Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-t6r6x Total loading time: 0.416 Render date: 2022-07-01T09:09:18.995Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue

4 - Experiencing Making

Silence, Atmosphere and Togetherness in Makerspaces

from Part I - Experiencing at Work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2020

Jeremy Aroles
Affiliation:
Durham University
François-Xavier de Vaujany
Affiliation:
Université Paris-Dauphine
Karen Dale
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Get access

Summary

Craftsmanship, making and do-it-ocracy are prominent elements of the so-called new world of work. In this chapter, we describe the ‘experience of making’ in two makerspaces, one located in France and the other in the United States. In particular, we focus on three concepts – silence, atmosphere and togetherness – in order to flesh out, or make visible, the specificities of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) and Do-It-Together (DIT) processes in makerspaces. We mobilise Merleau-Ponty’s work and an aesthetic perspective on time and place to delve into the experience of making. This leads us to propose the concept of New Collaborative Experiences (NCE), which we define as new modes of feeling and expressing the self and the world in a context that requires a collective production and coordination, as a way of illuminating our two ethnographic accounts.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, C. 2009. Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
Aroles, J., Mitev, N. & de Vaujany, F. X. 2019. Mapping themes in the study of new work practices. New Technology, Work and Employment, 34(3): 285299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyes, T. 2016. Art, Aesthetics and Organization. In Czarniawska, B. (ed.) A Research Agenda for Management and Organization Studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 115125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigo, V. 2018. On silence, creativity and ethics in organization studies. Organization Studies, 39(1): 121133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackman, D. & Sadler-Smith, E. 2009. The silent and the silenced in organizational knowing and learning. Management Learning, 40(5): 569585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borch, C. 2009. Organizational atmospheres: Foam, affect and architecture. Organization, 17(2): 223241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouncken, R. B. & Reusch, A. J. 2018. Coworking-spaces: How a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. Review of Managerial Science, 12(1): 317334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhme, G. 1993. Atmosphere as the fundamental concept of a new aesthetics. Thesis Eleven, 36(1): 113126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinsfield, C. 2014. Employee Voice and Silence ln Organizational Behaviour. In Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J., Dundon, T. and Freeman, R. B. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Employee Voice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 114131.Google Scholar
Brown, A. D. & Coupland, C. 2005. Sounds of silence: Graduate trainees, hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 26(7): 10491069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costas, J. & Grey, C. 2014. Bringing secrecy into the open: Towards a theorization of the social processes of organizational secrecy. Organization Studies, 35(10): 14231447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, K. 2005. Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization, 12(5): 649678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, S. R. 2017. Characterizing hacking: Mundane engagement in US hacker and makerspaces. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43(2): 171197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vaujany, F. X. & Aroles, J. 2019. Nothing happened, something happened: Silence in a makerspace. Management Learning, 50(2): 208225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vaujany, F. X. & Vaast, E. 2016. Matters of visuality in legitimation practices: Dual iconographies in a meeting room. Organization, 23(5): 763790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vaujany, F. X., Aroles, J. & Laniray, P. 2019. Towards a political philosophy of management: Performativity & visibility in management practices. Philosophy of Management, 18(2): 117-129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vaujany, F. X., Dandoy, A., Grandazzi, A. & Faure, S. 2019. Experiencing a new place as an atmosphere: A focus on tours of collaborative spaces. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35(2): 101030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, P. 2013. Common as silence. Ephemera, 13(3): 627640.Google Scholar
Garrett, L. E., Spreitzer, G. M. & Bacevice, P. A. 2017. Co-constructing a sense of community at work: The emergence of community in coworking spaces. Organization Studies, 38(6): 821842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffero, T. 2017. Quasi-things: The Paradigm of Atmospheres. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Grint, K. 2010. The sacred in leadership: Separation, sacrifice and silence. Organization Studies, 31(1): 89107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, M. 2014. The Maker Movement Manifesto. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
Kirrane, M., O'Shea, D., Buckley, F., Grazi, A. & Prout, J. 2017. Investigating the role of discrete emotions in silence versus speaking up. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(3): 354378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Küpers, W. 2002. Phenomenology of aesthetic organising: Ways towards aesthetically responsive organizations. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 5(1): 2146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Küpers, W. 2014. Phenomenology of the Embodied Organization: The Contribution of Merleau-Ponty for Organizational Studies and Practice. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Lallement, M. 2015. L’âge du faire. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Law, J. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Sciences Research. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefort, C. 2010. Foreword. In: Institution and Passivity. Course Notes from the Collège de France (1954–1955). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Mazis, G. A. 2016. Merleau-Ponty and the Face of the World: Silence, Ethics, Imagination, and Poetic Ontology. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1945, 2013. Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1948. Sens et non-sens. Paris: Nagel.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1960. Signes. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1964. Le visible et l'invisible: suivi de notes de travail. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 2010. Institution and Passivity. Course Notes from the Collège de France (1954–1955). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Michels, C. 2015. Researching affective atmospheres. Geographica Helvetica, 70(4): 255263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallasmaa, J. 2014. Space, place and atmosphere. Emotion and peripherical perception in architectural experience. Lebenswelt. Aesthetics and Philosophy of Experience, 1934(4): 230245.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. 1985. Temps et récit. Tome 3: Le temps raconté. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Spinuzzi, C. 2012. Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4): 399441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strati, A. 2009. ‘Do You Do Beautiful Things?’: Aesthetics and Art in Qualitative Methods of Organization Studies. In Buchanan, D. A. and Bryman, A. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. SAGE, 230245.Google Scholar
Sundararajan, A. 2017. The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-based Capitalism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Willems, T. 2018. Seeing and sensing the railways: A phenomenological view on practice-based learning. Management Learning, 49(1): 2339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yakhlef, A. 2010. The corporeality of practice-based learning. Organization Studies, 31(4): 409430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×