Experiencing Space with ICT, Affordance and the Body

316 Pages·2017·10.62 MB·English

by  Anouk Mukherjee

Organizational Space Collapsed, Organizational Space
Expanded: Experiencing Space with ICT, Affordance
and the Body
Anouk Mukherjee
To cite this version:
Anouk Mukherjee. Organizational Space Collapsed, Organizational Space Expanded: Experiencing
Space with ICT, Affordance and the Body. Business administration. Université Paris sciences et
lettres, 2017. English. ￿NNT: 2017PSLED028￿. ￿tel-01661515￿
HAL Id: tel-01661515
https://theses.hal.science/tel-01661515
Submitted on 12 Dec 2017
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
THÈSE DE DOCTORAT
de l’Université de recherche Paris Sciences et Lettres 
PSL Research University
Préparée à l’Université Paris-Dauphine
Organizational Space Collapsed, Organizational Space
Expanded: Experiencing Space with ICT, Affordance and
the Body
École Doctorale de Dauphine — ED 543
COMPOSITION DU JURY :
Spécialité S ciences de gestion
M. François-Xavier De Vaujany
Université Paris-Dauphine
Directeur de thèse
Mme Cécile Godé
Université Aix-Marseille – FEG
Rapporteure
Mme Jessie Pallud
École de Management de Strasbourg
Rapporteure
M. Christophe Elie-Dit-Cosaque
Université Paris-Dauphine
Président du jury
Soutenue le 23.06.2017
M. Stewart Clegg
par A nouk MUKHERJEE
University of Technology Sydney
Membre du jury
Dirigée par F-X de Vaujany
École doctorale de Dauphine

DRM UMR CNRS 7088

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

Anouk Mukherjee
1
UNIVERSITÉ PARIS-DAUPHINE NEITHER APPROVES NOR DISAPPROVES THE
OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS DISSERTATION; THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THE
AUTHOR’S OWN

2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 5
1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 7
2 THEORY .................................................................................................................................................... 19
2.1 ORGANIZATIONAL SPACE ....................................................................................................................... 19
2.1.1 PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL SPACE THEORY ....................................................................... 22
2.1.2 THEORIZING ORGANIZATIONAL SPACES ............................................................................................................ 33
2.2 INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES AND ORGANIZATIONAL SPACE ..................... 43
2.3 THEORY OF AFFORDANCE ...................................................................................................................... 46
2.3.1 ORIGINS IN ECOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 47
2.3.2 UPTAKE BEYOND ECOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY .................................................................................................... 56
2.3.3 AFFORDANCE IN IS ................................................................................................................................................. 58
2.4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................. 69
2.4.1 PHASE 1: EXPLORATORY ...................................................................................................................................... 70
2.4.2 PHASE 2: INTENSIVE .............................................................................................................................................. 73
3 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................................................... 82
3.1 OVERALL RESEARCH MODEL ................................................................................................................. 82
3.2 RESEARCH OBJECT(S) ............................................................................................................................ 83
3.3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 85
3.4 CASE DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................................................................... 89
3.4.1 DESAUTELS FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT – MCGILL UNIVERSITY ................................................................. 89
3.4.2 JUDGE BUSINESS SCHOOL – CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY .................................................................................... 92
3.4.3 DESCRIPTIVE COMPARISON .................................................................................................................................. 93
4 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................. 94
4.1 PHASE 1: EXPLORATION ........................................................................................................................ 94
4.1.1 SUBPHASE 1.1: DISCOVERING WHAT SPACE MEANS FOR DIFFERENT ACTORS IN THE BUSINESS SCHOOL
ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 94
4.1.2 SUBPHASE 1.2: UNDERSTANDING SPATIAL PRACTICES IN THE CONTEXT OF A BUSINESS SCHOOL ......... 96
4.2 PHASE 2: INTENSIVE PHASE ................................................................................................................ 120
4.2.1 CASE 1: MCGILL UNIVERSITY – DESAUTELS FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT .............................................. 121
4.2.2 CASE 2: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY – JUDGE BUSINESS SCHOOL .................................................................. 185
4.3 CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 250
4.4 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................................... 255
4.4.1 CONTRIBUTIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 280
4.4.2 AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .................................................................................................................... 282
4.4.3 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 282
4.4.4 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 284
5 GENERAL CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 286
6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 288
7 LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 290
8 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 291
9 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ 301
9.1 INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ........................................................................................................................ 301
9.2 IS LITERATURE SEARCH FOR ORGANIZATIONAL SPACE – TABLE OF RESULTS ................................ 303
3
9.3 FIELDWORK PHASE TIMELINE ............................................................................................................ 304
9.4 TABLE OF INTERVIEWS – EXPLORATORY PHASE ............................................................................... 305
9.5 TABLE OF INTERVIEWS – INTENSIVE PHASE 2.1 MCGILL ................................................................. 306
9.6 TABLE OF INTERVIEWS – INTENSIVE PHASE 2.1 JBS ........................................................................ 307
9.7 TABLE OF INTERVIEWS – INTENSIVE PHASE 2.2 JBS ........................................................................ 308
9.8 LONG SUMMARY OF THE DISSERTATION IN FRENCH – RESUME SUBSTANTIEL DE LA THESE EN
FRANÇAIS ........................................................................................................................................................ 309
4
Acknowledgments
This project would have never been possible without the help of a large number of
people, institutions, and public entities.

First and foremost, I thank my supervisor, François-Xavier de Vaujany. I cannot think of
a better supervisor, both in terms of human qualities and intellectual brilliance. If it
were not for him, I do not think I would have achieved what I have in these past 5 years.

I would like to express my gratitude to Cécile Godé, Jessie Pallud, Stewart Clegg and
Christophe Elie-dit-Cosaque for accepting to be part of my PhD dissertation committee.

I thank Emmanuelle Vaast and Matthew Jones for accompanying me on this voyage and
opening doors – both literally and intellectually.

Funding for a doctoral research project – especially one involving fieldwork in different
countries – is always a challenge. This is especially true given the context of lean public
finances. I am therefore especially grateful for the support provided by the École
Doctorale de Dauphine, Paris Sciences & Lettres, the conseil regional Île-de-France, and
the ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l'Innovation (MESRI).

I would also like to thank:

Nathalie Mitev for introducing me to François-Xavier and giving me hope when all
seemed hopeless.

The faculty of my department at Université Paris-Dauphine, especially Jean-François
Chanlat, who inspires me with with his fiery passion; Norbert Alter, for providing me
with his thoughtful advice; Pierre Romelaer, for his welcoming and encouraging words;
Henri Isaac, for giving me his precious time and sharing his ideas; Anouck Adrot, always
looking after my wellbeing and that of others; Lionel Garreau, for always being keen to
help and with a smile; Anthony Hussenot, who’s sunny presence always brightened up
my day; Gregor Bouville, for his kindness; and, Eric Campoy for his tremendous support.

The IS Group at the LSE – my years there were life-changing and truly unforgettable. If it
weren’t for Chrisanthi Avgerou, I would have never chosen this career path. She
encouraged me despite my doubts and hesitations. Also, Susan Scott, for teaching me
that research is a state of mind; Jannis Kallinikos for having a passion for his craft and
transmitting it; Shirin Madon for being generous and available when I needed it the
most; Antonio Cordella, always the quick smile; Steve Smithson for his precious advice;
and, Magda for her contagious enthusiasm and energy.

Stewart Clegg for making me re-discover the literary wonders of the English language.
Working with Stewart has been edifying and enjoyable.

My co-editor, Giovan Francesco Lanzara for his zen attitude.

5
Chris Grey for his thoughtful reflections and counsel on matters from academic life to …
just life itself.

Dvora Yanow, Paul Leonardi, and Sara Värlander for their sound advice when passing
through Paris.

All of the doctoral students at Dauphine with whom I crossed paths and travelled some
time with: Alexandre, Alexis, Anne, Audrey, Bruno, David, Eliel, Fabrice, Fatma,
Guillaume, Hélène, Jean-Yves, Julie, Laura, Mélia, Najma, Pierre, Raphaël, Sakura, Sea,
Yannis ...

Florence Parent, for being such a wonderful help to each and every PhD student bursting
into her office.

Olivier Menacer, Cécile Chevalier and the entire CIP team for helping me with my project
at the very beginning.

Julie Fabbri, Anna Glaser, Viviane Sergi, and Annie Camus for their contagious
enthusiasm for making things happen.

All of the LSE doctoral students who were present throughout this adventure: Daniel,
Nuno, Roser, Wifak, and Savita

Hono, for being my intellectual sparring partner, but also a close and dear friend.

Mah and his wife for their hospitality and humour.

All of the academics and students at McGill and the JBS who offered me their precious
time for this study.

My own students, from whom I have learned much, through my interactions with them,
reminded of the challenges of bridging the divide between research and practice.

Jean-Louis and Xavier for reminding me of the realities of organizational life.

All of my friends near and far: Anne, Valérie, David, Sheriff, Carl, Alison, Andrew, Patty,
Nick, Ben, Charles, Rex …

My family - especially my loving parents.

Julie – for your love, support … and especially patience, during these trying final months.

6
1 General Introduction
Where am I? Really, where am I? Where am I when I’m texting while walking? Where am
I when I’m sitting in front of my computer surfing the Internet? Am I here or in
cyberspace? What is cyberspace and why do I feel like I’m not really ‘here’ when I’m
involved in these activities? How does technology change the experience of space?

These reflexive questions are at the origin of this project. Behind the seemingly casual
nature of these questions, is the feeling of experiencing something profoundly different
with regards to space when I’m engaged in these activities. Spending long hours in front
of a screen working on text and images, I seem to forget the world around me. Although
reading a good book gives me the same impression, the experience with technology is
comparatively profoundly unsettling. My body is not adopting the same posture as when
I’m reading a book or even writing. My senses are orientated differently. I find myself
absorbed, yet perpetually unsatisfied. I click, type, swipe for hours. When I get up, I am
surprised to find myself re-introduced to another world. One with a desk, a chair, books,
papers … a room. Where was I during all those hours, and how could I have been so
disconnected from my immediate physical environment? I just realize I had a journal
article sitting on my desk right under my nose that I’ve been searching for weeks for. Yet
I manipulated with ease the keyboard and mouse, and would be able to grab my mug of
coffee without taking my eyes off the screen. It was as if my body could merge the world
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
normal to have a single unitary embodied experience both inside the screen and inside
the room.

Although these questions emerged from my personal experience, I was convinced they
were of significant relevance to not only my peers, but also the wider public – especially
those who work in offices. Our world is dominated by screens. We look at one all day at
the office, and, increasingly, we look at one on the commute to and from work, in the
kitchen, in bed – anywhere really. Why do we spend so many hours of our lives staring
at a screen? Why is it that we can’t stop? How does this experience compare to that of
reading a book or just simply walking down the street without a screen to stare at?

7
We are all familiar with the narrative that ICT has transformed our world, brought us
closer together and made our lives easier. We can now send letters online without
having to step out of the house (email and digital post). We can order grocery online and
have it delivered to our doorstep. The list is endless, and would bore any reader to death
given how banal these realities of contemporary life are. We seem to be no longer bound
to physical distance like we used to be. We can send information across the space-time
continuum instantly and get access to human knowledge through just a few clicks and
finger strokes. What has this done to space? Has it really brought us closer together? We
seem to be just as far apart, at least physically, as we used to be. Has physical distance
been made irrelevant? I still struggle, like most commuters, to get around the city, and
when there is a problem on the train line, there is no app on my tablet which could
teleport me to my destination.

The reality is that we are just as bound to our physical environment through our bodies
as we have ever been. Yet we often entertain notions of being able to somehow
transcend our bodies and space with the help of ICT. We can now speak of friends we
haven’t seen for years because we are up-to-date on their latest news, thanks to social
media, as if we had seen them for dinner the previous evening. We can follow in real-
time the travel adventures of friends and family half-way across the planet, as if we were
with them. All of those of a certain age are aware of how ICT has changed our experience
such that we feel like we can now access a much bigger world from just sitting in front of
our computer. Do we live in an era of shrinking space? Or of the expansion of it?

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
physical environment when they are staring at their screens? How is the experience of
space produced, and what is the role of ICT in producing it?

Architecture, urban planning, ergonomics and interior design are fields concerned with
how our bodies move in space. But they are also concerned with how we 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
8