices) inspired by open science and citizen science cultures. The expedition, called #hackingday2018, consisted of a set of visits and reflexive discussions aaout Bostos aaadei, eetepreneurial and innovative ecosystem. We followed a protocol combining planed and improvised visits going along with the flow of discussions and questions of the event itself (see the OWEE protocol for more details). More than two thirds of the visits were thus improvised. The protocol also relies on openness (anybody can register for free via an Eventbrite link) and long walked-times alternating visits and other seated times. Social media, blogs and videos are used to extend the event in time and space, and link it to other events and published research. Thus, serendipity, by chance encounters, reflexivity and narration were strong parts of this journey which led us to Media lab, Haaaaads Wss IIstitute, CIC, WeWok, MIT akespaae, TM'C aad diffeeeet MIT laas. Two of these visits allow me to make more systematic comparison between two different philosophies of innovation and their political consequences for society. We first visited the Center for Bits and Atoms (CBA), part of the MIT media lab, in which fab labs were co-ieted. The etee fo its aad atos is peseted as aa aa iteedissipliaaa initiative exploring the boundary between computer science and physical science. CBA

Legitimacy and legitimation practices are key constructs in the neo-institutional literature. So far, much scholarship has drawn on ideational and discursive approaches of legitimation. Yet, the organizational world has become increasingly iconographical, and visuals seem to have been at the core of contemporary legitimacy claims. This research investigates the visual artifacts and practices embedded in the elaboration of legitimacy claims. Through an iconographic lens applied to practices unfolding in a meeting room, this research emphasizes the image-screen and image-object iconographies involved in the elaboration of legitimation claims. Visual practices elicit symbolic spaces that organizational actors may then mobilize as worlds of justification and legitimization.

Organizational spaces project claims of organizational legitimacy while also constituting physical environments where work happens. This research questions how organizational space and legitimacy are mutually constituted over time as organizations experience shifts in work and institutional demands. Building on a qualitative case study of Paris Dauphine University, a French university founded in the late 1960s that has, since its inception, occupied the former North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters, we theorize the dynamic intersection of organizational space and legitimacy over time. The case study demonstrates how spatial practices of appropriation, reappropriation, and disappropriation intersect with and inform what we call "spatial legacies" that function to establish or repair an alignment between organizational space and legitimacy. Spatial practices of appropriation and reappropriation build and manipulate spatial legacies, whereas spatial practices of disappropriation attempt to break away from such legacies. Appropriation and reappropriation involve managing spatial legacies to maintain the alignment between organizational space and legitimacy claims. Disappropriation involves trying to erase or alter these legacies to realign the space to changing legitimacy claims. This research adds to the literature on sociomateriality by adopting a longitudinal perspective that highlights legacies as nondeterministic outcomes of past imbrications of the social and the material, to research on legitimacy by conceptualizing it as a sociomaterial construction, and to research on organizational spaces by revealing the institutional underpinnings of spatial transformations. This research also holds practical implications by highlighting the relationships between space as it is designed and used and an organization's legitimacy claims and by showing how claiming the immutability or flexibility of a space can be legitimizing for an organization.

International audience ; In this essay, we contend that new ways of working imply a crisis both of communities and politics in our societies. We introduce the concept of 'co-politicisation' to make sense of the potential highly transformative political power of managerial agency in society. In the context of ongoing work transformations, managerial agency increasingly seems to become a political agency, through its potential to transform society and the sense of togetherness. However, in the meantime, politics has entered into crisis. Each of us has the possibility to express their own, individual voice, but without building, in turn, any meaningful or resonant collective and community. We argue that a temporal approach is needed to understand such a crisis of community and of the politics. To that end, we introduce Paul Ricoeur (1985)'s thought on a 'crisis of the present' that we apply to new ways of working. We conclude by suggesting that new ways of working may be missing practices likely to produce the extra-temporality that managerial agency needs to perform. Without this extra-temporality, the managerial agency of new ways of working just keeps weakening our sense of togetherness.

International audience ; In this essay, we contend that new ways of working imply a crisis both of communities and politics in our societies. We introduce the concept of 'co-politicisation' to make sense of the potential highly transformative political power of managerial agency in society. In the context of ongoing work transformations, managerial agency increasingly seems to become a political agency, through its potential to transform society and the sense of togetherness. However, in the meantime, politics has entered into crisis. Each of us has the possibility to express their own, individual voice, but without building, in turn, any meaningful or resonant collective and community. We argue that a temporal approach is needed to understand such a crisis of community and of the politics. To that end, we introduce Paul Ricoeur (1985)'s thought on a 'crisis of the present' that we apply to new ways of working. We conclude by suggesting that new ways of working may be missing practices likely to produce the extra-temporality that managerial agency needs to perform. Without this extra-temporality, the managerial agency of new ways of working just keeps weakening our sense of togetherness.

International audience ; In this essay, we contend that new ways of working imply a crisis both of communities and politics in our societies. We introduce the concept of 'co-politicisation' to make sense of the potential highly transformative political power of managerial agency in society. In the context of ongoing work transformations, managerial agency increasingly seems to become a political agency, through its potential to transform society and the sense of togetherness. However, in the meantime, politics has entered into crisis. Each of us has the possibility to express their own, individual voice, but without building, in turn, any meaningful or resonant collective and community. We argue that a temporal approach is needed to understand such a crisis of community and of the politics. To that end, we introduce Paul Ricoeur (1985)'s thought on a 'crisis of the present' that we apply to new ways of working. We conclude by suggesting that new ways of working may be missing practices likely to produce the extra-temporality that managerial agency needs to perform. Without this extra-temporality, the managerial agency of new ways of working just keeps weakening our sense of togetherness.

International audience ; In this essay, we contend that new ways of working imply a crisis both of communities and politics in our societies. We introduce the concept of 'co-politicisation' to make sense of the potential highly transformative political power of managerial agency in society. In the context of ongoing work transformations, managerial agency increasingly seems to become a political agency, through its potential to transform society and the sense of togetherness. However, in the meantime, politics has entered into crisis. Each of us has the possibility to express their own, individual voice, but without building, in turn, any meaningful or resonant collective and community. We argue that a temporal approach is needed to understand such a crisis of community and of the politics. To that end, we introduce Paul Ricoeur (1985)'s thought on a 'crisis of the present' that we apply to new ways of working. We conclude by suggesting that new ways of working may be missing practices likely to produce the extra-temporality that managerial agency needs to perform. Without this extra-temporality, the managerial agency of new ways of working just keeps weakening our sense of togetherness.